Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 61

RfC: Are conspiracy theories relevant to the effects chapter?
Should the "Effects" chapter contain a sub-section about conspiracy theories? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed text for inclusion (please see above for a lengthy discussion on the matter):


 * EDIT second sentence was replaced per feedback. Hope this one is better! For reference, the old sentence was: "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory scientific theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse."

Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories.

Smitty121981 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No - See the previous thread. This has been soundly rejected by editors here and this is just an attempt to continue an already rejected idea.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- WP:NPOV requires appropriate weight to all aspects of a topic, and having a short paragraph of three sentences or so in this article on the conspiracy theories will help this article better comply with that policy. The proposed paragraph is well-sourced and neutral. Cla68 (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please keep these to one section. I don't like having to read over multiple different sections of the talk page to find where the current debate is taking place. As a result, I am closing the older above sections. Please do not create a new section until this matter is resolved. Thank you.--Tarage (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. The proposed text violates our guidelines on fringe theories, and our policies on neutral point of view and verifiability by presenting 9/11 conspiracy theories as if they are part of some on going debate among qualified professionals or scholars in the appropriate fields (e.g., labeling the known facts as the "prevailing theory", or by citing submitted journal comments by well known, non-qualified, non-specialist, conspiracy theorists as if they carried any weight, etc.). The "theories" advanced by the "truth movement" have been debunked, dismissed, discarded, or ignored by effectively all of the published, mainstream, authoritative, and reliable sources on the topic. The coverage of these conspiracy theories in reliable sources does mean that they satisfy WP:NOTABLE, and thus pass the test necessary to have their own article in Wikipedia. However, satisfying the requirements for possible inclusion does not make any of the claims made by adherents notable for anything other than being conspiracy theories, nor does it mean the fringe views of conspiracy theorists need to be represented in an article on a mainstream topic (see WP:ONEWAY). The text fails to metion that the main reason the academic and scientific communities have not accepted any of these conspiracy theories is the simple fact that none of the "theories" are supported by the findings of any of the investigations that have been conducted (e.g., by the NIST, the building performance study team, published as FEMA 403: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, consisting of experts representing the American Institute of Steel Construction Inc. (AISC),  American Concrete Institute (ACI),  Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH),  International Code Council (ICC), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), The Masonry Society (TMS), National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and New York Department of Design and Construction (DDC), or any of those conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.).  There is also the misrepresentation of sources as "dedicated to rebuking the most common theories" when in fact those articles are dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories — rebuke, verb: "Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions"; debunk, verb: "Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief)". See also my comments above. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:PARITY. -A1candidate (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PARITY is about the parity of sources, not the parity of POVs. WP:PARITY states that verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory don't need to be published in a peer-reviewed journals.  That doesn't even apply.  For POVs,  the guiding policy is WP:NPOV which clearly states that insignificant minority viewpoints like this do not belong in Wikipedia except perhaps in some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support in theory. Not in that form, but the accuracy of the first sentence merits its inclusion in the article.  However, "hundreds of professionals..." is just wrong (I see no way to keep similar incorrect information out of the article) and some (if not all) of the others are undue weight considering the small amount of information in the article related to the alleged criticism.  I think it appropriate to include just the first sentence under "Effects" — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * Support present version, provided that none of the sources are primary for the information provided. We need reliable sources that each sentence is both accurate and important, and primary sources do not indicate the importance. If not all the sentences can be properly sourced, I might reconsider.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You've already !no voted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, combined !votes. The proposal changed in the intervening few days.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only no, but hell no. There is already an entire article dedicated to the idea that some people do not conform to the normal practices of society and therefore will believe any crackpot theory, even if it cannot be proven. This article is about the events of the September 11th attacks, and as such, should only contain proven facts. It should not, however, contain any fairy tales from the land of make-believe. As far as I'm concerned, this article already gives too much weight to the fictional theories that evolved after this tragic event.-- JOJ Hutton  16:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:NPOV. We should not be giving undue weight to a fringe theory.  If I may paraphrase Jimbo's famous e-mail of Sep 29, 2003 which is the key part of the NPOV policy: What do mainstream history texts say on the matter?  What do the majority of prominent historians say on the matter?  Is there significant debate one way or the other within mainstream historians on this point?


 * If your viewpoint is held by the majority of historians, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.
 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent historians, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article.


 * At best, this belongs in an ancilliary article, and that ancilliary article already exists: 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Editors here might not be familiar with the newest C-SPAN source which I provided (it's less than a month old). The clip is crucial to this conversation, so I would like to request that editors please review it and consider the implications of C-SPAN giving a prominent adherant 45 minutes of Washington Journal to present his theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How exactly is this crucial? Richard Gates is not an historian and his 9/11 conspiracy theories have never been published by any commonly accepted reference textbook, peer-reviewed academic journal or any other respected publication, and no prominent historians have accepted these conspiracy theories.  As a comparison, journalist Lawrence Wright won a Pulitzer Prize for his book, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11" which plainly states that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.  We do NOT give equal time legitimacy to outlandish conspiracy theories.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here is proposing "equal time". On the contrary, the proposal in this RfC is limited to a short, three-sentence paragraph which makes clear that the conspiracy theories are a minority view, although one shared by a surprising number of notable personalities. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question: How exactly is this crucial? In any case, I've struck through "equal time" and replaced it with "legitimacy". These "notable personalities" to which you refer are not respected historians and their work has not been published by peer-reviewed history journals.  Per WP:NPOV, majority and significant minority viewpoints should be represented in this article.  Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be delegated to an ancilliary article (which already exists).  NPOV is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.  If you really want the article to be changed, I suggest that you open an RfC at NPOV and have that policy changed.  Until then, there's nothing we can do here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK I'll answer. First, about the clip, C-SPAN's Washington Journal "provides a forum for leading journalists and public policy makers to discuss key events and legislation." On this show, they featured a prominent adherent of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, giving him 45 minutes of their show to present his theories to the American public. This is a brand new source, and needs to be taken into consideration. Second, the WP:NPOV page says nothing at all about "history journals" being required. Which policy, specifically, are you referencing? Smitty121981 (talk) 06:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Any weight other than a single link to the other article is overweight for this garbage. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose; we already have a link to the sociological phenomenon, which is sufficient. Every national calamity engenders conspiracies, which are proportionate in craziness to the shock of the event.  The proper fields of study are psychology and sociology, not history, engineering, or science.  Reliable sources and experts have massive consensus that the events of that day were indeed caused by a conspiracy -- by Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden -- as described in this article.  This article is about history:  what actually happened that day, as documented by reliable sources.  The goofy conspiracy stuff is WP:FRINGE.  (As an aside, I commend Smitty for maintaining a civil tone throughout -- previous discussions of this matter have been unnecessarily nasty.) Antandrus  (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging that I've been civil, that really does make me feel good to hear. The current Effects chapter (Health issues, weather, etc) is already well beyond the scope you described. Still, I did (just a minute ago) add a source from historian Robert A Goldberg who makes a case that conspiracy theories including 9/11 are a major component of history. And yeah psychologists and sociologists care about it... but I also have papers from engineering, law, and finance journals. Even geography journals talk about 9/11 conspiracy theories! "Grounding the geopolitical analysis of conspiracy discourse in these concerns, the types of geographies that might emerge is explored through empirical research conducted on and with the 9/11 Truth Movement." and "Conspiratorial thought has been highly visible in post-September 11th America, manifest through the continued growth of a public ‘9/11 Truth Movement’" Smitty121981 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I second the commendation to Smitty for keeping it civil in spite of the cringe-inducing hostility he has received from some of the regulars here. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cla68, stop. I'm not going to tolerate any more insults from you. Do it again and you will be reported. Stop trying to stir up trouble. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarage, I invite you to join me in signing the pledge above in the section titled, "Intimidation-free zone". The pledge is this:


 * I propose that we all agree that we will be more welcoming to editors who come here trying to improve this article by:
 * Not revert-warring on this article talk page
 * Not closing or "hatting" a discussion if specific article improvements or modifications are being discussed
 * Not threatening other editors on this talk page with sanctions, topic bans, or blocks
 * Not making any derogatory or personal comments about conspiracy theories or any other aspect of the 9/11 topic area
 * Not leaving snarky, smug, or condescending edit summaries
 * I was the first to sign it. Cla68 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And I am informing you that such a pledge is irrelevant and designed to imply that the editors here are somehow assuming bad faith. You are attempting to game the system and I for one do not appreciate it. For one thing, notifying editors about the sanctions is not and has never been a threat. It is only a way of informing editors about the special process this article has. I'm going to say this one more time: Drop the act, stop pretending to be the victim, and accept that people don't always agree with what you are saying. They are not somehow bullies or people attempting to own an article, they are humans like you. If you continue to play these games, I will report you. That is not a threat, that is an attempt to explain to you that your behavior is inappropriate. Do you understand? --Tarage (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the strong arguments made by, , and . I consider Wikipedia to have already given due weight.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 00:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Source Thanks everyone for the feedback. I think I have found a new source that addresses many of the concerns. (Re)imagining humane global governance published by Routledge (2014) and written by Richard A. Falk has a chapter titled "9/11 & 9/12 + 10 = the United States, al Qaeda, and the world". It says things like "This made al Qaeda a formidable and elusive adversary" and talks about Osama Bin Laden, the US military response, George W Bush, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... And within this historical context, on pg. 114 he says (emphasis added):


 * Smitty121981 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What concerns does this source address, exactly? Does Falk provide any sources for his claims? Does he say what makes up this "considerable body of evidence"? Or where it may be found and reviewed? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that paragraph Smitty quotes does give a rationale for the surprisingly widespread belief in the conspiracy theories and also gives a reason for the extremely hostile backlash against people who appear to support them. That source appears to be a reliable source.  It is published by a reputable publishing firm. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It addresses the specific concerns of historical context that some editors brought up, and it addresses the general concerns of notability due weight. A portion of this academic text, including the quote, is available on Google Books for editors to review. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Falk is well known as a supporter of 9/11 CT's and some have even gone as far as to label him as engaged in antisemitism. His opinion is as biased as it gets and he is not published on this matter as a neutral source.--MONGO 16:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if it were true that he's a "9/11 CT supporter"(source?) - it would strengthen the case to include the conspiracy theories section in the main article because Falk is also known for being a Princeton Professor Emeritus and former UN appointee, among other accomplishments. Routledge describes him as, "esteemed scholar and public intellectual Richard Falk". Unsourced allegations of bias (most likely pertaining to an unrelated topic) are not sufficient to demonstrate that this is not a reliable source. Beyond the author's impressive credentials, this book is published by a peer-reviewed academic publisher, and they sell it as supplementary education to college textbooks PDF(page 7, International Relations Theory). Previously (2012), the same chapter I quoted was published in "Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems"(Vol. 21 No. 1) a journal of the University of Iowa College of Law. From the Princeton profile I linked to above:
 * Smitty121981 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Odd...our own article seems to present a more balanced assessment than the overly supportive opinion you have provided. Maybe you should be there arguing with those that edit that article.--MONGO 17:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The question of whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are WP:NOTABLE was apparently answered about 10 years ago and is not in question. The questions here are not about notability, but rather about WP:WEIGHT. Obviously Falk's article is a reliable source for Falk's opinions, however it is not a reliable source for claims that 9/11 "doubters" have a "considerable body of evidence" that supports their claims or any other such nonsense. So, once again, put very simply, how does this source correct any of the WP:NPOV or WP:V defects found in the proposed text? And what text does the source support? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for using the term notability incorrectly, I crossed it out and changed it to due weight. I also added inline citations for the Falk source, for the "widespread" phrase and for "rebuking". In addition, this source addresses specific editor concerns about including the paragraph in general. Namely, some were concerned that reliable sources did not mention 9/11 Conspiracy Theories within the common historical context (al Qaeda, bin Laden, etc) - and this source does just that. He clearly frames 9/11 conspiracy theories as a significant historical Effect of 9/11. Further, I bolded the "evidence" statement to call attention to the weight that this reliable source gives to the subject. It's an educational text from an established publisher that is used as a secondary source. Smitty121981 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose CTs in the main article in any way. They aren't relevant to explaining the nexus that caused the attacks, the attacks or the result of the attacks.  That a few nutters people went off on a tangent for whatever reason, doesn't change the actual history.  We don't add a "Man living side-by-side with dinosaurs" section, sentence or reference in the Hominids articles because some people adamantly speak on it. There are sources that say so but we don't give it voice even if the speaker has advanced degrees because it's so far fringe that only a walled garden of belief canm give it credence without ridicule.  Fringe is fringe.  Wall them off into their domain where their voice can echo against the cavern of knowledge they invented.  It does the reader a great disservice to lend more credibility than mainstream science gives them, which is nothing and it would be a BLP violation to destroy their claim of sanity with facts.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as giving undue weight to fringe views. Tom Harrison Talk 10:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet again. This is still giving undue weight to fringe views and there is already a article for these "views". How many more times do we have to discuss this?  This has been comprehensively discussed and consensus was reached, but we still have yet more posts from Smitty121981 trying to change the article. It is really time to close this thread.  Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * David, RfCs normally run for 30 days so as to give editors who may not normally be active in this article or topic a chance to provide input. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Cla68Your reply above is frankly an excuse. You are well aware that consensus has been already reached and you are just trying to prolong the discussion. Your own statements on your User page regarding Wikipedia show you have little respect for the encyclopedia or its aims. Tarage, below, is more than fair in their comments. David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave the previous discussion a week, and I'll give this one the same. Considering how quickly this is failing to generate a positive consensus, a week is more than enough time. --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: the previous conversation was not given a week as we agreed upon, but was closed less than 48 hours later. This closure led directly to the opening instead of a formal RfC (at another editor's suggestion), and now that we are here a full thirty days will do just fine, thank you. Smitty121981 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with letting the RfC run the usual 30 days. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will only agree to the 30 day run if Smitty121981 agrees that if consensus continues to be this strongly against that they will not attempt to re-open this or make a new RfC about the same topic directly after. --Tarage (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would only reluctantly agree to a 30 day run if Smitty121981 respects the current consensus, instead of ignoring it with endless further "theories" and does not reopen the topic again with another RfC after the 30 day period ends. David J Johnson (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy requires that we assume good faith on the part of Smitty121981. If Smitty121981 refuses to abide by the results of the RfC, that's a different story, and we can cross that bridge if necessary.  Until then, we should all remember to be civil and avoid the personalization of disputes.  Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with A Quest For Knowledge, as far as I'm aware my comments have been civil. However, we must not forget that it is one editor who is ignoring the present consensus and constantly introducing further conspiracy theories into a factual article Talk page - especially when there is already a page devoted to these "theories" - that is where this material belongs. My own view is that this has been discussed long enough, but as I have stated above, I am prepared to agree to a 30 day run on the basis that we are not confronted with endless further theories - which really belong in another place. David J Johnson (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised at the attitude here. WP's model clearly indicates that article texts are in constant flux.  Article talk pages are to be used for content discussion and improvement, witouth fear or reprisal if the rules are followed.  Smitty has done everything right.  He has introduced new sources to support his suggestions.  He has remained civil in the face of cringe-inducing hostility from some of the regulars here.  He has followed WP's procedures to the letter, in spite of broken promises, provocations, and threats from other editors, some of whom have been editors here for years.  Yet, a couple of you are still strying to intimidate him into going away or giving up, or trying to prematurely close this RfC.  It's exactly the opposite of how WP is supposed to work and I think this attitude is one of the reasons that WP has been shedding editors like a sheep being sheared for several years now. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If doing 'everything right' means causing conversation to occur in four different places at once, then we have a very different definition of the word 'right'. And you know full well that the rules work a bit differently here. As noted in the header of this talk page, discretionary sanctions are in effect here, and any editor seen as attempting to game the system to attempt to introduce POV into the article can be removed from this talk page and their discussions closed. You are correct that Smitty121981 has mostly done things in the right way, but at the same time I can't help but be dismayed that they have ignored my advice of starting on the conspiracy theory page to gain consensus there before attempting to dive into the deep end of this issue. So far, I have not seen a single new reliable source that somehow changes how the last hundred debates have ended. It's one thing to open a RfC when something changes. It's another to open one because you haven't gotten your way. As the list of editors line up to again state their opposition to a proposal that has been attempted numerous times in numerous different forms, I can't help but wonder what the point of all this is. Worse, I am not looking forward to seeing this same debate occur in a scant few months from now when another editor decides that "You guys just don't get it". We get it. We just don't agree. --Tarage (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to remind everyone that consensus can change. "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." Both the C-SPAN source and the Falk book are previously unconsidered (due to them being so new) and both add an unprecedented amount of weight and deserve consideration. Other sources like Goldberg, Manwell, and Sunstein might not have been considered in this context before - a quick archive search returned no results. But are these new sources enough to sway consensus? Maybe not, and that's OK. One thing I think we can all agree on: most editors here have a very high standard on this topic (and there's nothing wrong with that). A deeper understanding of exactly what constitutes this standard, in more article-specific terms than general wiki guidelines, could be a realistic agreement we can strive for in this RfC. Arriving in a civil manner at this understanding will not just close this conversation, but could also help editors more effectively deal with the apparent inevitability of similar debates occurring in the future. Smitty121981 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I tried to do when I pointed you towards the conspiracy theory article and advised you to start from there. As is being made obvious by this RfC, those two sources are not enough to sway consensus. I understand what you are trying to do, and I appreciate it. You are trying to make this article better. But you have to understand that what you are doing is something that happens every few months on these talk pages. Some well meaning editor comes in with a new source they believe will somehow change consensus, we argue for a while, and consensus doesn't change. Sometimes the editor leaves to work on other articles. Sometimes they lash out at the editors here in some misguided notion that we are somehow government plants. Some get forcefully removed. I tried to warn you before you went down this path that you were very likely going to end up failing because your argument has been rejected over and over and over again every few months for years. The odds of you magically finding the missing piece that turns consensus around is astronomically slim. If you wish to learn, spend some time going over the archives. Spend some time in the 9/11 conspiracy theory talk page. Familiarize yourself with your surroundings so you don't waste your time. Sadly, you choose to do this instead. The results are par for the course. --Tarage (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose any expansion of CT coverage in this article as overcoverage. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Giving undue weight (equal coverage) to fringe theories is a violation of WP:NPOV. Equal coverage should only ever be afforded to theories/ideas that have a similar level of credibility. AlanS (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as written. The fact that 9/11 conspiracy theories exist as a cultural phenomenon is a no-brainer...the problem is that this article is NOT about those theories because we already have multiple articles that detail these various tenants...if those articles did not exist, then a summary paragraph here would be needed. By fringe we mean that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are not published in independent peer reviewed journals or scientific enterprises...experts in engineering, aviation, terrorism etc. do not support any aspect of these fringe beliefs. Self proclaimed experts on the subject are almost universally misrepresenting their credentials and or falsifying data to deliberately skew results to better comply with their preconceived and erroneous beliefs. Frankly, I find the 9/11 conspiracy theories to be amongst some of the most intellectually deficient series of ideas to ever be postulated.--MONGO 15:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral, although not an adherent to any of the conspiracy theories, the content is very well sourced, and neutrally worded, and doesn't appear to promote the subject. However, I can see how some would argue WP:FRINGE, while others argue WP:PARITY, that being said I think it could be more neutral if the following sentence were taken out:
 * "Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials, and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse."


 * Allow those theories be discussed on the relevant page. At most I would weakly support inclusion of the two sentences left after removing the other two, only to give it some weight without giving it undue weight. These two sentences could be within the Cultural sub-section, where the link to the conspiracy theory article already exist. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit After reviewing the comments and the wiki guidelines, I crossed out the insider trading phrase. I can see how including this could be an unwarranted promotion of a specific theory. WP:FRINGE says "If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." I realized that isolated insider trading research might not directly pertain to the relationship between the marginal idea and the mainstream idea. A secondary source which relates the research to 9/11 in a significant way would be required in this instance, and I have not found one. However, I do still think that the rest of the second sentence is all about this relationship, and I think the article would be less neutral without it. Thoughts? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just now changed prevailing theory to scientific theory. I think this is more neutral, and helps distinguish between the two different uses of "theory" in one paragraph. Smitty121981 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The well known facts and widely accepted results of numerous investigations are not a "theory" in any way, shape, or form. The "criticisms" you cite are show to be factually incorrect and carry no weight on the topic. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * from NCSTAR 1: NIST "combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence for each tower". I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to it as a fact, because 'fact' tends to imply more certainty than 'probable'. However, I am open to other suggestions. The "criticisms" you mention do carry weight (in my opinion) because they were published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the International Journal of Protective Structures. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Focus on the NIST's use of the word "probable" in reference to the minute details of the collapse sequence is a red herring. We know exactly why the buildings failed.


 * Please supply any reliable sources that refute this, or that label the findings of the NIST, or those of the numerous other investigations, as "theory."
 * There is no doubt that discussion comments submitted by four authors (Björkman, Gourley, Grabbe, and Szuladziński) on specific peer-reviewed papers were published in a major engineering journal (specifically in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics). However, the idea that the journal's editors published the comments because they "apparently found them sufficiently qualified for publication" is unsourced speculation. Likewise, your opinion that they carry any weight is also unsourced and unsupported. One could just as easily speculate that the editors saw all of the flaws in the submitted comments and decided that, as a public service, some professional, major peer-reviewed engineering journal style debunking by unquestionably authoritative experts was in order. The latter seems more likely given the fact that the published closures found the "critiques" to be invalid (with at least one author told to "become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics"; see closures for, , , and ). Of course we need not speculate on the editors motivations because ultimately these "critiques" are never discussed in other reliable sources as being anything more than the unsupported, factually incorrect, opinions of conspiracy theorists.
 * The paper by Szuladzinski, Szamboti, and Johns is published in the little know International Journal of Protective Structures and has never been cited or shown to have any support out side the truther community. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think we are just disagreeing on semantics? I am not trying to downplay NIST's investigation at all. Using the phrasing and wikilink "scientific theory" directly implies to readers that NIST used the scientific method to arrive at a solid conclusion. This is supported by your quote because they mention rejecting alternative hypotheses. In a scientific context "theory" implies a great deal of certainty and acceptance. "The scientific method attempts... to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory."
 * That's a good point about the discussions. It seems like a secondary source is going to be needed in this situation, as with the insider trading. I will see what I can find. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Source This source unequivocally establishes due weight. Editors who still think otherwise will need to explain themselves in a clear and convincing manner that addresses this source directly, in addition to Falk and C-SPAN. What better way for us to determine due weight than consulting The 9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition published under "Topics: Military History/Terrorism"? First, a sanity check: what do they say about the other topics in the Effects chapter? Just like the wikipedia article, Health issues are a section (pg. 239-241). Economic effects are a section (pg. 151-152). I could not find the three day increase in temperature range (but I do love this little tidbit and would like to keep it). Do they cover conspiracy theories? Without a doubt - not tucked away in some other section for fear of someone seeing it, but in a full section of it's own (pg 124 - 126), handled just the same as Health and Economic effects. And that's not all. They even did full sections on prominent adherents like Steven Jones, David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs, and James Fetzer. But, it's such a long book you say, this is just a little article. OK, let's check the preface (pg. xiii-xvi), a smaller-than-wikipedia-sized summary. "Also of interest are the conspiracy theories that have emerged over the last five years." and this is not all that is said about them - even in the short preface they are given a considerable amount of weight. The preface and the conspiracy theory section are available on Google books to review. One thing you will notice is that conspiracy theories are the only Effect discussed in the preface. To further drive the point home, the entire paragraph I am proposing can be found paraphrased in the conspiracy theories section (now that I removed insider trading!):
 * I'll end by finishing the last sentence above. "Although critics have dismissed them as unfounded, conspiracy theories and theorists nevertheless remain an important facet of the ongoing discussions about September 11." Smitty121981 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The format in the encyclopedia you mention is their business...we.do it according to our guidelines and policies. I really don't know why some above are being as charitable as they are towards you. Three years ago you tried to hijack the article on 7 World Trade Center with your conspiracy POV pushing and after that failed you disappeared for three years... upon your return you did some edits to a couple unrelated articles to give the appearance of not being a single purpose account but have, not surprisingly, resumed your same POV pushing here. You are the textbook example of the civil POV pusher. You need to be topic banned as you are only here to promote conspiracy theories.--MONGO 18:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Smitty121981 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, MONGO's comments are absolutely correct. Almost every day is another comment from you in spite of the consensus that already exists. I very much doubt if you are going to change any editors mind with your constant comments. Please accept the current consensus and be glad that editors have given the article time for further comment for any interested parties. It is impossible not to comment on your actions - there are simply too many. I certainly agree that you seem to be a prime candidate for a civil POV pusher and a single purpose account. As I and others have commented many times, there is already an article for these theories and they have no place here. David J Johnson (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I second Smitty. Please comment on the content, not the contributor.  Smitty is doing some really good work here trying to improve this article, and I think we need to be a little more supportive. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That really is a classic comment from Cla68 who in his own contributions has no faith in Wikipedia. It is correct that we should focus on the content and not the contributor, but when a contributor totally ignores consensus - time and time again - and is only supported by someone who is critical, by their own admission, of Wikipedia; what can any editor do, but to mention editors by name? Barring any contributions from uninvolved editors in the next few days, it is time to close this topic down. The editor in question has already form in trying to hijack another article on 9/11 some years ago and was unsuccessful. the same should happen here. Time and time again, it has been mentioned by editors that there is already a article for conspiracy theories and there is no place for them here. David J Johnson (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Support a one or two paragraph-long subsection on conspiracy theories but oppose Smitty's suggestion. Right now we have a mention of the conspiracy theories buried in a sub-section that mostly talks about unrelated matters. Given the extent of coverage the conspiracy theories get in reliable sources, this does not accurately reflect their prominence relative to coverage of the attacks.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While it was nice of Smitty121981 to invite you here, your assertions on the "prominence" of conspiracy theories has no basis in fact. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There are 75 names of notable people on this list. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABLE does not confer WP:WEIGHT. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, I knew this discussion was going on well before Smitty left any message on my talk page. As far as your statement, reliable sources do make frequent mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theorists and not just in the context of discussing them or people adhering to them, but as part of general treatments of the subject of 9/11. Smitty noted an example with the 9/11 Encyclopedia, but there are many others that can be provided.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I support the new version put forward by Smitty. I don't think the AE911 C-SPAN source is necessary, but that is not a major qualm.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It appears as though the extent of coverage about conspiracy theories gets a fair shake in Wikipedia. September 11 attacks is currently 171,248 bytes versus 9/11 conspiracy theories which is 200,071 bytes. Location (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly...and even the 9/11 conspiracy theories article has daughter articles as well...such as World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories...but even with that coverage, the CT crowd is still not pleased...they always want more.--MONGO 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Oppose I have avoided commenting here for a while, having pretty much said all I had to say farther up the page. But, I'll say it again... The proposal gives undue weight to a topic labeled "preposterous" by mainstream media. It gives undue weight to the notion that "hundreds of professionals and officials" have any actual professional standing or qualifications to comment with authority on this subject or that they represent their professions or institutions in any way. It gives undue weight to theoretical statistical analyses which ignore specific legal investigations of specific traders. Conspiracy theories are a fact of daily life, and virtually any news event can give rise to them. It's completely unsurprising that the 9/11 attacks produced a bumper crop, but conspiracy theories are social and psychological phenomena, not unique to 9/11, and not worthy of any special mention.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to comment. I noticed that you said "It gives undue weight to theoretical statistical analyses which ignore specific legal investigations of specific traders" but I actually crossed that line out already (just a few days ago), maybe you missed it? The proposal does not mention insider trading at all anymore. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, but my principle objection is the issue of undue weight to the Internet echo chamber's creations, and the credulity the proposed wording grants to CT.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree the version proposed by Smitty has POV issues, the current coverage in this article is a singular sentence that provides no worthwhile information on the significance of 9/11 CTs. It basically just announces that they exist and even then it is getting buried amidst a bunch of trivial unrelated information. The article on the OKC bombing, a featured article, has a paragraph-length sub-section devoted to conspiracy theories. I do not see any chance of this article getting such status unless conspiracy theories receive similar coverage. There are a bunch of other things impeding it, but that is one of them.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am no friend to conspiracy theories and Internet tinfoil hattery in general as a basis for serious encyclopedic content. I'm fine with articles about the CTs, I'm OK with simple links, but I've consistently opposed their non-trivial inclusion in primary articles on a broad basis in Wikipedia, or the attempted imposition of a false balance in articles associated with CTs and fringe theories. Rather like the now-disliked "in popular media" sections, CT sections have become a widespread plague in articles about nearly any current event to which a CT can conceivably be attached. Almost the only primary-subject article where I support such material's inclusion is in the JFK assassination article, largely because the HSCA investigation was equivocal. There is no such equivocation associated with 9/11.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point that TDA makes about the Oklahoma City article having a full paragraph on the conspiracy theories and it's a featured article. The conspiracy theories are an even more notable aspect of this topic than that one. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians."
 * Oppose per WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE. The page at present gives a short-sentence on conspiracy theories:


 * This sentence could be expanded slightly without crossing the line of UNDUE, provided our focus is on the social effects of the conspiracy theories, we must always avoid giving discredited theories unnecessary credence. But the proposed paragraph is way too much weight to a discredited WP:FRINGE theory. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:ONEWAY and WP:DUE. This is a much better version, which arguably does not express support for these ridiculous theories. This is the right amount of simple text, with a link for those who wish to explore further. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support but not in currently proposed form. Particularly I object to the "hundreds of professionals" bit. Strong Support The new proposed wording solves the issues I had with the previous wording.  My other opinions still apply. (Zell Faze (talk) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC))  I think that with how many conspiracy theorists there are out there and the attention that has been given to them that it deserves its own sub-heading.  I do not think that giving it a sub-heading would qualify as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE.  To this day I still run across both new conspiracy theories and new people debunking them, and not just among random non-notable people as well.  As recently as 2011 Skeptic Magazine was covering the phenomena. Zell Faze (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit After considering feedback from editors, I have completely revised the second sentence - "hundreds of professionals", which many editors objected to, is gone. Also, I went through and redid all the references, with many fewer now in total, and there is a link now for every single one (I hope it's appropriate to link to Google Books?) Smitty121981 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The two sentence critical reception of the Commission, of this one book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, I think is given undue weight. A single medium length sentence I think should suffice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is why a RfC was a bad idea. RfCs are usually good if you have a solid idea you want an up or down vote on. Constantly changing things means that nearly every previous vote must be thrown out. I understand that you really want this edit and I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but I do not understand what this exercise is going to accomplish anymore. I'm going to suggest once more that you close this RfC, go work a bit on the conspiracy theories page while you continue to get feedback from editors who have given you such, and re-start it in a while. I don't want to see your time wasted given how much effort you are putting in. --Tarage (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't the whole idea of an RfC to Request Comment on something? These are !votes so I see no reason in changing the text if the response of several RfC participants seems to warrant it.  He went the extra mile in notifying me on my talk page that the proposed text had changed in case I wanted to re-review it. Zell Faze (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with making corrections during the RfC, but as you can see, nobody has changed their mind. Right now, the consensus is overwhelmingly against the change even with the corrections.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it's written and sourced properly, this wouldn't be a problem, per Andrewaskew's reasoning above.  One paragraph and  should cover it.  I would not include much detail, per WP:UNDUE.  The idea I see too much of above is that we shouldn't be covering this stuff at all, but that's a discussion for an AfD of 9/11 conspiracy theories, an article I would keep. I have actually used it in real life as a WP reader to catch up on what these conspiracy theories are and why they're off base, as I sometimes encounter people who subscribe to one or another of them. It's important that it be findable from this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose In light of recent events and due to the fact that I no longer feel this RfC can do it's job, I am opposing changes. Consensus has not changed enough to warrant these edits. --Tarage (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet again! For all the reasons mentioned in Tarage's comments directly above this contribution. Let us close this discussion down, leave the article as it is and direct the other theories to the appropriate "Conspiracy" page. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are 60 pages of recorded history here, opinions, insults, conservations... some more prominent than others...
 * I understand that casual onlookers won't bother to see... but there should be a notice on top of the article which clearly states that the neutrality of this article is constantly, preposterous really, disputed. Anybody who comes here to check what's going on can see that you're quarreling most, if not all of the time. Other articles warn that dispute is taking place, why not this one? Historycommons (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Emotions are clearly running high among some of the opposers here. Can I remind folks why the article lost its GA status and has never regained it? As the events slip further into the past it should become more possible to write and edit dispassionately about it. Some folks need to separate patriotism from encyclopedic NPOV, in my opinion. We do not endorse theories by reporting them. --John (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a severe misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV actually means. NPOV does not mean that we report all POVs.  Rather, NPOV means that we present majority and significant minority POVs.  Insignificant minority viewpoints should excluded or delegated to ancillary articles if they are notable on their own (see WP:WEIGHT for more).  Yes, I realize that some people think that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 or that it was a controlled demolition or that the jets were holograms and a laser beam actually took down the towers.  There are also people who think that bigfoot is real, that little green men crashed at Roswell, and that Queen Elizabeth II is a shape-shifting reptilian humanoid.  But, Wikipedia strives to be serious encyclopedia.  NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and is non-negotiable.  Let me repeat that: NPOV is non-negotiable.  I suggest to anyone who wants fringe viewpoints included in the article, the way to go about it is to get NPOV changed.  Open an RfC at NPOV.  I think most editors would oppose such a sweeping change just as most editors oppose this RfC's suggested change.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * lol, neutral point of view is neutral point of view, what you wrote above is an example of bias, it's a good one, I'll give you that. I'm telling you folks, this doesn't look healthy from the outside. Historycommons (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, if you don't like Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV, you are free to try to change it. Here's a direct link to NPOV's talk page.  Go ahead, open a discussion on why you think NPOV should be changed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll play videogame (I'm user)... you have generic editorial guidelines, yes? Follow the rules... I'm not even sure if this discussion has valid proposition. Article should reflect the fact that people question 9/11? Yes? There's certainly more than one way to spell it somewhere without bias (or word conspiracy). But I don't think that's the issue here, I'll just observe once again that each time I visit (few times a year) same people paddle same crap over and over again. It's like never-ending crap. Historycommons (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You only have 3 edits to Wikipedia, all of which are to this talk page. Why don't you log into your regular account and then come talk to us? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sry bro... real life, reddit, hearthstone... no time for entries, which reminds me, why are you having this tedious dispute without notice? Historycommons (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I will. See Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 for why the group opining against this proposal are working against the improvement of the article, however well-meaningly. --John (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is the result of broad consensus from the entire community whereas WP:GA is the opinion of a single editor. But again, if you want to change all that, |you know where to go.  That fact that you won't speaks volumes, and I'm not even sure what you expect to accomplish as long as NPOV remains unchanged.  Even if some how you were able to convince the editors of this RfC to ignore NPOV, local consensus does not and cannot override community consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do me a favour and stop randomly emboldening words. How do you mean "WP:GA is the opinion of a single editor"? Read the discussion again. It was more than one editor who thought the article needed delisting, and an uninvolved admin closed the discussion as such. Have you actually read the discussion recently? --John (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If you think it's random, then try reading it again. No, I don't need to read the discussion since I was there.  My point, which seems to allude you, is that it only takes a single editor to approve a WP:GA article whereas NPOV is the will of the entire community.  Again, this discussion is pointless until you have NPOV changed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for easing off on the shouting. Your opinion on NPOV has been stated many times now and has been noted. In the discussion we had three years ago it became apparent that many experienced Wikipedians disagreed with your opinion. --John (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. The vast majority of editors who participated in the last RfC on this issue, as well as the current RfC, agree that to give undue weight to a fringe theory is a violation of NPOV.  Yes, there are small number of editors who disagree, but the consensus is in favor of upholding NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is that small number, User:A Quest For Knowledge? Between Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 and Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2, how many respected, experienced editors, who mainly edit other areas and participate in Peer Review, declined to endorse your little local consensus here about NPOV? Tarage, have you counted? Are you going to call all of them SPAs or "CTers"? Were any of them pinged for this RfC? It would be interesting to see what they thought about the article's changes over the last two years. --John (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the majority of editors agreed with you, how do you explain the fact that in the last RfC, the commmunity concensus was in favor of upholding WP:NPOV? If the majority of editors agreed with you, how do you explain the fact that in the current RfC, the community consensus continues to uphold NPOV?  To put it bluntly, your argument rests on the mistaken belief all POVs should get equal weight.  That is demonstrably wrong.  Here's what NPOV actually says:
 * "''Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.
 * "''From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
 * "'' *If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * "'' *If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority', then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * "'' *If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
 * "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
 * I'm sorry, but since you don't seem to have an argument based on policy, there's little point in continuing this. You may have the last word.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The view that conspiracy theories are significant as an Effect of 9/11 is quickly becoming the mainstream viewpoint. Yes, I said it. By now, dozens and dozens of reliable sources have published this viewpoint, including within the general historical context of al Qaeda et al. No one here is disputing the verbiage of WP:NPOV or trying to get around it in any way, and I actually worked closely with editors here to fix the POV problems that my original proposal had.  I noticed that you have chosen to completely  ignore the coverage in The 9/11 Encyclopedia, even though I have specifically asked you about it multiple times and you remained very active in this conversation. Why is that? Smitty121981 (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I... I'm trying to follow what you are saying, but I'm getting lost somewhere along the line. Are you trying to tell us that we should mention more about conspiracy theories because an online encyclopedia does? One outside of the Wikipedia foundation? Because if that is what you are saying, I need to put a stop to that right this instant. Wikipedia doesn't care at all about what any other online encyclopedia says or does. If we did, the Star Wars article alone would comprise half of this site. No, consensus, as things stand right now, is still 8 more votes against than for. I have not forgotten our deal, by the way. I will be closing this discussion after a month, because we are just repeating the same tired arguments over and over again. I would like John to reply to what I said below, but otherwise I've said all I intend to say on this issue. Does anyone have anything new to say? Anyone? --Tarage (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First, it's not an "online encyclopedia", it's a 2-volume reference book that is WP:RELIABLE and is currently listed in the Further reading on the article. Please take the time to look at the references before commenting on them, thanks. And that's not the only source! The Eleventh Day, listed currently in the  Bibliography, devotes an entire chapter to conspiracy theories and focuses, as I eventually did, on the LIHOP / MIHOP aspect. I have many more reliable sources, would you like me to list them all? Second, you yourself will not be closing this conversation. It's likely that I will request an uninvolved editor to formally close it at the end of 30 days. Third, sorry the previous comment confused you - I have now added the editor's name to whom I was talking. Smitty121981 (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think my favorite part about John's statement is that somehow, it's the editors here who are preventing anything from getting done. When was the last time a new editor came here deciding that they wanted to clean up the Health Issues section? Or perhaps the Casualties section? Or how about any section outside of those directly pertaining to the conspiracy theories of this article? I wager to bet quite a long time. You can stand there and act all high and mighty about how the editors are working against this article, but you ignore the fact that the talk page is full of single purpose accounts who come here to undermine it, not help it. If an editor came to work on ANY other section and wanted help, they would be welcomed with open arms. So do tell John, if this is all our fault, why do we only ever see CT editors trying to insert NPOV? --Tarage (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you why you see the world the way you do, as I am not qualified to do that. All I can really do is challenge your tired and insulting mantra that anyone who differs from the "party line" you and your friends have established at this article is part of some shady conspiracy. Are you seriously and honestly saying that User:SandyGeorgia, User:Wehwalt, User:Dank, User:Nikkimaria, User:cs32en (from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1 where nobody at all supported the nomination), and also User:EyeSerene, User:Eric Corbett, myself, User:Nonukes, User:HJ Mitchell, User:Moxy, User:ErrantX, User:Geometry guy, User:Ironholds, User:Aircorn, and User:Parrot of Doom (from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 where the only people supporting retention of GA status were from the group of people fighting here to maintain the article as it is) ; are you saying every single one of us is a "CT editor"? Really? Or could it just possibly be that there is something wrong with this article? --John (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's nice to know you don't bother reading posts before replying to them. People posting during a GA status review is fine and dandy, and has been helpful for improving the article, but where are they outside of those times? Where is the random editor who decides "You know what? I want to improve X on the 9/11 page" where X is something unrelated to CT? Why are the archives filled with people who want to edit a very VERY small section of this article over and over and over and over? Why is it such a large problem that we had to have discretionary sanctions put in place? You claim the editors here are holding back this article, and I claim that outside of the editors here, very few people have even attempted to edit anything outside of the CT topics, and those that did met with little to no conflict because of it. And I'm still waiting for you to refute that point. And I know you can't. --Tarage (talk) 21:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is unwarranted and unwelcome. Do you seriously think the atmosphere at this talk page is conducive to people dropping in and improving anything? That was, what, 16? experienced editors who looked at the article, then decided not to get involved in improving the article although they identified serious problems with it. You tell me; why do you think they didn't? I can only speak for myself; I decided not to work on improving this article because of the high level of snark and lack of good faith, as exhibited in your recent posts in a fairly mild form. I think to people like you, anything at all outside of the official 9/11 report and some memorialising about how terribly awful it was, constitutes "CT topics". Am I wrong? I offered a couple of decent book sources three or four years ago for how surprising the non-intervention of the USAF was. Have they been incorporated? At the time I was called a "CTer" for my good-faith and well-referenced suggestion. Is this an example of a "CT topic"? If you think it is you prove my point. You say "we" had to have discretionary sanctions put in place; who do you regard as "we"? Who are the "they" you implicitly think you are guarding the article against? Do you also see how daft a label "CT" is when the official narrative is a conspiracy theory? --John (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep the conversation on topic. Beyond that, all editors here are strongly encouraged to avoid escalating the situation any further. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are cute John, you really are. "Well, you guys only get CT editors because other editors are scared to come here and edit." Then why are people more than happy to share their views on this RfC? Why have a majority of them come out against it? Are they all a part of the cabal? You can claim all you wish, but I have yet to see you pull up a single diff where an editor who decided to come here and edit something outside of a scant few areas of this article and was somehow met with hostility. You can bluster and whine and moan all you want, but you don't have a shred of evidence backing you up. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You aren't here to contribute, you are here to stir the pot, like you always do. How about you come back when you have something more to contribute than bad faith? --Tarage (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's true that the 9/11 Encyclopedia has a dedicated article to conspiracy theories. Just like Wikipedia.  They also have entire articles devoted to David Ray Griffin and James Fetzer.  Just like Wikipedia.  You'll note that they're separate articles.  Just like Wikipedia.  Except for the preface, they don't intersperse conspiracy theories with the so-called "official" explanation.  Just like Wikipedia.  Even if they intertwined conspiracy theories with the articles on the "official" explanation, it's still only one source.  WP:NPOV requires that we examine the broad spectrum of reliable sources.  There are literally tens of thousands of sources on 9/11.  Seeking out one source that says something different that all the other sources is a classic definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing The 9/11 Encyclopedia. It's certainly not the only source though. The Eleventh Day, listed in the current Bibliography, devotes an entire chapter to conspiracy theories and this book was a Pulitzer Prize nominee. I have many reliable sources that I have not posted yet including a peer-reviewed history journal, would you like me to list them all? Smitty121981 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I want you to provide me a list of all the sources that don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Was that sarcastic? What do you have to say about the coverage of conspiracy theories in The Eleventh Day? It's on Google Books. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Which dismisses the CTs as fantasy and which concludes that the common conspiracy theories are non-credible sideshows that distract from the actual failings that kept the attacks from being forestalled.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Does it? How exciting. Isn't the accepted explanation for this event a conspiracy theory? Will this article still be a turd floating in a toilet in 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I wouldn't be surprised, given the discussion here. I take no view on the RfC, and this will be my last comment here for a good while. If you wanted to improve the article beyond its current state, there are many obvious steps you could take. I accept that there is a sizable group of editors who prefer to keep the article as it is for now. Ping me if you ever wish to retry peer review. Until then, --John (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's cute that you didn't even dare to answer my request and show proof of an editor who was bullied for trying to fix something not related to CTs. I guess it must be hard to argue when you know you are wrong. John, I can safely say you will not be missed. Do come back if you ever decide to do anything more than bluster about how evil the editors are here. Maybe then you'll actually accomplish something for a change. --Tarage (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the content of the source and I feel that it supports the current proposal, both in content and weight. Have you seen the new wording I worked on? It's quite a bit different from when you were last here and I feel it is representative now of the coverage in The Eleventh Day, which talks about the MIHOP/LIHOP aspect (as does the preface to The 9/11 Encyclopedia, and many other sources). Smitty121981 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've said at least twice before, my principle objection is based on a more generalized concern that Wikipedia gives undue weight to fringe and conspiracy theories encyclopedia-wide. This is an apparently intractable consequence of Wikipedia's content-generation model, in which fringe and conspiracy enthusiasts can wear down more moderate voices through sheer persistence, bringing the same thing up again and again, and forcing a 100kb argument on an annual basis on a subject in which nothing new has happened for years.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask you a third time, since you keep commenting: what do you think of the new wording? It certainly addresses your many of your earlier concerns. Smitty121981 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm being completely serious. Your argument comes across as coming from someone who doesn't understand WP:WEIGHT. There are literally thousands and thousands of sources about 9/11. Probably 99.99% never even mention conspiracy theories. Let's say you find one or two sources that do. So what? That's a teansy weasy minority. I've said this several times now, and I feel like I'm just repeating myself, but WP:NPOV establishes 3 categories or classifications of POVs: 9/11 conspiracy theories are an insignificant minority. NPOV explicitly states "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not". Now, you've argued that you want it included not as a POV, but as an effect, which is fine. Except we already cover 9/11 conspiracy theories as an effect. It's in the article right now. There's no reason why we need to expand the coverage we already provide. If readers want to know more about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they can simply click on the link and it takes the reader directly to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
 * 1) Majority
 * 2) Significant minority
 * 3) Insignificant minority

The fact is that most editors disagree with your suggested change. You need to accept that consensus has gone against your suggestion and move on. Is there anything else in the article you would like to work on besides expanding the amount of coverage that fringe theories get? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are literally thousands and thousands of sources about 9/11. Probably 99.99% never even mention conspiracy theories." I'm sorry, but that claim is completely unsubstantiated. I have provided several sources to the contrary and can easily provide many more. Conspiracy theories did not become widely recognized as a significant effect immediately, but rather it took a few years for them to form and even longer for people to notice them (news sources began talking about them in 2006 2005, and more serious publications began talking about them with NCSTAR 1-A in late 2008). Therefore, your case will be much stronger if you find sources published 2009 or later that don't mention them... but in my research these sources are few and far between. For example, every single source on the current article (in Further Reading or Bibliography) from the last five years talks about conspiracy theories. Smitty121981 (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, I have found only one historical 9/11 source that puts conspiracy theories within a cultural section, as the current article does. Specifically, "9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide" By Tom Lansford . However, it's important to note that their paragraph matches the content of my proposal nearly identically (pg 34). Smitty121981 (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I was wrong, there are actually a few that put it within culture. I am in the process of compiling a list of sources now. Smitty121981 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's absurd, and demonstrably so. Here's every single source currently listed in the article from 2009:
 * White House power grabs - August 26, 2009
 * Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial - November 13, 2009
 * 9/11’s Litany of Loss, Joined by Another Name - Sept 12, 2009
 * Alleged 9/11 Plotters Face Trial Blocks From WTC Site - Nov 13, 2009
 * Young children's responses to September 11th: The New York City experiences - 13 JAN 2009
 * Musharraf `bullied` into supporting US war on terror: ex-General - December 11, 2009
 * The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications - 13 JAN 2009
 * Not one mention conspiracy theories. Not one.  Zero.  Zip.  Zich.  Nada.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Those are all from inline citations and therefore about specific topics. Of course there won't be a mention of conspiracy theories in a source strictly limited to a specific trial, or lymphoma, or KSM, or Musharraf, etc. These sources are the equivalent of news stories dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and we both know there are plenty of those. Read my comment again, I said in Further Reading and Bibliography as these are the sources that have a general 9/11 context. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Maybe we could take a step toward the neutral dispassion John seeks if we described the perpetrators as Asian men. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite getting your drift there Tom. Why would that be an improvement? --John (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that presenting further discussion about CT's in this article would make it better. I wonder how many people actually read all this data anyway...its a really long article and the theme strays quite a bit from the event itself. I have always argued that the article is simply too broad and so long as this event has any semblance of recentism to it, it won't make GA, much less FA. I still don't know why we need more than a link to the CT article where all the various CT's about this event are given more than their due. Why can't this article focus on the known facts and keep the superstitions elsewhere? Nevermind...I already know why.--MONGO 23:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about "presenting further discussion about CT's in this article". I am reminding you and the other regular editors of this article that the current regime has led to a poor article, which is bloated and disorganised. It gives extended coverage of some areas which are trivial and neglects other areas which are important. In order to improve it we would need a more welcoming atmosphere here in talk and less anger and passion about the whole process. Someone, for example, arguing to extend the coverage of alternative theories from one sentence to two is not an attack on the memory of the dead, or an insult to the honour of the United States, or anything like that. It is a reasonable proposal on how to develop quite a badly written article on a free online encyclopedia and should be treated as such. There are many other areas in this article that could really stand being improved, and this discussion so far is a good indicator of why this article has stayed so bad for so long. --John (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is in sad state indeed. For example, the Immediate response part gives illusion of competence where there was none. Is this real world or exercise and so on... what you have there is not bias, but propaganda. How have you managed to omit the fact that people question 9/11 is beyond me though. Historycommons (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparent and irresistible inclination of alltimers, oldtimers.., or however you call editors stuck in the loop here, to degrade people with opposing views is obvious. There are 60 pages of such discourse. No way to write decent entry without decorum. Historycommons (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with John. The constant personal attacks by some of the regulars here on other editors who disagree with them is really holding back productive progress on this article.  It's really disappointing. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Giving undue weight (equal coverage) to fringe theories is a violation of WP:NPOV. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: There must be some great statistic in all this... Ever thought to produce the cloud on monthly basis to see what words you folks use here the most? Do you have metric for the amount of time this article spent in lockdown? You know, years, months, days... also, how many times was this topic proposed and rejected? Historycommons (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: In fact, I'll make this an official challenge. Any editor, involved or not, who feels this article deserves to be improved, please, come help us improve it. Do you think a section is too bloated? Help us trim it down. Do you think a section is placed in an odd location? By all means, let's talk about moving it. Prove me wrong. Prove that the people who care to come here and edit this article aren't all focused on a small section. I believe in you. --Tarage (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop sidetracking the conversation. Thanks. Smitty121981 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This 'conversation' has reached it's logical conclusion. I'm trying to get editors who actually care about the state of this article to help fix it. If ANY editor would like to edit something besides the same 5 or so sentences that have been debated to death, please step forward. We will welcome you with open arms at this point. --Tarage (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sources The following table is not intended to be a comprehensive list. Sources about conspiracy theories in general were omitted unless they were dedicated fully to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think a lot of editors here are pretty sick of me posting, so this is mostly for your benefit. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment ,
 * The above is not a factual statement,
 * The above is not a factual statement,


 * It should be obvious that the substance of the proposed text is not even close to Lansford's, and is still problematic for reasons that have already been stated on this talk page many times—It does not use the best quality sources available, it misrepresents sources generally or by omission, and it cites conspiracy theorists directly (e.g., the C-SPAN source is just an interview with Richard Gage devoid of commentary or discussion of the facts) for no valid reason—It is quite simply in violation of several non-negotiable policies. The only way coverage of conspiracy theories in this article will ever be expanded is when an editor proposes text that is aligned with this site's policies and guidelines, and has consensus to add it. The current proposal does not satisfy the former and has no chance of achieving the latter. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * um... what is so different? Maybe I shouldn't have said "nearly identical" but considering I found this source after I wrote my proposal, it's pretty darn close! The structure in both my proposal and the quoted paragraph is: A) 9/11 conspiracy theories exist B) They are either MIHOP or LIHOP C) They are not taken seriously. The C-SPAN source is a good primary source example for the statement it sources, just like the Pop. Mech. article is a primary source example for the last sentence. The C-SPAN source is paired with a secondary source, just as the Pop. Mech. article is. But gee... you're not complaining about Pop. Mech... I wonder why? Both are used correctly - why didn't you quote the "several" policies they supposedly violate? "It does not use the best quality sources available" Really? Well then please, by all means, tell us which sources would be better! Smitty121981 (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, conspiracy theories are relevant (I mean, Support). Well, they did arise from the aftermath of the attacks. And I agree with 's proposed revision. –Epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Again
Hi, I was just wondering why the section on the FBI investigation makes no mention of the well reported fact that several of the alleged hijackers on their list of nineteen later seemed to turn up alive and well. This was reported at the time, and then explained as identity theft or mistaken identity, which means that the real identities of the hijackers are still in doubt (lacking any official rectification of the original list). BartiDdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you see this John? Do you see what kind of editors we get here? It's never about anything OTHER than conspiracy theories. It's ALWAYS some jab trying to push CT into the article. I dare anyone to explain to me how this isn't trying to insert CT. You can't. --Tarage (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Explanation: Why are you talking about conspiracies? I'm not trying to insert any kind of theory into the article, just suggesting that the section on the FBI investigation is incomplete without mention of the cases of mistaken identity that were widely reported at the time in the reputable national media of several western nations, including the BBC. 189.129.72.68 (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC) BartiDdu
 * Where is the reliable reference for that?--MONGO 22:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I did actually include sources in my original comment here, but they seem to have been erased. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm http://www.thedossier.info/articles/latimes_fbi-chief-raises-new-doubts-over-hijackers-identities.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html 187.189.142.212 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) BartiDdu
 * They were erased because you formatted them horribly, and I didn't want to clean up the mess you left on this page. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't follow the link on your own source to the updated version which explains it. Rmhermen (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason this was not included in the article is because it is simply not true. Ask yourself this, if several, or any, of these hijackers have come up alive and well, how come we haven't seen or heard from them in 13 years? I mean I don't know about you, but if I was implicated as being a hijacker in one of the largest displays of terrorism the world has ever seen, and I was actually innocent and alive, I would be on every radio and tv station in the world screaming my innocence. I would be on all the rooftops screaming "I'm here! I'm alive! I didn't do it!" But we don't see that do we. Not one of them has "surfaced". The only reason you think they have surfaced is because you read it somewhere, without actually checking yourself if it was true or not, a common theme in the 9/11 conspiracy world. Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.100.186 (talk • contribs)
 * By 'English' do you mean, 'in England'? If so, I'd dispute that strongly, and remark that pointing to a news article published around 6 months after the event as evidence of how they are referred to now is not very productive. Over the years, the terminology in most/all English-speaking countries has settle on 'September 11' or '9/11' despite the fact that these may not reflect standard usage in UK-English normally.-- K orr u ski Talk 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2014
The number of victims is wrong. There's at least one that's not there. She was nine, and visiting her dad at work.

Friendoflexi (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We need a source or reference for this change. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Can Pearl Harbor be added in the beginning of the article in terms of perspective?
I was just wondering why Pearl Harbor wasn't added in terms of perspective because it was the most foreign destruction act on American soil right next to 9/11.XXzoonamiXX (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that draw a comparison? TFD (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, there are plenty of sources that can draw a comparison. Both acts were carried out by foreigners, both acts were carried out by planes, both acts were surprise attacks, and both acts killed more than 2,000 American citizens within a span of a few hours. See this link here, another one here, and this one here. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The first one is clearly an opinion column, per the heading (and URL); the second borders on commentary, but appears to be essentially a dual interview; and the third is essentially an interview, usable only for Dreifort's opinion. I'm not sure they are usable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Wichita interview draws some interesting parallels and differences. I notice also that there is no mention of the Oklahoma bombing, until then the biggest terrorist attack in the U.S. or the Kennedy assassination, which until then was the main event that most people remembered what they were doing when they heard about (just as Pearl Harbor had been). It might warrant mention in the article, but I do not think it should be in the lead.  And you need better sources.  TFD (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Because we are talking about foreign acts of destruction on American soil, not domestic ones as JFK assassination and Oklahoma City bombing were carried out by U.S. citizens. And for these links, how do you know that the articles doesn't warrant the use of putting these kind of information in the article? You can't assert these articles as opinions and since people based on the similarities and comparisons on facts and not opinions. There are more links to come by as well., , and [. [[User:XXzoonamiXX|XXzoonamiXX]] (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the three articles, the first was published as an opinion column, and the other two seem only to assert that the interviewees see the connection, not the reporter. With respect toWP:RS, that's an opinion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But we have seen plenty of comparative analogies between the two events and least this editor isn't asking us to chitty chat about how the mean nasty neocons or the Jews "did it"...and that's refreshing at least.--MONGO 15:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Arthur, now are you saying my three new links are just opinions and not based on facts? I can't believe that you come to this conclusion. Are analogies now are just opinions and not based on facts? XXzoonamiXX (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't get a chance to look at the new links when I wrote that. The first two look reasonable, although phrasing of the first suggests it may be a "column" rather than an "article", and hence only useful for the opinion of the author.  The third is clearly a "column".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just removed the addition...seems excessive to me and has no place in the article introduction anyway.--MONGO 05:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not "just opinions and not based on facts", they are opinions based on facts. So the relevant policy is weight - are these opinions so significant they should be included. Different opinions could be based on the same facts. There is a difference btw between a military attack by a world power during a world war designed to destroy US power in the Pacific and an attack by a small group of terrorists. If you had secondary sources, they would explain this and then we could determine what weight to provide different views. TFD (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they should not be included - as others have stated they should not be in the introduction and they are "opinion". David J Johnson (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC).
 * So are you saying that the fact 2,403 killed at Pearl Harbor and 2,777 killed during the 9/11 attacks are just opinions? These numbers are widely similar. Can you name me any other foreign attack that caused thousands of deaths on American soil within one hit? I would love to hear it. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah do you understand the concept of synthesis? You should look up what it means and why we don't approve of it. --Tarage (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: "Asahi Shimbun and The New York Times: Framing Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks",  comparisons on treatment'' of the two events do appear to be more than simple opinion as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a sentence in the article body is fine, but WEIGHT is important.--MONGO 18:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

No evidence from experts?
"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." this statement is so subjective wikipedia just got knocked off its pedestal in my paradigm. Now wikipedia is just another information source you have to be critique of... Thx, for all the good years wiki:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.109.126 (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think 9/11 conspiracy theories are plausible, we don't want to be on your pedestal. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence in "Memorials" section?
Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..." Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there? 67.247.63.92 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed; thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 21:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015
Attack Type: - Islamic Terrorism Jihadism Sunni Muslim extremism

Dsarkosky (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Cannolis (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies
We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic.Dornicke (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where you get your information, but the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source, if not the definitive source on the topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * the 9/11 Commission Report is a highly respected, highly reliable source. LOL. See what I'm saying? Ridiculous. Editors of the English Wikipedia want to rewrite reality. Dornicke (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning.-- K orr u ski Talk 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 9-11 Commission Funding Woes - Time Magazine Dornicke (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't quite see when that article dates from, but it looks to be 2001-2002. Personally I don't really see the significance of it, but if you think that a fairly obscure funding disagreement in the early days of the commission report is notable then I am sure you can propose an addition to the article along those lines. Just be sure to avoid adding anything that can't be directly sourced to that article.-- K orr u ski Talk 15:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't care about your personal opinions of the significance of the sources, you can keep them to yourself. As for the sentence If you spend a lot of time reading conspiracist forums, I have no doubt you will find a 'series of controversies' and 'lots of criticism' about the 9/11 Commission Report.. If, on the other hand, you spend a bit of time in the real world you will quickly discover that these controversies and criticisms are so insignificant and unreliable as to be entirely not worth mentioning - Stop right there. I'm not talking about "conspiracies", I'm talkikng about factual history reported in mainstream, relevant and reliable sources. The 9-11 Commission was HUGELY criticized for being underfunded, for conflict of interests, etc. This is on the major newspapers throughout the world. Don't try to play the "conspiracy theory card" to freeze this article in this version, which reads like a institutional pamphlet of the White House. There are and there were several criticism towards the 9-11 Commission. Not addressing this issue is FALSIFYING REALITY. Period. Dornicke (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, dig the sources out and start writing. If you stick to WP policies, you'll be fine. Good luck. -- K orr u ski Talk 17:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks"
Is there anything to support the above claim? Something like the sentence of a tribunal based on factual evidence? 37.133.53.224 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you check the supplied sources? --Neil N  talk to me 18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, there's nothing to support those claims. The tapes are merely "attributed to Bin Laden", as several reliable sources have already stated, such as The Guardian ("A recorded message attributed to Bin Laden", "A voice attributed to Bin Laden" ), Al Jazeera ("major statements attributed to bin Laden since 2001" ), BBC ("Since the 11 September 2001 attacks, a number of video tapes, audio recordings, faxes and other statements have been attributed to Osama Bin Laden", "Audio message purported to be by al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden ), CNN ("new statement attributed to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden" ), ABC ("threats attributed to Osama bin Laden" ), CBS ("recordings attributed to bin Laden" ), CBC ("audiotape attributed to Osama bin Laden" ), etc. The article, in fact, should say the attacks are attributed to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, since there hasn't been any kind of factual evidence or tribunal sentence confirming that. Dornicke (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States."  --Neil N  talk to me 19:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A tribunal is not required to establish the connection: ample sources, including Bin Laden himself, have established the connection. This is no different from describing Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy's assassin in the absence of a trial. Dornicke, stop tring to water down material to support conspiracy theories.   Acroterion   (talk)   19:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How do we know Dornicke really posted that, though? Maybe it's just someone with revdel access overwrote a real post by Dornicke.  Attribution in the signature isn't enough proof that that post wasn't written by an admin trying to besmirch Dornicke's name! Ian.thomson (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bin Laden is said to have claimed responsability. Only.
 * The Guardian - Bin Laden voice on video, says TV channel: "A male voice - apparently that of Osama bin Laden - praised the hijackers as "great men [...]. There was nothing to indicate that the sound-only recording attributed to Bin Laden had been made since the war in Afghanistan. [...] The voice attributed to Bin Laden praised the participants individually by name". Dornicke (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That post is attributed to you only by the site. If you claim that is your post, it's still only attributed to you by the site.  We don't know if you're really Dornicke. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't see how that's relevant for the discussion. The article is not about me. Dornicke (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It means that, by the logic you've presented, we have to assume your account has been compromised, and so have to assume that it's not really you pushing inane conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Have no idea how you came to this absurd conclusion. My logic is: if something is attributed to someone, we must say in the article that something is attributed to someone. Period. If there's a painting attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, we'll say this painting is attributed to Leonardo da Vinci, not that is a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. The same thing applies for Bin Laden. Dornicke (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your posts are only attributed to you by the site, we don't know they're really by you. As such, there's perfectly well the possibility that post was made by an account hijacker. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Really don't see what your point is, but I'm pretty sure it's irrelevant for the present discussion and just an attempt to divert the subject. Dornicke (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you just post that or was it an avatar of yours?--MONGO 19:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC


 * As usual, MONGO has nothing but "attack the messenger". Dornicke (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I must have missed it, what was the message?--MONGO 20:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That we can't assume he made those posts? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll go out on a limb and suggest that Dornicke did make those comments and signed them with his own timestamp...but I'm not an authority so I can't be cited.--MONGO 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please Dornicke, Wikipedia in an Encyclopedia which deals in reliable confirmed sources - not widely discredited "conspiracy theories". You will get nowhere on here by trying to present your nonsense here, nor will you stop MONGO by trying personal attacks - that is also against Wikipedia policy. David J Johnson (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * MONGO. We're no longer in the kindergardenDornicke (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself...--MONGO 01:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Weapons
''Weapons

Boeing 767-200's   Boeing 757-200's    Pocket knifes Utility knifes''

Don't you think it is ridiculous to call a boeing full of people a weapon? It has been used as a weapon but still Tetra quark (don't be shy) 13:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have restored the comment from Gob Lofa, whilst it is not informative, it needs to stay until a consensus is reached on whether the aircraft were used as "weapons" Neither editor has given informative reasons - one way or the other. Further discussions from other interested editors is required. I also need to think-over my own views. David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. Many things can be used as weapons, even if they aren't specifically designed for killing. Gob Lofa (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire article is quite ridiculous. Something more ridiculous, something less ridiculous won't make a difference. The article is garbage, a international joke. Dornicke (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is that?--MONGO 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DNFTT. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * true. Can you explain why the list in the infobox is helpful to the reader, though? We already mention the aircraft central to the attack in the first paragraph of the lede, and the knives really need prose explanation in the article body (as is done) to be meaningful to a theoretical naive reader that knew nothing of the attacks. To me, this list is just taking up space without adding any value to the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Like VQuaker says. It's best to present the events in prose. The consistency across articles that might be gained doesn't seem useful enough to most readers to justify shoe-horning the facts. Tom Harrison Talk 00:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I cannot. Gob Lofa (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I tend to agree with Tetra quark. Perhaps we should contact the Military History Project (I'm assuming that there is one) and maybe they can shed some light on what's supposed to be listed under weapons?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to keep the description in the text and out of the box, but I agree it might be good to get the advice of the MILHIST folks. Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015
"9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For other uses, see September 11 attacks (disambiguation). Page semi-protected September 11 attacks A montage of eight images depicting, from top to bottom, the World Trade Center towers burning, the collapsed section of the Pentagon, the impact explosion in the south tower, a rescue worker standing in front of rubble of the collapsed towers, an excavator unearthing a smashed jet engine, three frames of video depicting airplane hitting the Pentagon. Top to bottom, left to right The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on fire; Collapsed section of the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC; A fireman requests help at Ground Zero; An engine from Flight 93 is recovered; Flight 77's collision with the Pentagon as captured by CCTV. Location New York City; Arlington County, Virginia; vicinity of Shanksville, Pennsylvania Date	Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 13 years ago 8:46 – 10:28 am (UTC-4) Attack type Aircraft hijackings Suicide attacks Mass murder Terrorism Deaths	2,996 (2,977 victims, 19 hijackers) Non-fatal injuries 6,000+ Perpetrators al-Qaeda[1] (see also responsibility and hijackers) The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.[2]

Four passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both 110-story towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington, D.C.,[3] but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[4][5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.

Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda. Although the group's leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004, he claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by U.S. forces in May 2011.

The destruction of the Twin Towers and other properties caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan and had a significant effect on global markets, closing Wall Street until September 17 and the civilian airspace in the U.S. and Canada until September 13. Many closings, evacuations, and cancellations followed, out of respect or fear of further attacks. Cleanup of the World Trade Center site was completed in May 2002, and the Pentagon was repaired within a year. Numerous memorials have been constructed, including the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York, the Pentagon Memorial, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.

On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began at the World Trade Center site.[6] The building was officially opened on November 3, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asher678 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What is your edit request? How does what you pasted here differ from the article's lede? Antandrus  (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015
± i can see this because i don't non whats happend in 11 septembre

2.193.73.238 (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 19:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015
I would like to add some useful information and write an essay

5181boss (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Essays are not allowed in Wikipedia articles. See WP:OR.  Any information you add must be from reliable sources.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much, methinks
49 instances of the word terror... in this article in (174,168 bytes) and two mentions in the lead in the narrative voice of the article: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

See WP:TERRORISM, WP:ASSERT and WP:MORALIZE. Also the section a section in the article "terrorism" called "Pejorative use". Also ths extract from the article "Bombing of Dresden in World War II" (citation there): "Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation""

The problems with excessive use of terrorism used to be more common on Wikiepdia than it is now and there used to be more guidance on it See for example here which explains how to replace the word terrorist with factual descriptions such as hijacker, bomber etc.

It an article such as this it will not be possible or desirable to remove all mention of the word terrorist and from the article but it should be possible to write it from neutral point of view.

The first paragraph states: "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage."

This can be written from a NPOV position by changing it to "The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that everyone felt "deep shock and revulsion at the cold-blooded viciousness of this attack" and the United Nations security council unanimously "unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms the[ese] horrifying terrorist attacks"."

-- PBS (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * While the word "terror" might be overused, if so, this is a style issue (i.e. avoiding repetition), not a WP:NPOV issue. NPOV does not require that we give equal time or equal consideration to all POVs.  Instead, NPOV requires that we follow what reliable sources say about a topic.  If, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to this topic as terrorist attack (which they do), then so should we.   We, as editors, do not get to override the opinion of reliable sources.  That said, if there's a style issue with the word "terror" being overused, I'm open to exploring that.  However, to be honest, since you bring up the subject, I'm far more concerned that we do not name the article on the most infamous terrorist attack of all time as a terrorist attack.  This article really should be named "September 11 terrorist attacks" (or something similar), not "September 11 attacks".  We should not avoid the use of the word "terrorist" in this article any more than we should avoid the use of the word "Holocaust" in the article about Nazi's systematic extermination of the Jews and Poles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Most rational people in the English speaking world, if asked to describe an event that could be summed up as terrorism, one would probably figure that this event fit better than any other to define that term.--MONGO 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @A Quest For Knowledge "NPOV does not require that we give equal time or equal consideration to all POVs" no it does not, but the style in which such information is conveyed is part of the neutral point of view, and it is generally agreed among Wikipedia editors that opinions should be asserted as facts. Hence the reason for expressing points of view as facts and not put them in the narrative voice of the article. It is far better the the UN security council is quoted stating that the attack was a terrorist attack than that it is presented as Wikipedia editor's view. If you read the proposed change of wording above you will see this is what I am proposing as a change to the first paragraph.
 * @MONGO "Most rational people in the English speaking world ..." are you sure you mean rational and not "right thinking people"? As Bruce Hoffman wrote "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." This becomes very evident when one looks at IRA activity and the different ways it was reported in British and American news media for well over a century. Are you familiar with the Quinn v. Robinson case and political offense exception? This is something the American government seems less willing to contemplate now that Americans are frequent targets of politically motivated attacks.
 * The point is that "rational people" can hold different views on what constitutes terrorism and by and large British people tend to think that people who blow them up are terrorists, while those who supported the objectives Zionism or Irish republicanism, tend to be more ambiguous. The British are not alone in this, as most people on the receiving end of bombs tend to assume base motives by those doing the bombing. Notice that neither the King David Hotel bombing (1946) or Birmingham pub bombings (1974) mention terrorism in the lead "let the facts speak for themselves".
 * -- PBS (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell there is no academic or media debate on whether or not 9/11 was a terrorist attack... it was. It's almost considered the terrorist attack. To say otherwise is really silly and flies in the face of what actual sources say.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @PBS: I'm sorry, but I don't see your draft as an improvement. Why should anyone care about what Kofi Annan said as compared to what any other prominent politician or historian has said about these attacks?  It seems like you're going out of your way to avoid using the word "terrorist" in Wikipedia's voice by using quotes.  Wikipedia can plainly state facts as facts.  For example, we do not say that "Scientist X said "the universe is about 14 billion years old.""  Instead, we can plainly state that "The universe is about 14 billion years old".  Yes, there are some people who believe that the universe is about 6 thousand years old, but they are not reliable sources and we should follow what reliable sources say about a given topic.  That said, the opening sentence, "four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda" does seem a bit redundant.  I'm open to changing this to "four coordinated suicide attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda" or "four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic radical group al-Qaeda" or something similar.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Kofi Annan is useful because he "said that everyone felt", (which is not true) but within the United Nations community in New York and the governments they represented probably was, so he is a authoritative reliable source for a universal point of view. But structurally it introduces the more important point that the UN Security council as unanimous on the issue, something they rarely are over specific acts of terrorism (just look at the security council over Syria). That authorities in the US called it a terrorist attack fails the MRDA test in stating the bleedin' obvious. "Wikipedia can plainly state facts as facts." if so then "Let the facts speak for themselves" we do not have to moralise and tell people this was a terrorist attack, because they are able to ascertain that opinion for themselves from reading the facts. Would it surprise you to learn that reliable sources disagree over whether it is useful to call al-Qaeda a terrorist organisation? -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The UN defined "Al-Qaida" as a terrorist entity. That entity was behind the attacks as they were behind the attack on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. To say they are not a terrorist entity or that the 9/11 attacks were not acts of terrorism is ridiculous...I think it should be loud and clear. As far as IRA bombings.....of course I think they were acts of terrorism. Oh, an IP changed the lead sentence on the King David Hotel Bombing article to correctly reflect that that too was an act of terrorism.--MONGO 00:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you were missing the point: Not all rational people necessarily agree on what is or is not a terrorist attack. So you believe that those who fought in the Easter Uprising of 1916 were terrorists and that the British government had ever right to shoot the ringleaders? If you do, then you would be in a minority on Southern Ireland. Or do you somehow only attribute post 1921 IRA killings as terrorist? If the latter how do you come to that decision? That you think the "King David Hotel Bombing" was a terrorist attack yet there are rational people who do not for example here is a quote from that article: " The point is that Wikipedia editors should not be voicing whether or not these were a terrorist attacks instead they ought to be following the advise of WP:TERRORIST and use in-text attribution. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean the guideline that says up at the top, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly."? Your proposal is so silly that is is indiscernible from trolling. VQuakr (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you think it is silly, please explain why you think it silly. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course we should be very careful in using the term terrorist and the guideline says we should not label an individual a terrorist. But it does not say we cannot call an attack terrorism or a group terrorist, although obviously like everything else we should not call them that unless there is consensus in rs.  In this case there is consensus, these were terrorist attacks by any definition.  TFD (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline WP:TERRORIST says organization. See above what Donald Bloxham and Bruce Hoffman have to say about the word terrorist be a moral rather than a legal expression. That English speaking editors wish to express their outrage at such a heinous crime does not absolve editors from following the guidance, which tends to lead to a more powerful article. -- PBS (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, is there any importance placed on the fact that 9/11 happened on a Tuesday? If not, I propose that we remove this from the article as it doesn't seem to be of any particular importance. If any reader is genuinely curious which day of the week 9/11 happened, this is easily looked up.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's important that it happened on a weekday because that's a reason so many people died. If we are going to say it happened on a weekday or a work day, why not just say what day that was?  Removing Tuesday won't improve the article.  Jehochman Talk 05:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any basis for calling 9/11 anything other than terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

PBS...usually lede sections of even FA level articles do not recommend references in the introductions since the introduction is merely a summary of the article and the references are found there. The article appears to have multiple references that label his act as terrorism including references from almost all world leaders at the time and the UN Security Council unanimously called it terrorism. It would be a fringe view to promote concepts that this was not an act of terrorism.--MONGO 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally agree with MONGO's comments above. This conversation has taken far too long. David J Johnson (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @MONGO you write where has anyone promoted concepts that this was not an act of terrorism? The guideline make is clear that with terms such as terrorism should only be used with inline attribution, my proposal does exactly using attribution to state "almost all world leaders at the time and the UN Security Council unanimously called it terrorism" using inline attribution. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have the page watchlisted so pings are not needed. You seem to be assuming that its POV to call these attacks terrorism unless we attribute each time we do so?--MONGO 19:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation" (See above for the fuller quote from Donald Bloxham). From the terrorism article:In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted: "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism"

There is no reason for Wikipedia to use the word terrorism and terrorist in the passive editorial voice when the same point can be asserted as a fact using in-text attribution. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not in the business of having to attribute obvious terroristic deeds when any sane person can see that this act was a deliberate attempt to kill and terrorize as many people as possible. I don't see Hoffman citing the 9/11 attacks so he must be speaking in generalistic terms.--MONGO 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I am totally amazed that this conversation has gone on for so long. Many innocent people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The attacks were carried-out by criminals to further their own views and aims. If that is not terrorism, then I don't know what is. David J Johnson (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To make such an assessment you are applying OR and moralising. It is much better to assert the facts. It is a fact that there were attacks on various targets in the United States on 11 September 2001 it s a fact that the attacks were unanimously condemned as "horrifying terrorist attacks" by the UN Security Council. To assert in the passive narrative voice of the article is moralising (See the quote at the start of this section about Churchill being a war criminal for his involvement in bombing of Dresden). -- PBS (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EMT's and Paramedics Killed
Hi. A total of 43 EMT's and Paramedics died on 9/11. The FDNY lost two EMS workers, and 41 EMT's and Paramedics were killed from other hospital/private/volunteer units. I do not know why it says eight. Permission to have this edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:B80:85B:9EC:9BDA:A3D7:4DD0 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. New sections go at the bottom.  Changes to the article must be verified with mainstream academic or journalistic sources.  The section that says eight died cites this article, and this one, with the latter appearing to be the source of the number eight (excluding police officers who also happened to be EMTs, it seems). Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

date
keeep the date updated. september 2011 was 14 years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.46.169 (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this mean anything? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Which number is the right number regarding the four planes' fatalities? 246 or 265
It says online whether it is 246 or 265 people perished in the 9/11 attacks. Currently, 2,996 people were instantly killed in the attacks as most articles say but that is if you add 265 in the four planes then add up to the total of people killed in all situations, it's 2,996. On the articles of Flight 11, Flight 77, Flight 175, and Flight 93, respectively, 87, 64, 60, and 40 (including the 19 hijackers who were also passengers) were killed. Add the numbers up together and you got 246 people. However, that would mean that 227 were the victims, meaning that if you take that number, it would mean 2,958 victims killed. It looks like the death toll of 2,996 as it stands in the article now needs to a little bit of revising or debate. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but I believe the 19 hijackers may be where you are confusing things. They are not counted as victims. --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The numbers is either 246 or 265 in total. Now that's my problem here. Which number is right? Earlier at the beginning of this article, it says "including the 227 civilians and the 19 hijackers on board the four planes" meaning if you add up, it's 246 people including the hijackers. However, the section "casualties" says that the victims including 246 people,which means that there are 265 people in total. Someone needs to check of the listing of passenger aboard the four planes. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hijackers in Lives Lost/Veracity of Lives Lost Claim
I actually made a Wikipedia account explicitly to comment here and as such I would like to self-identify as an amateur to the open-source encyclopedia concept. Amateurism acknowledged, I find the conclusion of the first paragraph of this article reprehensible. This page opens with key summary information about the attacks in an opening paragraph that concludes, "The attacks killed 2,996 people (including 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage."

This information is sourced to an online-published Institute for the Analysis of Global Security article that happens to loosely confirm the monetary amount of property and infrastructure damage, but fails to mention in any way lives lost in the attacks--certainly a significant component of the sentence referenced. I'm certainly not here to split hairs about property loss and I find the the aforementioned figure to be sufficient evidence of property loss for the article's purpose.

However, I do not accept an unattributed statement of lives lost in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Moreover, and most significantly, I object to an inclusion of the act of not only "terrorism," but a perversion of the human spirit and humanity at large being included in a tally of the souls lost in the September 11th attacks on the United States. Hijackers and conspirators in the attacks of 9/11 deserve no equal space in the volumes of our history, and I will not allow it. I abhor even the most open of discussions that places those who would knowingly violate, eliminate, and desecrate the American public to be on the same plain as the law abiding, god fearing, and America loving citizens who lost their lives on that faithful day.

I certainly hope I will not be absorbed as a radical or someone "off his rocker." I'd like to bring attention to this particular issue and hope it is remedied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemcsparin (talk • contribs)
 * Are you saying that the hijackers did not die in the attacks? Because that's the only way they would not be included in the total number of people killed.  The number of victims would not and does not include the hijackers, but the total number of deaths would have to include the hijackers by definition.
 * Emotion is not a reason to mess up simple math.
 * Also, the introduction is supposed to mainly summarize the rest of the article. Further in the article, this source is given for the statement "The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Introductions rarely have supporting references unless there has been controversy regarding specific statements. Further into the article one does find references that attribute the exact number of victims and the exact number of terrorists. Put together one gets the number of total fatalities. An absolute precise number of the number killed may never be absolutely verified.--MONGO 04:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in lead
The lead as currently written suggests that the American invasion of Afghanistan, and the launch of the war on terror, was after Osama taking responsibility for the attacks. This is clearly incorrect, given that the invasion and the war began in 2001, and as the lead of this article itself says, Osama made that statement in 2004. Given that this is a controversial article, I did not want to mess with it myself. Does a regular editor want to take a look? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue was that the terrorist organization led by bin Laden was held responsible...and they were in Afghanistan.--MONGO 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that in the current construction, the sentence beginning "The United States responded by...." follows the sentence which describes Osama taking responsibility in 2004, which is misleading. The US responded to the attacks by invading afghanistan. Not to Osama's statement. Read the third para of the lead, you'll see for yourself what I mean. A re-ordering would take care of it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there nobody has raised any objections here, I have gone ahead and made the necessary change. I am happy to discuss it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting that, Vanamonde. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is already a terrorist organization, just happened to be members of it.
That's the reason why I put "members" because they are already terrorists by default when they happened to be part off. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Victims
This is an odd and wrong sentence: "In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 245 civilians, a law enforcement officer, and the 19 terrorists aboard the four planes." This implies a single LEO died. Follow the link through to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and it specifies 343 firefighters and 71 cops. What gives? - 2.216.90.223 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The 245 civilians, law enforcement officer, and 19 terrorists were aboard the four planes. The 343 firefighters, 71 cops, and +2,000 other people were not aboard the planes. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I took out the comma after "attacks", which might make the sentence parse better for some. VQuakr (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015
Please add at the end of the 'motives' section the sentence 'Among Muslim publics, approval of attacks on civilians as occurred on 9/11 is not related to perceptions of controversial US policies toward Israel, Middle Eastern oil, or the perceived attempt to weaken and divide the Muslim world. Instead, support for such acts of violence is limited to those who hold negative views of US freedom of expression, culture, and people or believe the United States to be generally hostile to democracy in the Middle East.' The relevant reference is this Journal of Peace Research article https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States

Please include under 'further reading': Berger, Lars (2014), Foreign policies or culture – What shapes Muslim public opinion on political violence against the United States? 51:6, 782-796 The relevant hyperlink is https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States

Thank you very much!

LGBWi2015 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion and the excellent source, but that section is about the motivations of the 9/11 attackers themselves, so I think your suggested addition would be misplaced there. The source is really about the attitudes of Muslims toward violence against the US in general, rather than the 9/11 attacks specifically, so I think this belongs in a different article.  But I'm struggling to suggest where; I'm amazed we don't have an article like Attitudes of the Islamic world toward the US or similar.  Perhaps Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, or Foreign relations of the United States?  Both seem relevant though your suggested addition doesn't fit neatly within the existing structure of either of those articles. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories
9/11 has the largest realm of conspiracy theories ever, to be clear. Why, then, is it confined to one sentence? I know there is a separate article on it completely, but I think I remember this article containing a full section on conspiracy theories at one point. Why would it have been removed? Oh, and why did someone remove my adding of '9/11 Conspiracy Theories' to the 'See Also' section? I am not necessarily pledging support for conspiracy theories, but they are vast enough to have their own section in a Wikipedia page about 9/11. Iheartthestrals (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it is already linked in the article itself, it is standard to not also link it in the see also section.--MONGO 17:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OP's other edit on this topic have prompted me to notify him of discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Heading picture
For mobile, why is the head picture of Osama bin Laden? 9/11 was a terrorist attack, yes, but this article isn't about bin Laden's role in the attack, it's about the attack itself. Iheartthestrals (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The head picture is in the section on Osama...we usually use images in sections to support the subject matter of a section.--MONGO 14:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Strange, maybe the lede image is not showing on the mobile version because it is too large? you might try asking at WP:VP/T; they might have a better idea of the underlying technical issue. VQuakr (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

SCATANA
SCATANA (Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids) is an American policy. So how did it ground aircraft in the USA, Canada and "other" countries? That is not possible.122.59.140.215 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems unlikely, and the Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids article says "the emergency plan was only partially implemented." The cited source is Primary at best, WP:OR at worst. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Although it's possible that flights originating outside the US were grounded if they knew they wouldn't be allowed in to US air space. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Canadian authorities did shut down their airspace almost immediately after the U.S. did. They left it open for military, humanitarian and to accept U.S. flights that were currently airborne.--MONGO 04:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates
In a recent edit, Deor two sets of coordinates – Shanksville's and the Pentagon's – from the bottom of the header because it is bad practice to have more than one of these coords displayed in the title, and in his edit summary, he also suggested a talk page discussion. I removed the WTC coords because it is of the same importance as the other two.

I suggest one of three options:
 * Leave it as is
 * Re-add one of the coord templates at the title position
 * Use Attached KML to show all 3 points

Fellow editors, what do you think? Epic Genius (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of deaths
Should the death toll in the infobox be updated if somebody (e.g. Marcy Borders) dies from chronic illness caused by the effects of the attacks? If the numbers in the infobox already reflect this, then please change &#8220;2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)&#8221; to &#8220;2,997  (2,978 victims + 19 hijackers).&#8221; 71.178.182.110 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Inomyabcs (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015
Grammar: "towers collapsed with debris" -> "towers collapsed, with debris"

85.178.207.154 (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Total Costs
In my last edit I cited this new york times article in calculating the total costs of 9/11. I'm wondering if using this figure was appropriate? 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl (talk • contribs)


 * The lead should summarize the body of the article. I suggest putting this in with the $5 trillion Washington Post estimate later in the article. Then the lead could say "three to five trillion." The way it is now, we have an apparent contradiction. Also I think the lead is getting way too long. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used to spread false statements and propaganda
User User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge is freaking out and is adamant that this false wording be inserted into the page in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories:

despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=682180627

The previous wording was also false, claiming that there was "negligible" support. The citation given is from a CBS story that's an editorial written by one guy named "Joshua Norman", who is not an expert on any of these topics, and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge wants to put this one non-expert's opinion as dogma on the page versus 2349 expert engineers, scientists, and experts.

This violates multiple Wikipedia policies, least of which is WP:NPOV. This is shameful propaganda and I expect better from Wikipedia.

itistoday (Talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You do realize that Mr. Norman is a reporter, and that CBS is a mainstream journalism outlet, whereas AE911 is a marginalized fringe organization devoted to conspiracy theories and rejected or ignored by professional organizations? Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. The text you keep removing represents the mainstream view upon which Wikipedia is based. AE911 claims no members with any level of expertise beyond basic, standard professional credentials required to practice in their fields, which does not confer "expertise." AE911's credibility as a source has been extensively discussed: you haven't found something new or credible.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"on fire"? No, "burning"!
Maybe this is just part of the weirdness of my particular brain, and the collision there between
 * Is this the face that launched a thousand ships,
 * And burned the topless towers of Ilium?

(Not Goethe, but Marlow, i think) and
 * ... Troopships burning off the shoulder of Orion

but i'm convinced that "Twin Towers ... burning" is factually equivalent, and a touch more effective than "Twin Towers ... on fire". Maybe just because it's a one word, maybe because "burn" is a verb. And maybe it's too effective. I won't pretend to know. --Jerzy•t 01:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree -- I 'boldly' changed it. Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, after suggesting it i started out to change it, but got distracted by the single field caption. (Another story, but...) The caption's wording is based on a field that i guess gets displayed only on the image-namespace page that embodies that arrangement of the separate images, and that amounts to a suggested caption. The wording of what i'm calling the suggested caption has "burning"! (I'm not interested in which colleague introduced "on fire".) --Jerzy•t 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are connotative differences between the two; a fireplace can be "burning" but not "on fire" while the wood inside the fireplace is both "on fire" and "burning". In the context of this article there will not be any confusion, so I agree that the single word "burning" is the better choice. VQuakr (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, it is for the sake of a seldom discussed difference in connotation only, that i prefer "burning" (tho i imagine some editors may make reasonable arguments that our policy does or should favor whichever term avoids additional connotations).  But what VQ has pointed out is, properly speaking, a difference in denotation, not connotation. That is, "burning" has two meanings (or senses or denotations) that have now been raised in this discussion, one of which ("undergoing combustion") is not applicable to either the WTC towers or to (practical) fireplaces. Likewise, there's a denotation (or a group of very-hard-to-distinguish denotations) of burning that can apply to a light bulb or the sun -- or i think to "my Bow of burning gold" -- but not, i think, to wood.   Perhaps i was negligent in failing to say this: The towers were burned up or burned down, whereas many buildings that catch fire may have the fire put out without the building coming close to collapse. The difference i prefer to see here reflects my sense that "burning" suggests (without demanding) that the fire may be beyond being controlled, while "on fire" suggests (without demanding) that the fire may be quite controllable.  We know now that the fires were not controllable and the towers were doomed, and while i haven't done any of the calculations myself, i believe you'd find that many engineers and fire-fighting brass did them within the first half hour, and knew that the only reason to send firefighters into the buildings was that they could probably lead down the stairs many more civilians than the number firefighters who would die preventing them from panicking in darkness and bad air. I'm not sure whether it's more important re "on fire" vs. "burning"
 * that the towers collapsed, or that it was clear they would,
 * but i feel confident that it was clear already to those not guessing. And i argue that the fact of ultimate collapse and the fairly limited advance knowledge of ultimate collapse are mutually reinforcing reasons for choosing the hint of disaster that "burning" invites over the hint of hope that "on fire" invites.  And i'll feel better at least about suggesting the change if we find few who would be happy with "on fire" are upset by "burning", and better about our "boldness" to edit if there's consensus. --Jerzy•t 08:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny thing, after suggesting it i started out to change it, but got distracted by the single field caption. (Another story, but...) The caption's wording is based on a field that i guess gets displayed only on the image-namespace page that embodies that arrangement of the separate images, and that amounts to a suggested caption. The wording of what i'm calling the suggested caption has "burning"! (I'm not interested in which colleague introduced "on fire".) --Jerzy•t 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shame, shame, shame on me. This is not the first time i've done that search, and turned up the correct wording! My pea brain keeps insisting it's "Troop ships....", but apparently it was "Attack ships"... i guess i've too often heard about a troop ship being sunk in the real world!  And more yet is my shame: the attack ships apparently are called "on fire", not "burning"! On the other hand, i've just made penance for, ah, both of those by creating a Rdr! And i recall that Rutger Hauer ad libbed part of that speech; obviously my German is weaker than his, and similarly perhaps my feel for English is stronger that his feel for English. (Which i admit is way better than my feel for German !) --Jerzy•t 08:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy in the 'Culture' Section of the Article
This article - under 'cultural' - claims "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." and this is supported by a reference to a CBS News Channel which then refers readers to a popular magazine. This claim is factually inaccurate.

Three independent scientific peer-reviewed studies all reached the conclusion that thermitic reactions as a result of the presence of nanothermate were found at the base of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. As these scietific papers reveal, these reactions could not occur as a result of jet fuel or any process that does not use thermate. Nanothermate is a substance manufactured under licence in the US and is not generally available. The strongest evidence for (nano)thermate is found in scientific analysis of dust retrieved from the base of the World Trade Centre buildings that collapsed. The analyses found microscopic iron particulates that could only be formed by molten metal. This evidence was peer-reviewed a second time at the 9/11 Toronto hearings by four legal / university academics of the highest standing. The findings were confirmed, and this leads to a consensus in a scientific community that nanothermite was instrumental in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Centre complex.

Secondly, consensus has emerged that the NIST report and independent peer-reviewed research both confirm that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. The conference dealt with a mismatch between public statements about the NIST report and NIST's own research findings. It reached a consensus that the inside pages of the NIST report - which shows WTC7 reaching free fall speeds for several seconds - is a more truthful representation of what occured than the public statements of NIST's official speaker on this matter. In presenting the NIST report, false statements were made to undermine the NIST report's own findings that WTC7 fell at freefall speeds. This innaccuracy results from a false claim that the building took longer to collapse than it actually did. A top mathmetician presented findings at the 9/11 Toronoto hearings (supported by extensive video evidence) that the period of time of the fall is less relevant than the rate of acceleration. The NIST report confirms his own study of the rate of acceleration - both report that free-fall speeds were reached. Free fall speeds only occur when there is a controlled demolition. Numerous engineers/architects - one of whom reported the finding of their professional association of 1500 architects/engineers - confirmed that this is their view as well. As the conference also noted, the peer-reviewed papers that have been published (and indeed the conference procedings themselves) have a higher standing in the scientific community than the FEMA and NIST reports. The FEMA / NIST reports were not peer-reviewed before publication, and a new consensus amongst engineers, architects and the scientific community has emerged.

The article needs correcting. I suggest leaving in the CBS News report reference as evidence of an initial claim, but that a new sentence should report the conclusions of the 9/11 Toronto hearings. My edit will accurately report the level of concern in a scientific community about some 9/11 issues, and that their concerns are supported by scientific peer-reviewed research. The peer-reviewed research was presented at a university hosted conference, with the proceeding recorded on video for full transparency. The findings have been published in a book by the conference committee.

I have already attempted to make the relevant edit, but it was reversed. I am now following editors' guidance by posting this information to the article's Talk page. Article contributors have questioned YouTube as a legitimate source. As the video is a video of conference procedings, it is a valid source - it is the content of the video, not the video itself that attests to its credibility. Academic conference proceedings are sources of integrity and - in this case - support the case for an article revision. Conference proceedings can be included in 'research excellence' submissions by UK universities (Research excellence evaluations are conducted every 6 to 7 years in the UK). A video of the proceedings of scientific conference in which already published peer-reviewed papers are peer-reviewed for a second time by long-standing professors and a supreme court justice are highly credible. They are MUCH more credible than a CBS News report or magazine article.

The panel convened to review the research have credentials that are impeccable. They included a Supreme Court Justice (from Italy), who has already had experience of conducting legal proceedings in cases of terrorism. In addition, there were three Emeritus Professors. The names of panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Following the conference, each panelist presented their findings, conclusions and recommendations in a book, drawing only on peer-reviewed research presented in the hearings as evidence.

As for myself, I am an experienced academic (Associate Professor at Sheffield Hallam University, twice returned by my university in the UK for 'Research Excellence', and a winner of three research awards). I am responsible for the training of doctoral students in my university department and I am currently supervising 8 PhD students. I have supervised students to PhD completion and been an external PhD examiner in the UK, Scotland and Ireland. In my opinion, there is no question that the 9/11 Toronto hearings are a much more credible source than a CBS News report. When we teach research students about the reliability of sources, peer-reviewed journal articles are at top of a list of examples we give our students to examine / comment on. News reports come near or at the bottom (in both our, and our PhD students, estimation).

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)
 * Let us know when this thermite evidence is published in a reputable engineering, architectural or scientific journal...until then it's useless.--MONGO 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or when the NIST reports are refuted in any reliable source. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest Roryridleyduff Posts his "duff" conspiracy theories on the many sites on the internet and not in this encyclopedia. Also he has a strange reluctance to properly sign his "contributions". David J Johnson (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Citations please. --Tarage (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mongo - you missing the point. The article claims there is 'no scientific consensus' on the basis of a news report and popular magazine claim. There is evidence of an academic conference and conference proceedings from the group of scientists that offers a counter-perspective.  It is not the physical science I'm challenging here, it is the claim (on the basis of extremely poor references, far worse that those you are rejecting) that no scientific consensus on an alternative exists, and that no professional experts agree about an alternative (they clearly do).
 * David - very funny (I'm rolling in the aisles). The concern I have is that you are more willing to take a CBS News Report and Popular Magazine citation over the findings of a scientific conference. So whose theory is 'duff'? If you prefer CBS News to the findings of a scientific community, then your editing of this article is an affront to everything that Wikipedia hopes to achieve. So let me ask you the question - why is CBS News / Popular Mechnanism more reliable and scientific than the proceedings of an academic conference?  And secondly, why - when there is clear evidence that a scientific community disagrees with the account in this article - that you continue to defend an obvious falsehood?

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)
 * CBS News are only reporting views of the majority, professional, scientific community and not a fringe meeting. Until these fringe views are accepted by mainstream opinion - they will remain fringe. David J Johnson (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again you are unable to sign your "contributions" correctly, please observe the correct Wikipeda convention. Secondly, you keep referring to a "conference" of known conspiracy theory advocates, rather than official reports - or are all of these fraudulent in your eyes? Frankly, you are living in a dream world if you expect Wikipedia editors to accept your conspiracy theories. There is a page for these theories and plenty of sites on the internet where your views belong. Also, and with respect, editors are not interested in where you reside - albeit a poly trying to be a "University". Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A group of conspiracy theorists that have a meeting are not notable until their arguments are published in a reputable science, engineering or criminal justice medium. We all await their earth shattering revelations with open minds....until then.--MONGO 21:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Second time I'm asking for a citation. There won't be a third. --Tarage (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)