Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 07:30, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: While I was able to delete the article, I have been unable to confirm that all the inbound links have been found and cleaned up. I suspect this is due to a page cache problem on my part. If someone could go to the now-empty page and check "what links here", I would be grateful. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks
Original research; conspiracy theory unsubstantiated by any reliable news source. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Unsubstantiated? Every statement in the article is backed up with a verifiable source. Is there anything specific that you disagree with or can contend to? In not, there is no justification for removing this information. --Ghost of Jefferson
 * Every statement might be backed up, however the fact that they are all related to the execution of the 9/11 attacks is not. As it is, the article is a bag of statements with no real connection between them and the attacks. Also, there is no visible link between the first and the second parts of the article. The article looks too much like original research. Delete. cesarb 03:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why does it seem that there is something like this on Wikipedia floating around already? You might also want to check the 9/11 category -- Riffsyphon1024 03:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, check Special:Contributions/Ghost of Jefferson and Special:Contributions/69.202.14.140. cesarb 03:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just found this very similar, almost identical article, on Wikipedia that he worked on: Planning and execution of the September 11, 2001 attacks. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Really interesting. Notice how different that article was before User:69.202.14.140 started editing it compared with the current version . It also adds a new reason for deletion -- duplicate article. Not that it's User:Ghost of Jefferson's fault; he did try to remove the contents from that article in the same day he created the subject of this VfD, but someone else reverted him (wrongly thinking he was removing whole sections in a feeble attempt to improve the quality of the article). cesarb 04:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any useful information should be included in one of the many other 9/11 articles. This article also needs so much cleanup that it likely wouldn't be worth the effort. Carrp | Talk 03:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete. I apologize for all the confusion. I originally included this material in the "Planning and Execution" section, however the page became too large. In order to clean it up I separated "Planning" and "Execution" into two separate categories. The "Financial Support" doesn't exactly fit the title but I believe the information is very relevant and should remain someplace on the site. I'll admit that it needs clean up, but I plan on improving and expanding both parts of the article in the near future. In response to this being original research, there are no "new theories" proposed in the text; it is all documented information. In response to CesarB, the war games are connected to the execution of the attacks for the following reasons: Officials at NEADS and the FAA originally considered the hijackings to be part of Vigilant Guardian and acting CJCS Richard Myers reported Vigilant Warrior as conflicting with fighter response. NORAD's already limited amount of fighters were participating in a bi-national live-fly exercise that pulled Air Force resources away from NEADS and towards Alaska and the North Pole. False blips had been injected onto FAA and military radar screens. A nuclear strike/retaliation was being simulated and planes were sitting on the ground armed with nuclear weapons. The NRO and the CIA were simulating a plane crashing into their headquarters. And there were other exercises that have yet to be investigated, such as Apollo Guardian and Crown Vigilance. This information is almost impossible to find, and I would argue that Wikipedia is the only place that it is fully and objectively documented. I am therefore issuing a plea to the community to keep this information available and accessible to all Wikipedians. --Ghost of Jefferson
 * Delete. The information may be documented, but the way it is strung together makes it original research. DaveTheRed 07:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research.  RickK 05:54, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the No Original Research Policy and revised my article to fully comply with the rules. --Ghost of Jefferson
 * Merge the usable bits to the already extensive 9/11 pages, delete the rest. Radiant! 09:27, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per No original research. --Pjacobi 10:39, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the No Original Research Policy and revised my article to fully comply. --Ghost of Jefferson
 * Delete At best the information could be merged with 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory. The title is very misleading in that the article is actually more about what exercises Norad happened to be running that day which some of the conspiracy theorists believe is significant. --Lee Hunter 12:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why must one be a conspiracy theorist to believe the war games held significance?...


 * 1. On 9/11, NORAD had 20 fighters -- 14 in the US, 6 in Canada -- an unknown number of which were participating in at least two of the war games -- Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigilance -- both of which drew fighters towards Alaska and the North Pole.


 * 2. Numerous military and FAA officials said they thought the attacks were part of Vigilant Guardian, including one who said "everybody" at NEADS originally considered the hijackings to be part of the exercise.


 * 3. When the attacks were taking place, false radar signals were located on FAA and military radar screens.


 * 4. When the attacks began, mobile command stations in the air were simulating an imaginary nuclear strike while planes on the ground were being loaded with nuclear weapons.


 * 5. At 9:38, almost an hour after the WTC had first been hit, when asked about fighter response, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard Myers stated, "Not a pretty picture...We're in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise".


 * The above remarks by User:Ghost of Jefferson.
 * Excuse me, but that is rather irrelevant to this discussion. You may be able to find your answer at Conspiracy theory. Radiant! 13:56, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

According to the Popular Mechanics article: "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999." However the Associated Press reported on August 12, 2002: ''"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
 * delete. at best, the financial information is interesting. however, it is insubstantiated. additionally, user has edited Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh extensively. This was just covered by Popular Mechanics including the datas regarding scrambling of jets. Bunk. Avriette 13:54, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

''In June, Air Force jets scrambled three times to intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted airspace around the White House and around Camp David, the presidential retreat."

Popular Mechanics also states "it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes" to reach Payne Stewart's jet, however The Dallas Morning News of The Knight-Ridder Tribune reported on October 26, 1999 the following...

"according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."

Popular Mechanics also states: "Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts."' However ABC News reported in September 2002, after interviewing the pilots, that the fighters scrambled on 9/11 were traveling at "mach 1.2, nearly 900 mile per hour."

All the other points made in the Popular Mechanics article refer to the ridiculous claims made on letsroll911.org, which never really required a debunking because very few people believe in such garbage. Most people questioning the government's official story don't believe in missile/pod theories. In fact, they have risen some very valid arguments, however such people are usually shadowed by-, grouped with-, or dismissed as-"conspiracy theorists". Incredibly, the points in the Popular Mechanics article that do refer to the topic I've been discussing, as shown above, are false. --Ghost of Jefferson


 * Delete Original research, unencyclopedic format --InShaneee 15:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete based upon the No Original Research rule. 23skidoo 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't find Ghost of Jefferson's arguments compelling. Not encyclopedic enough for me. Katefan0 05:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somewhere between off-topic and original research. DJ Clayworth 04:17, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, rambling conspiracy theory.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, conspiracy theory. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not Delete!! I have looked into the suspicous facts surounding 9/11 and this is the way it happened. The wargames threw off NORAD and it is important for people to understand this. It was an inside job, and the use of the wargames explains how so many good people operated for the execution of the ultimate crime.
 * Note: comment by user 4.65.88.109. --InShaneee 04:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 37 Sources. Cleanup though.  Conspiracies, like the supposed Moon Hoax, have their place too. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:54, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: They need to be clearly marked as such, however. The title of this article clearly implies that it is a fully factual and uncontroversial account of the September 11 attacks.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete - It seems there are three parts to this entry: the title, an article on military exercises and another on the money trail.  Both the articles are on topics of general importance and interest.  When someone has taken the trouble to collect together the relevant sources on a topic it is a waste to just delete it all.  I think the main problem with this entry is the title, which implies things unsupported by the evidence.  Still a bad title is no reason for destroying the whole article.  I say Reorganise. - Crosbie
 * Merge text into 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, redirect title of article to one of the more encyclopaedic articles on the subject of 9/11. Jdcooper 19:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.