Talk:911: In Plane Site

Under Re-Construction

This is how it looks so far. I'm still having trouble with the pictures, but I've got everything else down, unless I've something. If I have, do tell. --mikecucuk 2:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No link to 9-11 page?

It seems odd that this page has no direct link to September_11,_2001_attacks. Perhaps in the "See Also" section, if not in the main body? (johndburger 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Template

Does anybody mind if I take this down? I don't think it is necessary here. --Guinnog 20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Which template is "this" speaking of? I presume you are talking about the one at the bottom, War on Terror? --Shortfuse 20:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This film wasnt part of the War on Terror. It's like having the WW2 template on The Great Escape. --Guinnog 06:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but it is about the War on Terror. I figured that temp would help people branch out from the art. to learn more about specific events. Its more of a navigation aid as I see it. --Shortfuse 08:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

Some of the categories the article are in, like "Mass casualty atrocities", don't apply. This article isn't about an attack, but about a film. Andjam 00:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources.

Let's find and add more as they come up. I see there were some in the past week that are new. · XP · 08:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A Critical Review

  It is now Sept. 1st of 2011, I look at this page and find it not only extreamly one sided, it is also very outdated.  
  Being as my Birthday is on 9-11; I have been inundated with material concerning "The Attacks." I find this artical to be at least as biased and ill-cited as the film it is discussing.  I appologize if this sounds abrasive, and I will be happy to provide the author with resources if asked.  AbqDez (talk) 00:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The hole in the Pentagon

The crux of the story seems to be the hole - 16 or 90 feet. Any photos of the hole when it was 16 feet? 90 feet can happen from a collapse or a plane - 16 feet is a different story altogether.159.105.80.141 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Was This Like A Joke?

I watched this movie and found it to be pretty unserious, not like full blown parody or anything, but like something akin to one of those cheesy documentaries about Roswell or Area 51. How serious is this thing and how serious is the "Power Hour"??

Removal of links

Typically when an article contains statements about a film or person being essentially "rejected" by activists in the 9/11 Truth Movement, it is necessary to link to some kind of support for such statements by 9/11 activists, since the New York Times will likely not be investigating the internal critiques of a "fringe" movement. In these cases, claiming the sources are "unreliable" is meaningless, given that these are the sources that "conspiracy theory" articles are about. If there can be pages about the content of the films and the claims of the theories, it is illogical to then say that the postings on the activists websites and forums are inherently unreliable because they are not mainstream press. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"activists websites and forums are inherently unreliable because they are not mainstream press". Actually, that is the very definition of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The current text and citations have been on this page for months if not years, yet now are suddenly unreliable. I believe the person now claiming unreliability needs to show which ones are and are not reliable rather than just making huge changes and removing all of the statements which have been here unchanged for so long. Reader2010 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, they are all unreliable. IMDB is also unreliable, being contributed by the general public, but is acceptable for non-controversial information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty pathetic that it's so important to not link to the "conspiracy sites" that the actual rebuttals of the claims in the film have no citations at all. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, if we are discussing criticism from inside the 911 Truth Movement, we do need to list Truther references, even if not generally reliable. It's the existence of the criticism that we are reporting on, not its reliability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Even if not generally reliable". What exactly are you judging to be "not generally reliable"? When forming such an opinion, have you used the same method of judgement that lead you to claim the film as being "all lies" as seen on your talk page? DoctorNeutralNoBias (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That was intended to be a shorthand for not being generally considered to be a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines it. No Truther site qualifies as generally being reliable in that sense, but a Truther site could be reliable for the existence of criticism of this film (or Loose Change) from within the Truth Movement. The fact that I consider those sites to have no truthful statements as to fact is irrelevant; their use violates Wikipedia policies, except as they indicate the opinions of the writers (notable for some other reason), or of notability within the Truth Movement. 06:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)— Arthur Rubin (talk)

---

I would like to point out that although the film may have led to an invalid conclusion, many facets of that day have been overlooked entirely by the mainstream press. I do not wish to defend the films conclusionsm, however, I also belive it inappropriate to leave out referance to those points which have (in the years since the attacks) been proven valid. AbqDez (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I'm not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination but this article really needs to be cleaned up significantly. Even the criticism of it is embarrassingly wrong. This makes no sense:

Another review at Heraldextra.com states, "Nor does the presentation explain, if the attack planes were military, what happened to the commercial planes. It hints that they might have been shot down over the ocean. The trouble is that they weren't necessarily over the ocean. And who remembers an Atlantic crash of an airliner where debris such as luggage did not wash up all up and down the Eastern seaboard? If airliners went down in the sea, the secret could not have been kept for long. It's fine to be entertained by this stuff, even if it is a bit morbid. But let's not lose our senses."

Anyone that has watched this film would not find any claim where the planes fell into the ocean. Also, the film explains it's perspective as to what happened to the commercial flights. It references Operation Northwoods in that regard. This entire review was probably written by someone who had not even watched the film in question. Part of the problem why more and more Americans and others are becoming more accepting of the "inside job" theory is because we're doing such a poor job of addressing the allegations that these conspiracy theorists are claiming. The 9/11 Commission Report does such a poor job of dealing with the many issues that have given fertile ground for these theories to arise. So, I would encourage a re-write of the obvious misrepresentations of the film and counter-source the claims made by this film. Jtpaladin (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reviews

Why only negative reviews in the Reviews section? Anyone would think that Fox News were editing this entry. 80.5.191.115 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any positive reviews other than on Truther sites? If so, they probably should be added. However, it's not just Fox News that's negative on this one; it's at least all conventional media, if not all credible media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Bolding added) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)