Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Terrorism in title issue

Okay, so this has been sitting for a few weeks, and we need to come to a decision. People continue making changes without a consensus. The poll indicated a majority favors the new name, although I'm suspicious of many of these "users", but anyway I don't see a poll as being the answer. The goal should be consensus, and this has just turned into a straw poll on anti-US sentiment, which of course is going to go badly given the leftist predominance among Wikipedians. We might as well take a poll on whether Bush should be called "stupid" in his article. The facts, however, remain:

Wik's massive changes were made without prior discussion, and the arguments he presents betray a failure to understand the basics of this project; in particular, claiming there is no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden and 9/11 demonstrates his lack of grasp of the notion of POV.
No one has provided any argument that the attacks were not "terrorist attacks". Brevity is the only vaguely relevant argument (though not persuasive - attacks is too general). Nevertheless, there has been an attempt to pull the word "terrorist" from all the articles.

So I think it should be changed back, and this page should not be used for people's individual rants about how much they hate America. -- V V 18:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I love America and I am a very patriotic American. Yet I voted to leave out the word 'terrorist' in the title because it is not needed for disambiguation nor is this event more commonly refereed to with it. The poll was needed because Step 1 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution broke down so we went to Step 2 (poll). --mav 21:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying all who voted that way are America-haters, but this debate has sure flushed them out. And, as I noted above, the brevity argument holds some water, but attacks is a bit too general, like calling it the September 11, 2001 incident or the September 11, 2001 event. -- V V 22:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik did not compare 9/11 to the US government bombing of Dresden (and Tokyo, and Hiroshima, and Hanoi), I did. As far as "lack of grasp of the notion of POV" for this comparison on a discussion page - clearly NPOV must be in place on article pages - are you saying this must be stated in every comment in a talk/discussion pages now as well? As far as no one providing arguments that this was not a terrorist attack, I did, and I know you read it as you mentioned it. First, the Pentagon was hit in the attacks, this is clearly a strike against a military target as far as most people are concerned. And as I said, the US has targetted civilians in every war it's ever fought - Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, Hiroshima. Osama Bin Laden was doing the same kind of attacks against communist Afghanistan when the US was aiding him, but Reagan called the mujahideen he was in "freedom fighters". Apparently he only became a "terrorist" when he turned his guns on his old allies. -- HectorRodriguez 21:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your first argument is valid. Calling the attack on the pentagon "terrorist" is POV at best, incorrect at worst. However, the attack on the WTC is indisputably terrorist. If you'd like to provide verifiable opinions otherwise, then feel free to add them, and we can have an entire section of this article devoted to whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist. As for your second argument, it just isn't an argument. Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, and Hiroshima are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist attacks. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

HR, you are wrong; Wik did compare them, look again (you did too). The Pentagon arm of the attack is more uncertain than the others (peacetime attack on a military office building, maybe), but was less than 10% of the death toll. Anthony is correct about the irrelevance of the other cases; OBL's history (disputable) is also irrelevant. -- V V 22:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that personally I feel even the attack on the pentagon was "terrorist." While ostensibly the Pentagon may seem like a military target, it seems clear to me that the goal of that attack was not military in nature. However, it is POV. And while I'm adding my personal feelings, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was "terrorist" as well, for the same reasons. Anthony DiPierro 22:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Attacking the Pentagon per se is to me not so clear, but the attack on the Pentagon was terrorist, inasmuch as it used a civilian airline. The bombing of Hiroshima is an interesting debate, but one that doesn't belong here. -- V V 22:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why does using a civilian airline make the attack terrorist? I suspect someone arguing against the attack being terrorism would bring up the term "collateral damage." Anthony DiPierro 23:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Noxious Chemical Spray?

"Other weapons that may have been used on at least one flight include bombs and some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray."

Can someone please attribute and cite this claim? I had never heard of it before reading this article. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I asked the same question several months ago. See the page for American Airlines Flight 11 although it doesn't list a source either. Rmhermen 18:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

~~If there's no response within a couple weeks I'm going to remove it until it gets attributed and cited. Let me know here if you object.~~ Anthony DiPierro 18:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I object. It was me who put that note in, though someone else changed it from "some kind of air spray" to "noxious chemical spray". Stewardess Betty Ong reported the use of an air spray by the hijackers that made her eyes water. One reference for this is this one A CBS news report also referred to this - I'll cite it later. In the meantime , might I suggest a google search? Arno 04:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't delete it. I tried a google search initially but couldn't find anything. Anyway, this shouldn't be too hard to find a cite for. But not tonight, I'm going to sleep :). Anthony DiPierro 05:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is a second reference and a third one that supports the air spray story. It was Ms Ong rather than Ms Sweeney who mentioned the stuff. The CBS one seems to have gone, but I do have hard copy of it around somewhere.

Actually, I am quite happy to change to "some kind of air spray" back from "noxious chemical spray" ... unless anyone has any real objections... Arno 07:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I object -air spray is not used in American English in this context. Air spray is only used to refer to paint applicators and firefighting equipment. Rmhermen 14:59, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes for air fresheners, too. But not for generally for pepper spray or mace. Rmhermen 15:02, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, "unpleasant air spray" or "air spray that caused watering to the eyes". Is it likely that in the context of the words around it, readers would seriously think that Atta and company would have used air freshener? Arno 06:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The sentence does still read as though the hijackers used some sort of mass tear gas deployment, whereas the articles seem to indicate just a small amount of pepper spray used on individuals. Not sure how to reword to make it more clear, though. Anthony DiPierro 17:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We don't know what exactly what the spray was (whether it was pepper spray or something else) , or exactly how widely it was used and never will. It was apparently only used around the dfront of the craft. Bear in mind that it would not have been anything too lethal or distracting - otherwise the hijackers would have been affected. Arno 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a name beside Mohammed Atta - whose misidentification has already been described on Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks? Rmhermen 21:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Early revelations section

Okay, what is the problem with inserting this factual, multiply-cited early revelation from the early revelations section? - Plautus satire 21:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rmherman, his sources look ok. The language needs to be toned down, but I don't see why the mention can't stay. Isomorphic 21:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To anybody who wants to change the wording, as long as the meaning is not lost I have no objections. Key points I want left in: Mueller admitting identity ambiguity and the multiple source documents listing still-alive-named-alleged-suicide hijackers. - Plautus satire 22:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly true that people have claimed to be the same as people identified as hijackers. But there are several problems. One is the use of the term "World Trade Center demolition" which sounds like the conspiracy theory that the towers were destroyed by the U.S. from the ground. Another is that it does not go in this section which is for information before 9/11/2001 -probably should be under Investigations.

1. Has anyone pictured by the FBI ever been seen alive after 9/11?
2. Has anyone pictured by the FBI been shown to have a different name?
3. Has anyone who claimed to by misidentified ever done anything like sued for defamation of character?

Perhaps the hijackers really did use their own names - in fact in several instances we know that they did. Perhaps the others were correctly named and wrongly detailed because details of others with the same names were easily available. There is certainly no reason to declare that "The FBI has not removed the names of the alleged suicide hijackers and has ignored any implications this may have on their conspiracy theories which identify these living men as successful suicide hijackers." because we have no reason to believe that the names were wrong.

I propose the following: "Almost immediately after the attack, the FBI released the names of nineteen men they claimed had been on the planes. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that people claimed to be have the same name and some personal details as certain suicide hijackers and were possible victims of identity theft. However the FBI did not find a need to change any of the identifications of the hijackers." Rmhermen 22:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have big problems with this proposed edition. For one thing, it leaves out the very relevant information that FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted they don't know who the suicide hijackers were, or even if there were any for that matter. Second of all, these are not merely reports with the same name and same personal details, they are the people the FBI has identified. Are you suggesting these reports are hoaxes? I do agree that it should be noted, however, that the FBI refuses to change their fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters.

Also you state "we know" that some of the hijackers did in fact use their own names. Based on what? None of their names appeared in any of the passenger manifests and none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras boarding the identified hijacked flights. - Plautus satire 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't give Plautus's wild conspiracy theories an inch. Evercat 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The FBI never denied or tried to hide the fact that they knew that some, many, or all of the hijackers could be possibly traveling with phony papers. Read the FBI press releases:

The FBI clearly lists that each of the terrorists with a questionable identity has the words "Suspected ID theft" right next to their picture. It stands to reason that if they don't know the true identity then they would continue to identify them by the last used alias. The paragraph that Plautus wants to add is disingenuous that it subtly twists the reality (FBI acknowledged identity questions) of the situation and instead uses a phrase intended to promote doubt, "reports began to surface...". Furthermore, the use of the word "many" to describe the number of mis-identified hijackers is also intended to create the illusion that the FBI didn't know as much as it said it did. It wasn't "many", it was only four. The rest of his paragraph is smoke and mirrors, and the reference to the FBI's conspiracy theories is an amusing twist. OK, not really amusing so much as ironic. (Plautus, if you know the identity of any of those men then call the FBI at 1-866-483-5137, they need your "help") --SheikYerBooty 04:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, CyberCriminals Most Wanted is not the FBI. The FBI still has pictures of all nineteen men and mentions nowhere that any of them are proven victims of identity theft.American Airlines #11,American Airlines #77,United Airlines #93,United Airlines #175

Further, in the two documents on the FBI's web site that you do cite, the only mention tangentally related to identity theft is this: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV. The photographs can be viewed at WWW.FBI.GOV." This passage is in an FBI press release dated September 27, 2001, more than a week after reports that many of the "suicide hijackers" were still alive. Why is the FBI not bragging about their initial blunders? I just wonder... Note, the press release asks "Have you seen these faces/names? They are suicide hijackers, ~~tell us about~~ help us prove that!" - Plautus satire 06:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, I can't think of a more gentle way of saying this, but, you're wrong. The FBI press releases clearly state that the positive ID'ing of the people on the list isn't complete. Just read the darn thing, it lists "possible" birthdates, "possible" nationalities, and a list of aliases for many of the hijackers. The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents, this is not a secret nor is so earthshaking that it requires your speculation. You also apparently invented a quote from them, so it's not really appropraite for me to comment on that. Please address the points I outlined in my previous question, you failed to do that in your reply. --SheikYerBooty 19:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

You can be as gentle as you like, it will not make you right. What follows is the only mention of possible mistaken identity on the FBI's web site regarding these men: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV." Nowhere does it state they were victims of identity theft, even though this is ten days after the initial report on still-living "suicide hijackers". Can the FBI be no more equivocal than saying "attempts to confirm" when dealing with what is clearly a very severe blunder in "investigation"? And so you don't remain confused, though I put it in quotes, what I was doing was summarzing the position of an FBI document that you yourself cited. The document claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can "confirm" it. Can you show me where the FBI has explicitly stated that many of the men they named as suicide hijackers are proven to be still alive? I would love to b e wrong. - Plautus satire 19:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also point out the evidence that leads you to believe your following statement: "The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents..." Is this based solely on your personal belief or do you have some evidence to support this claim? - Plautus satire 19:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Platus, stop playing silly games with semantics, it's obvious that the FBI was still trying to determine the identities of the hijackers. You're refusing to look at the evidence that refutes your statements, your myopic view of the evidence is preventing you from reaching a rational conclusion. And, here is a newspaper story that details some of the work that FBI was doing to determine identities. You insist on misquoting the FBI press releases, it does not, as you say, "claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can 'confirm' it". Your willingness to distort facts is clear but don't act all put out when people challenge you. --SheikYerBooty 22:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think I can help clear up your confusion, SheikYerBooty. I quoted the FBI directly and linked to the document. What you quote above is what I said, not what I quoted. Can you show me where they say the men were victims of identity theft and in some cases still alive? The FBI is not the news source you cite above. And the FBI has still maintained that these nineteen men were the hijackers, and as of September 27, 2001, they were trying to enlist support from the public to "confirm" that. - Plautus satire 23:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you misquoted the FBI press releases, repeatedly. It's really simple, read what you wrote, read the FBI press release and take note that they aren't the same. You asked for a source for the information that the FBI recognizes that the hijackers used stolen and faked ID's, I provided it. You don't like? Sorry, your problem. Here is what the FBI is trying to confirm, in the proper context: It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. See, you're trying to twist what they said and take it out of context, again. --SheikYerBooty 05:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the entire earlier revelations section could be chopped down. A fair bit of it reads more like a subjective essay than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Arno 06:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Supporting Evidence

BBC, Newsweek, New York Times, and TIME have all had articles about how the so-called hijackers were clearly not on the planes -- since they are alive and well, living in the Middle East, and suing the United States for libel and defamation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Equivocations

Oh very well, perhaps this isn't as wild as his other stuff. Evercat 00:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think it's exactly as wild as all my stuff. BWA-HA!HA!HA!HA! - Plautus satire 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further Issues

Still, I'm curious about the "fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters". If that's a fable, perhaps Plautus could tell us what really happened. Evercat 00:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I edited it. A lot. I don't see why this should be removed any more. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda

I am getting increasingly worried about this article and its related pages. Currently, it seems to be used to argue two things, the combination of which is 'watering down' the details of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Firstly, it is being that those who carried out the crimes were not terrorists. This is pure nonsense by any reasonable definition of the word. I know that its been argued extensively above , so I'll go no further.

Secondly, it is being used to dispute the names of the terrorists themselves, based mainly on references that are badly out of date. Whilst the true identities of some of the terrorists are in doubt (eg Saeed al-Ghamdi),there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest. It is therefore ludricous to say, for instance that Mohammed Atta was not a terrorist.

Some errors of fact have also crept in. Saying that "none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras" is wrong. Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari were photographed when they were on their way to board Flight 11.

Ultimately, this article is meant to be a NPOV account of the hijackings. It is NOT an outlet for conspiracy theories, politically correct pedantry and other such actions. Arno 09:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adding details is "watering down"? Interesting hypotheses. I don't think it holds any water, however.

Groan! Trying to dispute the names of the 19 hijackers is "adding details"?

Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As for criminality, who are you labelling a criminal? Still-living men who obviously took no part in any suicide hijackings?

Just which of the 19 men listed as the hijackers are still alive? And can you give me their contact details?(An e-mail address would be great)Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the Bush regime and other have variously described this incident as "terrorism" and "an act of war".

Ok, what would you call "this incident"? An act of love? Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it is an act of war, it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it is not justification for a war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else). If it was a crime, why was there no forensic analysis of evidence? Virtually all of the steel from the WTC complex was sold as scrap to foreign nations and is now probably all paperclips. In a case of a crime, usually there is an investigation. Instead of an investigation, we got HGBI (Hansel and Gretel FBI) showing us the trail of breadcrumbs the conspirators left pointing to muslims with box cutters.

The above passage is perhaps the most astounding statement about Sep 11 I have ever read. You have just managed to deny that there was ever an investigation of the Sep 11 crimes using a truly astonishing mangling of logic and definitions. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You also claim above that "there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest". On what do you base this claim?

On a very large number of Sep 11 accounts. On what do you base your claim that Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Majed Moqed, Marwan al-Shehhi, and the rest did not partcipate in Sep 11? Indeed your version is rather vague - would you care to define it. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where are these names on the passenger manifests? Where are these faces in security videos? All we've been shown is a single, blurry, grainy security video that shows somebody with dark hair and a tan walking past a ticket counter. In short, where is any evidence that we were promised we would get regarding these arabs with box cutters? If you want to know more about box cutters, read about the five Israelis arrested with stacks of cash and box cutters, not to mention a van bomb-dogs went nutso on.

You can probably use this kind of logic to prove that the earth is flat. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's not an outlet for conspiracy theory, then why is the FBI's baseless conspiracy theory for which they offer no evidence presented there? At least the amateur conspiracy hypothesists feel compelled to provide evidence. Clearly the FBI does not, as all they have provided are hollow fables. - Plautus satire 15:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, where are these images to which you refer of "suicide hijackers" boarding planes or their names being on the passenger manifests? - Plautus satire 19:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These images do exist. Try this CCTV webpage as one example that I dug up thorugh google in just 15 seconds. By the wya, make up your mind, do these images exist or not? Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Israelis are you referring to? Evercat 16:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These Israelis:

"A story in Philadelphia's The Mercury may hold the answer."

"Two men whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained in the township by federal imigration authorities after being found with detailed footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Plymouth Police encountered the men after an officer responded to Pizzeria Uno on the 1000 block of West Ridge Pike at 2:40 p.m."

"Investigators first became interested in the business after witnesses reported Tuesday that three men seemed to celebrate the World Trade Center explosions in Liberty State Park, then drove away in a company van. 'To the best of my knowledge, my client Urban Moving Systems and Dominik Suter are not targets,' said attorney Jay Hamill of Jersey City. 'This is an informational situation. We're cooperating completely and have objected to nothing they've requested.'"[1]

This site is a conspiracy theory website. It shoudl be looked at with caution. Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The man, who later identified himself as Moshe Elmakias, 30, denied that he did anything and fled the scene, heading west on West Ridge Pike, according to police."

"The manager was able to provide township police with the Florida registration number of the tractor-trailer and said that a sign posted on the side of the vehicle read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and included a phone number, police said."

"Elmakias and Katar were eventually detained by INS and transported to a federal facility, said police. Reisler was released."[2]

"The men were searched and questioned and the state officers discovered detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear power plant in Florida, along with box cutters ? the weapons used in the September 11th attacks ? and other equipment."[3]

"We spoke earlier about the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his moving company and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported."[4]

You mean you haven't heard about these Israelis, Evercat? I'm surprised, it's been all over the news. - Plautus satire 17:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)