Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

The C-130 at the Pentagon

There is no section dealing with the flight of a gray C130 Naval electronics warfare aircraft by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien of the Minessota Air National Guard that was seen by at least 13 witnesses shadowing fligh 77 prior to impact. The same C-130 was also present when flight 93 crashed. Just because the goose-stepping media refuses to present the compiled facts, it doesn't mean that Wiki should follow suit. 58.106.64.57 06:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You'll have an easier time with this discussion at 9/11 conspiracy theories#The Pentagon. -Quasipalm 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Riiight. So a C-130 (a turboprop) with a max airspeed of 350mph intercepted and tailed a 757 jet traveling well in excess of 500 mph. And even if it managed to intercept, what was it supposed to do? Mcguyver a laser gun out of its electronics and shoot the 767 down? And an hour later it was in PA? Goddamn, why are we buying C-17's when we have super C-130's with fricking lasers on their heads? --Mmx1 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Airborne! Morton devonshire 05:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying the C-130 was involved in any 'conspiracy,' only that it was there and that it was an unusual feature - people on the ground thought it was another plane coming in for a hit and ran away. It was a part of the scene at the Pentagon and many witnesses reported seeing it. News articles were written to explain why it was there and what it did and saw. Why is this information threatening to editors on here when it was a simple fact of the events? I see no reason it shouldn't be mentioned. Bov 00:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, what's the significance of it if you aren't insinuating a conspiracy? There was a military plane in the sky above D.C. Whooopedy fucking doo. Many witnesses also reported fire trucks showing up. Why isn't there a mention of that? Because it's not notable. And unless you claim some sort of notability for it, its presence only implies some non-existent theory that its presence was out of the ordinary. --Mmx1 00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The LA Times headline on September 11, 2001 was "Attacks Held To Be A Conspiracy." An article in the New Jersey Bergen Record describing five Israeli men in an explosives-tainted moving van with "maps linking them to the bombing plot" was titled "Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators." This Wikipedia page on the September 11 attacks describes a rather implausible conspiracy theory about causation. The word "conspiracy" is not a pejorative. That said, considering the seizure and suppression of all Pentagon impact footage, the significance of the C-130 is best described in the words of two witnesses published in Arlington's Daily Press: "The second plane looked similar to a C-130 transport plane ... it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar--while at the same time--guiding the jet toward the Pentagon." (Keith Wheelhouse, Daily Press, September 14, 2001); "Thank God somebody else saw that ... It's so frustrating because nobody knows about the second plane, or if they do they're hiding it for some reason." (Kelly Knowles, Daily Press, September 15, 2001). C-130 witness compendium 58.106.64.57 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where a C-130 CANNOT fly at over 500 miles per hour? Fucking geniuses.--Mmx1 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they did. Or, maybe it's some super-secret 130 mod. In any case, what a lot of people don't seem to realize is that military aircraft are contently in the air doing many things including flying in various patterns, or simply circles. Usually these are various training missions. The sky is full of them, and I would be surprised if throughout the day there where not hundreds of military planes in and around Washington DC and the surrounding states simply driving around in “suspicious” patterns. Jake b 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The potty-mouthed ad hominem abuse (Mmx), followed by yet another appeal to ridicule (Jakeb), are just more tired old logical fallacies being deployed to deflect from the documented facts. The anti-Nazi Nizkor poject has an excellent collection of logical fallacies for your reference, just in case you feel obliged to shoot your mouths off again in this illogical and unreasonabled manner.

The minimum flying speed of a 757 is all that matters, of course, to account for the fact (look that word up in a dictionary) that a gray C-130 NAVAL ELECTRONIC WARFARE AIRCRAFT accompanied flight 77 to the Pentagon through several miles of restricted airspace. Like the glowing stream of molten iron (noto bene: molten) captured on video flowing from the South Tower a minute prior to its collapse, the C-130 was present at flights 77 and 93. Don't try to hide it. Confabulous 09:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks

I think there should be a section on the "racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks," which is pretty significant and widely publicized.--Ryz05 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it'd be a good idea to put up a first draft here on the talk page for review before adding to the article. -Quasipalm 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this: "Following the attacks, 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants were fingerprinted and registered, 8,000 Arab and Muslim men were interviewed, and 5,000 foreign nationals were detained [1]."

Can add it? 86.131.205.124 11:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Andy

Are there any more solid references? Those are "nice round numbers", I'm not questioning that it happened or that the numbers where large, but "nice round numbers" like that are made up numbers. Is there any source other than the nybooks people that would better address the statistics issue? Jake b 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Videos

I found this fairly well done 9/11 tribute on google video. Maybe we could use this discussion to propose additions to the media section. Bubba61389 03:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3380474950135485800

Pro-Bush flag-waver . -- max rspct leave a message 00:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn, he didn't even ask to put that video in. We're jumping to conclusions here aren't we? Since when did memorializing 9-11 become synonymous with "Pro-Bush flag-waver". Hell, when did flag-waver become an epithet? Are we supposed to be by default self-hating Americans who take an attack on our country as "oh, nothing special"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)

Conspiracy theorist, probably. Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't swear. Its pretty obvious he wants memorial/tributes on there. There are enough external vids; I did not say they weren't significant; Don't worry .. The attacks were pretty specific.. They weren't aimed at you. Anyway did you have anything to do with the US naval bombardment of Lebanon in eighties? Palestinian situation? I know there are plenty of nervous americans over there... wound-up by the patriotic drive and media/us gov propaganda. But really the USA is probably one of the safest places to live in right now. But I hope you are not all here to troll ;-). Should you hate yourselves? Maybe voting americans should ask themselves this. Bin Laden can appear courteous and lays it out simply for the 'average' american: "Oh, American people....(and later on).. And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children." "Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." [2] -- max rspct leave a message 02:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh......I live in NYC and my father used to work in the Towers, but for a fortuitous layoff. Oh, but the attacks weren't aimed at me, personally, by name. I see. I feel much better now, thanks. There is a moral distinction between collateral damage and deliberately targeting noncombatants. --Mmx1 02:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

He's trying to point out that glorifying one side of a two sided argument/fight/war while demonising the other is pointless: There are two sides to everything. It is not in question that what happened to the WTC was evil, but what about what happened elsewhere? If indeed Osama Bin Laden attacked America, (Something that is as difficult to prove as any other explanation surrounding the event), what of the attacks upon Lebanon that he alleges took place? Are they not as demonic as the attacks on the WTC? Should not, in that case, the perpetrators of that attack also look to themselves and their institutions to see what justification they have for self-glorification? The two biggest evils in this modern world are Patriotism, which justifies murder, and Power, which is the motive for murder. Both sides in this are guilty of both crimes. Cathal 17:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"There are two sides to everything." No, there aren't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to humbly suggest the addition of Loose Change to the videos area, as is the intent of this subheading. Cathal

I second Cathal Loose Change is an important piece of democracy that should be included. It wasn't made by flag-burning terrorists. It was made by a dedicated team of young American students who love their country and the principles of freedom upon which it was founded. It is a highly biased but mainly factual account of specific details of the events that are not covered by the other video links. My one concern is that it IS very POV. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the policy on POV links. Are they allowed? Could we include a POV warning on the link? Digiterata 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change is not a reliable source, it is an hour and a half of bad science and begging the question from personal ignorance. Jefffire 17:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this. The same can be said of both sides of the argument, and calling one side stupid and the other correct is both childish and simple-minded. The video cites references, and makes fewer assumptions than others I could mention. The thrust in Loose Change is the questions, not the answers. And I prefer open questions to questionable answers. Cathal 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no useful information to be gleamed from the video then. Jefffire 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually my point was that there was as much information to be gleaned from it as from the official information. How much weight you put in both is a matter of preference, but neither can be relied upon for the answer. Difference is, one side is trying to offer one, and the other is looking for proof. The point of videos such as Loose Change is not that they offer an explanation, but that they highlight the suspicion around the official one. For the record, your previous assertion that it was bad science is quite wrong. The two major points in Loose Change and in the arguments it is based upon are thus:

• The vapourisation temperature of aircraft-grade metal is too high for the burning temperature of the fuel, so claims that the plane evaporated cannot be true.
• Even if it were true and the plane evaporated (Pentagon), how did they then recover DNA for analysis? And don't give me any CSI contrived explanations: I study genetics, I know it's impossible under these circumstances
• The buildings simply could not have collapsed from a plane impact or burning fuel: The melting point of normal steel is far exceeding the burn temperature of aircraft fuel, and this steel was not normal. And even if they did melt, resulting in collapse; the building could not then have fallen at freefall velocities, as its own resistance would have slowed it considerably.

Regardless of your "allegiances", should you attempt to define them, reasoned debate cannot dispatch these facts. It's not bad science, because it is BASIC science. Cathal

In any case, I was not presenting a POV initially. I would like for Loose Change, as a video that, disregarding personal preferences, is influential and important in the debate, be included in the "Videos" section. I was going to do so myself, but apparently I have to get it vetted here. It is informative but not definitive, and presents a point of view: Exactly as all of the current ones in the list do. Cathal 18:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Capital loves a bit of Genocide -- max rspct leave a message 02:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Loose Change is that it's a bunch of people with a clear agenda and no credentials asking politically-loaded engineering-related questions, which might be evident if only they had anything resembling a background in the subject. Also, max rspct, I think your inflammatory behavior in this section is inappropriate. Please mind WP:CIV. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In response: They don't need credentials. As with almost every other video/press release/tidbit relating to this issue, they requested their information from experts rather than contriving it themselves. However, I contend that in many cases evident in this case, you don't even need to be an expert to draw conclusions.

I agree with you regarding Max Rspct's comments. While they may have been intended to display another POV, they were needlessly inflammatory, and that's exactly what this disscussion doesn't need. Cathal

If the theories outlined in Loose Change are, in fact, "requested from experts," then this is news to me, after watching it twice. No one in the video ever claimed to have any kind of engineering credentials. To my knowledge, the only person with any academic credentials who is on board with the conspiracy theorists is Stephen Jones, whose other research activities include searching for evidence of Jesus' supposed visit to North America. [3]

68.254.115.174 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)While I have not yet viewed [4], I have read Professor Jones' peer-reviewed article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" available at [5]. And, while you can attempt to disregard Professor Jones' as a 'conspiratorialist' by referencing his research above, please remember that the Mormon religion believes in the possibility that Jesus appeared in America. To investigate this possibility does not alter Professor Jones' credentials as a qualified expert to investigate the physics of the collapses on 9/11. 68.254.115.174 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you do have to be an expert to understand the tangled web of physics that is involved in the collapse of a high-rise building. For example, let's take one of the issues raised in Loose Change you mentioned above (the bolded numbering is mine):

    (1)The buildings simply could not have collapsed from a plane impact or burning fuel: The   
    melting point of normal steel is far exceeding the burn temperature of aircraft fuel, and this     
    steel was not normal. (2)And even if they did melt, resulting in collapse; the building    
    could not then have fallen at freefall velocities, as its own resistance would have slowed it       
    considerably.

(1) was addressed a while ago in an article published in Scientific American.

    For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777  
    degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed
    towers. "The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did," says www.abovetopsecret.com. 
    Wrong. In an article in the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society and in    
    subsequent interviews, Thomas Eagar, an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of  
    Technology, explains why: steel loses 50 percent of its strength at 1,200 degrees F; 90,000 
    liters of jet fuel ignited other combustible materials such as rugs, curtains, furniture and 
    paper, which continued burning after the jet fuel was exhausted, raising temperatures above     
    1,400 degrees F and spreading the inferno throughout each building. Temperature differentials  
    of hundreds of degrees across single steel horizontal trusses caused them to sag--straining and       
    then breaking the angle clips that held the beams to the vertical columns. Once one truss 
    failed,  others followed. When one floor collapsed onto the next floor below, that floor     
    subsequently gave way, creating a pancaking effect that triggered each 500,000-ton structure to    
    crumble.

As for (2), it is explained in detail in the Journal of Engineering by a couple of faculty from Northwestern University's engineering department.[6] I can't paste the relevant section here because the mathemtics are getting mangled in the process, but you can find it for yourself at the bottom right of page 7. It is titled Didn’t Plastic Deformations "Cushion" the Vertical Impact? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

If the only person with any "academic credentials" questioning the implausible and hypercontradictory official narrative is Stephen Jones, then all the other "scholars for 911 truth" must have no academic credentials. I didn't know that, rephotsirc. I did discover, via wikipedia, that the work of Jim Hoffman "has been featured in articles in Science News, Scientific American, and Nature." Do you have those kind of credentials? 58.106.64.57 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have engineering credentials. But I didn't argue from my own authority, either. I simply directed Cathal to where he could find the opinions of professionals concerning the theory he mentioned. As for Jim Hoffman, I see that his bio mentions he is a software designer who has been featured in science magazines. But as his chief occupation at the moment seems to be publicy attacking those very publications for debunking his theories about 9/11, is that any suprise?

Looking over their membership list of the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth at their official website, many of them seem to be M.A. and Ph.D students in things like English, Philosophy and Comparative Religion. I don't see one engineer in the bunch. Even on the list of their most distinguished members on the Wikipedia article, there is only one person who has an academic degree in anything resembling a field relevant to the subject--and suprise, it's Stephen Jones. The point of all this is that 9/11 conspiracy theory material is not a reliable, authoritative or undisputed source. They belong on their own pages--not on this article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone pasted this link Loose Change 911 - What really happened on 911. which was removed for not being mentionned on the Talk page - it is a must ad since it is by far the most well done and patriotic video ever to be released about 911. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.82.42 (talk • contribs)

I second the addition of Loose Change. It is an important piece of democracy that should be included. It wasn't made by flag-burning terrorists. It was made by a dedicated team of young American students whos only credentials are that they are curious, skeptical and love their country and the principles of freedom upon which it was founded. It is a highly biased but mainly factual account of specific anomolies in the official account of the events of 9/11 that are not covered by the other video links. My one concern is that it IS very POV. I am new to Wikipedia and don't know the policy on POV links. Are they allowed? Could we include a POV warning on the link? Digiterata 03:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I third the addition of "Loose Change." It shows that there is more than one mainstream view to the events of 9/11. It is highly regarded as a well documented and well factualized film, with many scientific facts and political enigmas. A question I would like answered is how do we actually go about allowing the video to be added? We can sit here and talk about it all day but in the end of the day it comes down to if the video is added or not. User:buckshots35 12:43, 29 April 2006

Did you not read the entire section above ? rehpotsirhc demonstrated in simple enough terms that Loose Change can't be added because it's not a reliable source. The authors simply don't have any kind of credentials related to their claims. If a renowned French chef chef wrote a book about the nuclear crisis with Iran, his book wouldn't be worth much. Unmitigated Success 14:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change should be dismissed because it is deliberately flawed, and because it is inescapably promoted by counter intelligence professionals for that very reason - including good PR courtesy of FOX News. Let me repeat that: good PR courtesy of FOX. But this raw and continuous footage -(app.10Mb)- shows a glowing stream of molten metal gushing, in a most spectacular fashion, from a corner of the South tower, approximately 1 minute prior to its collapse.
Can anyone think of a reason for not including a link to this footage in the main article? Confabulous 11:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence citation in summary.

Digiterata (Normal Nick):This is supposed to be a stub to summarize the arguments in the conspiracy article, not to present evidence they cite. This has been established as consensus repeatedly. Stop adding material to the article to support your POV. --Mmx1

Mmx1 please see my post on Admin:Tom Harrison's page re:'sock puppet'. I am not Normal Nick. I don't know where you got that from, but please stop accusing me of such. As for citing evidence in a Wikipedia article, shame on me for mis-reading the NPOV policy. My interpretation of the quote below is that "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one..."

Full Quote from Wikipedia Policy:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."

I dunno, how about this? [7] [8]. Sure seemed like you were pointing your sig to his talk page.

My god, we've been over this countless times. Your conspiracy views are not significant. They are a minority and refuted viewpoint based on pseudoscience and we are under no obligation to include them. Not all views are equal --Mmx1 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken re: the links you cite. I am new to Wikipedia and did some copy/pasting since at the time I didn't know how to add my own sig. Since I was attempting to support Normal Nick's edits, I naturally copied and modified his sig. The fact that there has been this much debate about the neutrality of this article stands as evidence that there exist a significant minority who believe something other than the official story. I make no claim about their validity one way or the other, but the fact is they are held by a significant minority. [9] In fact, I don't buy most of them personally, but I do know that several relevant facts about the events are missing from this article, solely because they call into question the official story. While I can appreciate the sensitive nature of the topic, none of us are well-served by a one-sided account. Please have a look at Cathal comments above "Facts and Nothing But" for examples of such ommissions. And please, let's try and keep the level of discourse civil in the future please. While we may disagree on the details, we do share the common goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased article (I hope) Digiterata 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts and Nothing But

As a fresh voice in the crowd I'm hoping my viewpoint can be helpful in some way to the discussion rather than simply fuelling the fire. Wikipedia is an Encylcopaedia, and as such, attempts to present facts. Facts are confirmed and conclusively proven explanations to model real life events or systems. Something cannot be considered a hard fact if there are errors, holes or reasonable arguments against the explanation backing it up.

Here I am going to present facts, as an example of what this article actually has to build upon: This is not an argument for either side, this is a sample list. If it is incomplete, then I'm sorry, but that's not the point. Please read with a mind to reviewing the number of concrete and provable facts in the article, remembering that neither of the accused's testimony can count as "Proof" when they are themselves under suspicion

I am here going to present as many Facts as I can about the events, including those from both sides of the argument. Regardless of my views on the topic, please be conscious that I am trying to present as fully as I can the whole picture as it is known. Where they appear, I have not presented burning/melting/vapourising temperatures here, as they are readily available to those seeking them, and I feel they may serve to make this list appear biased, regardless of their factual content.

With respect to the Two Towers of the World Trade Centre, NY:

• It is factual that the two main towers of the WTC and one ancillary building were destroyed on 11/09/01.
• It is factual that eyewitnesses and video evidence showed planes striking the towers before their destruction.
• It is factual that official documents and accounts from those in the aviation industry, and the government of the United States, detailed the two planes veering off projected course and heading for New York rather than their intended destination.
• It is factual that the planes executed extreme flight manouvers in order to change altitude and bearing in a short period of time.
• It is factual that one viewpoint explains this phenomenon by citing trained personnel hijacking the planes and executing the manouvers.
• It is factual that military personnel have claimed said manouvers are difficult or impossible for trained personnel to execute in the class of plane commonly asserted to have caused the event.
• It is factual that the towers fell at freefall speeds, in accordance with Newtonian gravity.
• It is factual that video evidence and eyewitness accounts claim to have recorded secondary explosions.
• It is factual that the media coverage of the event on the day of the attacks repeatedly and without ambiguity refferred to secondary explosions in the buildings, and many of these references were made by experts in demolition and fire safety personnel.
• It is factual that large fires were in evidence in both towers, following the large fuel explosion of the airplane kerosene fuel.
• It is factual that the towers were designed to withstand such an attack
• It is factual that some experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby kerosine fuel caused temperatures sufficient to melt the structural supports of the buildings.
• It is factual that other experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby the structural supports would only melt at temperatures exceeding the burn temperature of kerosine, and instead advocated a deliberate demolition explanation.
• It is factual that many lives were lost during the event.
• It is factual that bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the building days prior to the attacks.
• It is factual that there is convincing evidence of insider trading in the WTC regarding the stocks of both airline companies involved in the event; official "bets" that share prices in both would drop dramatically, and that the number of these bets exceeded the statistical norm by, at peak, a factor of eleven.
• It is factual that the information regarding this insider trading has been passed to the FBI, and that no investigations are underway or planned regarding this information.
• It is factual that some experts have verified video accounts of the event.
• It is factual that other experts have brought the same video accounts into question.

With regard to the Pentagon and damage done thereunto:

• It is factual that structural damage and fire was caused to the Pentagon Building in 11/09/01
• It is factual that several streetlamps were damaged along a vector approaching the pentagon face in question.
• It is factual that there was disturbance of the soil and grass outside the block in question on the day of the event.
• It is factual that there was a hole in the side of the face of the building, and a tunnel of similar diameter continuing into the building along a roughly straight vector.
• It is factual that one viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airplane striking the side of the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.
• It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by placed demolitions explosives within the building. There are few, if any, commonly cited eyewitness accounts to support this theory.
• It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airborne military weapon striking the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.
• It is factual that, aside from the hole in the building, there was little structural damage to give an accurate estimation of the shape of the object striking the building.
• It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the plane fuselage, engines and contents was vapourised by the kerosine explosion.
• It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the remains of the passengers or crew of the plane were recovered and identified with few exceptions by DNA analysis of the remains.
• It is factual that, as a counterpoint offered by those explaining this as a weapons strike, the metal content of the plane could not have vapourised at the burning temperature of kerosine.
• It is factual that, had an explosion taken place with sufficient temperatures to vapourise the metal content of the plane, the human remains of the Crew or Passengers could not have remained to be identified by DNA analysis.
• It is factual that several CCTV systems captured the event in resolution sufficient to confer hard evidence to either theory.
• It is factual that the aforementioned tapes were confiscated by the Government of the United States, and their contents have not been revealed.

I will not attempt to present facts for the events surrounding the alleged fourth plane, as there are no definitive facts surrounding that dispute.

On the Behaviour of both Alleged conspirators, the US Government and Osama Bin Laden:

• It is a fact that, at the time of the event, the President of the United States was in America, sitting in a primary school classroom.
• It is a fact that, at the time of the event (by his own account), Osama Bin Laden was in Afganistan.
• It is a fact that, when informed of the event, the President did not leave his position, and did not take administrative action for an amount of time approximating ten minutes.
• It is a fact that, on the day of the event, the bulk of the United States Airforce was occupied on training missions and war games.
• It is a fact that, having recieved a phonecall announcing a hijacked plane en route to the affected areas, the United States Airforce did not scramble aircraft to intercept or investigate.
• It is a fact that (as noted before) the investigative agencies of the United States Government, tasked with investigation into fraud and the investigation into this event, have not begun an investigation into the apparent foreknowledge and insider trading that is evident from trade records leading up to the event for the airline companies named.
• It is a fact that the stock indices of the airlines dropped dramatically after the event, and that the aforementioned bets on these indices have borne profit.
• It is a fact that all such transactions are traceable and investigable by the United States Government
• It is a fact that none of these have been investigated.
• It is a fact that airline activity was shut down nationwide after the event.
• It is a fact that the Government enacted measures to monitor activity in the United States after the event (Their motives will not be presented as fact as there is dispute)
• It is a fact that in the wake of the events, the Government of the United States undertook an invasion of a foreign country, Afganistan, despite UN objection.
• It is a fact that, claiming compliance with the events of 11/09/01, the Government of the United States and the Government of the United Kingdom invaded another foreign country, Iraq.

Note here that I have excluded video evidence about Osama bin Laden for the same reason as with the "Fourth Plane": there is nothing conclusive that can be said about either viewpoint as the veracity of the videos cannot be confirmed, regardless of their source. For more information on the tapes themselves one need only look them up on google, or see Videos of bin Laden.

If this seems POV, I tried to avoid it. Perhaps that says something. I am not going to offer an explanation or an opinion. I am simply making a point that I would like both sides of this argument to consider, remembering that this is not the place to make assertions about which viewpoint is correct: This is Wikipedia. And here, we present what facts are known. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, the facts available on this event are ambiguous at best and little can be said for certain about the event overall. Wikipedia must present the facts in total and represent both sides of the argument. It must then leave it to the reader to come to an informed, reasoned decision either way.

My suggestion regarding this article is simplistic and neutral: According to the NPOV policy, this article should represent both sides of the debate. Either make a new article which represents both sides of the argument, or make a parent page that represents neither view, but links to sister pages for the two explanations. In a perfect world these sister pages would cross link to one another to present an overall, point-for-point breakdown of everything significant that can be known about the event. Furthurmore, I agree with the view that using "Conspiracy Theory" to describe the alternate viewpoint(s) is a frame, and that it intentionally or unintentionally leads the viewer to view the alternate view more critically than is fair. Given that both viewpoints allege conspiracy, albiet by different groups, one could argue that both be placed under this heading (As one comically bitter essayist has done [10].

It should have a neutral nomenclature in a topic as serious as this one, such as:

• Alternative Explanations
• Allegations against Party X
• Conflicting Evidence

Or something with a similar lack of colour.

As mentioned above, the crux of this message, aside from the suggestions given just previously, is to demonstrate how little is known. There's also a large problem looming over this debate re:the article: Much of the informations represented in the article is based upon information written/released/put forward by one of the possible attackers of the USA; the government itself.

Can Wikipedia accept and use information put forward by one of the parties in question? As a hypothetical exercise, imagine how you'd like to see all of the information in this article be instead based upon official statements from Osama Bin Laden? Would the testimony of one of the possible attackers be acceptable as evidence?

I realise there's no easy solution to this problem, as the common perception of the "event" is what the government has detailed about it, and as I've tried to demonstrate, neither viewpoint can be conclusively demonstrated with the information available to Wikipedia. Only by presenting both views critically and in tandem can a truly neutral article be written.

Silencing one side of the argument will achieve nothing but giving it more allure. Shouting down the other side of the argument will achieve nothing more than elevating the dispute.

I am going to add another heading. Anyone hoping to contribute should try to keep their opinions neutral and avoid flaming and trolling. Any statements made should not be conjecture: While commonly known facts are no issue, if you want to make a valid point, please cite reference. And please, please remember: This is a talk page about the article, not the event itself. Discuss what Wikipedia should show and what wikipedia shouldn't, after reading and considering the NPOV guidelines presented by the good people of Wikipedia itself.

This has been an exhaustive and overly verbose message from Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work, and no proof is provided of either a deliberate government coverup or of controlled demolition. When you can prove these things, don't waste time here in this forum, call the Washington Post.--MONGO 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that user:Cathal was attempting to 'prove' a deliberate government coverup or anything of the sort. He simply listed a number of relevant and factual statements which aren't included in the current article. User:Cathal specifically stated that there neither the official story nor the 'conspiracy theories' adequately explain all the facts. As such, in order to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, some of these data points need to be included. Digiterata 18:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I commend your effort, but an indiscriminate list of facts (although some are wrong, and some are opinions disguised as facts) does more to obscure rather than clarify. Peter Grey 06:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof of a deliberate government coverup can be found by scrutinizing the array of implausible, impossible, or mutually contradictory government claims, such as the indestructable hijacker's passport that fell intact at the feet of an FBI agent on the streets of New York after its owner had been vaporized. A much quicker proof was established when the FBI seized and suppressed footage of the Pentagon attack, since suppression is, by definition, "a coverup." As for "tell the Washington post", witness Alan Cleveland reported that he gave the washingtonpost.com his full story about the Pentagon attack, "but they did not print it as I have told you." It would seem that those who framed the wikipedia version of 911 have adopted a similar algorithm. 58.106.64.57 08:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is that...Alan Cleveland...google turns up many [11]...or is this more misrepresentation of quotes by eyewitnesses to said events...where a portion of someone's comment is misconstrued to be something that wasn't what they really meant.--MONGO 08:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the POV tag in this article. As this is a controversial issue, I believe this tag should never be removed, unless there is any consensus: Witch is unlikely to ever happend. I also agree that the most verifyable facts mentioned by Digeterata should be mentioned, but some of them need need proffs and seem to be fragile in terms of verifiability.

This user contacted me on my talk page saying that Tom Harrison acused him/her of beeing a sock puppet of mine. This is not true and I had no reason to do such a thing. I feel this assumption of bad faith from an administrator as ridiculous and this makes me question where should I report his bad behaviour, that I find incompatible both with Wikipedia principles and his responsabilities as an admin.Normal nick 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you should report my "bad behavior" as widely as possible. Here's a link to help you do it: [12]. I stand by my remarks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I need to apologize here, I caused this misunderstanding. Tom Harrison please see my comment on Talk. I mistakenly attributed a comment to you that was actually posted by Kmf164. Didn't mean to inflame this situation, simply a misunderstanding. Digiterata 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand; It's easy enough to misread these things. No hard feelings. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically, One World Trade Center, Two world Trade Center, Three World Trade Center (The Mariott Hotel) and Seven World Trade Center was desroyed on September 11th. Pacific Coast Highway • ^blah 23:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: The topic of facts which do not support the mainstream view of events being aggressively ommitted has come up before but has not yet been resolved. I have added a '{POV}' tag to the main article, which I believe should remain until a satisfactory consensus has been reached Digiterata 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Question/Comment/Suggestion Re: The Facts and Nothing But, in order to try and move towards a common consensus on the issue of relevant facts being ommitted from this article primarily because they discredit the official accounts, I have copied the list below to my Talk page. Please have a look. I have also taken the step of identifying each point as either a (Hard Fact) or an (Arguable) fact. This represents my personal opinion and I welcome input from the community. If we are able to improve the integrity of these points, it may make sense to move them back to this page to append/replace the content below. At the moment, I am using my personal Talk page as a staging area.

Please advise if this is a reasonable approach or if I should move my comments to the main 9/11 page immediately. I'm reluctant to do so at this point as the discussion is already getting quite lengthy. I hope we all share the common goal of ensuring that this article maintains a fair and balance (No, not equal, balanced) description of the facts surrounding these events. I welcome feedback, input, and biting criticism about the points mentioned as well as my recommended approach. Digiterata 15:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Tag: The (Disputed) tag was added in response to issue of specific facts being intentionally omitted from the article primarily because these facts do not correspond to the official story. That issue hasn't changed. Therefore I have added back the Tag. For specific examples see above comments by Cathal under Facts and Nothing But or see my [User:Digiterata|Talk]] page.

Reasoned Debate about what should and shouldn't be included

If you haven't done so, please read the latter part of the above article. Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Consider this my vote to include either:

• Two separate sister pages representing both views under this parent page
• One page which comprehensively represents both sides while maintaining absolute neutrality on the issue, and not citing any references from either of the alleged perpetrators, including Osama Bin Laden and the Al Quieda and the United States Government.

And to eliminate usage of the word "Conspiracy", leaving two "Theories", for neutrality's sake. Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for two sister pages. See my comments below under 'Criticism of Official Account' and 'Conspiracy and POV' I've tried to work within this main article, without success. What may make sense is a '9/11 Disambiguous' parent page. I don't know how to do it, but it has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is possible. --Digiterata 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir militants responsible?

When the attacks occured, I remember clearly that the first group of people claming responsibilty for this senseless attack was the Kashmir militants. It was on the Singapore television on Channel NewsAsia. It seems that the whole world ignored this confession soon after. Does anyone remember anything about this or am I just dreaming? Or is their confession proven to be a hoax? Should this be included in the article? This has been bugging me for nearly 5 years now and the attention has shifted fully on Osama bin Laden's involvement. Any comments would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Atta called from the airplane he was on to another hijacker on a different airplane...Atta was affiliated with Al queda and links were found that connect almost all the 19 hijackers with Al queda...the Kashmiri militants may have just wanted the notoriety.--MONGO 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Some recovered physical evidence

This would be the Atta whose passport materialized at the feet of an FBI agent in New York, mongo? Do you have a reference for this alleged plane-to-plane telephone call made by Atta? If so, maybe you can include it in the main article with references to the indestructable passport.58.106.64.57 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Telephone records...that's easy...get a username or do you already have one...common effort by conspiracy theorists...insult and use multiple IP's and usernames to make it look like they have strength in numbers....nice try.--MONGO 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

please don't spin defamatory lies about me based upon your own imaginings, MONGO. I have one computer, one IP , consistent for all of my posts here - and I leveled no insults at you. Please reference the claim about the telephone call. Saying "telephone records" and "get a user name" doesn't help anyone wanting to know the source for your claim. Here are the references for the miracle passport (cache) and for the censorship of Cleveland's astonishing testimony. (webarchive - see 2nd letter from Cleveland) 58.106.64.57 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have one ounce of proof that there was a government coverup or controlled demolition...okay, I didn't think so...next time, report your lack of findings to a blog...it's much better suited there. "Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45. Seven minutes later, Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport. They spoke for three minutes. It would be their final conversation." reference of phone call: "3.The call was placed from a pay phone in Terminal C (between the screening checkpoint and boarding gate).We presume Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure. Logan International Airport Aug. 15, 2003); see also FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11)." all from 9/11 Commission Report..oh, that's right, I can't cite them...they are part of the big coverup!--MONGO 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful that you apologized for the defamatory slur, Mongo, and for providing proof for your theory of collapse instead of just supporting evidence. Your reference describes a phone call placed before Atta boarded the plane, not during the flight as you had asserted. Thanks for correcting your mistake and providing a source.
I hope you have read Alen Cleveland's testimony, and I hope that you will consider including sections on

• the gray C-130 electronic warfare aircraft that was near flights 77 and 93,
• the miraculous appearance of Atta's indestructable passport at the feet of an FBI agent in New York,
• the five Israelis who were detained after being arrested in an explosives-tainted moving van with "maps linking them to the bombing plot," and
• the seizure and suppression of Pentagon video evidence.

The addition of these documented facts would be a courtesy to all readers who expect more than the disputed and very controversial government POV that has been presented, in a rather faith-based kind of way, here at wikipedia . Thanks in anticipation. 58.106.64.57 10:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s. I created an acccount and will sign in henceforth. Confabulous 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't apologize, for I have nothing to apologize for. As far as the rest of your comment...what are you talking about?...we don't violate numerous policies in Wikipedia to report conjecture, so no, I have no plans of incorporating the things you have just mentioned in this article. They have no basis in fact. Stop reading unscientific websites that are just conspiracy theory nonsense. I think we have been through the "Jewish Plot" ridiculousness already.--MONGO 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything I included in my list is a referenced fact, MONGO, not "conjecture" - please see a dictionary for the plain english common useage definitions of these two words. One of my references included statements by the C-130 pilot himself (Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002), as well as a Pentagon spokeperson (Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, Daily Press, October 17, 2001), confirming 90% of the C-130 witness testimony. I am not sure how you can categorize any of the items in my list of well-documented facts that should be included in the article as "conjecture". You also infered that I was using multiple identities for my contributions in an earlier response, and as you correctly noted, you have not apologized for that defamatory slur. Appeals to ridicule, misrepresenting officialy documented facts as "speculation," and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks don't seem to be valid reasons for omitting these well-documented facts from the article. Please reconsider. Confabulous 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Déjà Vu (it means "already seen")

It seems like we are starting to repeat the discussion that miraculously went away during the mediation cabal scrutiny. Let's review some highlights:

• Buildings do not fall down by consensus. This doesn't mean that the professional opinions of structural engineers are beyond reproach, but it does mean simply believing the collapse 'looked wrong' is not enough.
• This article is about a historical event. There is a conventional understanding of what happened, and while challenges to that account are welcome, they will be held to a higher standard of evidence.
• Not every alternative scenario is necessarily a 'conspiracy theory', but the ones that are based on paranoia and/or errors of fact are. Peter Grey 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Buildings do not fall down by consensus". Nicely put. --Mmx1 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't everything

This might be a better choice for some content: Blogger: Create your Blog Now -- FREE. I'm just sayin'. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is everything. --Cocopuffberman 00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Not at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A master plan for all conspiracy theorists, then they can control what is in the blog, just like the conspiracy theory websites do...imagine the possibilities...misinformation run amok.--MONGO 14:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A good conspiracy is one that cant be proven. Conspiracies make great novels and books also poor wikipedia articles ;).

For Sep/11ths case, it is the goverments hesistancy in releasing information which practicaly hand-fed conspiracy theorists. Lucky us...

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do there seem to be a new pair of nutties every other week? --Mmx1 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of this page

This page is for discussing changes to the article. It is not a general-purpose web board where any of us can say what he thinks about terrorism, 9/11, conspiracy theories, or each other; especially not each other. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Western media?

"The attacks were widely referred [to] as terrorism by most of the western media." Were they called anything else by anyone else? If some newspaper said they were the acts of noble self-sacrifice by gallant freedom fighters, let's note that, and quote them at length. But whatever else we add, they were terrorist attacks, and we just misinform our readers if we don't say so clearly and distinctly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the word "terrorist" is a POV (there are muslims who support this attack), as far as I know the Wikipedia policy is to avoid using that word in such cases (see the rest of this article and Osama bin Laden article). And another thing: I don't think that everyone agree that Iraq war was a result of September 11. --Haham hanuka 12:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the recent past, and I see nothing new here. At this point your position seems to be that we must make the changes you demand if we want the tag removed. I do not accept that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This issue of the word "terrorism" has been discussed endlessly here and on similar pages. If there is something new to add, let's hear it, but to simply plop a "POV" flag on the page with the claim that "there are Muslims who support this attack," is not sufficient. That some Muslims support the attack does not transform an act of terrorism into something else. Many Muslims do not support the attack. What is the point? If one Muslim supports the attack it is therefore not "terrorism?" It is a classic act of terrorism--violence aimed at a civilian population to achieve a political or military goal. Even in a declared war it would be an act of terrorism.--Cberlet 13:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Iraq war, the intro paragraph does not say that the war was a result of 9/11 but that the war(s) along with 9/11 have affected how the US handles homeland security. On terrorism, a majority of the world called this a terrorist attack. Yes, there are a few mostly muslim groupings who say otherwise but most muslim governments called this a terrorist attack. --StuffOfInterest 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth discarding mention of "Iraq" in the intro paragraph, and instead just say:

The September 11th attacks have made United States homeland security

concerns much more prominent than they were in the previous decade.

As for referring to the attacks as terrorism, it has been discussed here ad nauseum. It's entirely appropriate to refer to 9/11 as "terrorist attacks", as 9/11 fits the Terrorism#Key_criteria. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]

I still think we should avoid it, just we did and the rest of the article. Dispute was not yet resolved. --Haham hanuka 16:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding New September 11th Films

I thought it might be valuable to have a mention of the controversy surrounding the new 9/11 films, which will be first shown at the Tribeca Film Festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aandrei (talk • contribs)

This main article is already too long and is just a summary of the many subarticles. I think such discussion is more suited to the subarticle, September 11, 2001 attacks in arts and literature. Right now, that article is mainly a list, and more discussion of the controversies and new films could add a lot to improve the subarticle. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

External links trimmed

I have trimmed the external links section including:

• Removed broken links
• Removed wikilinks (don't belong in this section)
• Moved about.com Tribeca Film Festival link to "arts and literature" subarticle
• Consolidated 911investigations.net and september11archive.com in the main links section.
• Swapped Yahoo! link for dmoz directory link
• Replaced all the CNN video links with a single link to their Video archive, and removed redundant airdisaster.com link
• Removed book links, Naudet film link (perhaps appropriate for "arts and literature" subarticle)
• Swapped the wmv link with a link to the national geographic site.

There are a few other "photos" sites that are more personal in nature, that I think should go.

• http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell
• http://www.internet-esq.com/worldtradecenter/index.htm

Because Wikipedia is not a link directory, we can't include all personal photo sites, and not sure if/why these two should be. Others agree/disagree with removing these two links? or disagree with any of the other changes above? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree: take 'em out. JDoorjam Talk 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work...the article needed trimming.--MONGO 03:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The two photo sites are trimmed now. The Dmoz open directory provides scores of such links, so we don't need to list them here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Good day,

Please include on the main page:

To question the validity of these outstanding claims, an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation. See 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .

I'm not trying to push any one side, since personally I find both the US gov side and the other theories somewhat fishy. But I have to say that there are big holes in both sides, things that can't be explained, and things that are just not physically possible in what the Gov says or what various critics say. What I find disturbing however, is that for a clearly controversial and widely criticized topic, the article spends dozens of pages talking about the official account, and 1 paragraph on the alternate accounts, under the heading "conspiracy" and with a link to the other article. This article should either 1- keep to the facts everyone agree on (planes crashed in the buildings, the buildings collapsed, etc) and keep everything else out, or 2- present all view points with equal footing. I personally prefer the first option, since it's always best for an encyclopedia to stick to the widely accepted facts, and I suggest it be rewritten to be much smaller and much more focus on actual facts rather than the analysis of what, how and why. Elfguy 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving equal footing for minority viewpoints. On other topics, such as Global warming, there is a minority group of people that contest it. In no way does that article give equal footing for the dissenting viewpoint. Rather, there is just *one* single line in the introduction that mentions "scientists that contest the view", with a link to a subarticle. In this article, we go beyond the *single* sentence that mentions conspiracy theories and devote a paragraph to them. That's more than adequate treatment, given the weight of evidence that supports the official account of the events. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You justified the disputed tag, by citing that there are 13 talk page archives. I think this article has existed for nearly five years, and over that time has 13 talk page archives. As a mere example, Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy has 25+ talk archive pages listed, though the article has only existed since the end of January. That article has no disputed tag. Number of talk archive pages is no justification. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Are there really 'big holes'? If so, then certainly they should be included. But bear in mind most of the candidates for big holes have already been refuted. Peter Grey 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Again I'm not trying to take any side, but if you can watch [13] and tell me with a straight face that there is no doubt in your mind that the Government's story is fact, then I'd be interested in hearing you say it. In my mind there just is such a huge amount of things that don't add up that I don't see how the official story can be taken without question. As for comparing this to other debated stories, Global Warming for example has 99%+ of scientists agree that it's happening, but most importantly they have tons of proof, data, scientific calculations to back it up, and critics have basically just theories. The only point that remains of uncertainty in public debates is how great the Human influence is on Global Warming, and the article shows that pretty well. This is a totally different case. Elfguy 17:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've watched it, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no evidence for any of the claims made in the video. Every assertion has been answered by experts. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The critics of global warming have *theories* in the same sense as 9/11 conpiracy theorists. Such theories lack substance and shouldn't get equal billing in the article. What about all the forensic evidence that accounts for AA77? the witnesses to the crash? the airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn [14], etc.? the cellphone calls from Barbara Olsen and other passengers reporting the hijacking? what happened to the passengers? where are they? It's not POV to give the conpiracy theories an entire paragraph, with a link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article. I personally think an entire paragraph is more than the theories merit. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer any of the points in this particular video. Take just the phone calls. The official story says people made at least 3 cellphone calls from the planes while they were still at cruising altitude. Yet it is physically impossible to make any cellphone call at 33,000ft. It's not a theory, it's a fact. Take a cellphone, go in a plane and try it yourself. You talk about the evidence on the Pentagon ground, yet don't point to any. All the evidence I have ever seen in the media are 3 items: a ring from an engine which does not fit the right kind of plane, one part of an American Airline side window which can be carried by someone, and part of a wheel, which again is too small to be from such a large plane. About the witnesses, you can hear the actual witnesses telling what they've seen to the reporters in this movie. They all say different things. Half of them actually say they saw military planes, or a missile, and half say it was a passenger plane. So again, it's easy to say experts have prooven these theories wrong, but I have yet to see anyone point out to facts that refute any of the many such videos / theories. Again I'm not saying they are necessarily right, but they sure took tons of video footage, written text and audio testimonies, while from the FBI, as far as I know (and feel free to correct me), they released no video (all the footage we have are from the media), only 4 frames from a Pentagon security camera that was pointing right at the crash site yet don't actually show any plane. Elfguy 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You make is sound like these theories were hidden from view. Instead an entire article is given to them. Rather than repeat that article here they are only discussed in brief. - Tεxτurε 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Saudi flights

Someone added the following paragraph, which I have moved here to the talk page, pending further discussion:

Michael Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Fahrenheit_9/11 Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th." While private flights were still generally banned at this time, the movie does not mention that the ban on commercial flights was lifted on September 13. Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found here. For more info go to Michael Moore Fahrenheit_9/11 Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy Fahrenheit 9/11½ Sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 September 11, 2001 attacks 9/11 conspiracy theories

Since there is truth [15] to this, it might be worth including a sentence (not a whole paragraph and without the quotes) in this main article. I'm undecided as to where it could fit. Possibly at the in the "International reaction" section, with the following sentence:

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the U.S. government allowed six chartered flights to leave the United States, with mainly Saudis aboard. <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml |publisher=St. Petersburg Times |Date=2004, June 9 | title=TIA now verifies flight of Saudis |author=Heller, Jean}}</ref>

This might fit, if we also added some mention of the Saudi government reaction to the attacks. On it's own, it really doesn't fit and perhaps should just be in one of the subarticles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"terrorist" POV

As far as I know Wikipedia policy is to avoid using this word here:

"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 [1] or September 11th) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America"

I think we should drop this word. If you look at the name of the article ("September 11, 2001 attacks" not "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks") and on the page (excluding this sentence) you will see that this sentence conisdered POV by Wikipeida policy. --Haham hanuka 12:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We have had this conversation before, as recently as a few days ago. The consensus is to keep "terrorism." Are there any new arguments?--Cberlet 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am on the fence on this one, but I feel it is an important discussion and the use of the word terrorist needs to be addressed here on the Talk page before we remove the Disputed tag. Haham hanuka can you please provide a link to the reference citing the specific Wikipedia policy you reference? Digiterata 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's "Terrorism" article:

• "The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence" or the threat of violence, and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare. "Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate," "targeting of civilians," or executed "with disregard for human life.""

Does any of the above not fit what happened? Of course they were terrorist attacks and should be described as such (and are). Not sure what the purpose of claiming otherwise would even be. Mad Jack O'Lantern 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I buy that argument. I vote in favour of keeping the word terrorism. By the definition above, the term is appropriate. Digiterata 08:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare the intro of this article to: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Revolutionary Organization 17 November, ETA, Irish Republican Army and etc. - those articles represent de facto "terror" policy on Wikipedia. --Haham hanuka 11:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If the September 11th attacks weren't terrorist attacks then, A. What exactly were they? and B. What example would be a terrorist attack? Mad Jack O'Lantern 16:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

see: 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings, Netanya suicide attack, Dolphinarium massacre --Haham hanuka 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

And how are those any more terrorist attacks than this one? Again, I've shown you Wikipedia's definition of terrorism. The attacks fit it exactly, and they've been described as terrorist by the majority of sources. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You missed the point. Ive provided those links in order to show you the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. If in those articles they don't call the attack "terror", why should we can 9/11 attacks "terrorist attacks"? --Haham hanuka 18:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the second article - Netanya - refers to them as "terror attacks". Just because those two other articles didn't explicitly mention terrorism - doesn't mean we shouldn't. The following websites label them as "terrorist" attacks [16][17][18][19]Cnn's "CHRONOLOGY OF TERRORR"[20][21][22][23]. Obviously, these are just the firs Google mentions, and there are thousands more. Can you find a non-POV source that refers to them as anything other than terrorist attacks? Or such a source that explicitly states that they were not terrorist attacks? I don't even understand the point of this debate. It's equal to going to the child molesters category and removing "child molester" from the article of every person listed. Mad Jack O'Lantern 18:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jack, I agree that this attack corresponds with our own definition of terrorism. It would be absurd if we would suggest that our own definition bears no importance. What would that say about Wikipedia? Also, I have seen articles that include terrorism or not, but I did not see a Wikipedia policy on this matter. I suspect that people get wary of the discussions and drop the definition eventually. I can understand that. Dropping terrorism in border cases would actually foster neutrality. This, however, is not a border case. I admire your insistence on safeguarding clear npov in this article. Regards, gidonb 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, new to the forum. I know that you are disputing the word terrorist and whether it should be included. The September 11th attacks were another in the long line of Islamic Fundamenalist attacks, such as the Achille Lauro, Munich 1972, the Dar es Salaam and Nairobi US Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole. These were terrorist acts, and September 11th is one more in the pile. Time to end the debate, we all these were terrorists, planning with a sophisticated network of communications to attack and cause havoc to this nation. They succeeded. The fact that we want to pull the wool over our own eyes, and forget 5 years after the event of what has happened is sickening. ~Tak178

Conspiracy & POV

I removed the POV flag because it represents a tiny minority viewpoint that favors a variety of conspiracy theories (even if the proponents do not consider themselves to do so) and because many discussions over many months has repeatedly reached a consensus that a small paragraph and links to the conspiracy pages are the appropriate solution.--Cberlet 15:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's not so much that it's PoV, but more of a story that is being disputed by a lot of people. To say it's a small minority seems misleading when looking at the amount of talk pages. Regardless, see the section above titled 'conspiracy theories' as to why some people may question not only the official story but why it takes 99% of the article space here. The disputed tag fits perfectly this article, where there's several credible opposing stories. Elfguy 15:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Disputed tag is more appropriate than POV. The reason I originally added the POV tag is that I believe there are a number of specific factual ommissions from the current article that have been excluded primarily because they discredit the official accounts of events on 9/11. As a first step towards addressing this issue, I have compiled a list of specific facts on my own Talk page drawing heavily from the 9/11 Attacks-The Facts and Nothing But. Could you please take a look? My plan is to solicit input from the community, specifically targetting users who have reverted my edits, and ask them to comment. My hope is that we can use this as a tool to highlight my concerns. I also fully expect these facts to be ripped apart. That's healthy, I think.

I won't add back the POV tag until I can test this approach to see if it yields some results, but I reserve the right to add it back if stalls. If I do add it back, I think it is only fair that anyone who removes the tag a second time explain their reasoning on the Talk page, and if possible an Admin should be the one to remove it. I welcome your feedback Digiterata 15:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Per my notes above, I agreed that the POV tag was inappropriate. However, I stand by my assertion that the Factual Accuracy of this article is in dispute. Specifically, there are a number of factual ommissions that have been excluded primarily because they discredit the official accounts of events on 9/11. Some (not all) of these facts are relevant and need to be addressed in the main article. I don't see how JPGordan can argue that the facts aren't in dispute, when in fact they are. Let's not turn this into an edit war. I am confident we can work this out on talk. I'm not averse to removing the tag, as long as my concerns can be debated here on Talk first. Digiterata 17:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Above, Elfguy talks about 99% of scientists that believe in global warming. I'm not sure it's as high as 99% , but agree that it's an overwhelming majority. In the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories, there are some Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. There I see two professors (David Ray Griffin and Steven E. Jones) listed, and the others are various non-academic who don't all necessarily subscribe to LIHOP or MIHOP (e.g. Kristin Breitweiser fits in the "The Incompetence Theory" categorization (based on the linked reference)). So, there are two professors that "question" 9/11 out of 618,000 full-time faculty in the United States [24]. That would amount to .0003236% that may subscribe to LIHOP or MIHOP and %99.9996764 that subscribe to the "official story", as told by the 9/11 commission. Now, please take a look at WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience. It says "any mention (of pseudoscience) should be proportional to the rest of the article". Given the extreme tiny minority, if anything an entire paragraph overrepresents the conspiracy theories, and in no way does the article violate NPOV. A paragraph is much more than 0.0003236% of the article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's easy to find numbers:

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals [25]

Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? Yes 89% 9447 votes, No 11% 1201 votes [26]

Elfguy 16:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The Zogby poll has nothing to do with conspiracy theories--it's about the U.S. Government having failed to act to prevent 9/11. The CNN poll is an unscientific web poll "This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. " --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And why I said it was easy to find numbers, in response to the comment above. The fact remains that alternative theories are valid, alternative theories, and I still believe having them confined to a tiny paragraph with a link, under the title "conspiracy", is wrong, just as the removal of the disputed tag, since this is clearly disputed and by more than a couple of lunatics. Elfguy 16:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. The numbers you posted are from an unscientific web poll and another poll that has nothing to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The numbers Kmf posted are cited facts about the number of academics who are involved in the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Trying to somehow conflate them by saying "It's easy to find numbers" is just plain disingenuous. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 16:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not, because he says only 2 professors believe the alternate theories, as in only 2 credible people believe them and everyone else is non credible people, not mentioning the fact that so many credible people did say facts that support the alternate theories, from the fire fighters saying they were sure they heard explosions, radio transmissions that said the fires in the tower was almost out and they could bring in more people, the architects saying there is no possible way the towers could have collapsed because of fire, the sources at Pratt and Whitney saying the pictured pieces at the Pentagon was not from a Boieng jet, and so on. I'm just saying if you want to bring numbers into a discussion, and those numbers are completely on your side, then they should tell the full story, else present all the numbers. Elfguy 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't say anything about anyone except professors. If you cite some of these mysterious experts you've mentioned, then perhaps you'll have a better case for insterting the material into the article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 17:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the claims by Elfguy have been convincingly refuted by the majority of reputable published sources. This entire discussion belongs on the conspiracy page. How many times do we have to go through this?--Cberlet 17:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a conspiracist on this, but titling the section "Conspiracy Theories" is a blatant POV violation. If you are going to call them "theories", then you must call everything else a theory. It should be changed to "Conspiracies surrounding the attacks" or something like this. Otherwise, this is a POV violation. Bsd987 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been debated endlessly, and voted on at least twice. Sorry.--Cberlet 21:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

While it may have been debated extensively, a consensus was never reached. The beauty of Wikipedia is that is is constantly evolving and improving. A simple check on the Wikipedia page for Conspiracy Theory shows that the term indicates connotations of folklore and urban legend. The article also describes the term as prejudicial and pejorative. If that isn't POV what is? And please don't be sorry, this debate isn't over. Digiterata 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is pov to label it with a pejorative title. --Striver 22:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising given that you were on the losing end of several debates.--Cberlet 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree with Striver's opinion, but I don't see how comments like this add to value to the discussion. I'm sure Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks. Please keep the discussion civil. This sort of trolling behaviour doesn't serve anyone. Digiterata 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an accurate statement of fact, readily documented by reviewing the contributions of Striver (and a few other editors) over many months. There are a tiny handful of pro-conspiracy editors who raise the same issues over and over, have them discussed at length, lose the debate, wait a few weeks, and then start the process over again. This is not collaborative consensus-building. It is important to place this discussion in the proper context of a tiny group of editors who refuse to abide by majority decisions and votes. Stating this fact is not a personal attack--it is a legitimate criticism of an abuse of group process. --Cberlet 13:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I won't add back the POV tag until I can test this approach to see if it yields some results, but I reserve the right to add it back if stalls. If I do add it back, I think it is only fair that anyone who removes the tag a second time explain their reasoning on the Talk page, and if possible an Admin should be the one to remove it. -- OK. I'm removing it, I agree completely with Cberlet, and I'm an admin, not that it makes any difference whatsoever in this case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am in complete agreement with Cberlet. This is not a reflection on Striver, but the manner of which this is handled...and it really doesn't have much to do with concensus...all editors to articles such as this should take the following attitude about this article and those related to it...it isn't our fault if they were misinformed from some website that they find on the web, however, it is our fault if that misinformation was attained after reading this website.--MONGO 12:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you agree with cberlet that the title Conspiracy Theories is not pejorative? If so, please take the initiative to modify the definition on said Wikipedia page. The comments above specifically addressed the issue of a prejudicial and pejorative title reflecting a clear POV bias. --Digiterata 14:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Canada and the War on Terrorism

Canada's waging its own War on Terrorism, Operation Apollo in Afghanistan. Should my country be added under the "Primary participants" or "Other important figures"?

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• That's a pretty misleading statement. Canada refused to go along with the US to invade Iraq because the evidence was not strong enough, the UN and other international bodies didn't support it, and the majority of canadians were against. The Afghanistan military mission is currently the only mission Canada is participating in any big numbers, and it's a UN lead mission of dozens of nations, and it's a peacekeeping mission alongside the local government. So no, it shouldn't. Elfguy 16:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• The list of participants you are referring to is actually part of the {{War on Terrorism}} template that is transcluded at the end of this article. The place to raise your question is Template_talk:War_on_Terrorism, which I notice you have done. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Official Account

The debate over the neutrality of this article and specifically the ommission of facts that do not correspond to the official account of events has been ongoing for sometime. As a compromise, I would like to propose that a short section be added that includes reference to the specific hard facts that are the basis of the criticism. This section should be separate from Conspiracy Theories, and should focus on specific facts that have been previously excluded (see The Facts and Nothing But). The section should only include indisputable facts, not conjecture or analysis of the implications. I'm open to the specific wording of this section, maintaining a high standard for verifiability and accuracy, and discussions about the relevance of specific facts. However, completely excluding this evidence is a blatant NPOV violation.

Examples:

• All three towers fell at close to free-falls speeds in accordance with Newtonian gravity.
• There is convincing evidence of insider trading in the WTC regarding the stocks of commercial airlines and aircraft manufacturers involved in the event; both short-selling and put options. In the days preceding 9/11 an unprecedented spike in short-sales and put options exceeded the statistical norm by, at peak, by a factor of eleven. This information was passed to the FBI and no investigations are underway or planned regarding this information.
• According to multiple credible accounts molten steel was found in the basement of all three felled WTC buildings and was still red hot weeks after the event. (Source: Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)
• By all accounts the burning point of Jet Fuel is much too low to cause steel to melt and no explanation of these facts are included in the official accounts.
• Official accounts detail a number of calls made by passengers of the planes, some at altitudes as high as cruising altitude of 31,000 feet and most were above 10,000 feet.
• Numerous experts agree that is is highly unlikely if not impossible for cell phones to work above 8,000 feet given the technology available in late 2001.

I put forward these examples, for the purpose of discussion. If I am mistaken in calling them facts, please feel free to comment. Digiterata 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Striver 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the issue needs to be presented -- briefly. Some are not quite "facts" yet though

1. give times vs free fall times
2. "convincing evidence" needs a source other than site dedicated to this scenario
3. "multiple credible accounts" also needs source others can check - preferably online - red hot METAL weeks after the event should be easy to document
4. it was not necessary that the steel melt to have collapse
5. plane was off radar & could have been below 10,000 feet for quite a while
6. Counterpoints to this scenario need to be rpesented too. Though it resembled free-fall controlled demo, there were significant differences --JimWae 00:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done some further digging, but haven't had a ton of luck finding credible references that don't come from either the conspiracy theory advocates or the debunkers. Both sides are biased, so my preference is to use independant data if possible - harder than it looks.

1. Building collapse vs. free fall times (in the range of 11-13 seconds for the twin towers, 6-7 sec for WTC7 - need some help to nail down an observable number we can all live with. Any volunteers?
2. Convincing evidence should cite independant sources, agreed. Harder than it looks though - only those who care one way or another tend to go to the trouble to compilee this info and post it. This applies to both the government's account as well as it's detractors.
3. No molten steel isn't necessary to explain the collapse, but molten steel was observed by multiple parties and does not fit the explanation of events. Jet Fuel and office furnishings cannot cause steel to melt. What caused the molten metal that lasted days, weeks, or months after the event? Here's a source from Stephen E. Jones, it includes pictures of molten steel and a short video of firefighters describing the still red-hot steel 6 weeks after the event. The source is biased, but the video footage is compelling [27]
4. Plane altitude is relevant and difficult to ascertain. If the planes were in fact below 10,000 feet for each and every cell phone call that would explain the calls. However, if as is cited in the conspiracy claim sites, there were calls made on cell (not satellite) phones at cruising altitude, then the scepticism is justified. Can anyone provide references other than the conspiracy sites? I want to keep this credible if possible.
5. Point-counterpoint would be an excellent way of presenting the facts, but suggest we focus on identifying verifiable facts at issue first. --Digiterata 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts out of context, even correct ones, would probably violate WP:NPOV, especially engineering details that lay people would easily misinterpret. Some of the facts and the questionable conclusions made from them are covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories, but perhaps a better idea might be to have an article dedicated to these sorts of points and providing the explanations or counter-arguments. And who knows, there may well be some valid objective criticism out there. Peter Grey 00:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Phone Calls

Regarding telephone calls, here are a couple of references with which you may want to familiarize yourself: satellite phone and How to Use a Phone on an Airplane. (What, no article on airphone? ...rolls up sleeves...) Weregerbil 11:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally found it: Air-ground radiotelephone service. Could be expanded... Weregerbil 12:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

While at least two of the calls were made using Airphones (specifically by the flight attendants) most of the calls, it has always been claimed by official sources, came from regular GSM and/or CDMA cellular telephones. It is these specific air-ground calls which are of concern. --Digiterata 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that verifies high altitude cell phone calls? I've read about brief cell phone calls during the final minutes of flights (i.e. low altitude) — brief as would be expected when cell towers fail hand-off. Some source that would be in a position to really know the type of the phone, is not repeating rumours, and is deliberately making a distinction between cell phones, satellite phones, and airphones? Weregerbil 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The official 9/11 Commission report includes references to multiple calls made specifically from cell phones throughout the flights. As for the altitude question, I've seen independant verifiable experiments made from a Cessna up to 12,000 feet which validates the likelihood of calls getting through from various altitudes. As for the actual altitudes of the 9/11 airplanes, no I haven't found anything. Unless someone can find verifiable data to confirm the altitude of the flights at various points, I'll have to concede this issue. I have no problem doing that, if necessary. --Digiterata 15:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The only reference to cell phone calls from the planes I can find in the commission report is page 12: Shortly thereafter, the passengers and flight crew began a series of calls from GTE airphones and cellular phones. These calls ...took place until the end of the flight... Which could be high altitude airphone calls, then cell phone calls as the plane descended and brief cell connections became possible. Are there other mentions of cell phone calls in the report? Weregerbil 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

A specific example is the first call from Peter Hanson to his father Lee from flight UAL175 placed at 8:52am (Source: 9/11 Commission Report [28], search for 'Hanson') This call is of interest because the official timeline specifies that the plane left the ground at Logan by 8:14am, reached cruising altitude of 31,000ft by 8:33am and maintained that altitude until at least 8:51am 'when it deviated from it's assigned altitude.' The 9/11 Commission report doesn't distinguish between cell and airphone in this case, but multiple media accounts specifically indicate that it was a cell phone. [29] [30][31] [32] I'm just saying... --Digiterata 16:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First article: is the person saying "cell phone" making a conscious effort to distinguish between types or just assuming "since he wasn't home must have been a cell phone". Second and third stories: "moments before the plane hit", i.e. low altitude which allows intermittent connections. Fourth story (call from lavatory): wireless airphone handset, satellite phone, low altitude? None seem to have a person deliberately making a distinction between cell phones, satellite phones, and airphones, and showing a high altitude cell connection. All it takes for newspapers to say "cell phone" is a single newswire editor who assumes "must have been a cell phone" without thinking. Weregerbil 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Applying Occam's razor, one media reference to cell phones could easily be a mistake, four mistakes by four different mainstream accounts - that's harder to believe. You win, you must be right . The references I cited are all wrong and the official 9/11 report which doesn't specify one way or the other must be interpreted to mean that all calls were placed from air phones not cell phones. I'm not sure what it would take for you to agree, but it's clear that my meagre attempts are insufficient. If there is any reasonable way for me to convince you please advise, otherwise I'll save my energy. --Digiterata 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Those four references are not necessarily wrong at all! Two are fairly clearly low altitude calls and can easily be cell phone calls. The fourth one does not claim a cell phone was used in the lavatory; all it rules out is an airphone with a (short) wire. Olson called from a lavatory while "flying over houses", which you probably wouldn't say if you were 10 km up, so a cell phone is quite possible. In the first one note that Hanson made a second call after the plane had deviated from its course, and that is the one referred to as "cell phone call" in the newspaper article, not the first call (Hanson expresses the possibility of dying in the second call, not the first one). The second call "ended abruptly" which is what happens with low altitude cell phone connections when tower handoff fails. None of those articles really claim high altitude cell phone calls (much less deliberately and verifiaby knowing the phone type.) Weregerbil 18:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was being to rash earlier. Re: the references above, you are correct about 2 and 3 not likely not referring to the 8:52am call. However 1 clearly refers to this call which would have been made at 31,000 feet. It is possible that they were mistaken, however no retraction was ever made, and as a credible news source my tendancy is to believe that it is more likely that they verified their facts. The really interesting point is in 4, which specifically notes that Each call was initially reported as coming from a cellphone. Later, when skepticism reared its ugly head and the Grassy Knollers arrived, the narrative became fuzzy; it was suggested that $10-a-minute Airfones were involved. I'm not sure if this getting us any further. We seem to be debating angels on the head of a pin. The original point was not to decide which version is true, only to point to specific concerns e.g. "Critics of the official accounts point to examples such as ..." "...while others counter that this reasoning is flawed because ..."

Re which call article 1 above discusses ("Don't worry... Oh my God"): see the Commission report page 8. Or the article; it also tells the call ended, Lee Hanson looked at the television, and saw why the call was cut. That did not happen at 31,000 feet. I don't know about the altitude during the first call; the plane had started deviating slightly earlier. The "economical" cruising speed of a 757 is 850 km/h or 14 km/minute, so a drop to a cell phone capable altitude from 9.5 km in one minute (8:51 to 8:52, and assuming everyone's watches were synchronized) would probably be steepish but not an impossible descent. Perhaps one that a passenger would describe "a strange move" in a phone call. Weregerbil 20:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: Are you sure you're not trying really hard to make the facts fit your understanding of events, instead of looking at the data objectively and drawing the most reasonable conclusions? First, I didn't bring this up earlier because I didn't see any evidence of the measured velocity of the plane, but since you mention it ... If the plane was in fact travelling at 850km/h then it is impossible that any cell phone would have worked. Cell phones are designed to switch between towers at car velocities not plane velocities. It is a proven fact that they cannot operate at over 450mph (possibly lower) [33]. Second, if the plane were travelling at 850kph straight down as you suggest, every single passenger's head would explode! (Yes, even the super-human Al Quaeda terrorist heads) Occam's razor again. If the simplest explanation tends to be the right one, it stands to reason that the simplest explanation is that Cellular telephones do not work on commercial airplanes at least not with the technology available in September 2001. You're determined, I'll grant you that. --Digiterata 21:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What would any "discrepancy" about the phone calls demonstrate? That the entire event was staged or faked? ... or, that sometimes reports are erroneous? Which is more reasonable? --JimWae 21:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. I want to clarify my position. I don't wish to taint this article with outlandish theories suggesting the event was staged or anything of the sort. I simply hope we can modify the article to reflect the fact that there are critics who question the official account and a couple of high-level points upon which many of the conspiracy theorists base their accusations. However, sometimes reports ARE erroneous and if so its not up to us to brush concerns under a rug. I don't know whether that is in fact the case here. I just think it needs to be addressed.

I propose wording along the lines of Critics of the official account argue that cellular telephone calls were not possible from commercial airlines at the time of the attacks. Proponents respond that most calls were made at altitudes significantly lower than standard cruising altitude and did suffer from repeated dropped calls. Or something along those lines. --Digiterata 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is covered in 9/11 conspiracy theories which takes such ideas and explains them in more depth than can be in the main article. The main article uses summary style to summarize the theories. Thus, we can't include every specific detail of the theories. We take the same summary style approach to all the other sections, and use {{main}} links to the subarticles. Due to size constraints, we can't possibly include all details relating to 9/11 in this main article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Re: style I can't argue, the article is pretty long already. My only concern is that the Conspiracy Theories page is filled with a lot of junk science and wild speculation. Perhaps that really is the appropriate place for these items - I just wish there was an alternative. Cathal made a suggestion above under [Reasoned Debate about what should and shouldn't be included] It might make sense to put these issues there. --Digiterata 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

<-- shift left

Re your question: yes, I do try to look at data. That is why I got involved in this thread with the question about verified high altitude cell phone calls. Re travelling straight down: I never suggested that. To descend from 9.5 km to, say, 3 km in one minute (if it was one minute, see "synchronized watches") at 14 km/min does not involve "straight down". Change in air pressure inside a pressurized aircraft does not cause heads to explode any more than divers' heads explode or implode when they encounter much greater pressure differences (see Dysbarism). Re cellular telephones not working: the page you cite shows some calls working; the velocity of the planes after descent is not high altitude cruising speed; four planes with probably a number of people hitting redial = a handful of short calls get through. The "450 mph" figure refers to base station handoff, i.e. calls can succeed but get cut off when going out of range of the base station (which is what happened). Other than handoff the base station cares little about your velocity. Even at 850 km/h a base station gives you up to five minutes of talk time (35 km range times two), that's countryside, average cells will give you only a minute or two. Re Occam's razor: I think the simplest explanation I have seen so far that fits all verifiable facts about the calls is airphone and a few short low altitude cell phone calls. I think "airphone" is simpler than planes getting whisked off to secret airbases or whatnot. Please do show evidence that doesn't fit that, I'm interested in seeing it! Weregerbil 22:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy data-driven analysis as well. RE: Head's exploding, apologies, that wasn't data driven. I just know that if I fell almost 10km in under a minute the rapid pressure differential would be pretty nasty, even in a pressurized aircraft. Notice how your ears pop on landing even though the cabin is pressurized? I haven't had a chance to look into your points above, but they do seem reasonable. My hypothesis is that there was a cover-up, but not a grand conspiracy or anything. I simply think there were some details of the events that the government suspected would make them look bad and so they played around with the truth a bit. You'll notice that there were a ton of references to call place from cell phones up until Qualcom's announcement of the PicoCell plane based CDMA tranceiver - then quite abruptly the story changes to Airphones. I admit I'm a bit skeptical of any administration that doesn't believe in evolution or global warming, specifically when it comes to issues of science and reason. Please see my response above to JimWae. I don't want to add to conspiracy claims, just report on the critics' criticisms. --Digiterata 22:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are a couple more items for review, purely to satisfy the intellectually curious and rational minds out there. There is a well-documented report of a 30 minute cell phone call placed from the bathroom of flight 93 [34] [35] This call would have been handed off between towers at least once, possibly more. The duration and timing of the call lead me to beleive that there is a good chance that at least some of that call would have to have been placed at or near cruising altitude of 31,000ft, which is completely impossible. I don't have time to research the timeline as I'm about to jump on a plane myself, but the facts are all available in the official 9/11 Commission's report. Yours to discover, or not. --Digiterata 15:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I couldn't help myself - had to look into it further. Here's what I found (Timeline from the 9/11 Commission Final Report) 8:42 Flight 93 departs Newark, 9:28am altitude is confirmed to be 35,000ft, 9:29-9:32 Hijacker claiming to be captain makes announcement from cockpit, Cell Phone calls begin (see above re: 30 minute Glick Call), 9:57am Passenger assualt on cockpit begins ("Roll It"), 10:02am ("Pull it Down, Allah is the greatest..."). Flight 93 crashes into ground at 580mph.

So a couple of important points here: The Jeremy Glick call to his wife Lyzbeth was clearly referenced by all accounts as a cell phone call. It was clearly referenced to last 30 minutes, of which at least 20 minutes were recorded by the FBI after Lyzbeth contacted authorities on a separate line. By the official timeline above it sure looks like there is only one possible 30 minute window during which the call could have been placed. By official accounts the plane was at 35,000ft 1-4 minutes before the first call. The official reports make no reference to a sudden drop to 8,000-10,000 feet in those 4 minutes (which would be required for cell phones to work). As has been discussed earlier Cellular telephones DO NOT work at 35,000ft (or anywhere close to that height.) For a 30 minute uninterrupted cell phone call to work at commercial aircraft velocities, there would have to be at least one (if not more) handoffs between cell towers. Cell tower handoffs do not work at speeds in excess of 450mph (see above). Based on the above, I call bullshit on the official story of magical 30 minute cellphone calls from 35,000feet at cruising velocity.

Having said all that, I don't propose that we add anything damning to this article. I do think I've established enough justification to add a line or two that reads something like, Critics of the official account argue that cellular telephone calls were not possible from commercial airlines at the time of the attacks. Proponents respond that most calls were made at altitudes significantly lower than standard cruising altitude and did suffer from repeated dropped calls.

Am I really being that unreasonable? Given the evidence I've cited, a tiny weasel word NPOV addition seems like a no-brainer. If we can't agree on this minor point, then I don't know if I hold much hope for Wikipedia and NPOV. --Digiterata 16:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the Glick call, a quick googling finds this[36]:

Mr. Glick told his wife to take care of Emmy, their daughter, and "have a good life." He was going to leave the air phone off the hook, he said, and asked her to stay on the line while the group of passengers tried to implement their takeover.

(emphasis mine.) Weregerbil 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So the Washington Post, CNN, the FBI, Lyzbeth Glick, and the 9/11 Commission were all mistaken, but the Dallas Morning News somehow got it right? I don't buy it and I've seen your ability to do your own analysis, deep down I don't think you buy it either. That's why you keep doing your own research.

There are two original sources regarding this call:

1. Lyzbeth Glick's interview with the FBI shortly after the events

2. The original 20 minute recording held by the FBI.

That's the source for all the references.

Lyzbeth specifically mentions a cell phone. My guess is that as the wife of a Technology Sales rep she probably had access to caller ID which is how she determined it was her husband's cell. Either that or he mentioned it during their 30 minute call. Help me out here. I provided multiple highly credible sources that state cell phone, you provided one lesser known source that said airphone. Sure it's possible that it was in fact an airphone, but on the balance of probabilities if you were a betting man, which one would you choose? I'm starting to doubt whether or not it's worth my energy to pursue this further. Doesn't seem like anything I say can get you to re-consider. I'm ready to concede - I don't have the energy to fight anymore. --Digiterata 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The DMN article contains a DIRECT QUOTE from Mr Glick saying he was on an air phone. You can verify with the transcripts if you care to. What do you want, for him to wake from the dead and tell you personally?--Mmx1 18:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A direct quote would be, "I will leave the airphone..."' not "he will leave the airphone." Do you really believe the DMN had better sources than the ones I've cited? It's become abundantly clear to me that there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Facts that don't support your viewpoint are unwelcome on this page. I call that POV bias and Factual Dispute, but I'm sure you will spin it by claiming that I'm a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist with 3 heads and a deep seated love of terrorists. --Digiterata 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have links to Lyzbeth Glick's quote (not second- and third hand guessing) and the 9/11 commission saying it was a cell phone? Also please note you may be mixing two different calls when you reference these two above: [37] [38]. One is the Glick call (not from a bathroom, to his wife, long call), the other is from a bathroom (short call to 911, "minutes before crashed", plane was known to be at low altitude since low altitude vs. high speed alarm was heard in the background). Weregerbil 19:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Stock Market

On the point of short-selling and put option activity suggesting insider-trading on American Airlines, United, and Boeing prior to the attacks, does anyone have an issue with adding a line or two to the article? --Digiterata 13:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. These theories never discuss all deviations in all stocks before the crash. Since the inclusion of some movements in some related stocks that went down would create an indiscriminate suggestion that 9-11 related companies overall dropped before the attacks (and also that there is some relationship with the attacks -I will get to that later), it does not belong here. It is a purposefully wrong suggestion because when some stocks go down others go up (unless the markets crash). These are very similar companies in the same market and thus United and American Airlines may very well move together (and Boeing may move with them). It is extremely likely that the stocks of many 9/11-hit companies went up, probably also with no connection. It just does not got mentioned, as the conspiracy theories start with the target and then collect some eclectic facts that could be explained in a way to support them and try to argue the rest. Ironically, the point of this article (and even talk page) is also not to discuss all stock deviations in the US or the World before 9/11. Rather, since these are bits and pieces of information with no clear connection to the 9/11 attack that get floated in conspiracy theories, it is something for the conspiracy page to discuss. gidonb 17:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I object as well. The claim that options traders had foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 attacks is discussed in the conspiracy theories article. It does not need to be discussed here as each options trade was explained to have an origin in other than foreknowledge of the attacks. There was suspicion immediately after the trading records were examined and it merited investigation, but after investigation no connection was found. patsw 20:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, apologies for not responding earlier. See above, I had my hands full with Cell phones and exploding terrorist heads :)

On the issue of mysterious short-selling activity, the point here is that this was topical enough for the mainstream media to report on after the attacks. Specifically, a spike of 1100% in the days running up to 9/11 in bets that three companies whos stock prices would most definitely suffer from such an attack was considered suspicious. The fact is, it is impossible to sell stock short or purchase put options without disclosing ones identity, per SEC regulations. If these trades were investigated and nothing of importance was found, then let's report that fact. To eliminate any reference to these events, however is remeniscent of Orwell's 1984. The Ministry of Truth and all that. The fact is, it could have been Al Quaeda who placed these trades through dummy corporations to fund their terrorist activities. I don't know. I do know that excluding this part of the history of 9/11 seems like revisionist history. You can't call an article NPOV if it excludes facts just because they don't fit neatly into a mainstream POV. I understand how sensitive this topic is, but can we please put the principles of Wikipedia ahead of our own personal biases?

I propose wording along the lines of: In the days leading up to the attacks, a number of suspicious trades were placed against United and American Airlines as well as Boeing. These trades resulted in a significant increase in short-selling and put option activity (bets that the price would fall) Media reports initially indicated that these trades indicated possible foreknowledge of the attacks. However, on further investigation no connection was found. --Digiterata 22:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the proposed wording.

If we were to list every suspicion that acquired a brief media life -- and I do not dispute the options trade were briefly considered suspicious -- we wouldn't have room for facts in the article. Digiterta overstates the suspicion — not that the trades themselves indicated foreknowledge — but that the trades themselves merited an investigation to determine if they were made with foreknowledge.

1. No, the fact is al-Qaeda could not have made those trades through dummy corporations.
2. No, this particular suspicion is properly discussed in the conspiracies article. patsw 22:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It is silly to state assumptions and theories as fact simply because the source of the assumptions and theories is credible. When the source is the government which was attacked it is even sillier to do so. I will try to address the most obvious infractions. Neutralizer 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Below is an edited version of the intro recently added by Marielleh I've posted it here on Talk because I thought it was quite good for its concise style and NPOV perspective. The article is getting quite verbose and I thought this was quite an improvement. It was recently reverted by another user and I wanted others to see it and comment before it was lost in the revision history. If anyone finds value in this version of the intro, please feel free to move it back to the article.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 or September 11th) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed approximately 3000 people and destroyed or damaged a number of buildings.

The attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, who hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, crashing three into buildings. Two planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York City, and within two hours both towers collapsed. A third hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a rural field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The jet fuel in the planes ignited immediately and burned long enough to cause the contents of the buildings to combust. [39]

Soon after the attacks, the United States accused al-Queda, a fundamentalist islamist organization, for the event. The president George W. Bush launched "War on Terrorism" in response to the attacks, including invasion of Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq. Domestically, the United States goverment created Department of Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act and generally adopted terrorism as the central theme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs)

Where was the discussion of what was wrong with the introduction, and the reason given for making this type of edit? patsw 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The last time I checked (it's gone now) there was an automated tag stating that this article may be longer than it could be. IMHO the introduction should be clean and concise and NPOV. The rest of the article is for fleshing out the full story, but the intro should be, well an intro. I noticed the changes posted by Marielleh and thought they were quite good. When they were quickly reverted without any comment on the subject line or talk, I thought it would be appropriate to post the edit here to make sure others saw it and were able to comment. My $0.02 --Digiterata 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It sucks. Ask for consensus before making edits to the intro. E.g. what's the point of this? "The jet fuel in the planes ignited immediately and burned long enough to cause the contents of the buildings to combust. " So the highlights of the day - 4 hijackings, 3000 deaths, two major building collapses, and oh yea, a bunch of papers burned. Weasel wording the affiliations of the hijackers and removing the casualties seems rather odd to me, too. --Mmx1 15:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

disputed

I think we need to either agree that people hold different viewpoints, as seems pretty obvious by the many talk pages over the years, and present all viewpoints in the article, or at least keep the article solely about the FACTS and not the opinions of one side. Facts are things like planes crashed into towers, towers collapsed, x number of people are dead, etc. Opinions are things like the hijackers were with Al-Qaeda, the buildings collapsed solely because of a few fires, the Pentagon had a passenger plane crash into it (also an opinion unless you hold the super secret video proving it), and so on. Until we've reached such a consensus, the disputed tag should remain. Elfguy 16:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

These "difference viewpoints" are covered in September 11, 2001 attacks#Conspiracy theories, and in the main article 9/11 conspiracy theories (and all it's spin-off articles). -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all the point. The point is that, for example, according to this article's intro they are part of Al-Qaeda. How about adding 'according to the commission report' and such? Elfguy 17:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The viewpoints do not extend to "factual disagreements" as the tag indicates. The established facts of the scientific and engineering community are presented here. The 9-11 commission is an authority; what evidence to the contrary do you have?--Mmx1 17:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is factual proof that the 9/11 commission made mistakes, some of which are presented in Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. As for the engineering community? How about the architects behind the towers saying they didn't believe fire could bring the building down? (dont have source atm will add it later) Or the fact that in recent history only 3 skyscrapers have ever fallen down due to fires: WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7... Elfguy 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have kept the Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report link, but placed in the appropriate section that briefly summarizes the 9/11 commission topic. Further discussion about the Collapse of the World Trade Center are covered in that article. As for Al-Qaeda responsibility, I have added another footnote to Bin Laden's own admission of responsibility. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Again some dispute that: [40] Elfguy 19:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We've explained this before, but I don't mind reminding newcomers: We don't write "the 9/11 Commission claims..." before everything in the article such as the affiliation of the hijackers. The reason is that that 9/11 Commission had the responsibility, competence, and resources to investigate the terrorist attacks under the authority of the United States government. In the Wikipedia schemata of presenting information it is far beyond "opinion" and "claim". You might ask "Does the government lie?" or "Could the government coerce hundreds or thousands of people to maintain a lie from 2001 to the present", and that is why the rer is a separate 9/11 conspiracy theories article to discuss just that possibility. patsw 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare this article so some best practice examples or any journalistic standard and you'll clearly see a clear difference between the wording used here and proper NPOV style. Read the NPOV policy again. It clearly recommends wording closer to: "according to x, y is true." You can't say things like "Al Quaeda crashed a plane into the pentagon to punish US infidels." (Sorry, Trolling - my bad) Re: the point above, fine, don't include it in every sentence, but it needs to be included at least once.

The appropriate wording would be something like, "According to official sources, the attacks on 9/11 were planned and orchestrated by a terrorist organization known as Al Quaeda" or something to that effect. Take a step back and put the integrity of Wikipedia ahead of personal opinion. It is abundantly clear to me that the Factual Accuracy of this article is highly disputed. Looking back at a couple years of history of this article, it is obvious that this dispute has been ongoing and has never been resolved. My vote is that the tag should stay. --Digiterata 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not function via a templated writing style. You cannot write "According to physics experts, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, or simply relativity, refers specifically to two theories: special relativity and general relativity. As commonly regarded by physics professors, As a field of study, relativity also includes metric theories of gravitation in which special relativity applies locally." etc. That's what references are for. Well-established facts by authorities can be presented without direct attribution and your fringe challenges do not warrant sufficient basis to require attribution. --Mmx1 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That's the point, it's not "fringe challenges". While the alternate theories don't have the "mainstream" backing that the official story has, that's why they are alternate, and not mainstream. I'm not asking for the article to focus mainly on those, because they are far from proven, but until there are some direct proof backing the official story, the important inacuracies explained, and most of the alternate issues disproven, I think it's perfectly normal that a sizable minority will dispute it, and this article should reflect that. The simple fact is that if this view was so obvious and undisputed, there would not even be a criticism article, or that article would have a point by point rebutal, yet dozens of issues remain. Elfguy 19:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Digiterata: Talking about a "journalistic standard" here misses the entire point of Wikipedia. This is not a newspaper article, it is an eneyclopedia article. The standard of balance is very different from that of journalism.

Elfguy:There is plenty of proof (complete with mathmatical models that end in Q.E.D) for the "official story". It's not as if people are just making things up and putting them into the article--everything is cited with multiple trusted sources. Here are 300 pages of technical specs detailing every second of how the towers collapsed. This is a shorter and more technical document that even addresses some conspiracy theorists' claims. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I read the second one and all they do is speculate as to what could have happened that would follow the original story and that is physically possible from an engineering standpoint. In every part of the analysis they keep saying "may have", "probably happened", "suggested that". In fact for building 7, they clearly say that they cannot find a reason for it to collapse due to fire, as the official story goes, and they go on to say that one possible way to explain it would be if an underground gas tank caught fire, that would provide the necessary heat and bring down the building as a demolition. So again, very light on "proof" and more like speculation, which btw I'm not saying is incorrect, it all makes sense, but it's still one theory. Elfguy 20:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you've inadvertently discovered one of the main differences betwenen conspiracy theory and real science. The scientists, who didn't actually witness then event and are familiar with the extent of their own ignorance, deal in likelihoods, not absolutes, in this and in everything else (The evidence we have now suggests that the Theory of Gravity is probably correct.) There will never be Absolute Indisputable Proof of the method of WTC 1 and 2's collapse, or Gravity, or anything else. But this doesn't mean we need to engage in wild speculation on Wikipedia. BTW, if I'm not mistaken, the report you are referring to doesn't mention building 7. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 15:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Disputed I have added a (Disputed) tag to this article for the following reason. It has become abundantly clear that the only facts permitted to enter this article are those that support the official viewpoint. This is not objective or balanced. Any reference to controversy or credible claims that would reflect negatively on official accounts are quickly and decisively deleted and contributors disparaged as lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists. (See [41] for the most recent example.) For additional examples see above under: Facts and Nothing But, Reasoned Debate...,Wikipedia isn't everything, Conspiracy Theories, Phone Calls, Stock Market, NPOV, Disputed and of course Newbie Welcome Message

This has gone on long enough. Before removing my (Disputed) tag, please explain how my reasoning is flawed. How I missed the point, that this is actually a really fair and balanced article that doesn't ommit facts from credible sources, just because they might not support the official accounting of events. Tell me that all of my contributions haven't justified as single line being added to this article, because not one word was good enough to add value to the article. (For specific examples of the horrible words I wish to add, see Phones and Stock Market text in bold.

I want to believe in the good faith of my fellow contributors on this page, really I do. I don't want this to be my last contribution, but I don't know what else to do. Throw me a bone, somebody... --Digiterata 01:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about fact

There isn't a dispute about facts here. Digiterata, please list a fact not included in the article or a something in the article stated as fact which is false, before adding the tag.

Digiterata, what we have here is an editing dispute over the threshold for what is verifiable, accurate and relevant on the September 11, 2001 attacks.

There's a consensus here that what's been entered here as speculation and coincidence and without evidence and without an explanation for how the official investigation didn't reach that conclusion is not considered good material for this article. There's a Wikipedia article where I believe everything that's been recently deleted from this article can be found and September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks links to it, namely 9/11 conspiracy theories. You are free to persuade others in this talk page that this consensus is wrong.

The obligation under the policy of the Wikipedia is to avoid giving undue weight to minority points of view. We are following the policy with a link rather than allowing duplication of the presentation of those points of view which lack verifiability beyond the simple recognition that the point of view has proponents.

The bone you are being thrown can be found in Wikipedia dispute resolution. patsw 02:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the bone, I think I'll pass. A real gesture would be to say "Look, on these four points you're an idiot, but on this fifth point - well maybe we can work something out." Send it to dispute resolution? That tells me just how willing you all are to engage in reasoned impartial analysis based on fact. patsw I've seen your comments on this page before. I would have expected more from you. --Digiterata 04:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a fact that was recently censored

"Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 28, 2004 states credible whitnesses claiming that black boxes were found [42]"

Credible source, relevant issue, quickly and decisively deleted and marginalized as conspiracy theory for only one reason: it doesn't support the governments claims. It's the most recent example I could find taken from here [43] Deleted with instructions to take it to save it for the Conspiracy Theories page.

Let's look at that report:

But New York City Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a book self-published by Ground Zero workers that he took federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and located three of the four. His account is backed by a well-known Ground Zero volunteer.

A book "self-published" and he claims he did something, and there is a "well-known Ground Zero volunteer"...and this adds up to what...a self published book written without any proof the event ever happened, and no one cited that can back up his story.--MONGO 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Book published by a misleadingly named organization in which the person running the organization has been criticized for mishandleing money...says so right in your link. Read it.--MONGO 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

A NYC Firefighter publishes a book describing his own account of the events following 9/11 and you want to rip this guy apart because his account doesn't mesh with the 9/11 Commission? This guy is a true hero! He is an expert in his field, and he provides a first and second hand accounts of the events from his own experience. Why is his account not credible? Because it doesn't fit the official version of events? He is exactly the kind of person you should be celebrating for his brave actions on and after the event, but you want to label him a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist and destroy his credibility on this page, just because his memory doesn't mesh with yours or the 9/11 commisions? No one is safe from your attacks are they? -- Digiterata 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And now you're also going to slander thr Ground Zero Workers for self-publishing a book, because of a vague reference to the criticism of their accounting? Who criticized it? Did they also criticize Nicholas Demasi? Noone is safe from your wrath, not even the NYC Fire department or the Ground Zero volunteers. If you truly believe that the NYCFD and the GZ volunteers are not to be trusted, then who is, a bunch of academics and beaurcrats from the 9/11 commision who publish a report years after the events? I don't buy it. The fact that I've listed multiple factual ommissions and none of you has explained why they should not be included tells me that deep down many of you don't buy it either. -- Digiterata 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And another that was excluded for the same reason

From Stock Market: "In the days leading up to the attacks, a number of suspicious trades were placed against United and American Airlines as well as Boeing. These trades resulted in a significant increase in short-selling and put option activity (bets that the price would fall) Media reports initially indicated that these trades indicated possible foreknowledge of the attacks. However, on further investigation no connection was found."

Tell me honestly, if the US Government had discovered that Al Quaeda was behind those trades, what are the chances it would be excluded? It was relevant then and it is relevant now. To censor this item just because it doesn't support the official story is blatant POV bias.

I'll stop here because my arguments fall on deaf ears, but each item I listed in my prior post is an example of such censorship. You people are bullies and your ends justify the means mindset is destroying Wikipedia. If I thought there was a chance of gaining consensus through reason and fact, I would continue to contribute, but you people are bullies and there is simply no way to reason with you. Please continue to tell yourselves that 22.1 million citations in Google for '9/11 critics' is a tiny minority of kooky conspiracy theorists. The fact that this article contains Zero criticism other than a few lines about conspiracy theorists stands as my evidence that this article is riddled with propaganda and censorship, but I'm just another tin-foil hat-wearing lunatic right? --Digiterata 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Then again an admin just told me that my argument has no merit or basis in fact, and after all, he is the decider, he decides [44] so I guess that's the final consensus on the issue. Forget everything I just said, I'm wrong; you are all right. -- Digiterata 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA--MONGO 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know why none of this guy's work is being included here? Looks to me like he's got a legit beef. Good references & decent points. I'd be pissed too 216.221.65.134 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of closed minded people roaming on all controversial wikipedia articles. Elfguy 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Global Capitalism?

I have never heard an argument for the notion that the 9-11 attacks targeted global capitalism. Never have I read anywhere of Bin Laden or Al Quaeda voicing an opinion contrary to capitalism. Indeed, Bin Laden himself, the son of a wealthy family, is a benefit of capitalism and has used much of his inheritance to fund Al Quaeda operations. Until someone can demonstrate that 9-11 was an attack on global capitalism, I am removing those words from the first paragraph of the article. Griot 19:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it was. What is/was the WTC?. We know where Bid Laden comes from as well as Bush. The attack was not only aimed at U.S infrastructure but to cause financial chaos and bring down the institutions of global finance capital. -- max rspct leave a message 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Max rspct, is this a widespread view in the academic community or the intelligence community? gidonb 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the view of many academics. Don't go on what beligerent institutions (intell) say. Take Robert Fisk's The Great War for Civilisation for a start. These are interesting links : 9/11 comm, U.S NGO, Daniel Pipes also writes for this mag.. -- max rspct leave a message 20:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please produce a quote from Al Qaeda showing that the group is anti-capitalist and cite it in the text. Griot 20:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Try these links too: A U.S NGO, A news report.. seems treat this as obvious. As for al-Qaeda.. which isn't a global organisation as such - try Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War -- max rspct leave a message 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Injustice had affected the people of the industry and agriculture. It affected the people of the rural and urban areas. And almost everybody complained about something. The situation at the land of the two Holy places became like a huge volcano at the verge of eruption that would destroy the Kufr and the corruption and its sources. The explosion at Riyadh and al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging as a result of the severe oppression, suffering, excessive iniquity, humiliation and poverty.People are fully concerned about their everyday living; everybody talks about the deterioration of the economy, inflation, ever-increasing debts, and jails full of prisoners. Government employees with limited income talk about debts of ten of thousands and hundred of thousands of Saudi riyals. They complain that the value of the riyal is greatly and continuously deteriorating among most of the main currencies. Great merchants and contractors speak about hundreds and thousands of millions of riyals owed to them by the government. More than three hundred forty billion riyals is owed by the government to the people in addition to the daily accumulated interest, let alone the foreign debt. People wonder, are we the largest oil exporting country? They even believe that this situation is a curse put on them by Allah for not objecting to the oppressive and illegitimate behaviour and measures of the ruling regime: Ignoring the divine Shari'ah law; depriving people of their legitimate rights; allowing the American to occupy the land of the two Holy Places; imprisonment, unjustly, of the sincere scholars. The honourable Ulema and scholars as well as merchants, economists and eminent people of the country were all alerted by this disastrous situation. Quick efforts were made by each group to contain and to correct the situation. All agreed that the country is heading toward a great catastrophe, the depth of which is not known except by Allah. One big merchant commented: "The king is leading the state into `sixty-six' fold disaster". We bemoan this and can only say: "No strength and no power acquired except through Allah". Numerous princes share with the people their feelings, privately expressing their concerns and objecting to the corruption, repression and the intimidation taking place in the country. But the competition between influential princes for personal gain and interest has destroyed the country." .. "It is incredible that our country is the world's largest buyer of arms from the U.S.A. and the area's biggest commercial partner with the Americans, who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men, and financial support. To deny these occupiers the enormous revenues of trading with our country is a very important aid to our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture. By doing so we would have taken part in (the process of) cleansing our sanctuaries from the Crusaders and the Zionists and forcing them, by the Permission of Allah, to leave disappointed and defeated." Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War -- max rspct leave a message 20:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That declaration fails to mention anything about 9/11 being an attack on capitalism--he's talking about the economic mismangement of the Saudi government. But this isn't really suprising seeing as it's from 1996. The "US NGO" is simply a writeup for a book published by a research foundation, and Newsmax.com is hardly a reliable source. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is self-evident. A declaration of war with reasons being given! An anti-capitalist/anti--globalisation 'rant' or manifesto. Whether it is viable or disagreeable is another matter.. An attack on the WTC. It is generally accepted as an attack on U.S-led capitalism whether it had failed or is considered 'symbolic. max rspct leave a message 20:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The strike against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, was a violent blow against the United States and a symbolic attack on capitalism and commerce. " - Russell Sage Foundation -- max rspct leave a message 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So somewhere in the appropriate subsidiary article about bin Laden's motivation you can say, "According to the Russell Sage Foundation..." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In the first sentence, it implies that was one of Al-Qaeda's motives. But a simple reference to the WTC as a symbol of global capitalism and commerce, in the second paragraph, could work. How about the following to replace the present text:

On the morning, nineteen hijackers, affiliated with al-Qaeda, hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Two planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, a symbol of global capitalism and commerce. Within two hours, both towers collapsed.

Is this suitable? -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Though the phrase "a symbol of global capitalism and commerce." is a bit wordy. I would prefer something more succinct. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

More succinct? How about "World Trade Center?" :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

True. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the phrase "attack on capitalism" implies that Al Qaeda is anti-capitalist. This is simply not true, and none of the sources you cite indicate Al Quaeda's stance vis-a-vis capitalism. I'm taking capitalism out until you can prove to me that Al Quaeda is anti-capitalist. Griot 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It was a fleeting thought, an attempt to extend an olive branch to max. But, I don't like the wording "global capitalism", and simply saying "World Trade Center" is perfectly succinct.-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes go on water it down so much! It was not just symbolic.. Why don't we put 'according to tom harrison' believes that... ? Against capitalism, US imperialism. These are major aspects of the attack. Tucking it away is not encyclopedic. I have provided sources. The WTC is an set of international institutions (the cia office) and corporations. I might have expected as much. I wonder how many are the regular editors are NSA/CIA. Be ashamed. User:Kmf164, I have not revert thrice, and u refuse to answer me. Oh and who is 'we'. Trying to scare me off? -- max rspct leave a message 21:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Did anyone actually click on global capitalism as see where it led? Financial capital, which is what most of the 'employees'/businesspeople were involved in. max rspct leave a message 21:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should we editoralize on behalf of Bin Laden? If he has made any particularly telling or relevant statements, quote him and let him speak for himself. Anything else is less than essential to a good understanding of the subject matter. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The World Trade Center was not an "international institution." It was a building. As the most prominent feature of the New York skyline and the two tallest buildings in NYC, it was a major symbolic target for Al Quaeda. However, Al Quaeda is not anti-capitalist. You continue to fail to show that. Please do not imply that Al Qadeda is anti-capitalist. The terrorist attack was aimed at the United States, not capitalism. Griot 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The companies that operated from it were global capitalist companies/institutions.. even if HQs in U.S. New York is a world financial centre.. Hmmm wounder why it was called WTC HUH?The aim was obviously a blow against US-led capitalism. Why should we editorialise on behalf of USTV/media/government/us citizens only/bereaved relatives?? I am beginning to agree with the sentiment that "wikipedia is postmodernism on crack" -- max rspct leave a message 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out where there is editorializing on behalf of anyone in the article? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Without citations from Bin Laden or AQ, the "WTC housed financial ppl so it was an attack on finance" is OR. If you do, please elaborate on this new link between Islamic fundamentalism and socialism - it would certainly be news to many people. Max, please don't inject or project your personal politics into this: [45]—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)

The citations are above. What do you think a declaration of war iz????? More than enough evidence. Don't insult my personal beliefs in order to dissuade me. -- max rspct leave a message 21:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialism.. who mentioned anything about that? Maybe you're inherently anti-socialist and thats why u keep reverting. Anti-capitalism does not mean 'socialism'. I have spend over 10years studying in academic institutions.. But that don't matter at all when the article is being controlled by NSA and north americans in general. max rspct leave a message 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

max rspct, please assume good faith and mind WP:CIV. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "war" is a relious war, not a economic war...The WTC and pentagon were just targets of opportunity for maximum exposure and maximum death and destruction...key elements of terroristic enterprise. Osama has made it clear numerous times that he would like to see a united Islam under one flag, one leader (him in all liklihood) and fundamentalist Islam in theology. The attack on WTC, etc, were not designed to do anything other than to show that he can strike anywhere at anytime...in this endeavour, he succeeded. Osama is smart enough to know that the best way to cripple the U.S. economy is Oil...so had his desires been to truly hurt the U.S. economically, all he has to do is go after the oilfields and supply lines...which would be an easier thing to do anyway.--MONGO 01:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. So... not economic but .. Think - the oil fields aren't a good target MONGO. They don't have military parity with USA.. to waste resources bombing a few pipelines., however they bombed Petagon and WTC. So not economic?? ... but the WTC is bombed wiping trillions off US economy... bond traders leaping out the windows.. It was partly economic action to a lot of people. Read the declaration of war.. this was a result of bin Laden + co's recognition that Muslims are suffering through US-led capitalism. Yes there is righteous religousness. But it is definately anti-imperialist/anti- us capitalism. He doesn't have to be anyone's hero to behave like that. So what if bin Laden has voiced one of his preferred eventual outcomes - more islamic states. But he has reasserted that this is self-defence and they have not bombed any country's citizens not involved in the wars/military occupation for oil. They were bombing U.S interests yes.. Economic and political (like these 2 things have ever been separated from each other - oil/arms sales/us foreign policy in Arabia!?) No it wasn't socialist or anarchist. Plenty of third world insurgents from year dot have resisted colonialism.. with the imperialists saying.. Oh they're just uppity witchdoctors..Look at Mugabe and Zimbabwe - War and atrocities on both sides at the time.. Lots of shamanism going on check book: Guns and Rain: Guerrillas and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe by David Lan (anthropology on cambridge uni etc reading lists ISBN 0852552017) . But the Zimbabwe liberation war is today seen as 'classic' independence struggle... even if Mugabe is widely regarded as a monster. During that war, the white supremacist Rhodesian regime contantly referred to insurgents as 'terrorists' as did South African Apartheid government when refering to the ANC etc -- max rspct leave a message 12:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this punditry have to do with the article? --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 13:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever symbolic value the World Trade Center had within the United States, for global capitalism it was just another office building. The name itself, World Trade Center, makes it a symbol of money and American arrogance. Rightly or wrongly, many people outside the US, including bin Laden's target audience, see those as the sources of American foreign policy. Peter Grey 13:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

jUST another building? That is blatantly untrue. -- max rspct leave a message 14:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

YOU LOT HAVEN'T PROVIDED ONE DAMN SOURCE. --max rspct leave a message 16:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A source for what? You don't need to cite the absence of material in an article. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is "Global capitalism" anyway? Peter Grey 18:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The capitalism that the US espouses and is pushing. Genocide, multi-national_corporations, resource and human exploitation, arms manufacturers. stock markets, banks, governments.. Why don't you just read the description up in the declaration of war. You also read the Petroleum, globalisation and Capitalism articles. There should be a whole paragraph right at da top but I linked this to more technically-termed article financial capital. -- max rspct leave a message 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow--Most people try and hide their more extreme biases, or at least tone them down a bit. This isn't even worth a reply. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No.. I was directing the user to capitalism-related articles. Global is the adjective, capitalism leads to Financial capital which is what the companies inside the buildings were concerned with. Please read what I have put before. -- max rspct leave a message 22:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, does the vast global conspiracy behind "finance capital" that was hidden in the WTC include:

1. Secret banking groups?
2. Secret banking groups and spies?
3. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies?
4. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies working for Israel?
5. Secret Jewish banking groups and spies working for Israel on behalf of their alien lizard overlords?

It is so hard to keep track of the specific conspiracist narratives these days. Number 3 was a favorite of Hitler. Number 5 is the theme for David Icke. Number 1 would be the John Birch Society. The other two are easy to find on the Internet. So little time, so many conspiracy theories...--Cberlet 23:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr Chip et al - I have not pointed out secret 'conspiracies'. Don't tie this up with the 'demolition' theorists. Who mentioned Jews? The finance industry = the Jews? I am not saying that.. Chip looks like he has waded in saying there is an anti-jewish conspiracy. None.. I am not on that tip. Look at my previous posts. You still editor of high times? ;-) -- max rspct leave a message 23:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Not with High Times anymore, but proud of the articles I wrote, thanks for the paltry smear attempt. It was bin Laden who raised the issue of Israel:

• "It is incredible that our country is the world's largest buyer of arms from the U.S.A. and the area's biggest commercial partner with the Americans, who are assisting their Zionist brothers in occupying Palestine and in evicting and killing the Muslims there, by providing arms, men, and financial support. To deny these occupiers the enormous revenues of trading with our country is a very important aid to our Jihad against them. To express our anger and hate to them is a very important moral gesture."

The idea of "finance capital" as separate from "industrial capital" was a core theme of fascism. Perhaps you were unaware. It is possible that the terrorist attack was meant as a blow against global capitalism, but you will still need to cite a reputable published source. Perhaps if you reduce the level of anger and hysteria we could attempt to find some reasonable collective compromise?--Cberlet 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I linked [[global capitalism] to financial capital not finance capital. Yes industrial capital but the specific point is that an attacks on financial or bond trading + arms companies that are critical to the operation of industrial capital.. capitalism on a wider scale. I am not smearing, just using the 'editor of' joke (have u been smoking again?? convivial way) to point out that it looks paranoid (u just took 'finance' and ran with it) leaping to the conclusion that I am talking about Jewish people or claiming anthing ZOG. -- max rspct leave a message 01:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If bin laden's goal was economic, then again, the oil fileds would be a much easier place to start. Just a few attacks on a few refineries would send oil through the roof...greatly impacting the price of crude...he doesn't even need to really affect supply greatly, just the perception of such a threat would be sufficient. Regardless, attacking the WTC and the Pentagon and probably the Capitol, had the fourth one reached it's target, was simply an act of terrorism, not an attack on capitalism. I see almost no evidence he is is a marxist or socialist...most likely he is a fascist--MONGO 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I haven't been toking up.--Cberlet 02:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

November 03, 2001 - Osama bin Laden is denying responsibility for the terror attacks on the US.

September 16, 2001 - Americans want revenge as bin Laden denies responsibility for the attacks.

It's a funny old world in this New American Century. Confabulous 10:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Newbie Welcome Message: NPOV, Consensus, and Relevant Facts

Warning:The following message should be considered Trolling 
Please skip this message if you would rather not hear the truth (IMHO) 
The contents of this message may raise your blood pressure. 

I want to welcome all newcomers to the September 11 attacks article with a few words of warning.

For those of you who wish to make edits to this page, if you feel that this article is missing relevant facts, please consider the following. Before contributing, ask yourself whether or not your contribution supports the official account of events of 9/11. If it does not, your edits are not welcome here. Only facts that support the official account of events are acceptable. Any facts which do not are considered Conspiracy Theories and should be added to the appropriate article [46].

This guiding principle applies for any and all edits which might be construed as critical of the official accounts. Wikipedia NPOV policy WP:NPOVdoes not apply to this article.

If you are concerned that this article does not appear to be fair and balanced as it does not include any reference to criticism of an obviously contentious topic, please again, take it to Conspiracy Theories. Your contributions are not welcome here.

If you somehow believe that this message doesn't apply to your criticism and that adding your voice to the debate will make a difference. Please don't waste your time trying to resolve your issues on Talk [47]. Take it to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories site [48]. Your contributions are not welcome here.

Those who provide credible references to relevant facts that dispute the mainstream viewpoint will be shot on sight.

Again, only facts that support the mainstream view of accounts are welcome on this page. All other contributions, regardless of their relevance, credibility of sources, or factual nature are unwelcome. If you hold such views, or simply think that a fair and balanced article, particularly on an issue as controversial as this, should have some mention of the controversy, please take it to the Conspiracy Theories page - you tinfoil hat-wearing nutter! Your contributions are not welcome here.

(The previous slightly tongue-in-cheek, extremely sarcastic, comment was posted by a very frustrated former contributor who has probably said too much already) --Digiterata 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider it a warning to future potential contributors who may in their naivete, assume that this is a fair and open venue ready to accept all good quality, factual submissions, even those that the good old boys of this page disagree with. Looking at my previous attempts at contributing to this article, I am appalled at the amount of time I wasted trying to employ silly tactics like reason and open dialogue. It's clear to me that those who wish to maintain the status quo are immune to my 'dirty tricks'. I just want to warn others to learn from my mistakes and not waste their effort. --Digiterata 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the situation described above, or the description itself? — goethean ॐ 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss changes to the article, not to critique US foreign policy, pontificate about the struggle of class against class, or vent about the shortcomings of other users. While occasional off-topic rants are usually tolerated, at a certain point they begin to disrupt our actual work here, which is after all writing an encyclopedia. I think we have passed pased that point. This needs to stop, or we may have to start removing off-topic commentary, and maybe ultimately blocking disruptive users. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Define disruptive. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the blocking policy, disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think he's made some strong points. Don't give up dude, this place needs a bit of balance. Don't give into the bullies 216.221.65.134 02:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• This guy is obviously trolling. However, I do agree with his point, from having followed this article for some time. If there's one thing, if anything, that everyone should agree with, is that this article is disputed, yet after many attempts even a disputed tag is constantly removed. I'm afraid that the closed minded community is strong here. Elfguy 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Font size

Please do not reduce the font size. The guideline is that article content not include specific font changes, and the Wiki's html generator (Cascading Style Sheets) owns formatting. It hinders readability by people with some vision impairment to reduce the font size. See WP Manual of Style:Formatting Issues for the details. patsw 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

September11 Wiki -Memoriam (and questions I have hard time finding answers to)

Amazing. The September 11 Wiki isn't even linked or listed here? Is this how disconnected the whole Wikipedia and it's sub-sites are? Seeing as I can't seem to find an article on or about the September 11 Wiki; I decided to ask a question I have about it here: what are the reviews saying about the documentary film 9/11 Eyewitness? It's probably b.s., but I was interested in finding out the reactions. Also, why is there a wiki for 9/11 (including the online Memoriam); but nothing like that for other things like, I don't know, Hurricane Katrina victims; or other "disasters" from anywhere outside of the U.S.? Wikipedia isn't an American encyclopia, is it? Another question I have (this is sort of off-topic) is whether or not the articles on Wikipedia in other foreign languages are: 1.) translated via a translator(s), 2.) translated via a program/bot/script, or 3.) completely rewritten in the new language? If it's 3, I feel it's really a waste of time and energy just to rewrite an article from the bottom up all over again per each language. THis same question applies to the Wikipedia project (yet another project/sub-site I stumbled upon) Simple English Wikipedia; shouldn't they attempt to simplify existing articles, instead of completely rewriting them in simple English? (sorry, but speaking of sub-sites and Wikipedia projects; has there been an effort to sort of gather and organize everything that has sprouted from Wikipedia [not article-wise]? I mean, it seems like everyday, I stumble upon a new project/subsite/group/etc., and it was because of luck that I found it [or else, it would never have happened]. For example, I found the 911 wikipedia, the simple english wikipedia, a group within Wikipedia that seeks to address problems; a similar group that is less "official", a "Counter-Vandalism Unit", and so on. There really needs to be an effort to group everything together, into an umbrella-article -- there are so many great "wikiprojects" out there which may never see the light of day, or can not be "advertised" or shown to the public.)

The article had nothing about the failure to find the black boxes of both planes at the World Tade Center. I added a sentence about the failure to find them (and witnesses who reported finding them), but StuffOfInterest deleted it with the terse comment that it belongs on the Conspiracy Theory page. I disagree. I think some discussion of the black boxes is quite relevant, and the article has it for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. More generally, editors who delete contributions fully cited to accepted sources should have to explain what they think they're doing. --JustFacts 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• The bunch of Wikipedia articles on the 9/11 topics are vastly biased on the side of the official story. Even the 'official' criticism article which is called 'conspiracy theories' is nothing but a few alternative theories and a whole bunch of debunking. There really is a need for a comprehensive, point by point article of the dozens and dozens of issues that don't make sense in the official story, and that haven't been completely explained, everything from the 7 disapeared black boxes, the hijacker passport surviving intact from the plane, the missing camera footage, the towers collapsing from fire being the only 3 building in recent history doing that, the lack of a plane of anything from that plane at the Pentagon, the reports of secondary explosions in the towers from the many firefighter tapes, the controlled demolition look of the 3 buildings, the cellphone calls from locations where cellphones don't work, the reports from multiple companies that there would be something happening that day and reason why so many people were told not to go to work that day, the videos from the crashed flight lacking the actual plane or anything looking like one, the Pentagon hole being way too small for a plane to fit with the nearby windows all intact, and so many more. I was planning on writing one but I'm hardly an expert on this, just an amateur from another country who happens to have an open mind about this and not believing either side until some physical proof comes out. Elfguy 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

By definition, Wikipedia--indeed all serious encyclopedias--are "biased on the side of the official story." The entries are primarily based on the majority view of reputable published authors. That's what many of the Wikipedia guidelines discuss in detail. Editors unwilling to accept these basic ground rules are free to create blogs and post their views elsewhere on the Internet.--Cberlet 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Except when you consider the fact that the official story is a *US* story. If Wikipedia wants to promote itself as a US encyclopedia then fine, but it should be the goal of an online free encyclopedia to be about universal facts, not US based myths. In many countries around the world, not only is the official US story not believed by a majority of people, but it's actually not the official story of the current government. In fact this is just one of many articles where the US is over-represented. The general bias in this article and a couple others with strong bias editors may be due to the fact that the majority of them actually live in the US, I don't know, but the fact remain that if facts don't equal current US based government speach, then we should go with the facts. In the absence of any, and in the presence of severe discordance, both sides should be presented, or neither side. Elfguy 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a point of view that says the towers were brought down by the hand of God, in a case of direct divine intervention? How many people world-wide hold that view? Is that view perhaps expressed in main-stream non-US media? How prominently should it be featured in this article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not promoting any "official" story, rather the understanding of the events that is reached by consideration of verifiable facts. Now, the 9/11 Commission, for example, would be a reputable source which had resources to research issues and which was not overtly biased. That does not mean it is the only version of events, or that it cannot be questioned. What it does mean, is that evidence that something else happened has to be fairly compelling, not unremarkable facts out of context or guesses by amateurs. That said, while bias may be too strong a word, the article does need a little more of the terrorists' perspective - like it or not, that too is a part of the story. Peter Grey 04:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Peter Grey, that the "evidence that something else happened has to be fairly compelling." See the compelling 10Mb video linked to your quote, and perhaps offer some thoughts as to why it shouldn't be referenced in the main article. I also agree with you that the perspective of the terrorists needs more space. That space could be occupied by a few quotes from page 51 of The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New American Century. This prophetic document, with astonishing predictive prowess, described the terrorists' intentions quite nicely, and in their own words. Confabulous 07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed additional detail

Hello - I don't have the power to make this edit, so I'm offering the suggestion to someone who does. Under "The "War on Terrorism" subsection of "Government Response," I think it would be useful to add a short additional sentance after the last paragraph: "As of March 2006, thirty-five New York City residents have died fight in the war in Iraq. Thousands more have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan and returned. Another 8,000 New Yorkers remain on active military duty." (Source: Gotham Gazette) 206.15.138.244 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues with Pictures

There seems to be an overwhelming number of pictures regarding New York, but only one each of the pennslyvania and pentagon tragedies, which were as much a part of 9/11 as New York. There needs to be a balance between them. Thoughts?--Gephart 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with your complaint - however, I would like to see people not label every imbalance as an "NPOV issue". This is a lack of attention issue, not an NPOV issue. --Golbez 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed intro

I've trimmed the intro, removing the short paragraph on the "aftermath" - War on Terrorism, ... I really don't think it's needed in the intro, but if someone feels otherwise then go ahead and readd it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Were the Towers the first skyscrapers to burn down, or have other skyscrapers collapsed from fire before?

Just wondering. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

They were the first buildings to collapse from a fire caused by an airplane impact. Peter Grey 02:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You surely are not speaking about WTC7.--Pokipsy76 12:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That brightly glowing stream of molten iron cascading from the South tower prior to the collapse was also historicaly unprecendented, and is not explained or even mentioned in the anti-scientific official explanation. Confirmation bias is when you refuse to acknowledge the facts that stand in the way of your good story. Let's not do that here. Confabulous 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say it is anti-scientific? There is vast consensus among experts and eye witnesses that the official account is accurate. I'm not sure what your definition of science is, but you seem to be using newspeak. By the way, where did you receive your training in forensic analysis?--130.191.17.38 23:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no fact obscured here. There is no proof of what that is...looks like melting copper to me actually.--MONGO 06:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that the WTC was lined with copper! Thanks for clearing that up, MONGO! Notwithstanding that the totality of copper-cabling on several floors couldn't account for the volume of molten metal seen cascading from a corner on one floor of the South Tower in the minute prior to collapse, the following relevant quotes about maximum fire temperatures in buildings, from one of the official papers, refutes your folk-theory - because copper melts at 1084C:

"The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C. But it is VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH THIS maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range." (Egan and Musso, 2001). Confabulous 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was lined with coppper, did I. I said it looked like copper, not iron. Of course it's not copper, but it's probably not iron either. Why do these conspiracy theorists continue to fail to recognize that the building steel didn't have to "melt"?...it only had to bend, and it's the floor pans that gave out...that is what supported the concrete floors, which was almost half the mass. Furthermore, constant sniping about there being no other steel frame structures that "burned down" is old news...not one of those were hit by wide body jets flying at high speed...hello.--MONGO 08:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Was building 7 hit by one? ... "hello." --Striver 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Did it have to be? Half a block away from millions of tons of falling debris...almost all the surrounding buildings were also on fire, or destroyed, thanks to Islamofascists...or did you miss that part?--MONGO 08:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you familiar with any other tall building fires that caused a spectacular stream of glowing molten metal, indentical in appearance to the result of a thermite reaction, to cascade from the burning building, MONGO? What kind of metal glows bright-yellow in broad daylight when melted at building fire temperatures? Why do defenders of the official dogma have to pretend that the spectacular stream of glowing molten metal cascading from the tower prior to its collapse didn't happen, or was too mundane to require any kind of rational explanation? Why are defenders of the official dogma so hostile to the facts that contradict it? Recall that Galileo was actually permitted to present his evidence challenging the official dogma, so long as he adopted a NPOV when comparing the "Two Chief World Systems." He was subsequently imprisoned and forced to recant on the basis that his dialogue was biased in favor of the Copernican POV. But the real reason for the persecution of Galileo was that his Copernican explanation - his abstract scientific model - did a much better job of explaining observations in the real world than did the official one. I suspect, MONGO, that you wouldn't have permitted Galileo to publish his book in the first place. Confabulous 09:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (typo corrected, clarity and precision modified) Confabulous 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not familiar...perhaps there have been other tall buildings that also had something burning coming off of them, Confabulous. Nothing about the video or what you have stated here proves controlled demolition, now does it Confabulous? Do you understand what proof is? I suspect if you were in charge of book publishing, we would have our world filled with nonsense. Do you have proof of controlled demolition, Confabulous? If you do, don't waste your time here with that profound discovery...call all the newspapers and the media and get the word out for surely they won't shut out this grand discovery of yours. Defenders of the "official dogma"...thanks for that, I needed a laugh. "Building fire temperatures"? I've seen automobiles melt in a forest fire and wood burns with much less intensity than aviation fuel.--MONGO 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any evidence a) that it was iron, and b) that it was structural iron and not a steel filing cabinet or furniture? Remember, the building wasn't vacant. (And why exactly would the conspirators sacrifice their own lives (and their cover story) just so they could go into the building and bale molten iron out of a window?) Peter Grey 16:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Every tall building fire, MONGO, has resulted in "something burning coming off them." We call them "flames" in technical parlance. If what you flippantly and incorrectly described as "something burning" refers to the stream of brightly glowing molten metal cascading from the South tower (the molten metal that isn't actually "burning" (see oxidation)), then there is certainly no precedent. When fire raged for 3.5 hours in the 62 story First Interstate Bank Building in LA, gutting four and a half floors, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged for 18 hours at 1 Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia, gutting eight floors, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged for 17 hours in a 56 story steel-framed tower in Caracas, Venezuala, gutting twenty-six floors and causing two of them to collapse, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. When fire raged through the Windsor Building in Madrid causing non-symmetrical and gradual collapse of several floors over a timespan of around 3 hours, no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. And when fire spread through six floors of the World Trade Center, North Tower, in 1975 (3 hours), no stream of molten metal of any kind was photographed, filmed, or reported. If you can find any example of this or a similar molten phenomena occuring in conjunction with any building fire on earth, please supply it. As for my understanding of proof, I suspect it's a tad more sophisticated than yours, and I find the question insulting coming from the kind of person who could cheerfuly assign the word "speculation" to a list of documented and referenced facts. You already tried to encourage another contributor to take only what they can "prove" to the washingtonpost instead of wasting time with that nasty stuff called evidence here at "the people's encyclopedia." When I mentioned that the washington post was certainly responsible for censoring Pentagon witness reportage (C-130), you demanded proof. But when given the proof you simply ignored it - it didn't happen! When I pointed out that seizure and suppression of Pentagon attack footage is, by definition, a coverup, you ignored that proof too - it didn't happen either! - not part of the official Arab-framing dogma! - move along! Five Israeli men -- Judeofascists perhaps, MONGO? -- were certainly arrested and detained as "suspected conspirators" on the afternoon of the attacks with, quote, "maps linking them to the bombing plot" [Bergen Record, Forward, Haaretz] and again, there is nothing to see here in the main article concerning these remarkable events that transpired on that remarkably evil day - so keep on moving. Video footage, and photos too, show a cascade of bright yellow molten metal preceding collapse -- but we can't document even that here, because the exact composition of the metal in the cascade can't be determined with 100% certainty, and because it might be one of those torrents of molten filing-cabinets that you often see pouring from office fires with such contempt for sufficient temperature! (in the way cars melt in a forest fire!) Confabulous 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (typofixmaticized) Confabulous 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some change to the article? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the original point is that in recent history, only 3 skyscrappers have ever collapsed because of fire: WTC 1, 2 and 7. That alone should speak for itself. And it's not like there hasn't been countless other fires, some burning for days and destroying entire buildings without it ever collapsing. Elfguy 14:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Was there jet fuel and a collapsing 1300 ft tall building involved in these other fires?--130.191.17.38 23:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly...it amazes me that these controlled demolition advocates seem to miss the basic point that none of the other buildings they cite as being comparable were hit by wide body jets flying at over 500mph and vitually full of aviation fuel. There are also key elements of Confabulous' comments that also miss the point. a)...hundreds of video cameras and media captured all or some of the collapse sequence from various aspects. Naturally, many things were observed at the WTC that were not observed at these other fires...which were also not fueled by aviation fuel. b)...no one knows what that is that is "pouring" out of the building and the controlled demolition advocates continue to state that it is iron due to it's color...maybe it is...but this doesn't mean that a thermite reaction is taking place as they wish some to think. c)...my knowledge of fire is pretty high. I have been to an engine academy, and was a stike team leader on wildland forest fires. On a fire I was involved in back in 1994, a car thief took the vehicle he stole into Croatan National Forest on the North Carolina coast and set fire to it to cover his tracks...this started a 25,000 acre fire and I did witness that this same stolen vehicle had portions of it's body reduced to slag...it had melted and pooled. Those five Israeli men were released...and the point there is what? I see...yes, the zionists did this so the U.S. would wage war in the middle east and the U.S. let them do it. Well, okay, that's simply retarded. Document facts eh...where...I see not one that is proof of controlled demolition. Confabulous has no idea what proof is and it would be amusing to say the least to see him submit his "proof" to any reputable news media, trade journal on civil engineering or elsewhere...I imagine their pain threshold for nonsense is significantly lower than ours is.--MONGO 02:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

So WHAT if the men "with MAPS LINKING THEM TO THE BOMBING PLOT" were released MONGO? Does that means we shouldn't include THE REPORTED FACTS? Just because Israel repeatedly attacked the USS Liberty in a failed attempt to frame Arabs, like they've been doing since Isreal's evil inception(you know, like THE LAVON AFFAIR was designed to frame Egyptians?) does that mean you wouldn't report that Israel repeatedly atttacke dthe Liberty? Because they were let off the hook for doing it? ALl Kosher, mate? Is that how it works - just pretend it didn't happen? Why do you suppose they were let off, mate? Why do think Domink Suter was permitted to fly home whule US citizens were GROUNDED? CAN WE BE INCLUSIVE OF ALL THE FACTS, MOGO - or just the one you think are kosher?

My comment was deleted by Tom because I pointed out the FACT that [personnal attack removed] DON'T CENSOR FACTS, TOM - you have already censored enough. You have been warned Confabulous 17:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth Movement

Good day to all,

I have recently become aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement. While I find the movement's allegations to be disturbing and hopefully untrue, as a trained social scientist I must consider the claims from an objective point of view. I have recently attempted to add Wikipedia links to 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth from the main 9/11 Wikipedia page. Within minutes of doing so, they have been removed. While I understand the controversial nature of this information, Wikipedia is a general information service. To delete or censor information because it is contestable is a disservice to the Wikipedia community. To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia. I ask that the individual or individuals who are deleting references to the 9/11 Truth Movement refrain from their censorship. To hide information that is controversial interferes with those of us seeking to better understand the cause and effects of the tragedy of September 11th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .

Most likely the links were removed because they were from unreliable sources. Wikipedia generally has quite strict standards for what can and cannot be included as links. Jefffire 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) In response,have you reviewed these sources? I believe it to be credible and truthful to state that "an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation" as part of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Welcome. You can sign your name with four tildes(~~~~), which makes it easier to follow the discussion. Besides the three-revert rule, which I see someone has already mentioned to you, Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith. Allegations of censorship are not helpful. Assume that the rest of us, like you, are interested in writing a good encyclopedia. You might also find it informative to read through this page's archives. At this point there is not a consensus to further emphasize conspiracy theories in this article. "To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia." No, that's not the case. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Good day. I have only yesterday become involved in contributing to Wikipedia and have not reviewed the extensive discussion archives on this page. Nevertheless,I consider verifiability to be synonomous with truth and, thus, to refer people to the real Wikipedia pages 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a positive and objective contribution for people to extend their knowledge.

Information and links that don't go along the 'official story' are suppressed in this article. That's just bias that's present in many controversial wikipedia articles. You would probably have more luck at the alternate theories article, labeled 'conspiracy theories' to make sure no one reads it, and be aware that there's another crew of trained editors there that will make sure everything you add is spined to sound unbelievable. Ok so that was harsh, but it's what I've seen so far. Elfguy 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to pity--146.244.137.178 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck 23:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Good day, while I may be misunderstanding your comment, I would hope that we work to create an objective entry that does not create bias. To mention the Truth Movement is both objective and verifiable, the exact methodology for a good encyclopedia.

the word "truth" in 911 "truth" movement is a form of newspeak. There isn't realy any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration.--130.191.17.38 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck, claiming that you have not bothered to read the discussion, but have an opinion is fascinating, but hardly persuasive.--Cberlet 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC) I claimed that I have not yet read this wikipedia discussion regarding the controversy surrounding the 9/11 Truth Movement. I too hope that it is proven to be biased non-sense, but until the adamant within the movement are given ample opportunity to present their evidence then, as a trained social scientist, I can not dismiss their claims simply because I do not want them to be true. I encourage those who object to allowing reference to Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, for example, refrain from their censorship. Allow others to judge for themselves whether these claims are worthy of consideration.

Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Good day to all of you who are following this discussion. This is what I have just read regarding those who monitor and remove objective information from this entry:

I want to welcome all newcomers to the September 11 attacks article with a few words of warning.

For those of you who wish to make edits to this page, if you feel that this article is missing relevant facts, please consider the following. Before contributing, ask yourself whether or not your contribution supports the official account of events of 9/11. If it does not, your edits are not welcome here. Only facts that support the official account of events are acceptable. Any facts which do not are considered Conspiracy Theories and should be added to the appropriate article [49].

Joetkeck68.254.110.51 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Please note, while I am not yet one among them, many individuals do not subscribe to the notion of discussing potential evidence of wrongdoing as conspiratorial. To refer people to the 9/11 Truth Movement should not be restricted on the main 9/11 page. i hope those of you who are censoring soon come to agree. Thank you.

This is not censoring, it is editorial judgement. There is a summary and link to the page that discsses and links to the litany of conspiracy groups. --Mmx1 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck How quickly my contribution is removed! You, or each of you, must moniter this page w/o sleep. My contribution is fair and accurate:

To question the validity of these outstanding claims, an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation. See 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Please allow fairness at Wikipedia. To not do so implies bias and, thus, censorship

Joetkeck 2:33 pm Central Let's see if my contribution as already been stripped --

Joetkeck 2:36 pm No, not yet.

I am only an observer to this conversation but I have a request. Please sign your name with ~~~~ AFTER your comments. Not doing so makes this discussion very hard to follow. Monkeyman^(talk) 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Joetkeck, what is it that you want to specifically change about the article? All you seem to be saying is that editors should allow any and all contributions to be added to the page, but wikipedia isn't about a free for all of random ideas. In fact, there is policy about original research. If you want to contribute to a wiki that has less restrictions on what constitutes fact, then I suggest you try editing this.--146.244.137.147 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorists

I note on the IRA section you ask not to use the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorists'. Yet on this article it is used. This is against your own rules! Or is it when IRA killed British people that was allowed, whereas when Islamists killed Americans this is not allowed, therefore they are 'Islamist terrorists'. Please explainBettybutt (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be an issue to bring up on the talk page for the IRA article, not here. A United Nations source was used for justifying the term "terrorist" on this article. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the following from discussion page 'Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here.'

It is POLICY to NOT use the term Terrorist, nowhere does it say it's fine if the UN uses the word. The British, Irish and American Governments used the word about IRA, so that ought to be just as acceptable.Bettybutt (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WTA is a guideline, not a policy. Additionally, the guideline does not say that we can't use the terrorist. Also, it is the belief of the editors of this article that we must use the term terrorist based on its use in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NPOV (which is policy). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not calling the the 9/11 hijackers terrorists would be sugar coating the truth.--MONGO 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say it would violate neutrality policies not to use the word. But I did go through the instances of the word "terrorist" in case it was excessive. It wasn't. I removed a couple instances, for article flow rather than neutrality (mentioning the timeframe of one section in its first paragraph, and in the other case because we didn't need to explain what al-Qaeda was in a subsection of the al-Qaeda section) for what that's worth. Thompsontough (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Intent of attackers

The Chambers dictionary defines 'terrorism' as thus:- terrorism noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands. terrorist noun, adj. ETYMOLOGY: 18c.

It can be successfully argued that the primary objective of the September 11 attacks was not terrorism as it is defined above. Given that the two principle targets were one major military target (Pentagon) and one major economic/financial target (World Trade Center) the attacks can be considered nothing short of a conventional (albeit 'home-made'/improvised) military attack against a country's infrastructure with a view to decimating said infrastructure. This is completely different from terrorism where the primary objective is to terrorise. An example of proper terrorism would be low-flying Israeli F-16s routinely breaking the sound barrier over the civilian population of Gaza. This isn't POV either; it's just that there cannot be any objective to breaking the sound barrier over a civilian population other than to create fear / terror. While it is true that the people of New York and those directly affected by the attacks of September 11 may well have been terrified it is not neccessarily true that the primary objective of the attacks was to create terror, but instead to destroy a central part of America's infrastructure. The opening days of the 2003 Iraq war, saw the so-called 'Shock and Awe' - a military attack against the Baathist infrastructure. There is no doubt that the civilian population of Baghdad would naturally have been terrified during such attack - but that does not mean that Shock and Awe was an act of terrorism carried out by terrorists. The September 11 attacks are no different. 81.141.105.11 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of the intent of the attackers - since we can't question them, you will need a reliable source that has determined that terror was not an objective or was secondary, in which case the article could reflect that there is disagreement. There is, in fact, an argument that the hijackers' goal was retribution for US military activity and they didn't care about terror, but to my knowledge that has not been asserted by any expert. Peter Grey (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is an extraordinary claim doesn't make it a valid one. I'd appreciate future contributes to come packing reliable sources before making claims like this, or this WILL turn into a forum. --Tarage (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I submit part of a transcript from an interview between Osama Bin Laden and Al-Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alounim, dated October 2001. The full-length interview is quite lengthy and I have posted a link to it below. This particular segment supports the notion that al-Qaeda was intending to destroy the central-nerve system of America, as opposed to terrorise:-

BIN LADEN: However, this prohibition of the killing of children and innocents is not absolute. It is not absolute. There are other texts that restrict it. I agree that the Prophet Mohammed forbade the killing of babies and women. That is true, but this is not absolute. There is a saying, "If the infidels killed women and children on purpose, we shouldn't shy way from treating them in the same way to stop them from doing it again." The men that God helped [attack, on September 11] did not intend to kill babies; they intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.

Q: How about the twin towers?

BIN LADEN: The towers are an economic power and not a children's school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world. They have to review their books. We will do as they do. If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html 81.141.105.11 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While this does go to lengths to say what Bin Laden's other motives were, it does not specifically state that he did not intend them to be attacks of terror. And since the world community as a whole has almost unanimously labeled them as such, I feel it should stay. --Tarage (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the last sentence "If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop" isn't about destroying the central-nerve system of America. It's about terrorizing the US until we change policy. That fits perfectly with the definition above.

In any case, the goal of the 9/11 was to goad the US into invading Afghanistan, which again would be a policy change. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I think there is a successful case for disagreement and debate on this issue. The past nine years has seen the use of language manipulated for propaganda purposes by forces whose objectives have subsequently been rendered questionable by popular culture. In such times, the dictionary should be the bible in determining truth, and not the polymorphic rudiments of a particular era's Government, or Government's propaganda campaign. Until such time as the question mark surrounding the intent of the attackers is cleared up, I suggest 'Islamic terrorists' should be replaced with 'Islamic militants' - a far more semantically stable definition, of which I'm sure everyone can agree on. 81.141.110.96 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-said. My biggest problem with the word "terrorist" is that it's emotive (after all, the root word, "terror," is a feeling). The fact that the word appears in reliable sources is enough to point out that the word has, indeed, appeared in reliable sources, but let's not forget that Wikipedia itself should strive to be reliable--and not just reliable, but dispassionate. I'm sure we can find reliable sources that refer to the hijackers as "monsters," but that doesn't mean we should say, "On that morning, 19 monsters affiliated with al-Qaeda..." There's a difference between being reliable and being encyclopedic. Because people do have emotions, publications can reliably reflect human affect. But an encyclopedia is supposed to be rather more detatched. Click the wikilink in the preceding sentence, and you will see that Denis Diderot has given encyclopedias something of a timeless agendum: "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us." While he goes on to say "that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy," Diderot's Encyclopédie was by no means an attempt to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy inside: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated," he said, "without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." What this all boils down to is, the encyclopedic voice is a voice to speak across time and space; it is emotionally detatched; it feels no terror, and therefore knows of no terrorists, even though it can quote the voices of those who do. It appears to me that the debate about using the word "terrorist" has boiled down to some overblown conflict between WP:TERRORIST and WP:RS, or perhaps between WP:TERRORIST and WP:IAR: Do we avoid the "loaded" language because it's non-neutral and therefore biased toward a certain segment of the population, or do we use it because reliable sources have used it, or even because, "Duh, they were terrorists!"? As far as I'm concerned, such a debate misses the point entirely. An encyclopedia should not try to make everyone happy; it shouldn't care whether it makes anyone happy, except insofar as it satisfies people's thirst for knowledge. And it should not simply parrot reliable sources, because an encyclopedia reaches beyond historical reliablilty, even while taking extensive note of it, and strives for ahistorical objectivity. I therefore believe that the word "terrorists" is not simply inappropriate, but actually foreign to the encyclopedic voice. When it speaks this word, it does so with a heavy accent that makes the word seem out of place unless the word is being explicitly attributed to someone else. Therefore, it might be appropriate to say something like, "On that morning, 19 people referred to by several commentators as Islamist terrorists..." although it would be considerably more succinct to follow through with the above suggestion that "terrorists" simply be replaced with "militants," which is both factually indisputable and emotionally uninvolved. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the practice of modern encylclopedist's agrees with you. See:

"Al-Qaeda, international terrorist network, founded by Osama bin Laden." - Encarta

"al-Qaeda: Islamic-extremist international terrorist organization, nominally controlled by Osama bin Laden." - TheFreeDictionary

"Osama bin Laden , 1957?-, Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda [Arab.,=the base], a terrorist organization" - The Columbia Encyclopedia

"al-Qaida [], al-Qaeda El Kaida, von → Osama Bin Laden gegr. islamist. Terrornetzwerk." - Brockhaus

"...the transnational terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda." - Britannica (although Britannica can't decide on one term and also calls it a "Islamic terrorist organization", "broad-based Islamic militant organization", "Islamic extremist organization", "Islamic extremist group", "Muslim extremist group", "Muslim militant organization" or simply "the Muslim group al-Qaeda") Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the modern encyclopedist is no Diderot. Encyclopedia-building is a serious business, and paid contributors don't want to alienate consumers by hurting their feelings. But if the encyclopedic voice isn't going to detatch itself from current sentiments in order to speak objectively to future generations, then who is? As volunteers, Wikipedians have nothing to lose by making their encyclopedia better, i.e., more encyclopedic, than other encyclopedias. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me offer an example for comparison. When you're watching a documentary, you don't expect the narrator's voice to quiver as he says, "And then along came the t-t-t-t-terrorists." You don't expect him to yell. In a show about animals, you don't want him to say, "Awwwww, giraffes!" Sure, documentarians can become "involved" with their topics when they're involved with filming, but when it comes time for post-production, you expect a degree of detatchment and professionalism if you're looking for a smooth and solid whole. Perhaps the wrong claim is being made by those who simply assert that "terrorists" is the wrong word to use, because they'll quickly be countered by assertions such as, "But 'terrorists' appears in reliable sources!" or, "But I can cite a definition of 'terrorism' that leaves no doubt as to whether that is what actually occurred!" What people should be stressing is that "militants" is the right word to use. It, too, can be reliably sourced, and it, too, can be said to denote what the hijackers actually were. If "terrorists" had no synonyms, then it would have to do. But "militants" is better than "terrorists," at least in terms of encyclopedic professionalism, because it connotes less emotion. If both "terrorists" and "militants" are equally satisfying in a conceptual, intellectual sense, then why is the former being preferred over the latter? You could make a good old WP:NPOV or WP:WTA case by asking, when either of two words would suffice, why choose the more "loaded" of them? But here I'm trying to go even deeper, asking, when either of two words would suffice, why choose the less "encyclopedic" of them? The encyclopedic voice is not your voice or my voice (I am American, just for the record, and felt plenty of "terror" on 9/11) or the collective voice of those who "stand united" (whatever that could possibly mean nowadays, having completely lost the practical implications that it had in the days of pre-united American colonies); the encyclopedic voice is the voice of someone who, to paraphrase Diderot, doesn't give a hoot about anything except the transmission of knowledge. In an era in which grand narratives have all but shattered, the encyclopedic voice may be the only entity left to speak both for our ancestors and to our descendants. So again I ask, why choose the more emotionally involved and historically "sticky" word over the more detatched and ashitorically fluid term? If both are equally valid on an intellectual level, then there seems to be some emotional motivation (which may be a redundant thing to say, if the words "emotion" and "motivation" are, as I suspect, etymologically related) for choosing "terrorists." I charge--and suspect that Diderot would, too--that such motivations ought to be minimized in an encyclopedic effort, and therefore that the affective term, "terrorists," should not be spoken comfortably by the encyclopedic voice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Militant" and "terrorist" do not say the same thing. "Terrorist" is insufficient because it refers to a type of tactic, without telling us much else, but it's correct. Peter Grey (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If we ignore the emotional overtones of "terrorist," we could reasonably describe it as a "terrorist" attack, with "terrorist" used as an adjective. But the emotional connotations are unavoidable when it is used as a noun, which looks like little more than name-calling unless it can be established that all of the 19 hijackers had previously engaged in terrorist (adjective) activity. Analogously, if I go walking in the woods and happen to discover a new species of toad, then I have made a "biological" discovery, but this does not make me a "biologist." I think it is safe to assume that those 19 men had not previously blown themselves up in terrorist attacks--so can we really, dispassionately label them terrorists? Emotively, of course we can; but considering the "encyclopedic voice" that I have been advocating, isn't it possible that this would appear more like angry name-calling than like quiet categorization? This distinction, I think, could be made more easily in the German language, in which the equivalents of "He is terrorist" and "He is a terrorist" are grammatically correct but have different meanings. Omitting the article ("a") creates a stronger association between the subject (he) and the subject-completion (terrorist); it suggests that one is a "professional" terrorist of sorts, whereas the inclusion of the article makes it clear that he is being referred to as a terrorist in a particular instance. (My knowledge of the German language isn't good enough to know for certain that this particular example would be used in comfortable German, but I can think of analogies.) But you're right: In the English language, anyway, calling them "terrorists" does not provide much information. Perhaps calling them "militants" or "radicals" provides even less, but I frankly don't see why we're calling them anything other than "Islamists" and "hijackers." While I can imagine the encyclopedic voice referring, with some effort, to an "act of terrorism," and while I can also suppose that it could even utter the word "terrorists" as a means of dispassionately categorizing individuals with a history of committing acts of terrorism, I can't hear it comfortably name-calling people because they've committed a single act, regardless of how emotionally affected people may have been by that act. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "name calling", it's a descriptive tag that nearly every reliable source on the planet uses. That's where we draw our usage. "We" don't label them anything, we use labels that WP:RS use. Aside from that, the analogy is a terrible one. Being a biologist, as we would describe one, needs some certain pre-conditions...schooling, expert knowledge in some field of study etc...one can become a terrorist (as reliable srouces use the term) with few if any pre-conditions. I can walk outside right now and decide to be what someone later would describe as a terrorist. RxS (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the word appears in reliable sources, but those sources do not state how the word should appear in encyclopedic phrasing. For that, I earlier invoked the creator of a reliable source of his own. As I said in this revision of this comment that I made above, I'm sure the word "monsters" also appears in reliable sources, but they do not dictate that it is encyclopedic to state, "On that morning, 19 monsters..." It is obvious that the encyclopedic voice just would not do that; it would rather find a more tempered and dispassionate way of attributing the epithet to its sources. My point is that "terrorists" is little different than "monsters" in the sense that it has emotive, reactive, and definitive qualities to it, whereas such qualities contravene the encyclopedic spirit, in which, as Diderot says, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." My point is, I think, a bit more nuanced than, "It does/doesn't appear in reliable sources, so let's use/not use it." I'm rather aiming for, "Okay, so it appears in reliable sources. What is the most encyclopedic way to document this fact?" As for the analogy, I know it's not perfect, but the point is that, when people are not being emotionally reactive (e.g., name-calling), they often attribute nouns to people with more discretion than they attribute adjectives to people's actions. To call someone a biologist means more than to say that they have made a "biological discovery" (all PhD biologists are supposed to have made at least one discovery), and to call someone a terrorist carries more weight than to say they they have committed a "terrorist act." If a statement is to carry extra weight, then the person making the statement should realize what the extra weight entails. No harm would be done by referring to the hijackers as "Islamists" or just "hijackers"; no information would be removed if "terrorists" were omitted and "act of terrorism" were added in its wake, or if "terrorists" were qualified as "Islamists widely referred to as terrorists" (although the last option is a bit of a mouthful). The ideal wording for the encyclopedic voice would be a wording in which it unambiguously feels neither terror nor anger. The epithet "terrorists," in isolation, may well echo the terror and anger felt by many people (myself included), some of whose sentiments have been reliably documented--but it does not reflect the detatchment of a voice that aims to speak across time and space as a messenger to the generations. I apologize if this sounds unnecessarily epic, but I find it important that encyclopedists strive to reach beyond the here-and-now, lest nobody else does. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assigning too much emotion to the word, I don't sense that it's being used from anger or terror. In any case, your equivalence between terrorist and monster doesn't exist. I doubt any reliable source uses the word monster in the same context that the word terrorist is used. Maybe some opinion pieces or blogs but that's about it and the usage certainly doesn't rise to the level needed to justify using it, I know (or assume) you don't mean it literally but still. The thing is once we start making editorial decisions on terminology that don't match reliable source and mainstream usage, we're sailing pretty close to the wind in regards to our own policies. Using the terms hijackers or (especially) Islamists strip away the context in which acts were conducted in...and context is important in an encyclopedia as it is anywhere else. Not to sound like a broken record, but we're tied to reliable sourcing for our content and context...as time goes by and usage changes, so will ours. But we can't antcipate that by trying to reach beyond the here and now. I'm afraid we're stuck with it. RxS (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks. In the wikipedia entry for Al-qaeda, the opening paragraph describes Al-qaeda as a 'Sunni Islamist Extremist movement' as it's principal definition. 81.141.110.96 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)