Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

The call for a new investigation

Entered (and reverted) according to the Wikipedia principle of WP:BRD. I submit that this topic is of significant importance to the September 11 attacks issue, and the article has a gaping hole in its information without it. I made a good faith effort in writing the section, and I attempted to select reasonably accurate and authoritative references for every element in the topic. I request that it be returned to the article, pending commentary from other editors. Wildbear (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic probably should have a place in the article, but the calls for investigation are not a unified phenomenon; it is necessary to distinguish legitimate criticism of investigation to date from the lunatic fringe. Many calls for investigation have no relation to the "Truth" movement. Peter Grey (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is discussed in length on appropriate articles already, and does not need further undue weight here. --Tarage (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Tarage. Wildbears contribution is well sourced and the topic is significant to the article To not mention it at all is simply wrong. Tony0937 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As there is a related article "9/11 opinion polls", a brief summary of this article should be included in this article (if it has it's own article, it's very likely notable enough to be mentioned as part of this article). If we refer to the other article, we do not need to refer to single opinion polls (although they may appear in the references). We should use the entire "9/11 opinion polls" article as the basis, not only the "new investigation" aspect.  Cs32en  19:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the sources, people and polls mentioned in the current version of this section are referring to conspiracy theories, which should be discussed in the relevant sub-articles and not in this article. The NYC CAN group aren't conspiracy theorists as far as I can tell, but the source is self-published and I can't find any mainstream news organisation covering them. The fact that there's a sub-article certainly does not mean we have to give the topic any coverage in this article, as is shown by the huge number of sub-articles with no coverage: Communication during the September 11 attacks, Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks, List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks, Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks, List of artistic depictions of September 11 and its aftermath, and doubtless many others. I am not convinced this topic needs to be covered in this article, though we could put the opinion poll article to Template:Sept11. Hut 8.5 12:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a number of polls that ask something like "Who do you think was responsible for the September 11 attacks?" or "Do you think the government is telling the truth about the September 11 attacks?". Actually, a majority of people answers "Al Qaida", while answer are more mixed with regard to the second question. But the questions are formulated in a general way, they do not refer to a conspiracy theory, they do not imply that interviewee know about any conspiracy theories. The fact that some people give answers to the questions that imply that they believe some alternative theory about the September 11 attacks would be true does not make such a poll a poll about conspiracy theories. So there is a direct relationship of the opinion polls article to this article, not an indirect relationship (via the conspiracy theories article). However, the text in the September 11 attacks article should be a brief summary, without excessive detail.  Cs32en  12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Zogby poll currently referenced by the article was sponsored by 911truth.org, a conspiracy theorist website, and was commissioned for a conference entitled "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future".[1] It is therefore clearly linked to conspiracy theories. The 9/11 polls article does not exclusively discuss conspiracy theories but it is still clearly focused on them, as the lead, the first section, and most of the rest of the article discuss either specific conspiracy theorist claims or which organisation was responsible for the attacks. Again it isn't significant enough to include here. Hut 8.5 18:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If something is significant enough to have its own article (and related to 9/11), it is also significant enough to be mentioned in the context of this article. The actual question, in my view, is whether the "link" is paragraph -> (sub-)section in sub-article -> sub-sub-article, or (sub-)section -> sub-article. The Zogby poll is the one poll that has some connection to alternative theories, but there are a large number of other polls that do not. If the text of the 9/11 polls article is too much focused on alternative theories, that would be a problem that should be resolved at that article's page.  Cs32en  19:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I still feel it doesn't belong here. Polls are polls, and can easily be influenced to swing votes on way or another. We've had this debate before, and consensus was not to include. --Tarage (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here certainly is notability, not truth - it's not our business to decide whether the results of the polls are true. I feel that this aspect is at least as important as many other pieces of information that are in the article, and thus should be included.  Cs32en  07:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, and a handful of polls are not notable enough for mention. Again, we have an entire article for this sort of thing. Why do we need to add undue weight here? Reverted again. --Tarage (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous and weak argument to try and use WPUNDUE. Tony0937 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

How so? You wanna back up your claim? --Tarage (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it is the majority view The poll also found that 66 percent of New York City residents and 56 percent of state residents wanted a fuller investigation of the "still unanswered questions." this has nothing to do with WPUNDUE.Tony0937 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to do better than a poll to include that, and in any case, New Yorkers are not the only people with a stake here. I'm sure you could find other small samples that believe in anything you want. RxS (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The polls are not significant to the subject. There is no public debate about them, no meaningful discussion about them in mainstream media or reliable sources. They are not "notible" in the sense that they are part of the discussion about 911 topics among academics or experts working in their fields. Not to mention that they are primary sources. [2]. The article on 911 polls itself should be deleted. RxS (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So the opinions of a New Yorkers don't matter? Thats absurd!! It is the New York Times (secondary source) that reports this so NOR does not apply.

It's a simple fact that there are a significant number of people that want 9/11 re-investigated and the article needs to reflect that. Whether academics have made comments or not does not change anything. Tony0937 (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not notable that NYC will have a ballot in their next election that if passed will result in a new investigation with subpoena powers? What about the 911 truth group that spoke in Westminster before the house of commons a few weeks ago and has been invited back by MPs? Is it notable that most 911 survivors, victims families and first responders are pushing for a new investigation? Surely this increase in support for a new investigation is notable. As the article stands it implies everyone is happy and there is no significant dissent. Wayne (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no significant desent. 52,000 out of however many people live in NY/US/World is not significant. You could get that many New Yorkers to sign anything. On the other hand, what academics, mainstream media and reliable sources does matter. Cherry picking small groups of people (even if what you say about them is true, which it isn't) doesn't change that. RxS (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC) RxS (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, in 1997, a 14-year-old high school student got 86% of the people he polled to agree that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned.[3] People are stupid. 9/11 conspiracy theories are proof of that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the New York Times Reports (66% of New Yorkers) which you want us to ignore. 52,000 is the reported number of people who signed the petition but people are still signing it. The City of New York considers it a significant number since the rules for getting a referendum on the ballot is considerably less then that number, but you want us to ignore it as if it did not exist. When academics such as Steven Jones or David Griffin question 9/11 and it is reported on we are supposed to ignore them as well. Absurd. Tony0937 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ignore them? No. Give them undue weight on an article that does not need their inclusion? No as well. There is a place for their work. That place is not here. This article is not about New York. --Tarage (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing No Weight with Undue Weight. That a significant number of people want a new investigation is also not limited to NY. No one is asking for a whole section but due weight does require that it be mentioned. Wayne (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

52,000 people in New York City (population: 8,000,000) is not exactly a significant number.

OT: It would be interesting to see how many would actually sign a petition to hold a referendum, and then how the city would vote on the referendum. I wonder why the Truth movement hasn’t done that yet. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We are not restricted to the NYC petition. Polls consistently indicate around 40% of Americans (and a larger %age in other countries) see the need for a new investigation. This is significant by anyones standard. I can't even understand how anyone can argue that 40% is not significant or that only those who signed the NYC petition should be counted to determine the significance. Wayne (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be significant. What polls are those? Link? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Using that same absurd argument, we can say that since the number of NIST employees is statistically insignificant (< 4000) we should ignore anything they say. We certainly don't do that, we report what they say. We don't say "I'm sure you could find other small samples that believe in anything you want". Trying to spin things that way is illogical. we report facts. I totally agree with Wayne here, Undue Weight ≠ No Weight. Tony0937 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The petition signers are a random sampling of people on the street. NIST employees are experts. In suggesting holding the two as equal, you’re the one who’s being absurd. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• It depends what investigation is being called for. Investigation of matters ignored by the 9/11 Commission could be added to the 9/11 Commission Report article. Investigation of fantasy could be added to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Peter Grey (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The "40%" are not those who believe "matters were ignored" but those who do not believe the official account in it's entirety. It's a pity it hasn't been broken down into more specific beliefs but it ranges from 911 truthers at the one extreme to those who only believe the government is covering something up without knowing exactly what at the other. To reject it as "fantasy" is offensive as it is irrefutable that governments often conduct cover ups and as such the use of POV perjoritives should be limited to those theories actually disproven. Wayne (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that some are fantasy, and some are not, and that there is a difference between the two. Peter Grey (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Motive

As well as the intention to kill people, wasn't an important motive the symbolism of the targets? The WTC representing US business, the Pentagon representing the US military and Washington (the Capitol or the White House) representing the US government? I think the symbolism of the particular targets should be noted. Bin Laden was also motivated by revenge for attacks on Lebanon ""While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," [4] --Flexdream (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If that were a reliable source, it might be relevant. However, a credible conjecture would have been that the plane which crashed into the Pentagon was looking for the White House, so the claim that the US military was targeted is unclear. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is CNN a reliable source

Hi!

Basically every source in connection with AE911truth is being said to be non-reliable source. However all those sources supporting the Bush conspiracy theory (the official version, where Al-Quaeda terrorists attack America), aren't though reliable neither.

For short: Why are CNN and NIST accepted as a reliable source but all thbose scientific reports of AE911truth members not? --91.138.29.74 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Hut 8.5 10:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough of this, user has been blocked RxS (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Question

What means of assurance Wikipedia has for its readers about editors who work on this article? Criminalresponsibility (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About the editors themselves? AFAIK, none. As far as the article quality goes, AFAIK, it's still none, but if an article meets GA and especially FA status, that's usually a good sign. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the new investigation shows that editors here were wrong, neither FA nor GA status will be a good sign. So, as far as you know, these folks could easily operate from one of those Psy-op centers guided by something like that infamous Joint Psychological Operations doctrine… If there is a 'probable cause', can administrators here check affiliation of particular editor? For example, if the conduct of a certain editor brings doubt about his 'agenda', where would be appropriate place for concerned reader to express and pursue such doubts? Criminalresponsibility (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere. Please take your assumptions that editors are somehow government plants elsewhere. There is no 'right' and 'wrong' on Wikipedia, we are only reporting what reliable sources say. If, and this is the biggest if I have said in my entire life, if it does turn out that some new investigation brings to light some evidence that is so impossibly important and groundbreaking that the majority of reliable sources suddenly change their tune and support it, then we would change this article. Other than that, nothing you wish will happen. And I do suggest you refrain from making claims about editors being part of Psy-op centers, lest you find yourself topic banned for your blatant personal attacks that have no grounds what so ever. --Tarage (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On another note... who wants to bet this is another sock? Maybe Tachyonbursts is making another attempt... Can we get a check user please? --Tarage (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere? I'm alleging that you are embedded editor who is working here for his own personal gain without any consideration for the guidelines and goals behind this project. There must be a way to put such notions to rest, check's and balances and all that. So, is there a way or not? Criminalresponsibility (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Existence of WMD

In the lead section of the article, on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I've amended the phrase "later it was discovered that there were none" to "no such weapons have been found". While I'm personally of the view (probably shared by most people by now) that the whole WMD scenario was cooked up to provide an excuse for a military incursion already decided on, the problem Iraq had at the start is the same problem we have now: you can't prove the non-existence of something.

In other words, unless someone knows better and can correct me, we have no conclusive way to prove or discover that there were no WMD, but have no evidence to suppose that there were. - Laterensis (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Whether or not it can be proven in a theoretically absolute sense, the non-existence of WMD is the verifiable conclusion of authoritative sources. Peter Grey (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since as I said you can't prove the non-existence of something, this still amounts to the adoption of the most likely conclusion by those sources (a conclusion I would agree with, albeit as a private citizen with only news reports to go on). So I still maintain the view that "no such weapons have been found" is more factually accurate than "it was discovered that there were none". - Laterensis (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. Are Iraq's WMDs mentioned in the article? I don't see it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference to WMD in the lead (which was added yesterday) should be removed, because the article barely mentions the invasion of Iraq, apart from a sentence saying that the attacks contributed to public support for the invasion. --Hut 8.5 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for introducing a new term

In the interest of NPOV, I believe we should refer to the mainstream theory with regard to the September 11th Attacks as the "official conspiracy theory". This is completely accurate, the theory is official and it proposes that a conspiracy (Al-Queda) executed the attacks. People attempt to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to marginalize alternative arguments, but the term can also be applied to the mainstream theory. The majority of people believe in the official conspiracy theory, but it is still a POV to describe it in one way while describing alternative views in another way, using a term with a negative connotation. Adding the term 'Official' shows that the government backs this particular conspiracy theory, so it adds information while using the same term to neutrally describe different views, without taking the POV that one theory is 'true'. Just because the government and mainstream media choose to be biased on this issue doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Mr. Quickling (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty awkward, and no reliable sources use the term. This has been talked about multiple times and would be WP:OR to use the term. RxS (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the "alternative views" you mention are usually described as "conspiracy theories" the same is not the case for the mainstream view (indeed about the only people who use this term are those promoting "alternative views"). In addition the mainstream view doesn't necessarily meet the definition of "conspiracy theory". Hut 8.5 09:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you are upset with us using reliable sources, when this is in fact how Wikipedia runs. I suggest you go read up more before proposing more biased changes. That's right, it would actually BE biased to call it an "official conspiracy theory", rather than the other way around. Then again you would know this if you read the talk archives. So all around, go read more. --Tarage (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing 'official' about the mainstream account, and no-one would care if there were. Peter Grey (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's (as far as I know, permanently) semi-protected. Only registered editors can alter it. This measure was enacted to stem the flow of vandalism and the insertion of baseless conspiracy cruft into the article without discussion - most of it has already been addressed, but there are always newcomers who are either unaware or willfully ignorant of previous discussions. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you becoem a registered editor? 12.54.125.181 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to Special:CreateAccount (or click "log in / create account" at the top right). If you want to edit semiprotected pages like this one, your account needs to have been registered for four days and have ten edits. If there's a specific edit you want to make to this page you can just post it here, and if it's appropriate someone will make the edit for you. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 12.54.125.181 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can an admin please return the page to semi-protected? A bot got rid of it, and you're seeing the results first hand.

I attempted to do it myself but... well... you can see my failure first hand as well. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I got it protected for a year... though I'd love to have it longer... --Tarage (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should remain unprotected until the bias in the writing has been addressed by its Wikipedia editors. It is against the interests of public knowledge and education if people with no credible expertise in knowledge creation continue to censor changes (and challenges) to their article by those that do have such expertise.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

I'm now positive you are completely off your rocker, or you have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. Just go away. --Tarage (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Creating" knowledge is WP:NOT what an encyclopaedia is for. Peter Grey (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, then all this "official" nonsense about planes causing the destruction of the three buildings is not encyclopaedic! It's not like anything on this page outside of the inadequate conspiracy link coverage to the true story at 9-11 conspiracy theories is actually factual. The vast majority of this article is patent nonsense. But majority rules on wikipedia. I'll just go away now. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your decision to go away. Way to be the bigger (wo)man! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Tarage (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Muslims and controversies}} template

We wouldn't write in the text of the article that 9/11 would be related to the persecution of homosexuals in Iran or to the indignation and outrage in Islamic countries about pictures that ridiculed Muhammed. So we shouldn't have a template in the article that creates exactly this impression. A smaller template, and one that is focused on terrorism, not on "controversies", would be acceptable. If we want to have links to Islam in general, we would need a general template, not a "controversies" template that gives a biased perspective on the topic.  Cs32en  00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Khalid Sheik Mohammed

There is no evidence that KSM was anything more than a minor recruiter for the 911 attack. For a man to "mastermind" a massive mission that defeated the entire US fighter jet coverage and all intelligence agencies, there has to be some evidence that he drew up the aerial tactical plan while providing logistical and financial support to 19 separate individuals who entered the US without being detected. Without the use of a legal proceeding, this entire article is nothing more than fancy hearsay from third hand sources that were never cross-examined. In this so-called confession, it has been determined that KSM, a man with no aviation or tactical planning history, was brutally tortured while submitting this "testimony." None of his testimony or confessions would hold up in traffic court but wikipedia has determined that he was the mastermind. Msy2fla (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (and I don't think it is), we couldn't use it for editing the article unless some reliable source agreed with you. I don't recall any such source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are tipping your "right" hand when you italicize the word "is"? This article quotes an Al Jazeera interview as proof that KSM was the “mastermind.” Just because a nut wants to take credit for the greatest attack against America, doesn’t deem him guilty of anything. No one has produced evidence of his capabilities as a tactical planner, as a logistical genius or an aviation expert which were all required to pull off the attack. The al Jazeera reporter was certainly not qualified to judge his capabilities or cross-examine his claim. Again, in the biggest criminal act against America, we see a media conviction while KSM sits 100 miles from the US border, recovering from 183 trips to the waterboard. The solution is bringing KSM to trial in the US so he can “confess” to a judge or jury but in order for his “confession” to stand, he must provide the volumes of missing information to explain his enormous victory over every element of US national security. This was a criminal act perpetrated on US soil. Usually, the US will charge then prosecute such individuals. Msy2fla (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msy2fla (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources please. This is not a forum. --Tarage (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article on KSM presents the false impression that he has been convicted. I suggest the following addition in order to present a more balanced and truthful account:

Several questions remain in regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s role in the 911 plot. He has not been afforded a criminal trial and therefore has not been convicted of any crimes against the United States. The 911 Commission’s final report stated that KSM admitted that he lied in a interview with Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda, that a post-capture claim “may be pure bravado” and that “KSM has provided inconsistent information” about an alleged conversation with Osama bin Laden, who has not been charged with involvement in the 9/11 plot.

While being held by US intelligence agents at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, it has been widely reported that KSM was a victim of a prolonged series of severe torture and was waterboarded at least 183 times. During this incarceration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to his interrogators that he was responsible for the 911 plot “from A to Z” and to 31 other terrorist plots around the world. Although the 911 Commission raised concerns about KSM’s credibility, they nonetheless decided to base the majority of the 9/11 plot on his unverified statements given under duress. The Commission published the following disclaimer that preceded statements attributed to KSM:

“Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. . . . Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses . . . is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.“

The 911 Commission investigation has been criticized by its two co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in a co-authored book entitled “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. ISBN 9780307276636 In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the Pentagon and FAA officials. Both men claimed that the 911 Commission was “designed to fail.”

The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also raised doubts to claims by some U.S. intelligence agents that KSM was the mastermind of the attacks: “Neither the CIA or FBI has been able to confirm that KSM traveled to the U.S. or that he sent recruits to the U.S. prior to 9/11.” The heavily redacted report detailed a different group of suspects in their report. These suspects were affiliated with the Saudi Arabian government and there was no mention of KSM being in contact with Omar al-Bayoumi who was determined to be aiding at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Mr. al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Aviation Ministry, denied knowing KSM.

added by msy2fla

"Mastermind" probably would be overstating his role, but the article quotes the 9/11 Commission Report, which labels Mohammed "principal architect." Peter Grey (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia determines nothing. Wikipedia only states what reliable sources state. I invite you to bring some or "get out". --Tarage (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

number of deaths

the intro and the info box give 2 confusing figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.221 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The figure in the infobox (3017) includes 24 "presumed dead", if you discount these then you get the number in the intro (2993). Hut 8.5 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Prewarnings of a Terrorist Attack upon The United States

It is a fact that there were indications as far back as June 2001, that a terrorist plot was in the works to attack The United States. Even though there was plenty of viaable indicators from various U.S., Foreign Agencies, and reputable public-private officials, most information was dismissed and/or not taken seriously. One of the failures that lead to 9/11, was various communications breakdowns, the lack of agency inter-sharing between various departments. The reports of vague or not giving enough details as to an absolute time, place, or location. Some U.S. and Foreign officials have complained later, that there were enough indicators to issue an advisory. For the record, a possible threat brief was issued to The White House in as early as a month before the eventual incident. It was reported that approximately 72 hours before the 9/11 incident, a scattered number of U.S. Naval ships and submarines were given orders to re-deploy in various areas, expecting something, but giving no clear indication as to why they were re-deployed for a possible attack. This and other communications breakdowns occured before, during, and after 9/11, that should have been considered normal operational protocol. There was no true indication of a conspiracy, but a series of breakdowns that futher confused and diverted vital backups toward national defences. Though it was investigated later that additional 9/11 plots were aborted that day, many agree that the executed events of what we call 9/11 could have been futher prevented if all involved also thought "Outside The Box". Aedwardmoch (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was concluded in the investigations by the 911 Commission that a series of breakdowns of communications were a major conributing factor before, during, and after 9/11 in various degrees. I think this should be clearly mentioned in the main article as well. Aedwardmoch (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Might wanna save it for later. Today is going to be a busy day. --Tarage (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

guesss sooo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.80.207 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 

National Day Of Service And Rememberance

I believe it's relevant to mention (in the Memorial section and in the article summary) the fact that 9/11 has been declared a National Day Of Service and Rememberance by Congress, and the President. Although there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of this action, this is nevertheless the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.115.178 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Number of Injured

I'm wondering what the source is for the "6291+ injured" claim in the info box.

Thanks.66.131.197.203 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

"In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks." Second info paragraph says.

Infobox says 2,995 including the 19 hijackers.

I know its a minor discrepancy, but I'm just curious what the sources are for the separate figures. Technically, both of those should read "confirmed" deaths, yes? The exact figure can never realistically be figured out, so perhaps they should both "approximately ####". 72.145.228.108 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Eight years and more unanswered questions - world media narrative

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. This is not the place to decide whether what happened was what we saw or something else. Fell free to continue this, but I will report it. –túrianpatois 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Eight years after 9/11, it seems to me that the narrative of September 11 attacks is shifting a bit in media. I'd like to include a paragraph or two about multiple questions unanswered by mainstream narrative to this day and source it with these articles from media around the world: Asia Times Online: Fifty questions on 9/11 RussiaToday: 8 years after 9/11 Americans have many questions unanswered RussiaToday: 911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job Silicon Valley's MetroActive: Explosive Theory WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas... (this one is a comment from AE911truth approved as interesting and published by WAN on their website) What are your opinions on these sources and on general idea of adding a paragraph or section about unanswered questions? salVNaut (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) This is an article that actually condenses the content of many sub-articles. So in my view, information that is introduced here should be covered in the subarticles first. There is information that has been reported by numerous media, in many countries. (Asia Times and Russia Today are of course a specific segment of the media.) At this moment, the alternative views do not receive due weight in this article. They should receive more weight because (a) they are a viewpoint held by a significant minority (b) their existence is an important social phenomenon related to the September 11 attacks. The starting point should be an expansion of the existing section, with information that has been reported by multiple media (such as the BBC, Financial Times, the New York Times, European TV channels, and other media such as Russia Today and Asia Times, of course).  Cs32en  20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I looked into the first source (Fifty Questions), and found it bizarrely mis-informed. As an example, it claimed that none of the black boxes had been found, when in fact, the CVR tapes have been played for the surviving families. The other sources seem to be no better, repeating free-fall myths, uncollapsable steel buildings, and other bogus claims. These belong in the conspiracy theories article, not this one. Ronabop (talk) Prove that the black boxes were played for the families. Why did so many of them say they haven't heard them. Free=fall myths? uncollapsable buildings. Bogus? You're blatantly stating your own POV. Anyone can equally claim that "fire's caused the collapse" is bogus, based on scientific facts, or call out "7 collapsed because of debris" as patent nonsense. Ignoring the hundreds of reports of a "giant fireball in the air" when the plane went down in PA could be considered to be pushing a blatant fallacy. Please tone your comments to a more neutral sense. If you are unable to remain neutral, please refrain from posting on wikipedia; which does not allow POV to shape articles. This article is already rife with pro-government propaganda and government-related sources. Is adding a little MAJOR-minority take really going to be the end of the world. PEW and NOPI both have released reports in the last year stating that over 70% of Americans believe that they were not told the entire story about 9/11 and that over 40% believe the entire government story to be a fallacy. Such reports need to be addressed. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Feel free to add it to the conspiracy articles, but it would be ridiculous to add it to this article. –túrianpatois 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Please read the FAQ. Ronabop (talk) You can also add Salon.comto that list. The fact is that more and more news organizations are finding a more balanced approach. World Architecture News "While it would be easy to dismiss Gage’s opinion, that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was in fact caused by controlled demolition techniques, as nothing more than conspiracy theory, the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration." The Guardian UK "But here's something I really don't understand: when did it become uncool to ask questions? When did questioners become imbeciles? Who gets to hand out the tinfoil hats? When did it become cool to believe what we're told? In the words of Mr Hicks, did I miss a meeting? When did so many of the cynics and sceptics, so many of the sharpest brains I know (hello Charlie Brooker!) think that the cool thing to do is mock the questioners, and defend the party line. How stratospherically uncool is that?" Tony0937 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Sigh. Welcome, young ones, to Wikipedia, where one of our core policies for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" but "reliable sources" are required to be "credible" and "trustworthy." Where mainstream news and government propaganda are considered to be reliable, but any claims that contradict them must cite "exceptional sources." Where "notability" is based on reputation, but "fringe theories" cannot be given undue weight. So, even though the 9/11 Commission Report is provably misleading and incomplete, it is accepted as reliable because it is mainstream; but none of your scientific evidence that explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers will ever be included in this article, because the sources for it are ridiculed as "fringe." Oneismany (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Oneismany, please think about the style of your comment, which may be perceived as condescending. Wikipedia is reporting on relevant views, if their existence can be verified by reliable sources. It's not necessary that these views are correct or "true". We also attribute relevant views to their proponents, so we are just saying: "It's verifiable that XY says Z," we're not saying "Z is true".  Cs32en  03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Oneismany is simply pointing out the fact that has been covered time and again, wikipedia is not a collection of "facts" in the strictest sense, but a collection of verifiable quotes. Lostinlodos (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I love how the of the 'new sources' is a youtube video. Rich. Let's move on now, there is clearly nothing important to discuss here. --Tarage (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC) This has been suggested many, many times before and has always been rejected. A short-term minor increase in coverage on the anniversary, even without discussing the quality of the sources, does not mean that the conspiracy theories are no longer fringe. There is no need to have the same discussion again. Hut 8.5 12:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) They are fringe because the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor and what little reporting is done is no better (as noted above). It's the anniversary of the attacks and there's a small increase of coverage (as always happens in these situations). It'll go back to normal soon, nothing's changed. If you don't like how we handle sources then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many forums you can visit which are full of people treating facts with a little more...flexibility. But keep the fringe BS out of here please. RxS (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I would not call that statement NPOV. Tony0937 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) This isn't an article, this is a talk page. There's a help page around somewhere that can help you with the difference. RxS (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC) So you feel free to call what is reported in RS "fringe BS" and say "the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor" and it should be accepted the only possible interpretation? I don't agree.Tony0937 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Your opinion is noted. Thank you. RxS (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC) The conspiracy theories that surround what happened on 9/11 are going to perpetuate ad nauseum because for some people, it's simply easier to believe in fiction than it is to know facts when you see them. There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books and going to high priced "seminars". But such is the fortune of misinformation and 9/11 CTers aren't alone in their efforts to capitalize on innuendo and fantasy...much money has also been made by those that have "proof" that bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's as well.--MONGO 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) "There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books"... Unlike government officials, who only stand to win if people lose trust in them.   Cs32en  04:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I can't see how government officials win if people don't trust them...least not in a democratic society...they'll be more likely to lose elections if they're not trusted.--MONGO 04:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) The information is not going in. So WP:GETOVERIT. Harsh but stop arguing as it will get you no where. –túrianpatois 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Interesting opinion 75.155.87.25 (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Most people have already given reasons as to why it will not be admitted into the article. Care to say why it won't? –túrianpatois Sadly the message doesn't always sink in. Every so often single purpose accounts get all excited and start jumping up and down, we have to go over everything once again...rinse and repeat. and when did people get the idea that the US government could keep a secret about anything? RxS (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with your view on this, Mongo. That's exactly why government officials - following their institutional interests - are generally not supporting a new investigation.  Cs32en  05:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC) MONGO, I'm reminded of a specific incident, from long ago, where a "downed aircraft" with "an advanced flexible metal" and other odd technology spurned many years of crazy UFO theory crap. We now know know that it was a high altitude weather balloon (the aircraft bit), with silver mylar reflective material lenses (the flexible metal bit, see a balloon shop), designed to sample radiation bursts in the atmosphere during the cold war. The crazies hold on to the old theories, because they're invested in being right. Sometimes literally invested. Ronabop (talk) LIkewise, and oddly, I took a picture of a cormorant yesterday in the water and noticed it looked almost exactly what was long passed off as a long range image of Nessie...--MONGO 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I believe in facts and logic not UFO's or bigfoot nor do I have any questions about landing on the moon, but even NIST understands what free fall means: As Shyam Sunder of NIST said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" Since explosive are one way to achieve this in the event of building 7's destruction I have not dismissed the possibility that they were the cause. I do not say it was the cause. However NIST does not demonstrate that this could be achieved via their simulation. Their model is at does not provide an explanation for free fall. So you can understand why am unconvinced that explosives were not used. That does not make me a kook or a nutbar that make me a skeptic. When WAN provides members of ae911truth with a venue to present their case I can understand why they would do so. I can also understand that someone might want to see things differently but I don't ignore facts simply because they don't make me comfortable. Tony0937 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.