Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

How many serious articles, books, documentaries, and peer-reviewed journals about 9/11 include non-trivial coverage of conspiracy theories?

I think that we are giving undue weight to the fringe theory that 9/11 was "an inside job" in this article. In every article or documentary I've ever watched on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there is no mention of these conspiracy theories. Sure, they get mentioned in articles about the conspiracy theories but not in articles about 9/11. So my question is: how many serious articles, books, documentaries, and peer-reviewed journals about 9/11 include non-trivial coverage of conspiracy theories? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And while we're at it, how many are made about those who sincerely question the monstrous nature of 9/11 attacks? Praxidikai (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, I suggest that everyone stop the broken-record cycle here and cease responding to these familiar and tedious arguments. It's likely that either the sockpuppet investigation will yield positive results, or that this editor will eventually be blocked for exhausting the patience of the community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OooooohNoitsjamie again, you should really try another nick-trick. It became a bit cheese. Say, do you have any thoughts on subject? Thanks. Praxidikai (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What are some good, authoritative, reliable books on 9/11?

I want to go to the library or the book store and examine their books on 9/11. If they don't include coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories, then neither should we per WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that we certainly should have the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's enough interest in, and sources on, this topic for that article. And if that article exists, it makes sense to link to it here, although we could trim down the text on it. ClovisPt (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How about: Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission. We've entrusted those people with 9/11 investigation, should be reliable enough. Your turn. Praxidikai (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ClovisPt, I have no problem with Wikipedia having an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. My issue is whether conspiracy theories should be mentioned in this article. I suspect that books from respected publishing houses on 9/11 don't even mention them or only have trivial coverage. If this is the case, I'm deleting this section from this particular article. 9/11 conspiracy theories will remain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think conspiracy theories deserve a brief mention along with a link to the main article - much like the Area 51 article has a small section on UFOs and related links. If there's a connection in the public's mind (per reliable sources), then it's worth mentioning - with all due care to avoid WP:UNDO. Rklawton (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

77 countries of over 90 countries?

I just happened by the Interpol site and it says 9/11 had victims from 77 countries. However, this article it says over 90 countries. Is the 90 the more up-to-date figure?

• Source: A list of the 77 countries whose citizens died as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001

CaribDigita (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don’t see anything about 90 countries in the sources for that paragraph, and a Google search reveals other numbers, e.g. “more than 80” in different sources.

Interpol/USinfo seems to be pretty sound source to me, so I’m going to go with it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 08:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Diversity

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 discuss or add information regarding conspiracy theories nor is it that place to wage a war of semantics. Take your information to the appropriate article, 9/11 conspiracy theories. –Turian (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd say we should note the groups of people who question 9/11 attacks and point out this difference we know. Unfortunately, we have such set up that all the people who question get labelled with 'conspiracy theorism', largely pejorative term by our own standards. Since we're aware of difference, lets make the difference. Praxidikai (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If we did so, it would sound like there was a groundswell of popular belief that 9/11 was something other than a conspiracy by Al-Qaeda. Since that's obviously not the case, such inclusion would violate WP:UNDO and so we will not make note of it per your recommendation. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you call it a groundswell? To share a thought, perhaps this wouldn't be such troublesome issue if we would have any decency. I've just browsed our '9/11 conspiracy series' and there it is 9/11: Press for Truth, filed under conspiracy? Journalists and family members as conspiracy theorists, as we've defined it with that reference? We'll have to make the difference. Praxidikai (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it notable to have questions? How do we decide which are just not aware that their question have answers, as Fisk, and which are conspiracy theorists? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you say that, haven't you heard of 'unanswered questions'? Praxidikai (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your march to get the information included. –Turian (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not marching anywhere, no way, I'm kindly asking for opinions. Praxidikai (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(To Prax) There is no doubt that 9/11: Press for Truth is an oxymoron and a conspiracy, itself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You speak as a true conspiracy theorist. : ) Praxidikai (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it because it's true. We agreed earlier that there is a difference between questioning and conspiracism. The link you gave above is about people who claim that WTC was felled because of explosives. That falls squarely into the conspiracy theory camp. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Do elaborate that, if you would be so kind. Why certain claims have to suffer the derogation by conspiracy? What makes particular claim 'attachable' or 'attractive' for the conspiracy theory? Did you know that some folks claim that wtc 7 fell due to fire? To share a thought, there are scores of hypotheses, we wouldn't have as many, if people wouldn't question 9/11. Praxidikai (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not derogatory, it's a factual statement. A conspiracy theory should be called conspiracy theory. And the claim that WTC was demolished with explosives is a part of conspiracy theory because it requires a conspiracy to be true. You are therefore once again trying to give undue weight to conspiracy theories in this article. I call WP:SNOWBALL. Further discussion is pointless, and must be seen as intentional disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Untrue, we have a definition, conspiracy theory used to be called conspiracy theory, now it is nothing but largely pejorative and derogatory term used for all sort of.. nonsense. Praxidikai (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." Which is EXACTLY what the link you gave above are pushing. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Who is superhumanly powerful and cunning? Who is pushing what? Those folks are seeking accountability, ditch the conspiracy talk, please. Praxidikai (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I will call conspiracy theories for what they are. If "those folks" or you are seeking accountability, they first thing to do is to ditch the conspiracy theories. You are now only disrupting and wasting your, and ours time. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to opinion, but we're not discussing opinions, we have definition of conspiracy theory, I honestly doubt that you're unaware that you're insisting on usage of derogatory and libellous term without any restraint or merit. This is POV pushing in its clearest form. You're not only suggesting, you're postulating something while you have a clear definition to guide you? Why is that? Either way, people who question 9/11 are not conspiracy theorists. Praxidikai (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes we have a definition, and it fits in this case. The usage is in this case not derogatory, but factual. Case closed. 2. For your insistence that we don't use the word "conspiracy theory", could you start a renaming process for 9/11 conspiracy theories? 3. In the meantime, if you want to improve the article, state exactly what you want to change, how you want it changed, and why. Your disrupting meta-debates is not constructive and does not help your case. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

They are conspiracy theories; you might as well get over that fact right now. –Turian (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Case closed? What sort of conduct is that? Do tell, are you talking about 9/11: Press for Truth? Because there is not a word about conspiracy in that article, as a matter of fact you cannot even find the word conspiracy in it. Irrelevant though, there is nothing factual in conspiracy theory, it is well defined as 'largely pejorative term'. Apple cannot be apple and opossum at the same time, I'm not sure why would you even suggest that.
• Apologies for repeating, but I'm honestly not interested in conspiracy theories, history has defined those, accurately.
• In the meantime, take a look at the suggestion about improving this article, at the beginning of this section. To remind you, we've agreed there is notable 'difference' between people who question 9/11 and conspiracy theorism. I've asked you if we could make that difference with proposition we evolve to decent terminology. We have people who question 9/11 attacks, we have concerned citizens deeply concerned about 9/11 attacks, we have advance knowledge debate, we have unanswered questions.., yet all we talk about are.. say, what's this about meta-debate? Ant the case, again? What are you mumbling about??? What sort of talk is that? I've thought we've agreed, no pushmepullyou. And you keep pushing? Praxidikai (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC).

I have no idea what you mean with "pushmepullyou", but I guarantee you, I do not push nor pull anything. Your suggestion in this section has already been discussed. Repeating it seems pointless, unless you want to change what you say. My answers remain exactly the same. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (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.

Please add to Motive section

The motive section doesn't mention a 2004 bin Laden address to the American people, in which he explicitly describes the symbolism of the 9/11 attacks. In the statement, reported by the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10079-2004Oct29.html , bin Laden is quoted as saying "God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers. But after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. 6th Fleet...As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and stop killing our children and women." That's a far more direct statement of motive than anything listed in the motive section, and deserves to be included in the article. 170.63.96.108 (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would Tim Osman provide pretext for invasion of Middle East? And why you've picked that particular speech, how about we reference his initial response to 9/11 attacks?

'I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,' his statement said. [1] Unlike the 'motus' you've provided this one isn't disputed. Did you know that current current in mainstream media questions whether he's phantom menace or not. Praxidikai (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

To add in the Popular Culture section of the article. In the popular hit CBS television police procedural drama CSI: New York: The backstory of Detective Mac Taylor (Gary Sinise) states that his wife Claire was killed in 9/11 in Season 1 of CSI NY, Taylor is shown at the site of the World Trade Centre looking in. In series 3 he would reveal to Claire's son Reed Garrett that she was killed in 9/11 IRLangmaid (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, I'd really rather not see that sort of cruft in any article - let alone this one. Rklawton (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First instances of protected steel-frame structures experiencing a fire-induced collapse

In the history of the world, every building ever hit by a jumbo jet in flight has collapsed. This may be the first instance of a protected steel-frame structure being hit, but that's hardly significant, as very few buildings have ever been hit by a jumbo jet in flight. Furthermore, these buildings were not intended to survive such a hit, so the fact that they didn't is also not significant. Lastly, this wording has been used by nutters to promote a variety of conspiracy theories. Using it in this article without further explanation invites UNDO conspiracy speculation. Explaining it, on the other hand, promotes a loud "DUH" response. Modern tall buildings are designed to withstand the worst possible fires for about an hour without collapsing - and the twin towers did so - in spite of a major impact and the addition of tens of thousands of gallons of fuel. In discussing damage, we should emphasize the miracle these buildings stood as long as they did. Rklawton (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You're a nutjob. The building in the Netherlands that got hit by a plane collapsed completely. NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.197.223 (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

thumb|right|The Netherlands crash

The building with the gap in it? The gap was caused by the crash. That the building didn't completely collapse doesn't mean it didn't collapse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this an attempt at lame humor? It didn't collapse, it was crushed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.197.223 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Bijlmer building was a concrete structure, and fire had relatively little to do with it. Acroterion _(talk) 18:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually jumbo-jets. But otherwise you are right. It's also not the first collapse of a steel framed structure because of fire. It's perhaps the first example of a total collapse of a high rise because of fire, but as noted, that's because no other high rise have had an major airliner explode in it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of notes, based on professional experience and therefore not to be cited:

• The word "protected" is somewhat significant, since unprotected steel frame structures collapse as a result of fire all the time. Steel + fire = spaghetti. Even in a relatively modest fire, steel loses its strength far short of any temperature that resembles the melting point of steel. Hence the protection. However, the protection is fallible, and is in any case rated for three hours (as applied in the WTC) in its initially-installed, perfectly applied, undamaged state. The rating doesn't reckon with the impact of an airliner (or any other impact, for that matter - it's certainly not tested that way). A one-hour structural fire rating is allowed up to only six stories (with sprinklers), two hours to twelve, and three is required for anything beyond that point. The fireproofing material is, in practice, fragile and a nuisance to the trades that follow behind the fireproofers, and has a way of getting in their way and being altered to support their work.
• The WTC had a floor system that was apparently unique in a high-rise, using a truss system with a many small members that had to be coated with fireproofing, and a relatively small connection to the main vertical support structure. In other words, the WTC was not a typical skyscraper in its structural design.

All that said, extensive discussion of WTC 1/2's status as the first protected steel frame structure to experience a fire-induced collapse begs the point that none of the others were hit with 767s at over 400 knots, and none of the others had a similar structural design, apart from being made of steel. Besides, the sample set for tall steel structures vs. fires is quite small. While the word "protected" should be mentioned for accuracy, we should be at pains to avoid undue emphasis, as the "protection" was compromised. Acroterion _(talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Acroterion that the protection of the steel (or the hypothesized lack of that protection) is very relevant in this context. NIST and others have stated on several occasions that the collapse of the WTC was in many ways unique, unprecendented etc. NIST, and others, e.g. the published study written by researchers at Purdue University, make the point that the dislodging of the fireprotection would have been critical to making the steel susceptible to sufficient weakening.

I think it's important that we include a section on the collapse (separate from the investigation section) in the article. This section should summarize the findings by NIST, FEMA, Bazant and the Purdue researchers. For example, on March 8, 2010, ABC aired a report about a conference of the 9/11 Truth movement which included the following statement: "Their film [Loose Change] peddles some largely discredited arguments, claiming that jet fuel was not hot enough to melt the steel structures." ABC report (2:40). This implies that (a) the steel actually melted, which NIST says it did not (b) that jet fuel produced the heat that affected the steel, while NIST says that office fires had the main impact, while the jet fuel burned away rapidly during the first minutes.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there will be enough material on each collapse to justify separate articles - while leaving room for a summary i this article. 17:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There already is one: Collapse of the World Trade Center. That is certainly the appropriate venue for anything beyond a summary. It's worth noting that we have Construction of the World Trade Center as well. Acroterion _(talk) 17:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On the ABC/steel melting business, I think that's simply an unfortunately common layman's notion that is thrown around by far too many people. See structural steel - the critical temperature is far below minimum melting point. And yes, I believe most sources are in agreement that the volatilized jet fuel was gone quickly, and that the contents contributed the fuel for the long-lasting fire. However, we stray from the general point concerning the summary sentence. Acroterion _(talk) 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we should leave out the business about "only structure" (etc) because it requires too much explanation for a summary, and not providing a suitable explanation makes it sound like something other than what it really is. Rklawton (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At present, this parenthetical comment is in the article's lead where it really doesn't belong. Rklawton (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like the best place for it. Major headers are Attacks, Attackers, Aftermath, etc. Having to read to 5.3 for this singular historical fact seems unnecessary. - Tzaquiel (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above explains how this "fact" is misleading, requires additional explanation, isn't significant, and is covered in detail in the appropriate article. Rklawton (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone actually read NIST? In reply to Rklawton, the WTC towers were specificlly designed to survive such a hit and with twice the fuel load. Quote:The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.(Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132)(NIST, 2005, p.70-71.) NIST also concluded the fuel fire was insignificant and played little part in the collapse, quote:The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes(NIST, 2005; p. 179.) NIST tested the fireproofing. The 1968 New York City building code required a two hour fire rating not one hour as you claim and the time temperature curves for ASTM E119 also required the core columns to be exposed to temperatures around 1100oC for three hours without weakening. The towers were having the thickness of fire proofing doubled at the time of the attacks (completed on the impact floors in one of the towers) and NIST eventually concluded that the results of the standard fire rating tests may not be "scalable" to an entire floor to explain the failure in such a short time. Nist's computor simulation was unable to make the buildings collapse using the observed fire and impact conditions so they adjusted the input until it "deviated beyond what the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports indicated" and "until collapse was achieved" (NIST, 2005, p. 142). The October 2005 edition of the New Civil Engineer heavily critisized this manipulation because NIST refused to allow validation of the simulation by the engineering community. Even NIST do not claim their findings are indisputable and in fact claim their findings are the most likely scenario. Even Bazant himself said "errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising". NISTS findings may be the most likely scenario but it is nowhere near the exact explanation you make it out to be. Wayne (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have read NIST, and none of the things you say actually counter the things said by others above. As mentioned we have read NIST, and NIST is quite clear on what happened: The collapse was mainly because the steel frame got weakened by fire. Yes, this was a unique event, because no high rise building has ever had a big airliner run into it. The conspiracy idea that the collapse would be impossible because of just fire, as most conspiracy ideas, simply has no base in facts and reality. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says "the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history". Seems to me the collapse of WTC-7 would demonstrate otherwise. The collapse was unexpected & the total collapse was unprecedented.--JimWae (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously WTC 7 would be the second example; a rephrase is in order. Re: farther up the page - we have an article on the Collapse of the World Trade Center. Most of the above discussion of the NIST report is off topic here. Acroterion _(talk) 19:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Continued

The question at hand is whether or not use of this quote belongs in the article lead. I say "no" because it's misleading, pushes UNDO, demands more explanation that we're able to provide in the lead, and is covered in detail in the appropriate article. Rklawton (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per reasons cited above. –Turian (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Most of the content of the section on the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, which is now a subsection of the section "Investigations", should be included in the "Attacks" section, either as part of the "Damage" subsection or as a separate subsection. There should be a brief mention of the content of that section in the lead section. The collapse of the World Trade Center, as a physical event, was - much more than the damage at the Pentagon, for example - a defining aspect of the attacks. It's the one picture (or video sequence) that perhaps most people would remember first if they think of that day.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bush Administration efforts to limit investigation

OK, so Bush first gave the commission only 3 million, when they wanted 14, but in the end they got 15. Ooooookay? What does it really have to do with this article? I don't get it, can somebody explain? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all part of the conspiracy theory stuff. You know, the president trying to limit the investigation so he can "get away with it." Rklawton (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he failed, so that was a pretty sucky conspiracy in that case. He has an army of invisible demolition engineers, but he can't set the budget? Yeah, makes sense. In any case, that means it should possibly go on the conspiracy article, but isn't relevant here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It does appear to be trivial as it had no impact on the investigation; plus it crosses the UNDO line. Rklawton (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Search for remains Current Event Warning?

The search for remains have resumed at a landfill in Staten Island. 20 fragments have been found and sent to the lab for testing. I tried to label the paragraph with a Current event warning and the attempt was deleted. This seems to me to be an ongoing event that is subject to change. There is a higher then normal likelihood that the reader might read outdated information. Either a proper template needs to be found for this situation, or if there is no proper template either a new template needs to be created, or the Current Event warning template guidelines needs to be changed. Edkollin (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The news seems to be slow, so there isn't really anything rapid about it. –Turian (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine then lets create a template for slower news. By the way they have found ten more fragments so yeah the reader had inaccurate information for 12 hours, I don't know why the consensus here is that nobody cares. Edkollin (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a small, relatively unimportant issue when there are so many larger issues which this article is ignoring. I have no objections to adding the template if it is deemed by others to be appropriate. Wildbear (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Are the conspiracy theories really notable to be in this article?

I can understand while other "conspiracy theories" (in its broad sense) get included in other articles, such as Armenian Genocide Denial, because they have acceptance in big groups of people. But are the 9/11 conspiracy theories that notable? Its universally accepted that Al-Qaeda did the attacks, so why it shoul dhave anything more than a "See Also" link at the bottom? Fixman^{Praise me} 15:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

These theories are notable with regard to the aftermath of the event. The National Institute of Standards and Technology referred prominently to the theory that the WTC would have been destroyed by explosive demolition when it presented its reports about the collapse of the buildings. U.S. President George W. Bush warned people not to believe in conspiracy theories. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently mentioned a statement of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about 9/11 being a "fabrication" when characterizing him. Mainstream public opinion research institutes regularly conduct surveys about public belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

None of that makes it notable. –Turian (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it does make it relevant. If a significant segment of the population believes something weird about a subject, it's useful to have information on the weird belief. Thus vaccines has a section on vaccine conspiracy theories. The article AIDS has a section on AIDS denialism. Water fluoridation has a section on the controversy about water fluoridation. Evolution specifically addresses the issue of creationist opposition to the theory of evolution. People make up crazy things about all those topics, and just because the ideas are crazy doesn't mean it's not notable that people believe them. --Mr. Billion (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, it's probably a compromise between the editors of the two different sides. There are those who believe Conspiracy Theories should be far more prevalent, and there are those who believe the current amount of mention is far too much. I think mostly the current version is a happy medium. --Tarage (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's ironic that part of an article about attacks is dedicated to furthering yet more attacks on the U.S. Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

They would attack us anyway. If the next terrorist attack is attributed to Wikipedia in any way, I'll eat my hat. --Tarage (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are. Maybe US media doesn't talk about it much, but try reading European media. It is not even presented as Conspiracy Theory.

This video has nice excerpts from live news reports, so it may be possible to track down printed news that cite them. 109.93.93.161 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not reliable sources. I suggest that you find an actual source, otherwise you are simply soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-made videos are not reliable sources. Videos of news clips are reliable if the news agency is reliable. They are also copyright violations (if not posted by the news agency) and thus can't be used. Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article only in one category?

That's the first I've seen on Wikipedia like that. Shouldn't it be in all the categories that the category:September 11 attacks category is in? --Rajah (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan

The article says:

"Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan where he helped organize Arab mujahideen..."

Do the authors mean that bin Laden brought Arab fighters into Afghanistan (from where?), or are they unaware that Afghan population is Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek etc, but not Arab? --bonzi (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article sais many funny things. It's important that they are verifiable, not necessarily true. :)109.93.93.161 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is rather easily verifiable that population of Afghanistan is not Arab. Seems to me that the author of the statement I quoted can't tell apart Arabs from Muslims.... --bonzi (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The source for that statement explains why the word Arab was used. The "Al-Qaeda's Origins and Links" article in the online BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1670089.stm states

"The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism" and "The "Arab Afghans", as they became known, were battle-hardened and highly motivated". The sentence "Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan where he helped organize Arab mujahideen..." in our Wikipedia article here should probably be re-written to clarify that information.Slinkybinky (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the "See also" section of this article?

Well? Zzzmidnight (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Because within the context of this topic, it's trivia and Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not trivial. According to multiple instances of polling, large percentages of the American public give credence to alternative theories. If you want Wikipedia to be a serious encylopedia, this article should at least link to the subject. Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it when someone comes here asking for more conspiracy exposure they cite that without it Wikipedia isn't a serious encyclopedia? We have an entire section devoted to it in the article. We don't need a second link. --Tarage (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"According to multiple instances of polling, large percentages of the American public give credence to alternative theories." What lay people think is irrelevant. On Wikipedia, we base our content on reliable sources, not opinion polls. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, would you please include a source validating your statement that including a link on "See also" would be "trivia". I happen to believe that understanding the issues, wither real or imagined, is critical to understanding the events impact on society. Can you say that the alternative theories have no impact in regards to the understanding of the subject of this article?Zzzmidnight (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't normally add things to "See also" sections if they are already linked in the article. This article has a whole section on the conspiracy stuff, September_11_attacks#Conspiracy_theories, which might be too much coverage as it is. ClovisPt (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, this discussion can be archived.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all alternative theories involve conspiracies

In fact, the mainstream theory for the attacks is a conspiracy theory (a conspiracy between Arab terrorists). Isn't it a bit of an Appeal to ridicule, or Spotlight fallacy, to call all alternative theories "conspiracy theories"?

It seems to me that the page would be a bit less biased if the "Conspiracy theories" section were renamed, "Alternative theories", and that lines such as "Some conspiracy theorists claim" be changed to "Some claim". The Mortal Seraphim (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what alternative theories aren't speculated to be the result of a conspiracy? Or is there a theory that says all these buildings fell down on their own? Rklawton (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to explain who did something to disagree with one part of the mainstream theory. For example, to claim that it was a controlled demolition is not the same as claiming that it was an "inside job". Who caused it is an entirely different question from what caused it. It doesn't matter if it was done by a group of people working together within the country, out of the country, or by a magical wizard.173.67.21.10 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The reasons given by the mainstream media and government agencies for the total collapse of the three buildings is unreasonable. There are many people who think that there were bombs in the buildings who are very credible, and likewise mainstream investigations do not adequately explain the cause of the collapses.

The use of the term "conspiracy theory" is biased and really reflects the lack of neutrality of this article. Since there are two major opinions both should be addressed appropriately and fairly. Naturally, if 9/11 was orchestrated by members of certain governments, Wikipedia should have room for logical arguments against the mainstream theory. 174.89.53.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That statement has been rejected by WP:CONSENSUS, many times. If you have evidence relating to Wikipedia policies and guidelines which would support a change in consensus, please present it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why No Discussion of Norad Training Exercises on 911

It has been reliably reported in many news media that the Pentagon was conducting as many as 5-6 war game drills on 9-11, one of which involved simulated slamming airplanes into buildings to blow them up. Why does the article not have a section on this? --BenJonson (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

War games yes, simulated slamming airplanes into buildings maybe, but not at that date. See United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 and U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

I've edited the FAQ to take out the Yes/No answers, while taking care not to alter the meaning of the response. I believe that these did more harm than good. Most reasonable people who disagree with the yes/no answers will understand the more detailed rationale, if they are prepared to take thirty seconds to read it. By contrast, glancing at the questions and reading those yes/no's could lead a reader to think that there is some sort of agenda.

I don't watchlist this page, but feel free to contact me on my talk page if you would like me to return here to explain further. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Under the damage section, the article states that the Twin Towers are the only example of progressive collapse of steel framed buildings. WTC 7 should also be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.182.95 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro to "Motives" section

Arthur Rubin: Do you have some concerns about adding an intro sentence to the "Motive" section? The Motivations of the September 11 attacks article is more complete and lists five motives, and has more references. Omitting an intro sentence makes it harder for the reader to understand how the section is laid out. Also, why did you change "main" template to "see also"? --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

International response

Leaders in most Middle Eastern countries, and Afghanistan, condemned the attacks. I think this statement needs several sources. Also, which countries were part of the "most" Middle Eastern countries? 129.31.247.246 (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Carried out by al-Qaeda - Fact?

This Article seems to say that it is a known fact that it was carried out by al-Qaeda. I agree that it is widely believed, especially in the Intelligence Community, and most likely true, but to be a fact doesn’t it needs to be proved beyond doubt. No one creditable has directly taken responsibly or convicted of this crime.

The planning part is almost pure speculation most of this is based on reports by the US government, which are credible but not a fact as they themselves reply on third hand and unclear sources. As we know, we had many creditable reports for US agenesis about WMD.

If there is a murder, and you probably know who did it, the Police may write many reports on who and why, but until that person is convicted in a court of law or admits his crime, you always have to be careful about reporting it as a fact. I think this article needs to qualify a lot of the "facts" its layout by naming sources directly.

To be a true academic source for the event we need to state facts proved beyond doubt, otherwise qualify statements we make. e.g. "Widely believed.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.246.41 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good point. The FBI has stated it has no evidence to tie Bin Laden to the attack and does not name the WTC attacks as one of the crimes he is accused of. In addition, several of the alleged hijackers are still alive as reported by many world news agencies. To say that the official version of the conspiracy behind this attack is an established fact is completely false. Furthermore, while NIST did say that it found no evidence for explosives, this article fails to point out that it admitted it did not even look for it. Moreover, the article fails to mention the empirical evidence published in scientific journals that confirm highly engineered explosive material was found in the debris dust or other published studies that refer to EPA studies which also presented evidence for explosives.

217.74.68.2 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We say what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources overwhelmingly say that al-Qaeda was responsible. As for the FBI stating they have no evidence, and the hijackers being alive, you are going to have to back these up with reliable sources, because this is not what the majority of sources say. You two are new editors, so please take some time to search the archives, because the points you are attempting to make have already been addressed and dismissed. --Tarage (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The 9 11 attacks were carried by Al-Qaeda. There is no scientific, reliable evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, in addition to Bin Laden's own admissions, there is tons of audio, video, and scientific evidence to show Al-Qaeda carried out this attack. We could say that global warming "might be true" because a few people do not believe this; however, because every credible scientific source has confirmed global warming, wikipedia states it as a fact. The same applies with dozens of articles, we can mention conspiracy theories, but their presence cannot affect the entire tone of the article.JakeH07 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of cheap-shotting anti-freedom Muslim extremists with links to other cheap-shotting, anti-freedom Muslim extremists attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001. Write the article that way, because it is 100% truth. You might want to add that they killed over 2000 innocent civilians and not a single soldier on active duty during their "holy war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.206.134 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't logic reliable reference? There are bunch of testymonies from employees, architects, firemen and investigators. Bah, they all are lying. The official explanations, tough disputed with logic and literaly no proof are allways right, just like goverment. "Conspiracy theories," tough make more sense, are NOT right as they are just conspiracy theories. They are wrong by nature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdS_0DdEL0s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.77.72 (talk • contribs) 17:31, June 13, 2010

There is a lot of testimony, but some of it must be mistaken, as it is contradictatory. We must accept the mainstream view as to which testimnny is mistaken, with some reference to minority views. (Youtube videos are rarely even suitable for external links; even more rarely can they be used as evidence supporting anything.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not serving as evidence, it is just point of my sarcasm. So, mainstream view of Jesus is, to be born on June 25, youl 1. Does that make him realy born on that day? On pictures of crash site from flight 93 there is wow, a piece of window, a piece of engine and a piece of metal... That's some hard evidence. And so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.83.152 (talk • contribs) 11:32, June 15, 2010

I don't know why I'm replying to you. Suffice it to say that the mainstream view is that "alternative theories" do not explain the facts, and hence should not be considered. We, on Wikipedia, are constrained to report only what is said in reliable sources, not repeating gossip or implausible theories. If you can produce a theory which is accepted by some reliable source, we can report on it in this article. And, if it's not about youtube, why do you add youtube references? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yotube was NOT a reference. Let me explain a "cospiracy theory": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2428170847743595902# There's bunch of book reference about it on end of full movie. That looks totaly plausible to me. And I will not bother with it any more. I am starting to feel like a 3-year-old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.62.124 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This isnt a conspiracy, but its mentioned here and is plausible (I also added another reference to it). That the attacks were actually done be Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his group. Osama had nothing to do with it and died in July or December 2001. The article states that the subsequent videos were fabricated, not by the CIA, but by some imposter. Unfortunately, this has achieved pretty much no mainstream coverage and our job is to provide the mainstream. Although I think it deserves a better mention somehow. I could work on integrating a paragraph somewhere. Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that ALL the tapes supposedly made by bin Laden have first appeared on Al-Jazeer TV, a known anti-Western station. Wouldn't it make sense that if an "imposter" made the tapes, that the station would jump at the chance to "humiliate" the West by exposing it as a fake? TyVulpine (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

There are plenty of reasonable sources which could support the possibility of the attacks themselves to be a false flag. This tactic is well known and used deep into history. I'm just pointing out that the word "conspiracy theories" and the like are actually derogatory and very insulting to the serious nature of the event, and the use therefore constitutes to the biased nature of the authors of this article.

You cannot come to a consensus amidst so much debate, and those who participated in such consensus only constitute a minority. Those who refute reliable sources and logical arguments with a single line of "conspiracy theories" simply prove their lack of understanding of not only world affairs, but the phrase itself. Or they represent a body of people who knowingly participate in the spreading of disinformation and inaccurate assessments.

We cannot allow personal feelings to interfere with facts here.

As well what gives user 2over0 the right to censor my comments? That clearly wasn't trolling, I left after writing it. You people are insane; there's something called democracy...174.89.58.24 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, which means we present the mainstream account based on mainstream sources. Yes, there are alternatives theories to 9/11 but Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view requires that we present mainstream accounts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point that there are, in fact, mainstream sources which could really be used to strengthen the article, including books.

I will give some examples and tell me what is wrong with them:

• Jesse Ventura
• Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
• Andreas von Bülow
• Steven E. Jones
• Paul Craig Roberts
• Webster Tarpley
• Yukihisa Fujita

The 9/11 commission has been critically discussed in foreign parliaments and media, including the National Diet of Japan on January 10, 2008, Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan.

These are all mainstream sources; of educated and experienced, professional people who chose to write books and articles about the subject in recent years. Jesse Ventura is a mainstream figure and has appeared on many shows.

The 9/11 Commission and the NIST report conclude that fire can implode three steel-frame buildings, of which the World Trade Centre buildings were the first and only in history to completely collapse due to a fire, in such an organised and swift manner.174.89.56.140 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We run on reliable sources. Your arguments are stale and have been presented many times before. They have all been rejected. Please do not use this talk page as a soapbox. --Tarage (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, and also Implosion and Collapse, which, as you will see, are not synonyms. 134.106.40.32 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of eye witnesses who support the "mainstream" view (not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence), it's reasonable to conclude that other views are conspiracy theories promulgated by utter morons or people by people with political agendas. And the phrase "conspiracy theory" is how these theories are typically classified. Since these views have become notable, we have articles on them. However, we don't need to make the mistake that many media outlets make and give them equal standing within the main article. We simply allow the article to branch into other articles in case folks are curious. Rklawton (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.56.140: For the purposes of Wikipedia, people are not considered sources, only published works are considered sources. And not all published sources are considered reliable, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Basically, this meams mainstream news sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, your assertions are both incorrect and deeply offensive. Please refrain from posting this kind of personal commentary, and stick to discussion which relates to improving the article. Wildbear (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we particularly concerned about offending morons or people who have come here to push their POV? They tend to cause us a lot of extra work. Or have I managed to offend productive editors somehow? If so, I didn't mean to. Rklawton (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We're still supposed to be welcoming and civil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, you're right. My bad. Rklawton (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

According to our FAQ, "This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis..." You just admitted to censorship there. The article is not NPOV at all if you can't even include the full mainstream story because it's so weak.

You can't omit details you don't like. What kind of ground do you have for this? Are you an educated engineer or architect? Were you or relatives of yourself there on 9/11? Have you even done research on the subject?

Clearly I'm not the only one who has come here to state this view, so you cannot say there is a consensus, but rather a small group of members who regular this article to impose their POV.

These events happened almost ten years ago, there are plenty of mainstream sources by now, including books. The 9/11 commission is not clear supporting evidence, and there will need to be more logical arguments made, including the trigger of the collapse, and the reason for such a catastrophic structural failure.

Like I asked above, how is the Japanese legislator not a mainstream source? None of you really did answer my question but dodged it. How about books written by the aforementioned people?

These are not fringe theories, these are respectable, mainstream people. You clearly did not look into the sources I presented here. There are more foreign and non-english sources though, and my point was that outside of the USA 9/11 is considered to be a fraud or a staged false-flag event.

It is clear WP is not a democracy, but you simply cannot refute mainstream sources because YOU can't agree with them. By hiding or insulting the opposition you show weakness. I really doubt you even looked into the sources I was talking about, lest you could explain why they cannot be used in the main article.

A link or small paragraph for the opposition is not enough, especially when new mainstream sources are refused despite being used on other WP articles. Like I stated above, We cannot allow personal feelings interfere with the facts.

And Rklawton, I want to respond to you specifically:

You didn't produce a compelling argument at all. Your rhetoric is worse than mine (at least I use sources). If there is so much evidence to prove these buildings pancake-collapsed due to fire alone, why could you not provide any kind of example or details? The 9/11 witnesses and first responders started the 9/11 Truth movement, MORON (pardon me there, but he used it first). At least I can comprehend world affairs. You resort to name-calling because you can't handle the truth, kid.174.89.54.33 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.54.33: I am trying to help you. Accusations of censorship and POV-pushing will not help your cause. I suggest that you take a break and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on neutral point of view, reliable sources and fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not. You keep dodging my question. I'm not pushing my POV, I'm asking why certain mainstream sources aren't allowed to be used, after I already reviewed the rules about reliable sources neutral point of view and fringe theories. You are making inapplicable and off-topic remarks. Can you please address my original statements/questions. 174.89.54.33 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.54.33: OK, then I will give you the most direct answer that I can. You have not cited a single reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

HOW is the NATIONAL LEGISLATOR OF JAPAN NOT a RELIABLE MAINSTREAM SOURCE?? I am asking for a specific reason to be cited.

You can't just expect one-liners to be successful in a debate about facts. You need to explain, and use quotes.174.89.54.33 (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.54.33: He is just one legislator amongst thousands across the globe. What makes his opinion more important than everyone else's? Further, people aren't reliable sources, only published works are and only if they meet the qualifications set forth in reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for responding though. Am I correct when I say video of the hearings do not suffice as properly published WP:RS? If certain points were translated, or at least acknowledged, that would be fine according to Wikipedia:Verifyability, even though it's not a book or anything, it's still on a public record.

Though he is just one legislator of that particular country, his opinion is not unique. There are many official people who publically questioned the circumstances, like Hon. Paul Hellyer, and former generals. Then how is Jesse Ventura's book "American Conspiracies" not WP:RS? Unless Ventura doesn't use sources himself, that would be reasonable.

There are other books too, I listed some authors above:

• The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001 'Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, ISBN 0-930852-40-0, 400 pages, Media Messenger Books
• The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism ISBN 1-56656-596-0
• Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. Piper Verlag GmbH, München 2003, ISBN 3-492-04545-6 and 2004, ISBN 3-492-24242-1
• Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Revised & Updated Edition), Olive Branch Press, Paperback: 392 pages, March 2007, ISBN 1-56656-686-X
• The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Olive Branch Press, 2004, ISBN 1-56656-584-7
• 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA - Myth of the 21st Century (2005), Foreword by Thierry Meyssan, ISBN 0-930852-31-1, Fourth edition ISBN 0-930852-37-0 (April 2007).

The only reason as to why they would not be able to be used as WP:RS is if the books themselves contain no sources or citations. This has been mainstream for long enough, and really is not an extreme POV any more.

Quotes from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability."

"English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation"

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"

"Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources"

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."

Quotes from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. "

""Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research.""

"Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"."

"It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views"

"Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

"Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."

"Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

"The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."

"if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play."

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. " I'm not advertising/promoting anything, and I"m not the publisher of these sources. The ones who decided to make this into a soapbox were the registered users.

"Wikipedia is not a social network like MySpace or Facebook." So if you can't be constructive and need to resort to name-calling and insults don't comment at all. There have already been too many children posting nonsense here.

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so. ... Anyone can edit an article, and most changes made are displayed immediately"

Wikipedia:Five Pillars, 5.Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Quotes from Wikipedia:Fringe theories

"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."

"If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia."

"NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas, so long as there are appropriately reliable sources." (9/11 Truth is not tiny)

"Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence."

"Claims derived from fringe theories should be carefully attributed to an appropriate source and located within a context"

"It is also best to avoid hiding all disputations in an end criticism section, but instead work for integrated, easy to read, and accurate article prose."

"Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research — denialist histories, for example — should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." 9/11 commission, Popular Mechanics is not reliably sourced research

"If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

"Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere."

"One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, the sources must allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research."

"Primary sources about research and investigations should only be used to verify the text and should not be relied upon exclusively as doing so would violate Wikipedia's policies on original research. In the case of obscure fringe theories, secondary sources that describe the theories should be carefully vetted for reliability."

"Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article"

"The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources. ... Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse."

"Fringe theories should be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. "

By the way, you should read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat. This article is clearly not neutral. Both sides need to be addressed fairly, and integrated throughout the article. The primary sources should be observed with secondary sources to compare, of which the sources I provided should suffice. Your opinion DOES NOT matter here, only published sources.

There should be a user to come forward and improve on this article to fix the NPOV conflict, by integrating reliable secondary sources to the main content of the article. The sources used in the main article are biased (even though they are mainstream "official" or government-sponsored), and thus there is a bias against the mainstream opposition.

Users should avoid using weasel-words and insults with regards to properly sourced alternative, mainstream theories. The phrase "conspiracy theory" should be changed to "alternative theories" or "new evidence".

174.89.54.33 (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, AQFK (and FAQ). Here's my take on it. Many individuals, myself included, simply want to know (accurately) what happened, and want truthful investigation and reporting by government and media. It's speculative (and inaccurate) to assume a political agenda or stupidity, as this is definitely not always the case. I want the official story to be true, but I have studied the evidence in depth over multiple years (from reliable sources and others), and the evidence simply doesn't support the official story in its entirety, much as I and others would like it to. Attention is seldom drawn to the inconsistencies by government or media, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not there. I accept that Wikipedia will generally only use material from media and government on this topic, but Wikipedia's editors should be cautious while using that information, and respectful of other editors. Rklawton, your response was honorable. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Even assuming the anon is properly quoting the pillars, he is clearly misinterpreting the guidelines for deciding whether a source is reliable, which includes it having a reputation for accuracy. None of the conspiracy theory publishers have such a reputation. Some (but none of the ones mentioned by the anon) of the conspiracy theorists have a reputation for accuracy, and fewer have some reputation for expertise, per WP:SELF (or WP:SPS; My computer is at maximum capacity at the moment, and I can't reliably check which it is.) On the other hand, Popular Mechanics and their publisher have some reputation for accuracy. We can argue whether the 9/11 commission has a reputation for accuracy, but most of its members do.

As for your claim that there is an "official" story, that's bunk. Call it "mainstream", if you want to distinguish it from "alternative" theories. Any reference to "official" must refer only to the 9/11 commission and NIST reports. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you, along with the other censors, have been misinterpreting not only the guidelines but all of my discussion in order to push your POV in this article. The rules clearly state that if there is a minority or alternate view that it must be included in the body of the text. There are statistics which show that about one third of the American population think there was government complicity with the attacks. That is not a "tiny minority."

I'm not asking for the whole article to be rewritten, I'm just asking for more neutral rhetoric and the elimination of weasel-words and insulting phrases. If there are secondary sources which could be used to at least acknowledge the opposition that would be fine, but the article only has single sentences to imply there is some criticism.

The main article, in order to meet NPOV guidelines must include the criticism of the 9/11 commission and NIST report. There are reliable sources which can be used, and as more time passes more will come out. According to WP:guidelines it can be allowed for these secondary sources to be used since they are the only ones who touch on that subject, and not all of them are self-published or original research.

So until some members can resolve this NPOV issue, a NPOV tag should be included at the top of the article until the article is corrected. I would just like to mention that none of you have made a valid or constructive argument yet, and have resorted to off-topic remarks. Stop dodging the NPOV issue and just fix it already.174.89.53.226 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.53.226: Me and several others have tried explaining it to you. I'm sorry if our answers aren't to your satisfaction. There is no POV issue with the article as you describe. If there is a POV issue, IMHO, it's the fact that we mention 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. I doubt if any serious reference work on 9/11 would bother mentioning pop culture trivia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you truly, in your mind, think that you adequately explained anything then you are most clearly INSANE. You have not once provided any kind of explanation as to how these books are not WP:RS. I do want to give you thanks though, A Quest for Knowledge, because you seem signifigantly more mature than the others.

Do those books use sources? Clearly you don't know because you can't tell me. 9/11 can most defiantly be considered a special case, in which the mainstream belief is actually inaccurate and incomplete compared to alternate sources. In light of recent forensic evidence I think the article's tone is rather inappropriate, and the article itself often used weasel-words to push a biased POV.

I'm not POV pushing - I used to think the alternate theories were ridiculous five years ago. Rather, it disappoints me that Wikipedia would push the American version so much, after it's been discredited formally and professionally, mostly in other countries.

The rules clearly state all opinions must be presented in a fair and balanced way. The criticism is minimal on the main article, and seldom acknowledged. You are not in a position to say that these alternate theories are incorrect because you aren't educated in structural engineering - your opinion is not sufficient enough.

You cannot just say that this is neutral and so it is settled; you must correct these issues I cited or put a NPOV tag above the main article in order to comply with WP:guidelines.174.89.53.226 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

174.89.53.226, please keep the discussion cool and civil. Implying that someone is "insane" is not acceptable here, and it works against you if you seek to convey your position. Wildbear (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I wrote a few lines which were promptly deleted by an editor who may (or may not?) have administrative privileges and who goes by the IP 92.77.150.79. Maybe I did get carried away a little bit in my indignation about what I was witnessing happening here. So, in a more subdued manner, here is a second try at joining this discussion.

The subject at hand is the disputed neutrality of the article. I totally agree with 174.89.58.24 when he claims that the article is not neutral. Like him, I wish to improve the quality of the article by removing the obvious PV which is displayed through and through. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a piece of propaganda supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory, the one which claims that 19 arabs conspired to attack the WTC and the Pentagon by hijacking airplanes armed with boxcutters. Until a credible investigation has determned what exactly happened on that day, we cannot limit ourselves to that single conspiracy theory. There are other conspiracy theories out there that are just as valid as the one proposed by the Government of the USA, and even more so according to numerous credible sources. Those conspiracy theories deserve to be presented with as much respect as the one which is disproportionately displayed at present. In as much as the very members of the 9/11 Commission admit themselves that they were doomed to fail from the very beginning of their investigation and that they were lied to by those from whom they were seeking answers, the conclusions of their flawed report cannot be taken seriously. Clearly a new investigation will have to be instituted to determine the truth. What I have just written is not soapboxing. It is, rather, an attempt at establishing the validity of the arguments put forward by 174.89.58.24 and others who support him. As it stands now, the article is propaganda, pure and simple. It clearly needs a more neutral stance. Oclupak (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

6 hours later? Must be the slow kind of "promptly deleted". 134.106.40.32 (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it was reverted because of personal attacks. You don't seem to understand the concept that Wikipedia works on reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source. You are soapboxing because you provide no reliable sources, and are just ranting. You are wrong, your edits have been rejected, you need to realize this. Otherwise, you will be staring down a topic ban. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Noting the above, a general thanks from me to the people here who have the stomach to deal with the conspiracy theory warriors that come here day after day. It is appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"174.89.56.140: For the purposes of Wikipedia, people are not considered sources, only published works are considered sources. And not all published sources are considered reliable, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Basically, this meams mainstream news sources."

There is a conflict in terms in this information: "...only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Basically, this meams mainstream news sources..."

That is chronically flawed reasoning. Even the notion that the information supplied by a government investigation could even remotely be unbiased and unflawed is crass. The article is biased beyond repair.90.208.94.52 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, 90.208.94.52. I am glad to see you here. It is quite a relief to find on this page someone who shares my preoccupation with the truth. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "The article is biased beyond repair" because my aim is, precisely, to repair it. I would like to remove all the biased POV from the article and move it to the 9/11 Conspiracy theories page, where all conspiracy theories should be presented.

The main problem right now is that, for some reason I haven't quite determined yet, some editors have undue influence over this page and act as if it was their own personal property. They claim the Official Theory is the only one acceptable and they stubbornly reject any contradicting views, threatening anyone who dares to bring sanity to this page with a block and even suggesting they leave Wikipedia. You may, for your amusement, check out some of the threats that I have personnally received on my discussion page.

I find it quite surprising, really, that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the theory they cherish is itself a conspiracy theory. Indeed, a conspiracy is described as two or more people plotting to commit a crime and therefore, in as much as they believe that at least 19 hijackers plus Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were involved, right there you have 21 conspirators. Now, they are entitled to their opinion as to which of the theories they prefer but it is kind of bizarre that the most improbable of all theories is the one they put forward. It is quite true that they have the whole of the mainstream media to back them up, and there are some reasons for that, as I am sure you are aware. Anyway, if a few of us can stand up to them, perhaps we can render the article a more unbiased one, a more neutral one, which was the aim of the editor who started this section. Oclupak (talk) 08:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Semantics about what is or is not a conspiracy theory aside, this article accurately reflects what mainstream media and reliable sources report on the subject. Until that changes, this is what the article as a NPOV statement of the subject should look like. The rest of your writings on the subject are your personal opinions and have no place in the article. Luckily, the whole truther meme is becoming less relevant (as a cultural artifact) as time goes on and hopefully we won't have to keep having this conversation. We can only hope. RxS (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

RxS, your comment is nothing but your opinion as well. In fact nothing can really be "proven" in a sense but evidence can be used to support a theory. Different theories and opinions rise and fall as more research can be done, and generally as people become smarter and more educated. You think that people in caves are able to breach US security and undermine NORAD - but it still remains your opinion. My opinion is that steel-frame structures need to be demolished using remote-controlled shaped-charge explosives in order to symmetrically, smoothly, and vertically collapse into their own basements. We all have opinions, but by pointing out that I simply have a different opinion than you does not solve the issue at hand here, because I can point out that was just your opinion.

When we look at certain statistics, up to 50% of US citizens do not believe the official, mainstream story behind 9/11. This includes many people including people like Ron Paul, Rosie Odonnel, Charlie Sheen, generals, governors, engineers, etc. The only people who do believe the mainstream story are people who do not have the credentials or education to understand mathematically what would cause that kind of collapse, from an architect's point of view.

There is good reasoning to this, for example, I will quote the NIST report on building 7:

" On September 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when it collapsed. This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building1 primarily due to fires."

The first total collapse of a steel-framed structure due to a fire in human history. That is quite a coincidence, especially how fire was able to demolish that building so perfectly. Contractors need to pay engineers to calculate how to demolish a building so perfectly, in order to minimise the risk of the building tipping into the street and nearby buildings. Not only that, but if one explosive were to fail the whole demolition may go corrupt and thus cause tipping or the demolition to abruptly stop. In order for Building 7 to collapse like such, all vertical support would have to be blasted out using shaped-charge explosives at the exact same time - a typical controlled demolition. Complete collapses are extremely rare, as 9/11 is the only documented case for a steel-frame high-rise building.

Also, if we look at WTC building 6, even in that "Rebuilding America" documentary though that's not my source, was still standing days after the collapse of the other three buildings, and was heavily engulfed in flames and falling debris of tower 1, and according to the physics of the other buildings should have collapsed the evening of 9/11. It didn't, and the steel "skeleton" of the building was still supporting itself, even with all the combustible material burned away the day prior.

I can't understand why people so enthusiastically defend the government of the United States as she descends into fascist control. There is so much evidence about this that it is overwhelming. "this article accurately reflects what mainstream media and reliable sources report on the subject. Until that changes..." you are choosing to ignore the evidence; your statement is simply not true. If you cannot stomach the truth then stop trying to manipulate the facts in your favour. This is an extremely sensitive and serious matter, and it needs to be addressed more maturely, by adults.

In the end, no development at all. Those who defend the official story use insults and often change the topic to do so, so don't say I'm insulting you (actually, the phrase "conspiracy theories" I find insulting and offensive yet this is just ignored by those users who point their fingers around). In time, you will all come to see what really happened on 9/11. The truth can't be kept hidden forever. The number of people who doubt the official story grows every day, so this isn't a topic which will just disappear as you hope.

I'm just trying to get the phrase "conspiracy theories" changed to something less offensive. It is true that I have been accused of insulting people here, when those people have avoided the original point the whole time and insulted me. EVERYONE needs to respect other opinions, no matter how far out they seem at first.

I would go as far to say the page lock is actually been applied unjustly. And still, in violation of WP:Guidelines, there is no NPOV tag for the article heading. The NPOV issue has been proven beyond any doubt, the users who maintain this article need to change their tone and apply a less biased approach to what has been so inappropriately dubbed "conspiracy theories." At least I've exposed certain individuals as violating WP:guidelines in their maintaining this page.

PS, How is forensic evidence a "conspiracy theory"? 174.89.53.58 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Secondary PS, TARAGE this is your first warning. You will be reported for edit warring and censoring comments based on bunk reasoning. You are violating WP:guidelines and I will begin to submit complaints if you resume deleting constructive comments to this discussion. Nobody here is soapboxing but you.174.89.53.58 (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs)

Propose to improve Motives section

I propose to improve the existing "Motive" section September 11 attacks#Motive, in several ways: change section title to "Motives" (plural); change "see also" link to use the new name of the Motives article: Motives for the September 11 attacks; add some detail about the "retaliation for sanctions against Iraq" motive (which is missing entirely from the section); reduce the detail/size of content of motives that are not explicitly identified by Al Qaeda but instead are merely inferred by analysts (namely "attacks were intended to provoke US into a war in order to mobilize Muslim opposition"). Any comments or suggestions? --Noleander (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• "change section title to "Motives" (plural); change "see also" link to use the new name of the Motives article: Motives for the September 11 attacks;"

Sounds reasonable.

• "add some detail about the "retaliation for sanctions against Iraq" motive (which is missing entirely from the section);"

Sounds reasonable.

• "reduce the detail/size of content of motives that are not explicitly identified by Al Qaeda but instead are merely inferred by analysts (namely "attacks were intended to provoke US into a war in order to mobilize Muslim opposition")"

Not too crazy about this one. It seems to me that this was their number one goal. The fact that Al Qaeda hasn't actually stated it doesn't really mean much. Ultimately, it boils down to what reliable sources are saying about it, which includes expert analysts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can leave it the detail, but I may re-word it to be a more accurate synopsis of the detailed content in the Motives for the September 11 attacks article. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there are no additional comments, I'll go ahead and implement this change. --Noleander (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would venture that the motive that is most often mentioned is that the 9/11 attacks were purposely orchestrated by certain elements from within the US government to provide an excuse, a pretext, a casus belli, to get involved in the oil-rich countries of the Middle East and also Afghanistan. I am quite aware that expressing this point of vue is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia, as it is in most of the mainstream American media. There are even specific prohibitions to that effect in such online publications as Daily Kos and The Huffington Post. The fact remains that if one was to take a survey of all media world-wide, I would suspect that a majority of them would cite the desire of the US to get involved militarily overseas as the main motivation for 9/11, in the sense that it was a false flag attack, similar to the Gleiwitz incident which entitled Hitler to invade Poland.

Another parallel motivation which is also frequently mentioned is the desire to establish a police state within the US. This has already been partly accomplished by the Patriot Act which was written some time BEFORE the attacks of 9/11. Passengers now willingly submit to intrusive searches before boarding an airplane; they abstain to carry with them water bottles and nail clippers when instructed to do so; what used to be private telephone conversations and emails can now legally be monitored by government agencies 24/7; citizens suspected of terrorist links can legally be held incommunicado for various lengths of time. With the pretext of National Security, many of the fundamental freedoms granted by the United States Bill of Rights have been suspended. This could not have been accomplished so swiftly without the convenient event of 9/11.

These are, of course, merely my opinions. But they are shared by an impressive amount of people, impressive in both numbers and quality. I only wish the article would reflect these realities. I am aware the gatekeepers permanently on guard on this page will not allow any of this to make it all the way to the main article and that this segment of the discussion page will eventually be relegated to the archives—if it is not merely deleted—but I feel it is worth it to express these views if only for the benefit of future generations who will ponder about this peculiar epoch of the human adventure on planet Earth when the most absurd explanations about the events of 9/11 were deemed to be the agreed upon consensus among scholars building an online encyclopedia. Oclupak (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speculation on motives, regardless of the angle presented, is premature at this time, in my opinion. As it stands, the article goes into far too much speculation on motives, while a large amount of relevant, solid information is excluded. The task of investigation must first be performed; preferably through proper examination of forensic evidence and use of subpoenas as needed, and then inquiry into the motives of the perpetrators, whoever they might be, would be proper. I would prefer to see this article provide more coverage on well-established, unquestioned information about the topic, and less on dubious and speculative matters, such as motives. Wildbear (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Censorship

Can't edit this article because it's locked and i'm unregistered, but I still wanna know why doesn't this article mention that the Al Qaida were outfitted with weapons by Saddam Hussein? 166.203.125.148 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Any wp:RS for this assertion?TMCk (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The page lock was added as a means to reinforce a biased POV by certain users in violation of WP:guidelines.174.89.53.58 (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You can think that all you like, but you are wrong. The lock is to prevent vandalism and people like you from breaking consensus. You want to make a change? Register an account. Otherwise, leave. I'm sick of the soapboxing, and will revert any further edits you make to this talk page that are as such. You will not be allowed anymore leeway. --Tarage (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are here to soapbox, Tarage. You are the only one who comments on this page in violation of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You delete comments which contest your opinions, a direct violation of Wikipedia rules. You often come here to troll and flame other users. Consider yourself reported. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You are under no obligation to create an account here on wikipedia, but it does have its benefits. One of which is the ability to edit semi protected articles. Mo ainm~Talk 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits can be requested on the discussion page, especially if the main article is biased. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying the IPsassertion for a second: Hussein and Bin Laden always hated each other, and if Hussein had given weapons to Bin Laden, they probably would have been used against the Iraqis. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

They may both always have hated each other alright, but have always hated OUR FREEDOMS even more. I love how crypto-Leftist Wikipedia locks up an article to perpetuate even more of its liberal biases, but never points out the vast Islamo-fascist conspiracy against our country. 32.178.90.243 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again. Hussein and bin Laden didn't/don't give a fuck about "American freedoms"; they had their own, entirely different agendas. Saddam Hussein was a very secular leader, in the sense that he did not enforce Sharia in Iraq (most definitely not secular in other aspects, though). Bin Laden has his own, highly distorted conceptions of Islam, and wishes them forced upon everyone. It's got nothing to do with American freedoms; it's more to do with Israeli missiles in Lebanese ambulances, and Americans running from Afghanistan in 1991 and letting them burn. And by the way, read WP:NPA before you get blocked, if you haven't already. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that whoever started this section protesting against censorship is a sockpuppet whose purpose was to demonstrate—quite eloquently—the necessity of keeping a lock on the article. How else can one interpret his/her supposed outrage at not seeing any mention of Saddam Hussein outfitting Al Quaeda with weapons? In all the years I have investigated this story, this is the very first time I encounter such an assertion. To my knowledge, no one has EVER even hinted that Saddam Hussein had supplied weapons to Al Quaeda. If 166.203.125.148 has reasons to believe what he/she claims, a few Reliable Sources would be most welcome. At any rate, this contribution of 166.203.125.148 to the discussion seems to be his/her one and only contribution to Wikipedia—if we are not dealing with a sockpuppet, that is. This being my first venture in this area, I would like to know if there are any means to identify such sleight of hand that consists in temporarily concealing one's true identity? On a few occasions I have seen a note from an administrator advising that So-and-So was a sockpuppet for another rather well-known wikipedian renowned for performing pranks and generally displaying a disruptive behaviour. My question is, how do these administrators come to this conclusion? Are there some proven methods? If so, could one apply some of them to the case of 166.203.125.148? Of course, if I am completely off the mark, and if 166.203.125.148 is a genuine Wikipedian and not a sockpuppet for someone else, his/her input to this discussion is most welcome, first to dispel my suspicions as to his/her identity, and second to share with all of us the breaktrough revelations he seems to be alone in possessing. Oclupak (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:CheckUser- however, I can think of a couple people this might be off the top of my head (I've only been around since March, but I've done my wiki-history and looked over old ArbCom cases, there was one on this topic). Whatever the case, this IP should probably be blocked anyways for disruption. And before anyone calls me a crypto-leftist, I was 18 in 2008, and was one of the only people my age to vote for John McCain, so that argument doesn't hold up (I'm no hardline Republican, I just liked John McCain more). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, actually, McCain, like Bush, said that "Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for Al-Qaeda's network": [2]. 166.217.95.240 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which disproves Oclupak, but since it's not true, it's not in the article. 217.187.225.208 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk about mountains and molehills. 217.187.225.208 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, he had the ability, but he didn't have the will. I just particularly didn't, and don't, like Barack Obama, which is why I voted for McCain. My reasons have nothing to do with this, so I'll go into no further detail; on this subject, neither Hussein or bin Laden could have possibly cared less about either American freedoms or each other. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Users who maintain this page are in blatant violation of Wikipedia rules

There are several users, though I won't name them, who watchlist or regularily check this page for content which contests their point of view.

Certain users act as if this whole article is their own property, a violation of WP:OWN

Users delete comments from the discussion page on a regular basis, even constructive comments. This is a blatent violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, as well is considered to be edit warring or vandalism.

Certain users as well have resorted to insults and personal attacks; have misrepresent other individuals, have claimed to be an administrator or claimed to have an access level that one did not have. Users as well, treat the discussion page as a forum, by adding off-topic replies and dodging questions which would result in an undesirable answer.

Users will automatically remove comments which contest their opinions, ignore POV correction requests, use weasel words, refuse to give due weight, refuse to incorporate mainstream criticism of official reports - a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. Users are actively refusing to even add a POV tag to the article despite the NPOV issues discussed on this page - another violation of Wikipedia rules.

Users as well refuse to even consider a compromise. Wikipedia is a collective, community effort. All constructive edits should be welcome, but we have certain individuals who think they are the official admins of this article who even threaten banning users who wish to add their own material.

Anybody seriously interested in cleaning up this article, and fixing the POV issue should begin to report these specific users to an administrator for their blatant and long-term abuse and violation of WP:guidelines. There clearly is not a consensus but rather a small group who regular this page and flame users of contesting opinions to get them to leave.

Users who cannot be mature about other opinions should not be regulating such a sensitive article. Those who understand the importance of NPOV should be reporting users in violation in order to get this article cleaned up.

---

EDIT: JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR WITH EVERYONE:

Accusations of point of view pushing are very serious. I'm being quite clear now that the usage of terms such as "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" are actually very insulting, and derogatory.

Wikipedia, as according to Wikipedia's own guidelines, must be written without bias, and of a NEUTRAL point of view. By degrading secondary sources and forensic evidence to the likes of a "conspiracy theory" that very neutrality is broken.

It appears insults are commonplace for this article in particular, and has really been overlooked (?) by the administration.

Very serious accusations indeed. You will be warned before getting reported,

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

And anyone who deletes this subject will be warned. If you have already been warned, you will be reported for vandalism. I'm sick of these hypocritical POV-pushers who like to violate the rules to maintain their article. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 20:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancient Astronaut (talk • contribs)

And who's sockpuppet are you? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another personal attack! Thanks for proving my point. ISAIAH 13:5 ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS !! 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine, get blocked for general asshattery then, I don't care. Or, alternatively, you could attempt to engage in some collaborative work, and actually point out where you see there are problems. That'd be the best solution; however, please don't post any more tl;dr walls of text in doing so. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

Hi. I don't see, in the "see also" section, a link to this article . I think it could be useful, any reason why it's not there? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 20:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's linked to as the "main article" at the top of September 11 attacks#Attacks. The "see also" section is only for articles not linked to elsewhere in the article. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

right, didn't notice that, sorry. thank you!Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

For section: Attackers and their background The last sentence of the first paragraph: The reports were dismissed by Donald Rumsfeld, who by mid-afternoon ordered the Pentagon to begin planning for an attack on Iraq.[84]

Leads to a (possible fake) source with a link to the Wiki for a literary journal not at all involved in the subject of 9/11. Request to have it deleted if no valid source is offered.

--Dorothyzbornak (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking over control of the aircraft

It would be useful for the article to provide more detail in this area ... " ... the hijackers used weapons to stab and kill aircraft pilots ...": what were these weapons: the box-cutters that have often been mentioned? Does "aircraft pilots" refer to the full flight crew (pilot + co-pilot + engineer if applicable) of all the affected flights? How long did the killings take? How long did it take for the dead crew to be removed from their seats so that the hijackers could occupy those seats (if that's what happened) and during this time how were communications from the aircraft to Air Traffic Control affected? Did any of the pilots have time to send emergency signals to ATC before being killed?

Much of this is covered in as much detail as sources can provide, at each of the 4 flights' articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. As far we know, the only mentions of boxcutters being wielded by the "terrorists" were from phone conversations of CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, then Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 which is reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, and Mr. Olson claimed that he had two conversations with his wife after the airplane had been hijacked. It is not clear whether Mr. Olson claimed those conversations were made with Mrs. Olson's cell phone or with an on-board seat-phone because his story changed a few times on that matter.

At the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006, the FBI did confirm that not two but a single phone call was made from Mrs. Olson to her husband; they also stated that the duration of that call was 0 (zero) second. The mainstream media (aka Reliable Sources) never picked up on this oddity. At any rate, the only mention of boxcutters on 9/11 was what Ted Olson said he heard from his wife on that fateful day. No other phone call from any other passenger ever mentioned the now world-famous boxcutters.

As a WP:RS, I offer an image extracted from the official FBI documentation tabled at the Moussaoui trial and which shows that Barbara Olson made a single call at 9:18:58 to someone (presumably her husband) at the Department of Justice and that this call lasted 0 seconds: http://i52.tinypic.com/331zyoz.png).

I know, I know, YouTube videos are frowned upon by Wikipedia for some reason or other but I respectfully submit that anyone interested in this matter should at least take a glance at this interview that the CBC's Fifth Estate public affairs program did with Dr. David Ray Griffin on this very subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA. The CBC is a crown corporation of the Government of Canada and should be considered a Reliable Source, I should think. Oclupak (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview would only be a source for Mr. Griffin's opinion on the topic. If the video is usable (e.g. no copyright violations), it is so only in the article on 911 conspiracy theories. 77.10.186.8 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as much detail as sources can provide. Obviously we'll never know everything, but the phone calls and in the case of United 93, the black boxes, provide the details that were reported by Reliable sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Last warning. Wikipedia is not a forum. "Anyone interested in this matter" doesn't belong here. Stop using this talk page as a forum. Next time I'll report you to the admin notice board. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if this discussion does indeed result in a change to the article, It shouldn't belong here, because, well, the sources aren't reliable enough, and besides, it doesn't really merit being on this page does it. MikeLynch (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I only became awed when User:Oclupak made sure to put the "Dr." in front of the name "David Ray Griffin"...that must mean this Griffin guy is a real expert that we must all listen to.--MONGO 07:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content sourced to the Washington Post and TIME magazine

MONGO (talk · contribs) has removed content based on articles published by the Washington Post and TIME magazine. The editor argues that these articles are "4 years old" and that they would be op-ed pieces.

Both articles are not opinion pieces, and the Washington Post article is written by a staff member of the newspaper. Also, there are many sources in the article that are more than four years old.

MONGO wants to describe all people who disagree with the account of the events given by the U.S. government as "conspiracy theorists". However, reliable sources have generally used the term "conspiracy theorist" for people who propagate the theories, not for the people who simply believe in them (a larger percentage of the population, according to the opionion polls cited by the Washington Post and TIME magazine. No source for this use of "conspiracy theorists" has been provided.

Maybe the best way to move forward now is to restore the article to the status quo ante, i.e. to the version before MONGO's edits, and to continue the discussion (including on the issues discussed in the section above) in order to reach a consensus on how to improve the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a question...can you explain this? There is no "status quo ante" on this website...--MONGO 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you how, in your view, this edit is related to this discussion. The edit maybe was not perfect, as it included, in addition to several reliable sources, a primary source. While there is no overall "status quo ante" of the article, there is a version of the article that existed before the current discussion took place, and I think it's best the restore this version as a first step, and to continue building consensus on the talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tracking contributions...do it all the time...I'm good at it. See WP:NOT...Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for propaganda...especially fringe views and those promoting non-science over science. Both pieces are op-eds...they add nothing to the article except the "loud whisper" that not everyone believes in the facts of the case...some simply have to rely on fantasies.--MONGO 07:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a "widespread belief" (Washington Post) that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks, and multiple reliable sources have reported on that fact, then this information is notable. That does not depend on whether such a belief is right or wrong. As an aside, I would suggest that you spend more time improving Wikipedia articles rather than tracking the contributions of other users.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think that this paragraph belongs in this article. I very much doubt whether any serious academic work about 9/11 would also include fringe viewpoints. I say remove it entirely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the article for the conspiracy theories, Se FAQ #3 above as to why.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3 above reads "Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy?" This discussion, however, is not about whether the article should provide any such evidence. It is about whether the information, reported on by multiple reliable sources, that there is "widespread belief" that the official account is inaccurate, should be included in the article. While this is not the article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, neither is it the article about U.S. policy changes after 2001, about the biographies of the hijackers, or about the memorials. However, all these things, including the existence of the conspiracy theories, are closely related to the actual event, and therefore, they are included in the article, usually with a link to the respective sub-article.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned in a recent post that this article needs a lot of trimming to get back to the core of the issue, namely the event itself...just haven't yet decided how or what should be reduced or eliminated.--MONGO 15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Significant content edits have been performed by an editor who, by their own statement, was a past and possibly present employee of the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS).(ref). This is about as severe a conflict of interest as it gets for an editor working on a 9/11 article, as the USDHS owes its existence to the 9/11 incident, and its continued existence may be in part dependent upon the American citizenry continuing to believe in or accept the official story. I respectfully request that this editor (MONGO) recuse him or herself from any further editing on 9/11 articles which exceeds correcting non-controversial typographical errors. I have restored the September 11 attacks article to its condition prior to these controversial edits; editors without a conflict of interest are welcome to make edits as they deem appropriate. Wildbear (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that one.--MONGO 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What policy or guideline does Wilbear offer, to back up his/her request?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

None...he just wanted to insult me. People have tried for years to get me off the 9/11 pages and they have all failed...in fact, most have been banned...some have returned and been rebanned....some may yet be banned...who knows.--MONGO 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When did this turn to a forum? Please stick to the topic at hand. If Wildbear thinks there is a conflict of interest, then he is eligible to raise issues. I urge my fellow editors to be civil. MikeLynch (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific editor, take it up on that editor's talk page. We don't need witch hunts on this talk page. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2010 (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.