Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

Two glaring omissions

The iconic photo of the 3 firefighters raising a flag in the rubble symbolized 9/11. It would be odd to talk about iwo jima and not mention the iconic photo of that battle. Someone please post it to this site.

Also, there is no mention of the Iraq War in this entire article. The US invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein as part of the War on Terror...I think that at least merits a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.62.76 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Iwo Jima photo was entirely separate from this, and was 55 years before the 9/11 photograph. Although I can see the resemblance, the two are unrelated. However, if you know of a reliable source stating that, it would be an excellent addition. As for the Iraq War... the problem is that there are connections, but no good way to state them without synthesis, which is not permitted. George W. Bush and his administration decided to go in based on other, entirely unrelated reasons (i.e. atomic weapons suspicions, genocide (that's undeniable, look at the Marsh Arabs), and Saddam's odd behavior in response to accusations) that had nothing directly to do with 9/11, which was al-Qaeda's work. If you want more of an explanation, check out the reference desk and ask there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Two sources for the perceived similarity of the raising of the flag at Ground Zero and a Iwo Jima are this New York Times article and this New York Daily News article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, looks like we might have something here. I was 11 at the time, so I wasn't too in tune with the ongoing reports, but now that I've read those articles, the comparison makes some sense. It seems like it would be more relevant to the Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks article, so I'll see if I can add I have added it it in there; if you think it fits here, see if you can add it in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 9/11 was not the factual reason for the initiation of the Iraq war. However, 9/11 was used as a justification, and even after it became known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the argument that the world would have changed after 9/11 has been used to argue for a more agressive U.S. foreign policy, an argument that was not limited to parties linked to 9/11. Given that connection in the public discourse, it seems appropriate to add information about how the Iraq war and 9/11 are related. This article is not about the facts only, it includes the reception and aftermath of the event (including such receptions and uses which had little or nothing to do with what actually happened).  Cs32en Talk to me  19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... well, again, I was young when all this happened, and I'm not as familiar with that, so I could be wrong. However, wouldn't that fit better in the War on Terror#US and NATO-led military operations article? This article is already massive, bordering on tl;dr territory. There could be a brief mention here, but it seems like the above article would be the better place to add that. It's a good piece of information, but probably fits better elsewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We could add a sentence after the first paragraph of the section "Military operations following the attacks", with links to Iraq war, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq and possibly other relevant pages.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, perfect. Seems like the best way to do it; what I should have said above is that the other article was the better place to expand on it. Any opinions on my addition to Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit. I've tweaked the text a bit and added the New York Times reference.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually just realized my mistakes and was going over to fix it, and saw you had already done it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Major omission?

As an independent Australian observer, I'm extremely surprised to see that this article makes no mention of the WTC buildings' owner Larry Silverstein. I recall that, immediately following the disaster, Silverstone was very much a subject of debate, concerning the short term of his ownership, his prior changes to insurance cover, his talk of "pulling" WTC7, and his subsequent legal battle and mammoth settlement. At the very least, imho, there needs to be a link to Silverstein under "See also". But let's discuss it first, eh? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Silverstein never talked about “pulling wtc7”, but the firefighters’ contingent out of the building, to avoid further human loss. Also, I don’t see how Silverstein is related directly to the attacks, you could put in the incipit that the WTC was at that time “owned” by Silverstein. (He didn’t really “own” it, it was put up for lease anyway).--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, where it belongs. Silverstein is only relevant because conspiracy theorists made him; the significance is discussed at the aforementioned page. But yeah, that could be put in a "see also" section, that makes sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, I think his ownership rates a bit more prominently than a fanciful swine-flu allegation (which I for one had never heard of). But thanks to all for the essential agreement. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the "see also" section would be more fitting.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Opinion seems to be in favour of a 'See also'. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WTC 7

I'd like to know, how come that we don't have elaborate section on WTC 7? People should read how 9/11 Commission forgot all about WTC 7… or that it was missed by the planes. There should be some sentences in adequate space.

If you do a ctrl+f for wtc 7, this article will offer two hits, such miss, and both hits are in references.

This alternative spelling editors use appears 4 times.

How come that Wikipedia still exists? It is obvious that it serves as some sort of equivalent to Big Brother… it would be good to know why people support it, if it sells every space that really counts.

So, if the editors involved would kindly explain, where is the seven? CardinalCross (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See 7 World Trade Center, a featured article. Acroterion _(talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was, where is a contest on WTC 7?, here, after all its main feature. Why is there no sentence that no plane hit that building? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ola, Acroterion, where is a bit on wtc 7? Eh? You folks didn't find it noteworthy What is it, is it irrelevant? 78.0.205.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

The reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are amply described: the mention of some non-existent plane is completely pointless. I assume that's what you're talking about - it's hard to make sense of what you say (and, no, I didn't follow the link: say what you have on your mind without posting off-wiki links. Acroterion _(talk) 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Have some sense, where is a chapter about fall of wtc 7? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly in the main article, with a link to the 7 World Trade Center article, where it is discussed in detail. Acroterion _(talk) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that, and I'm asking on what grounds? I've asked, do fellow editors find it irrelevant? Or would you prefer to deny any outside sources? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a .gif(t) of wtc 7 collapse embedded in this article, if we would be doing what we're designated to do. Who is obstructing our work and with what authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

78.0.205.207, taking an adversarial position won't get you anywhere here, except possibly banned from editing the encyclopedia. In making proposals and edits, you need to use your head. I recommend starting by watching how things work here and studying Wikipedia's introductory pages, and gaining some editing practice by working on non-9/11 related articles. The most important thing to understand about how Wikipedia documents 9/11 and similar topics is that it states (and to some degree cherry-picks) what mainstream sources say; those sources being mainly the mass media and government. If the mainstream sources say that WTC7 fell due to fire, then that's the (artificial) reality that Wikipedia documents. If you want to change how it's documented here, you will probably need to start by first getting the government and mass media to change their story, before it will change at Wikipedia. That's not to say that there aren't improvements which can be made here; but it needs to be taken slowly, respectfully, and with understanding. Wildbear (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see "obstruction"? I believe the consensus of editors on this article (which is the sole "authority") is that WTC 7 was a secondary event which does not require the same level of attention as the primary events. Others may disagree: you are welcome to discuss it in positive terms, rather than positing a conspiracy to keep such mention out of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. This is the page on the 911 attacks. WTC7 was not attacked, it fell as a consequence of the attacks. Including it here would make a page that's already quite big even bigger by information that's better fit elsewhere. Hope this short answer helps. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to Motive section?

Tallicfan20: Your changes may be great .. I dont quite see the improvement tho. Can you explain here? Also, we should ensure consistency with Motives for the September 11 attacks‎ article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Better references needed

The first line in the attacks section reads: Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. (Washington Dulles International Airport).(ref) The cited reference is a press release from the UN Security Council. It says nothing at all about "early on the morning"; it says nothing about nineteen hijackers; and it says nothing about "en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C." It basically doesn't support the preceding sentence at all. I propose that a better reference is needed for this line. Also, the first two lines in the article also use this same citation for a reference, and their content is similarly not well supported by it. Without support from that reference, that leaves the first two lines only supported by an article quoting Osama bin Laden.(ref) I don't trust Osama bin Laden to be a truthful man or a reliable source — do you? Do we know that this bin Laden video, which leads this important article as its introduction to what happened, is even real, and not a forgery? I think that the first two lines of the article should have more solid and reliable support for the assertions being made. Wildbear (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a tad sick of the constant POV pushing by you folks. If you have a problem with a source, state it, and we'll either confirm that there is a problem and find a different source or reject the claim. We're done soapboxing. I will remove ANY comment of the sort. Understand? You've had your warning. Enough. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wildbear on the UN reference. It says nothing of the details stated in the article. Need a better source. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Added new section on Cordoba House mosque.

I've added a new section on the 9/11 mosque(ground zero mosque). Good if anyone can improve on the related Park51 article. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed Main Article text to "Park51," as that is the accepted title of the main page. - Alexguitar594 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the title of the section to be problematic. The phrase Ground Zero Mosque is very inaccurate and was created by those on one side of a controversial issue. It should be titled either Cordoba House or Park51. Also there are other minor changes to the text I would make if I had edit privs, here they are:

There has been a proposal to build a Muslim community center in the neighborhood where the World Trade Center once stood. Referred to by its opponents as the Ground Zero Mosque. The community center has become a focal point of tension leading up to the November 2010 elections in the U.S.. Opinion polls suggest that while a large majority of people in the U.S. are against this project [1], the plan is supported by a majority of people living in Manhattan [2] and has gained very vocal support from Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg,[273][274][275]. President Barack Obama has hence stressed upon America's commitment to religious freedom.--Ericfg (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of whom the name was popularised by, the popular name remains Ground Zero Mosque. I guess this is more relevant in Wikipedia. MikeLynch (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the popular name although it is a commonly used name, however only one side of the debate uses the phrase, so to use that title implies agreement with that side. It is also factually inaccurate as a description. I'm new to editing/writing/adding wikipedia content, but I thought the goal was to be as accurate possible. Especially because the page this section links to is not called Ground Zero Mosque, I believe the title of this section should be changedEricfg (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of that section because it is neither an accurate description nor a neutral one. Also, 'The Cordoba Initiative' is its official working name. I think that it is in the interest of remaining professional to use the official term. sxebill (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This section has nothing at all to do with the article's subject and should therefore not be here at all. I suggest making it a 'See also', as was suggested when I proposed some mention of WTC owner Larry Silverstein. (See above.) Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur...removed. I don't even think a see also is needed...it is not related to the events of the day.--MONGO 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, is it not related to the events of the day? May I bring to your notice that the protests(and support) happening with regards to the mosque is due to the fact that it is a 'peace memorial'? How can anyone say that it is not relevant? MikeLynch (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the title of the section was changed to be neutral and accurate. Thank you. I also think that this section should be deleted entirely. This community center project has nothing to do with the events of Sept 11 2001. The connection is being created by those that are against the project. As such, even including this section at all seems to me to lack neutrality.Ericfg (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't related to the events of the day. Part of the problem with this article is that it is too broad. As the title states, September 11 attacks...so the focus should be on that, and much less other issues. The mosque isn't a memorial...the is debate among some circles that the mosque is even at ground zero, though I disagree with that argument. The article is better without going off on this tangent.--MONGO 05:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why have a memorial section? If you look at one memorial, then you have to look at the other. Cordoba house is inseparably linked to 9/11. In fact, the founder intended it as a place of peace. The controversy is due to the fact that it is so near Ground Zero, and that the founder intends it to be a symbol of harmony after 9/11. I'm sure there would be lesser controversy if the same plan had been proposed in Buffalo or San Deigo. MikeLynch (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the September 11 attacks, a series of coordinated suicide attacks on September 11, 2001. Park 51 was not part of the 9-11-01 attacks, and it is not a memorial, rather it is a community center and mosque which includes a 9-11 memorial, among other things. I think it would be valid as a see also link because some people object to the project on the basis of the fact that it's close to the WTC site and it's Muslim-related, but I don't think it's necessary to have a section on Park 51 in this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless MikeLynch, the article is and has for a long time been been poorly focused and needs major revamping to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style) guidelines...--MONGO 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@Exploding Boy: Then the article should contain info just on the attacks itself and not of its consequences? MikeLynch (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Park51 is not a consequence of the attacks. At best it's tangentially related, which is why I suggested a see also link. Also, please use colons (:) rather than asterisks (*) to indent your talk page posts; asterists create bulletpoints, making talk pages harder to read. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well. @MONGO, I'll have to agree with that. Article is poorly written. @ Exploding boy: In that case, sections on Rebuilding and memorials should be entirely rid of. MikeLynch (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. In any case, Park51 has nothing to do with rebuilding the WTC site, and it's not a memorial. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But it includes a memorial, as was pointed out. MikeLynch (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Which isn't the same thing at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem forking some of the sections but what needs to be done to reestablish focus is for the editors to all get together and gently discuss major changes that would reduce some sections to little more than a brief discussion with links to main articles that cover the subtopics in greater details. Perhaps I can set aside some time to try and create a new outline for this page but I don't have much time to spare at present for such a big undertaking.--MONGO 07:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: It doesn't have to have the words" '9/11 Memorial' written all over to be a memorial. MikeLynch (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But containing any kind of memorial does not make a building a memorial. Park51 is not primarily intended as a memorial. It isn't a memorial in disguise. It isn't a memorial that happens to have a 500 seat auditorium attached to it. It is a community center and mosque which, besides an auditorium, a theater, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a childcare area, a bookstore, a culinary school, an art studio, a food court, and a prayer space, contains a September 11 memorial. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But as pointed out, yes I guess we need major changes in the outline of the article. I'd be happy to help. MikeLynch (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine...but I see no mention of the mosque being a memorial, least not in our article here...has been described as a community center, a mosque etc. by proponents...but not as a memorial.--MONGO 07:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, that article is improperly referenced. And if you will please, Wikipedia is not a democracy. MikeLynch (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein

This is getting out of hand. And is beginning to border on some serious WP:BLP issues. See the FAQ if there are any more concerns
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. I think that the only reason for that article being in the See also section of this one is the accusation that he had something to do with the destruction. That accusation is a WP:BLP without credible sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I removed it again...it is a BLP issue and a conspiracy theory motive for having him linked from here at all.--MONGO 07:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC) But it's not WP:BLP unless the accusation is levelled, not merely imagined by someone. As owner of the WTC, Silverstein was surely a major victim of the attack(s). So why does he have to be excluded? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Didn't that get answered for you?--MONGO 07:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Bjenks, Larry Silverstein needs to be excluded from the article because the owners of this page wish to keep intact the myth of "19 Arabs with box-cutters who hate our freeddoms" as the sole explanation for what happened. Mentioning Larry Silverstein opens a can of worms which they want the wandering public to be kept away from, lest they start questioning the lies that have been broadcast from day one by the mainstream media, also known as "Reliable Sources". So you see, there is a very logical reason why many items which one would expect to find in the article are not there, and also why many dubious proofs are prominently displayed. I applaud your efforts to bring some sanity to the article but be forewarned that if you keep it up, you will soon be threatened with a block and even a possible expulsion from Wikipedia. Many editors have also quit in disgust as you can ascertain by browsing through the archives. Anyway, good luck with your endeavour. Oclupak (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Um...if I can add my two cents, he was the owner of the buildings that were attacked. Regardless of conspiracy theories, he was a victim of the attacks. His article should be linked, per policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Many thanks for your proper reasoning and support, Oclupak and Jojhutton. It's a pity that Wikipedia's generally high standard of impartiality is occasionally corrupted to foster sectional views. Americans are surely entitled to their own style of national gullibility, but Wikipedia is a global enterprise for which empiricism, NPOV and a critical approach are basic. Until that day comes, perhaps we should introduce a new category of articles which lack credible substance because of indefensible control by quasi-proprietors.:) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Or alternatively, you could tone down the rhetoric. More people will listen to you that way, Jojhutton's argument is far more compelling than yours. I'm on the fence, and I could be persuaded either way. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You're right. Sorry for my lapse there. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Here's my take on the subject, and this is just my opinion mind you. If Sileverstein's only conection to 9/11 was through a conspiracy theory, then I would be the first one standing up and yelling from the cheap seats that the article should not be linked. As it is though, he owned or at least leased the property that was the focus of at least half of the attack, and by far, the focus of most of the media coverage. My personnal opinion on the conspiarcy theory is not important, although if asked I would gladly give my opinion, but as Sileverstein's link to 9/11 is absolute and unquestionable, there would be no reason to add his article to the "See Also" section.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Larry Silverstein does not belong in the See also section of the article. However, I think it's appropriate to mention him in context of rebuilding the site. I have tried adding something about the delays in rebuilding, mentioning the disputes/agreement between Silverstein and the Port Authority. It's a wordy sentence and could be improved. Also, I think the see also section could be eliminated entirely. It seems like a hodgepodge of links that doesn't seem to fit there. --Aude (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Now is your opinion have that much weight that you fealt that it was ok to go ahead and just remove the linked article?--Jojhutton (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Nope, the link is not removed. It is included in the article text, where it's appropriate to mention Silverstein. In the see also section, we do not repeat links that are in the article text, per WP:SEEALSO in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. --Aude (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Now that is a fair and reasonable response, as of course you are correct.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry for breaking away from the topic in question here, but I read Oclupak's words in this section, and if it is indeed true, then it is very unfortunate that Wikipedia is in such a biased state. MikeLynch (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Good thing then that it isn't true. And, good thing that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. He loses either way. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC) That is precisely why it is unfortunate. MikeLynch (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC) It's unfortunate that we don't let random people rant about what they think is the truth? Gosh, how horrible of us. Look, one man's truth is another man's lie. There is no concrete way to determine what is 'the truth' outside of reporting what reliable sources report. There is a reason we call them reliable sources. I think we're done with this. I'm going to delete any more ranting about 'truth' that is posted here. This is not a forum. --Tarage (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) This is not a forum, this is not a democracy, and you are no moderator. I've been reviewing this talk page, and people over here are not friendly in the least(as should be). Reliable sources cease to be reliable if they are moderated externally or governmentally. Enough said, as this isn't a forum(of which(incidentally) Tarage is no moderator of). MikeLynch (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC) However, I believe this discussion merits an end here, as there is a separate page on Conspiracy theories, which are broadly accounted for. MikeLynch (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC) If I may be allowed to add my 2¢, I believe that the September_11_attacks page should be free of any conspiracy theory and that all conspiracy theories should be presented on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, including the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), of course. I would even go along with displaying the OCT more prominently than the others as it is the one which was reported most widely in the mainstream media. The September 11 attacks page should, however, deal exclusively with facts. For instance, I would rewrite the opening paragraph thus: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were diverted fom their scheduled itineraries. Two of the airliners were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. A third airliner crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after it had been redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights. Let us not forget that in the immediate aftermath of the events, the U.S. government had established that the culprits must have been members of Al Qaeda on a suicide mission and that George W. Bush had declared that "You are either with us or against us". From then on, no one in the media (aka "The Reliable Sources") dared contradict him and they all went along with the patriotic propaganda which ensued. That is understandable and an encyclopedia like ours should reflect that reality, not follow blindly in the rhetoric which was used to justify two wars, one of which (Iraq) turned out to have been launched on totally bogus premises. A good indicator of the astounding success of the 9/11 propaganda campaign is the fact that even today a great number of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. My goal is to transform this article into a Good Article, devoid of any bias whatsoever. It should state the facts, only the facts. All the speculations should go to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Voilà, I'm done. Oclupak (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Use reported speech for official versions of widely questioned events

Wikipedia is not a forum for conspiracy theories. If an editor has a suggestion to improve the article, then please say so, otherwise this section is beginning to turn into a forum. See FAQ if there are any questions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia should use the same standards for all countries regardless of where its sponsorship comes from. Official versions of events should be described in reported speech, if there is a highly visible opposition to them. It is against the NPOV for wikipedia to put itself into a position of a judge and say, "maybe a lot of people question it, but these are just ridiculous conspiracy theories, so we'll ignore them". Thus for me this article violates the NPOV as long as the yolk of that is known as the 9/11 official story is not described using reported speech. Finally, I would add, that if you try using typical debunker tactic asking, "oh, maybe we should use reported speech to say the earth is round, because some people doubt it?", I'll preemptively respond, some people thinking the earth is flat doesn't constitute a highly visible opposition, like in the case of 9/11. Mik1984 (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC) No, you are wrong. Move along. --Tarage (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC) "Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" – Insane Clown Posse It doesn't matter what a hundred, a thousand or a million vocal idiots think or say, Wikipedia is about verifiable information from reliable sources. Richard Gage, Alex Jones and "Truth" blogs are not that. — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK|STALK), 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Does User:Mik1984 have reliable secondary sources, to confirm that there was a conspiracy? I didn't see any that could be looked at to verufy the claim that there was a conspiracy.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Whoever claims that "19 Arabs with box-cutters who hate our freeddoms" were responsible for the attacks recognizes that there was a conspiracy involving at the very least those 19 individuals. Usually, that conspiracy theory, as improbable as it already is, also involves Osama Bin Laden and other freedom-hating individuals in some caves in Afghanistan. That conspiracy theory is the one put forward by the U.S. Government and virtually all the mainstream media as the sole explanation for the events of 9/11. It is nevertheless nothing more than a conspiracy theory which was never proven in a thorough and impartial investigation. The 9/11 Commission was NOT an impartial and thorough investigation. There are other conspiracy theories out there which are much more credible than the Official Conspiracy Theory but, for the time being, those theories are frowned upon by the "owners" of this article who tolerate no other conspiracy theory than the one they personnally cherish. Oclupak (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC) You may find them more credible, but reliable sources don't. Conflating "official" to mean anything supporting the version presented here, consequently pretending there was a single entity putting out this version, rather than multiple institutions, persons, researchers, newspapers, etc. in order to pretend that there was no "impartion and thorough investigation" on the topic is either ignorant or deceitful. Either way, wikipedia decided on criteria for reliable sources, which are completely transparent. So, please try improving this article on the basis of WP:RS and stop ranting. 77.10.176.204 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Failure to prevent the attacks

It seems to me that the article is rather light on what should be one of its main themes, namely the failure of all those agencies charged with preventing just such an attack as happened on 9/11. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on this, but in my understanding the following agencies had a responsibility for preventing aircraft crashing into buildings, either deliberately or accidentally:

The CIA

The FBI

The NSA

The police

The FAA and Air Traffic Control

NORAD

The Department of Defense

The US Air Force

Airport Security at Boston, Newark and Washington

Airline Security (e.g. at check-in and boarding) at United and American

The cabin crew and flight crew operating the relevant flights.

The success of 3 of the 4 hijackings implies that, during the planning and implementation of the attacks, the hijackers outwitted or evaded all of the above agencies. The article only mentions investigation of the performance of the CIA; it would be useful to add descriptions of the investigations into the performance of those other agencies, and the outcomes of those investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.209.122 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you provide some sources, then it would be easier to see from those sources what could and could not be added.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A Good Revision To Include In The First Paragraph

Original: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings.

New: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks believed to carried out by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists supposedly hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The suspected hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsimon101 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1

"Official version"

The article includes "Some question the official version of the bombings". But no reference or source is given for "offical version". So where can one find the official version of the bombings? Is the Wikipedia article itself the official version? If so, that should be stated somewhere.

86.179.209.122 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What "bombings"? The article is clearly off the mark on this one. No one ever alleged that there were any kind of "bombings" on 9/11. The Official Conspiracy Theory (OTC) states that the attacks were the result of "19 Muslims who hate our freedoms" hijacking 4 aircrafts and slamming three of them into buildings while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania farmland. No bombing there. The most prevalent alternative conspiracy theories entertain the possibility that the WTC buildings that collapsed had previously been rigged with explosives and that the airplanes were mostly there for show. Even though nano-thermite or thermate might be described as explosive substances, I doubt their ignition would be called a "bombing". The terminology used in this case is "Controlled Demolition", not "bombings". Other theories involving mysterious energy weapons, such as the one proposed by Dr. Judy Wood, do not mention anything about "bombings". As for the Pentagon attack, no one claims any "bombing" was involved either, unless a cruise missile can be categorized as a bomb. Frankly, I can't imagine how the notion of "bombings" ever made it into the article. So thanks for pointing out that inconsistency, 86.179.209.122. It definitely should be remedied but first, we must discuss it among ourselves in order to reach consensus. I hope we'll have resolved the issue in time for the 9th anniversary of those horrible events, which is barely a week away. Oclupak (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed "bombings" issue.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely :-) The wording is now "Some question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Most of the alternative theories see the bombings ...". In any case, that wasn't the main point, which was about where the "official version" of 9/11 can be found. 86.174.168.197 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it...not sure why this section has as much in it as it does since the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are both ludicrous and preposterous.--MONGO 05:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine has used the term "official version". However, "conclusions published by U.S. government agencies" or "account of the U.S. government" would be possible alternatives, in my view.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the numerous engineering studies that have been done independent of the feds? Or those that understand that the easiest explanation is usually the right one.--MONGO 06:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If we would refer to them, we would need to take the different conclusions drawn by different authors (i.e. NIST vs. FEMA) into account. What is important here, as opposed to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article, are not the engineering details, but the overall account, i.e. primarily the account given by the 9/11 Commission.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NIST superceded FEMA in the investigation...NIST has greater engineering expertise but didn't get assigned the job initially. It might have been martians though...or a gamma ray burst.--MONGO 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read here. It's interesting to see how the editors work toward some type of consensus. I see two problems, however. First of all, Mongo does appear to be very dominant in the discussion and carries a very strong POV. That isn't helpful to arriving at a good article. There are definitely others with strong POVs - I'm just trying to be clear that based on a quick read of the information here, MONGO does appear to have very strong POV and may be an obstacle to enhancing the article for increased accuracy.

The second issue is that there must be "credible sources", and the problem is that credible sources get their information from... ??? It seems to me that this article, if it's ever going to be a good one that is accurate, will need to step away from citing "credible sources" of POVS and cut right to the facts - only. For instance, if it is factual that planes impacted the WTC, so be it. If it is factual that burning continued for x amount of time prior to collapse, and that the collapse lasted y seconds with an extremely vertical trajectory, so be it. If it is factual that the commission only addressed certain theories for how the collapses occurred, and did not investigate certain other specific theories, that is a fact that is material to the article.

With this particular incident, the facts that we should know about but seem to lack are as interesting as those that are apparently confirmed by credible sources. It is an interesting fact that there are very few images or videos released by the US Government concerning the PA crash and the Pentagon crash. In fact, it may be quite possible to include all official images and videos on this site. There is a specific, factual number of images that have been released, and it would nice to know that information. Factually, do we have black box information or not? Are there recordings of air traffic control discussions that are available from the government, or not? Is such information 100% complete, or has there been editing or omissions in the data that can factually be cited?

By focusing on facts, and avoiding POV of any kind (including the "offical POV") the article can leave the reader to decide which POVS to explore through links, including the "official POV" which is factually a POV. The difference between a POV and a fact - a POV requires a theory. The official POV is full of theories. The editors must decide if this article is to include either no POV's or if it should include all of them. I suggest going for none, and focusing only on facts. NO POVs.

67.160.118.1 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Greg

Conspiracies, non-conspiracies and FAQ 3

I'm deeply puzzled by the answer to FAQ 3 (Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy?). The tone of A3 strongly suggests (although it doesn't state explicitly) that the attacks of September 11 were not the result of a conspiracy. Yet the article itself begins by saying that the attacks "were a series of coordinated suicide attacks". Does coordination of a series of attacks not amount to a conspiracy?

If 9/11 was not the result of a conspiracy, I can only think of the following alternatives:

1) The attacks were the work of a lone individual.

2) The attacks were the work of 2 or more lone individuals acting independently of each other.

3) The "attacks" were not deliberate attacks at all, but the results of aviation accidents.

To the best of my knowledge, absolutely no one - whether the US Government, the 9/11 Commission, the media (mainstream or otherwise) or independent researchers - has ever proposed 1 - 3 or anything like them. And common sense would suggest that 1 - 3, while theoretically possible, are extremely unlikely to be true explanations for 9/11.

I would be grateful for any comments. Rostro (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. --Tarage (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the official version propagated by the mainstream media IS a conspiracy theory. Let's call it the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). It then stands to reason that the OCT should be presented on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, along with the alternative theories. In a nutshell, all conspiracy theories should be eradicated from the September_11_attacks page, which should be free of any speculation of any kind and should restrict itself to the universally-agreed upon facts. The opening paragraph could be rewritten thus:

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were diverted fom their scheduled itineraries. Two of the airliners were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. A third airliner crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after it had been redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

The goal should be to transform this article into a Good Article, devoid of any bias whatsoever. It should state the facts, only the facts. Oclupak (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems completely reasonable. The official version of events (like all versions of events) is a conspiracy theory. It makes sense to stick to pure facts of what occurred, without speculation. When you remove speculation, there is no "official" or "unofficial" or "fringe" theory. There is only fact. No one is questioning whether or not the attacks occurred at all, for example. What's the point of forcing one theory into the article without the others? It doesn't make sense.

173.67.21.10 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such theory of what you call the Official Conspiracy theory. Giving it its own acronym doesn't help make it official either. There is only what happened that day, based on reliable sources and independent investigations. Continuing to use the talk page as a forum to push your own personal theory in order to place doubt on the correctness of the investigation is contrary to WP:Forum.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've modified FAQ question 3 to clarify that it's about conspiracy theories, not real conspiracies.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone allowed to go over and change the FAQ without prior consultation with fellow editors? I thought that kind of gesture required a consensus among editors. Was I wrong? Can I go over and change the content of the FAQ myself? Oclupak (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ reflects the long-term consensus of the community. AQFK's edit is in line with the consensus. You have been using this talk page as a forum, as you have been advised, and do not have a consensus for the changes you propose. Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How does one manage to arrive at a consensus if one is not allowed to expose his proposition on the talk page? What I have been witnessing here is that, one by one, all the editors who could agree with a different stance than the one proposed in the article, and which is utterly biased IMHO, is either discouraged to pursue the discussion, or is enticed to engage in a flame war which will get him blocked and ultimately banned. With such a strategy, obviously, the consensus will remain intact, forever and ever, that the 9/11 attacks were initiated by "19 Arabs who hate our freedoms". Oclupak (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You have, on numerous occasions, made the same propositions and accusations. Your proposals have been considered and have been ultimately rejected, by a majority consensus, yet you continue to bring up the same proposals, skimming of the surface of WP:Point and WP:BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read what I had written? My point was that it was virtually impossible for any opposing view to ever alter the consensus as every editor who dares challenge it is driven away. Only yesterday, an anonymous editor brought up a quite valid question, which was what happened to the people whose responsibility it was to prevent an aircraft crashing into buildings, either deliberately or accidentally. He mentioned the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, NORAD, DOD, US AirForce, Airline Security and many others. He went on to ask: "The success of 3 of the 4 hijackings implies that, during the planning and implementation of the attacks, the hijackers outwitted or evaded all of the above agencies. The article only mentions investigation of the performance of the CIA; it would be useful to add descriptions of the investigations into the performance of those other agencies, and the outcomes of those investigations." That surely is a worthwhile question and you yourself, Jojhutton, launched an invitation to fellow editors to provide some sources to enable us to add this interesting aspect of the attacks to the article. As you probably know, none of the people in high authority on that day was ever reprimanded. Unbelievably, most, if not all, got promoted. That would be a piece of information worth mentioning, would it not, if it was properly documented? But before any Reliable Source could be gathered, before any editor could respond to your own invitation, that section of the talk page was doomed to semi-oblivion when it was transported to Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_53. The editor responsible for this act of uncivility was none other than MONGO who, it has been alleged elsewhere on this page, was at one time a paid agent of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). If indeed he/she does work for a government agency with a definite agenda to promote a certain bias on this page, and if he/she is allowed to get away with it, one by one dissenting edtors will leave the project and I will never ever manage to reach any consensus. Do you understand? Do you think the anonymous editor who brought up the question of the apparent incompetence of the agencies who failed to protect America on 9/11 will ever bother to contribute to the article in the future? Will he/she even bother to register with Wikipedia if, witin a few hours of asking a legitimate question on a talk page, it is unceremoniously removed, without the slightest explanation? Oclupak (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you have written, and I can also see the slant that you are trying to include into the article. I understand completly what you are saying about consensus, being myself on both sides of similar situations. I even witnessed a situation when a 2 to 1 majority to include information was dismissed by a small faction of editors who where "protecting" a page. So I get it. I understand what you are saying. It does not mean, however, that you will be allowed to continually rehash the same POV, that has already been dismissed. Say it once, I get it, but to continue to say "Official Conspiracy Theory", on several sections of this talk page, is becoming very pointy. As far as the removal of the section by another editor, you'll have to bring that up with him/her. Why tell me? If you have concerns about any editor, you have options as far as notice boards go, so you should go there rather than continue to bring up the same subject over and over again. There is nothing that we can do here about removal of content or editors who may have a bias, rather this talk page is for "improvements" to the article, so if you have an improvement to the article, that has not already been dismissed, that you would like to discuss, please say so.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I thank you for keeping this discussion polite. The concerns are that the proposed additions/deletions are usually dismissed, regardless of whether consensus was reached or not. Of course, there is no definition of what consensus is. I myself have been in situations on this page where my proposals were looked down upon, when there was proper reason for it to be considered. I wish that new proposals aren't discouraged, and that new additions, even when previously discussed, are seen in better light, and considered properly(whether they will be accepted or rejected, that is a different matter). It would also be convenient for other Wikipedia users to participate fruitfully in discussions regarding this matter. I also wish my fellow editors could be more civil and more polite, even when rejecting proposals, because we are all here to celebrate knowledge, and not mock it or disgrace it. Good day to all. MikeLynch (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am fully understanding and simpathetic to the cause of those who want to add information, but are summarily dismissed every time. I have been on that end at talk pages before. Without going into too much detail, Talk:Barack Obama is a prime eaxmple of this "protectionism". I don't stand for it. Yet how many times does this need to be brought up? There is already a section, albeit a small one, on conspiracy theories. There are numerous articles on various conspiracy theories. If an editor would like to suggest an improvemnet to the article, please provide sources at the time of the request. There is no need for anyone else to continue to ask for them. If it becomes clear that the reliable sources confirm notability, then of course, the information should be added into the article. Yet at this time all we have are various talk page sections full of accusations and WP:BLP problems. I know that it is a very touchy subject, but we must walk with care before making claims that violate WP:BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak, I thought I made it clear that you are not to soapbox. As the editors above have told you, and as I have told you, the changes you wish to make have not only been considered and rejected, but have been proposed hundreds of times before and rejected every time. The next time you bring up this sort of rant, I will report you. This is your final warning. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not suggesting moving it to "9/11", but I was wondering the reason why it is not titled accordingly, since it's the disaster's most used name. CityFeedback ^talk 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency. We came up with this title a good while back. I'm not sure where it is in the archives but this was the consensus. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change (of course not on a whim)Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for external multimedia links

The History Channel has what I would call a substantial amount of video, photo and interactive content. I'd like to add one or more links for it, but not sure if they qualify and, if so, which links to add. Comments? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• 9/11 Attacks
• 9/11 Attacks - 102 Minutes That Changed America
• results of "9/11" search

I think either of the first would be better. the other is too broad, and there are technically a heck of a lot that could be added so it needs to be done carefully. I dont mind either of the first 2, ill let you decide since its your suggestion.Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Im sure this must have been discusses somewhere in the archives. but WP:Consensus can change. What was the criteria for adding this list. Dont need so many repettitve and needless links. Memoryhole, Congress double links can be cut, open directory seems nonsense with nothing specific (although WP:EL does recognise it). There are then 7 multimedia links, and WP:Memorial (which is somewhat replicated with statistics)Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 attacks harm First Amendment

9/11 attacks harm first amendment.

I'd suggest we include this information into the article, it is mainstream by the definition and I'm feeling free to discuss the context. Inthebeginningtherewasaword… (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in Post-9/11, which has other problems, but it seems a better location than the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur Rubin, that seems better. I added something to "Aftermath..." page, but would it be better in Post-9/11?Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Aftermath..." seems to be for more immediate effects. I can't say I like either the title "Post-9/11" or the structure of the article, but the information seems better placed there, except in regard the (conspiracy) theory that 9/11 was performed or allowed by people in the US government to cause such a result. There already is some comment that the attacks were allowed by the Administration in order to remove personal freedoms guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments; why not also the 1st. But we'd need a source for the conspiracy theory, as well as for the effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Info regarding construction at The Pentagon

I was in D.C. the same week we invaded Iraq- a year and a half after the attacks. The article says The Pentagon was repaired within a year, which I know is inaccurate. The Pentagon was still being fixed and I've got the pictures to prove it. Someone should find out from a credible source when construction was actually finished and edit the article accordingly.

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.249 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to National Geographic it was completed in the Spring of 2003. I might be misreading though, so maybe someone should double check, just to make sure. Also, I found this article http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50818 on a memorial. Might be worth putting in the article. Just a thought.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightx52 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A CNN article said the same thing. So 2 sources say Spring of '03. [5] Flightx52 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero"

The phrase "Ground Zero" is used without any explanation as to its meaning. Especially for younger readers, shouldn't the phrase be defined when it's first employed? I'm a little reluctant to wade into editing this article, without someone else saying OK. Ishboyfay (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground zero was used for sites of nuclear explosions only. Using the name for the 911 site is a hint at what really happened that day. Why else would they use this term? Ground zero New York is a nuclear explosion site. This should be noted into the main article. http://www.911thology.cn/911thology.html 77.10.178.55 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground Zero: noun

• 1. The target of a projectile, such as a missile or bomb.
• 2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.
• 3. The center of rapid or intense development or change: "The neighborhood scarcely existed five years ago, but today it is the ground zero from which designer shops and restaurants radiate" (Robert Clark).
• 4. The starting point or most basic level: My client didn't like my preliminary designs, so I returned to ground zero.
• 5. (Placename) The name given to the devastated site of the collapsed World Trade Center towers in New York after September 11 2001

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. The phrase has been used since the 1940's, so there really is no need to define it here. Younger readers should be encouraged to use a dictionary, and that isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Rapier (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ground Zero" was coined by the media for whatever reason. This was not some invention word by some editor at wikipedia. words and meanings of words change over time, based on need and usage. Obviously the term "Ground Zero" has an new meaning as well as its older meaning. Thats the beauty of a living language, its always changing and adapting. If you need a example of how words change and how they are used, just look at the way society uses the word "Gay" today, as opposed to 40 years ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Another anti-terrorist measure?

They say that anyone can add stuff but who are we protecting ourselves from. This encyclopedia entry is locked up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sept 11 2001 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Protection policy, anti vandal rather than anti terrorism. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

anniversary reactions

I just readded the section (although maybe it could be a subsection of "memorials") because this edit [6] says it is misplaced and already included in memorials, but the info is not included in the "memorials" section which just mentions permanent standing memorials not the activities that go on on said day every year.

This edit [7] says "too much recentism" which may hold water for the obama/biden thing, but the 2010 reactions were certainly notable in its cotnroversy generated around the world (as in the requisite article created).Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For the anniversary the article should be updated. I propose:

• for neutrality keep in main article only this material for which every one has agreement.
• the rest, where are diffs, move to another arts. (basically are 2 version IJT and 11TM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is ripe with recentism, and needs to be kept in a historical perspective. As far as the reading of the list, I am moving it to the memorials section.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

The infobox death toll reads 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers. To be consistent with these numbers I have changed the lead accordingly. It is not POV to list the victim death toll seperate to the hijackers as long as it is explicitely stated. Which it is so please do not change this citing point of view. It is not appropriate to include the hijackers in the victim death toll. This isn't POV, it just commonsense because they were the perpetrators not victims. But by all means discuss here if you really feel that the total victim death toll should include the hijackers. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, hijackers that commit suicide while killing thousands of people are not "victims". While they may be dead, they certainly aren't "victims". Rapier (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes to include them in the same death toll just makes no sense. I note that I started this thread in response to this revert and have since changed the lead again here. I don't think there is any problem with NPOV whatsoever. Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also feels that it serves no purpose to list the total number of deaths in September_11_attacks#Casualties and then subdividing it into victims and hijackers. It should instead just be subdivided in the first place. What purpose is served by listing the hijackers in the total death toll? Jdrewitt (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The investigation are not final. So the hijackers may be a victims too. Did you saw a jumbo jet drone or do you know how work npn or mosfet junction?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

I've had a look at the current sources for the death toll and found them somewhat dubious. Most reliable sources don't give an exact figure, so we should probably follow that approach. In my view, the number of deaths among responders, which is being reported on by numerous reliable sources, should remain in the lead, but some further details should probably go from the lead to the respective section later on. I've added them all to the lead at this point, so that we can discuss the sources in a coherent way.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree we should use reliable sources for this information. But I also note that during the 911 rememberance service the names of all the victims of the attacks were read out and so there must be a reliable source that provides the official number of victims. Of course in light of new evidence this may change but there must be an official number and this we must use. And we must separate the figure of victims that died from that of the hijackers who were not victims. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the most official figure we can obtain is from the official 9/11 commission report executive summary here. I don't know if the official figures may have changed since the time this report was issued. It states "More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes." So where we write "Nearly 3000 victims" we should cite this using [8]. Of course there must also be a figure for the number of confirmed deaths as this will be those people who's names were read out during the remembrance service, there must be a source that provides this but I haven't managed to find it as of yet. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The death toll in the lead was a total death toll. Removing 19 people from the total death toll, because you do not happen to agree with what they did, is not a WP:NPOV. The info box says victims, which is different from a total death toll, and it would be consistent to leave out or separate the terrorists in that case because they were the perpetrators and not the actual victims. I hope I explained it right and that no one confuses a death toll with and victims toll. Yet it looks as if the lead has been changed so i guess this is now moot.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is moot and this discussion has moved on to finding reliable sources for the actual figure, but your are wrong, it is not in violation of WP:NPOV to state the total victim death toll seperate from the hijackers death toll as long as it is specifically stated. The phrase "there were a total of 10 apples, excluding 2 rotten apples" is the same as saying "there were a total of 12 apples, including 2 rotten apples." It is exactly the same information. Neither is anymore correct than the other and there is nothing in WP:NPOV that says one phrase should be used other the other. But in quoting NPOV you have made an incorrect assumption or my motivations for making this edit. At no point did I state because of my feelings. Although I have to say that any human with even an ounce of decency in their being would find the murder of approximately 3000 innocent people to be wholly wrong. But this was not my motivation for seperating the two death tolls, even though it is also the decent, respectful, moral and right thing to do. My motivation is that the hijackers are not victims of the attacks. They were the perpetrators and so should not be listed in the death toll of the victims. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why you have taken this tone. Your comment towards me sound like an attack on my character. Please be more civil in the future. Also, please read WP:NPOV to determine why its WP:NPOV to separate the high-jackers from a death toll. Victims toll is different, as I already had written. Reliable sources put the current death toll at 2996. The difference in numbers from the sources is because officially 24 are still only classified as missing, and not part of the official death toll, although most media sources include them in the total death toll. Some that were originally classified as missing, have been added to the official death toll, as family members petition for their names to be added to the list, so again that is why the sources differ. As I said, most reliable source cite 2996 as the death toll.

So why do you want a total death toll that includes the hijackers. That's rediculous and I think consensus will prove that this is not how the vast majority of wikipedia editors would choose to write an article. If your going to continue this path of Iincorrect) wikilawyering then I should point you to WP:AGF. Now, do you have the reliable source for the death toll that stands at 2996. If you do then we should cite it. And it should not include the hijackers. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please comment on the content and not me.

Of course although "Your comment towards me sound like an attack on my character. Please be more civil in the future" isn't exactly related to the article so maybe relax a little yourself? No hard feelings, we just have a differing opinion is all :) Jdrewitt (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If we need a reliable source for the death toll, this is from yesterday's paper. (Can everyone see this article, because I get this from a subscription based web-site?). As far as including the high-jackesr in the death toll, is there a reason why they should be excluded? Remember that a death toll differs from a victims toll.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So you want a total death toll which includes the hijackers? You're entitled to your opinion but I think you will find the vast majority of wikipedia editors and readers will agree that it is the victims death toll that we should list here. It is non-sensical to mix the two together. As I have already said it is no more incorrect to state that "(total number of victims) excluding the 19 hijackers" compared with "(total number of victims + 19) including the 19 hijackers". These two statements are identical. It is not in violation of NPOV to use one wording over the other. However, I think it is better to use the former wording. And I think others will agree. With respect to the article, no I don't have access to it. But yes we absolutely need a reliable source. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First....I don't think that anyone had problems with the numbers. The numbers that were in the articles lead and in the info box were correct according to reliable sources. (Whether or not it was a victims list or a total death list).

Second...I never argued that the lead should be total number of deaths over the victims deaths. To me it was all about wording. If you want to change the lead to say 2977 Victims, that would not be POV, because it is a true verifiable statement, but to say that the total death toll was 2977 is POV, even if one were to say excluding the high-jackers, because one would be making a statement from a certain POV. In this case, that the death of the perpetrators was less tragic. Remember that wikiepdia is global and that any recorded death, regardless of the method, should be treated with respect.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) The sources were dubious, see Cs32en's comments above. (2) The figures are inconsistent with other sources in which it is impossible to provide a precise figure, see [9]. I agree with Cs32en that it is safer to say approximately 3000 victims were killed as a result of the attacks and if possible provide actual official number of known dead backed up by a reliable source. 3) I think that if anyone directly affected by 9/11 read your last statement they would be severely upset by your use of the word respect and in any case that is clearly clearly your personal POV. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you cannot look at this from a neutral point of view. Being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias. My POV has nothing to do with it, in fact my statements counter my personal feelings, mostly because I truly believe in a neutral point of view on wikipedia regardless of how I feel. (If you were wondering, I created these videos). So I don't need to be preached to about POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean giving a completely fair view to all. There is a minority of disgraceful excuses of human beings who admire the hijackers and believe them to be worthy of respect. However, the vast majority of human beings everywhere in the world regard them as completely inhumane and do not deserve any respect whatsoever. I know you are trying to follow policy in this occasion and believe you are right but it is incredibly naive to push the minority view that the hijackers deserve as much respect as the victims they murdered. This is not a view shared by the majority of civilised humankind and as such it is not a view that wikipedia should support. I respect your personal view and the videos that you created, I'm glad that you don't actually personally feel that way, but please I completely understand NPOV policy and have not done anything to controvene it. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:NPOV states that, and I quote: 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. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is one of wikipedias three core policies, and should not be taken lightly, no matter how much we agree or do not agree with the mode and method of the other side.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of NPOV and the same insidious misconception that leads reporters to give equal weight to two sides of an issue because there are two sides, rather than balancing the actual POV of the world and of experts against fringe cranks. NPOV does not mean "Being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias." NPOV means, as you've quoted, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." and that means that since the 19 fanatical pieces of shit that murdered almost 3,000 people are treated by the majority of reliable sources as 19 fanatical pieces of shit that murdered almost 3,000 people, we treat them likewise. They are terrorists. They are not victims. They are not worthy of "respect". Their deaths are not "tragic." Since this is an encyclopedia, we do not use the emotive language I have used above in the article, but we write about them without for a second forgetting that proportionately, the significant viewpoint in reliable sources is that they were murderous terrorist fanatics. If including them in the total death toll would give the impression that we are honoring them by lumping them together with the victims (as I agree it does) then we should make the editorial judgment not to do so for NPOV reasons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then how would you deal with the sources that call them freedom fighters? And believe me they are out there. I guess I already know, since your very POV laden comments already suggest. I just have one question. Why did you say that WP:NPOV does not mean 'being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias.? Very curious to hear your answer.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We deal with them by not ignoring the word "proportionate" and "significant viewpoints", as those nutshell words are expanded and explained in more detail at WP:WEIGHT, e.g., "...that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Yes there are sources that call them freedom fighters. And you can also find sources that say Hitler was a hero and the holocaust did not happen, and Bush ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, and Dinosaurs cohabited with man, and that crystals and aromatherapy are reliable cancer treatments, but to do so is to ignore the weight such things should be given when you view the dialectic of sources. So when I say "NPOV does not mean representing both sides fairly and without bias" I mean (to draw an example from how the media often does actually skew the issue) that where you have 99+% of the world's eminent biologists telling you that evolution is an indisputable fact, to set up the debate as one scientist on one side and one lone fringe scientist-creationist on the other because both sides exist is not NPOV because it ignores the actual weight to be given to each "side".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fuhgettaboutit is absolutely right. NPOV is not a licence to promote minority viewpoints with an equal weighting to the mainstream view. In fact the policy is there to ensure that wikipedia represents the mainstream view. i.e. if you have a certain minority view but the vast majority of sources support an opposite mainstream view then you should not use your own POV to promote that minority viewpoint. The idea that the hijackers deserve equal or even greater respect than the victims is absurd and a view that is shared by a very small minority. The freedom fighters reference represents a minority viewpoint. Where it is correct for wikipedia to acknowledge that these viewpoints do in fact exist we should not write articles that give an undue weighting to these viewpoints. Instead we write the article according to the mainstream view. Now, my point all along has absolutely nothing to do with POV. It is the fact that it is perfectly correct to write "The total number of dead = xxxx (excluding the 19 hijackers)". There is nothing wrong with writing this, it is clear what the total represents. So factually there is nothing wrong with this. There is also factually nothing wrong with saying "The total number of dead = yyyy (including the 19 hijackers)". Both of these statements are factually correct. Now which one shall we use, its up to us, however NPOV does say that we should stick with the mainstream view which in this instance goes with excluding the hijackers from the total. To include them is akin to including nazi's who died during the holocaust in the total number of people who died in the gas chambers. So as much as I agree you are trying to do the right thing, as neutral editors we must support the mainstream view. Jdrewitt (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this turned around to me pushing some fringe theory. I don't think its a fringe theory to say that the high-jackers died in the crashes. Like I said before its moot, because the information was changed to say victims, which I had already said was accurate to remove the 19 high-jackers from, but to remove them from a death toll was absurd, because they did die, and they do have family members who mourn there loss, and yes even family members who do not agree with what they did, but they mourn no less. I'm not trying to elevate the high-jackers to the same level as the victims, that too would be absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you have misinterpreted the NPOV policy and then tried to use that to justify including the death of the hijackers in the total death toll. This is incorrect. The policy does not apply in the way you think it does and your insistence is what warranted this long discussion. It may well be moot but it is still worthwhile clarifying that it does not go against NPOV to remove the hijackers from the total death toll since this is what the vast majority of reliable sources on the matter do. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, I'm breaking from the NPOV discussion above so that we can discuss the actual matter of what reliable sources are available in order to quote an accurate figure for the death toll. At present we state that there were approximately 3000 victims who lost their lives. However, there are more precise figures available so what figure should we actually quote? I think it is important to discuss this because there appear to be several figures given depending on the reference. I suggest keeping the figure an approximation in line with the official figures given in http://www.c-span.org/pdf/911finalreportexecsum.pdf which are not precisely known. However, there may be more up to date figures available? Perhaps we could quote the official number of recorded victims and follow this stating that the actual figure is likely to be higher, backed up by reliable sources of course. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

There is a lot of films of youtube. The films contains notable information. For example film watched by 3.7 mln peoples is more notable than party newspaper printed in 100k or 10000 books burned by Pentagon. Agreement?

So there is need to prepare here collection of links so we can get agreement which later we put to the article. There may be slight problem since some call it conspiracy theories. Lets consider when are 2 theories a) NC and the one b) CT called conspiracy has more folowers , then the conspiracy flip flop happened. The NC non conspiracy theory will be conspiracy theory (and vice versa). So what films do you recommend here?

• v1 911 Loose Change

As this article is about the events and not about the various conspiracy theories, I do not see a need to add links to these theories. Try the conspiracy theory articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV (a neutral point of view... without bias, all significant views ) Show video contradicting 911 Loose Change with let say 400 views.

Youtube is not and never will be a reliable source for videos. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has [linked] some videos published on YouTube, together with short descriptions. (This is all in German.) While the descriptions are from a reliable source, the use or non-use of the videos themselves is described by WP:YOUTUBE and other guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• v2 WeAreChange.UK - 9/11 Questioned in European Parliament
• v3 BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could join the discussion instead of posting youtube videos. 77.10.178.55 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, 77.10.178.55. I can't believe what I am seeing here. Loose Change being proposed on September 12 and still not deleted by Sept. 14!! Have the "owners" left the building? Are we finally allowed to discuss the 9/11 attacks without towing the official party line? Really? Well, if that's the case, the first thing I would do would be to change the opening paragraph which is so utterly biased, as I proposed on 4 September in the Larry Silverstein section which was unceremoniously moved to Archive 53, without any consultation, by former U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee MONGO on 5 September 2010. However, as this section is devoted to films about the 9/11 attacks, I would like to propose the following:

• Zeitgeist, the movie (part II deals with 9/11; parts I & III deal, respectively, with religion and the Federal Reserve System): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924#
• Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#

Oclupak (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all Oclupak, WP:NPA. MONGO was cleared of any COI so stop bring that up. Secondly, there is already a page dedicated to such videos and would be a better fit for them. Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, I am not attacking MONGO. I am merely stating a fact which he revealed himself a few years ago, perhaps absent-mindedly. It is not necessarily derogatory to label someone as a law enforcement officer. I presume some people are actually proud to serve in the Department of Homeland Security. However, as Wildbear has pointed out in the COI issue, the fact that someone has employment with such an agency is not irrelevant when dealing with the 9/11 issue because the USDHS owes its very existence to a specific interpretation of what happened that day. It can therefore be assumed that MONGO's actions, which I often find extremely uncivil, are in line with his duties, whether they are former or present. Having said that, I must say that basically I agree with you. I do not necessarily believe that a Films section should be appended to the article. The reason for my intervention earlier was the exhuberance I suddenly felt when I noticed that suddenly a film as controversial as Loose Change had been allowed to survive on this talk page for two days already. Count'em, two (2)!. Amazing, after all these years of censorship... However, I feel that the article should not be cluttered by yet another avalanche of items. On the contrary, I feel the article should be trimmed down to the bare facts so that an uneducated person wandering here could get a general idea of the story in a succint fashion. That's what I proposed in the Archive 53 | Larry Silverstein section which MONGO hurriedly removed from view on 5 September. I saw on your user page that you "reject the bullshit that the 9/11 Truth Movement peddles". Apart from the unwarranted insult, I respect your opinion and I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate. I don't know for sure what happened on 9/11. Neither do you, I would assume. Actually nobody knows what happened that day except those who were directly involved. Perhaps you think the culprits were Arab terrorists and that Osama Bin Laden was somehow involved. I tend to believe that the perpetrators were linked to some agencies within the U.S. government, or perhaps the Mossad. Neither one of us has any proof of course. All we have are speculations. That is why an investigation should be undertaken, a thorough, impartial and independent investigation, which the Keane-Hamilton exercise was certainly not. In the meantime, allow me to repeat that my aim is not to push my POV as being the "truth", but I wish it was presented in a fair and balanced manner without undue weight in favor of the Official Conspiracy Theory which is so prevalent here. The article should be neutral. Do you understand? Oclupak (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand WP:NPOV. If evidence refutes the story that has been presented as the truth then I shall change my opinions accordingly. I also feel that WP:FORUM does not extend to throwing things directly into the archives. This is a discussion about improving the article. Soxwon (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Snowball 77.10.178.55 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak...we're here to write an encyclopedia based on the known facts...articles based on the conspiracy theories regarding the events of 9/11 can be found elsewhere on this site...surely you might know what articles those are? By now, one would hope you and other people constantly promoting nonsense would understand that we're not going to post those conspiracy theories in this article...--MONGO 09:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO, I wish you would refrain from using words such as "nonsense" to describe the opinions of those who do not share your POV. This article of the encyclopedia, as it is now, is extremely biased. My only wish is to make it neutral. Oclupak (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought "nonsense" was my line <G>. In any case, MONGO is correct; it is nonsense, and is treated as such by all mainstream sources, so we must treat it as such in this article. The nonsense can be mentioned in articles about the nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But even there, our "job" is to report on the conspiracy theories, but what the CTer's do is use those articles to make their case and are therefore here to advance their agenda. I gave up on those articles a long time ago, but am pleased others with more patience than I continue the effort to keep things under some semblence of order. I did find something really earth shattering though..the esteemed Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has a demonstration of why the collapse of the WTC, as explained by NIST is "flawed"...I mean with "science" like that, I am amazed all of us aren't demanding the feds do yet another investigation! Click here and start the Youtube video...--MONGO 02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak: I think that you need to give up the COI stuff. This was already brought up at the COI noticeboard and the consensus was that that there is no conflict of interest. If you have some new evidence or a new argument that no one's thought of before, I'd be happy to re-examine the issue. But if you don't, repeating the same rejected arguments is unhelpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing argument that USDHS "owes its existence" to 9/11 is ridiculous...the Department of Homeland Security is a new department, established after 9/11, but is mainly made up of the same agencies that previously existed just under different departments...United States Customs Service and INS were both eliminated and reorganized...see: United States Department of Homeland Security...one reason the department is so big was due to the combining of various agencies and the creation of the TSA which assumed duties previously handled primarily by either independent jurisdictions and/or private contractors.--MONGO 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

possible interpretation as subtle POV, possible fix

In the introduction:

The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[6] In addition, there was at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.[7]

Some may interpret this as "those Muslim are really bad, they killed civilians". Another user discussed with me that a better version would be:

The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians in the New York attack, including nationals of over 70 countries.[6] In addition, there was at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.[7]

This is a subtle improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an improvement at all? I mean, it's true, but it's not entirely relevant. Are you trying to say:

• In the New York attack, the overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians.
• The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians in New York.

or something else, entirely. In any case, neither sentence reduces the NPOV violation you claim is there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a relevant point, but I don't see any major POV difference between one or the other. Could you elaberate as to why one is more proper than the other?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

While I believe it is a step too far to claim that people can read that and think "those Muslim are really bad, they killed civilians", I do believe it is a valid point that "those people who crashed airplanes into buildings are really mad, they killed civilians". You would be hard pressed to argue NPOV saying they are somehow saints... --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a subtle improvement so subtle, I can't notice it. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories

The reason why I put the "who" template there was because they are known as weasel words. This isn't a POV thing, this is a matter of guidelines. Who specifically are these proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories? It's a fair question to ask. Atomforyou (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Support--intelati^(Call) 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I replace, or do I need to wait a bit longer for consensus? Atomforyou (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding tags and banners shouldn't need a consensus. If you feel that it needs more explaining then you shouldn't hesitate to tag it as so. By it being there, it alerts other users to the potential problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix this. Naming one group over another would be POV, and there are far too many tiny splinter groups to list. Do you have any suggestions? Also we're a bit gunshy here, so that is why your edit was seen in that light. Thank you for explaining it. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Say there are many groups with differing views of the attacks. then place (say...) four references that source to the differing views. Problem solved.--intelati^(Call) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even tags are subject to consensus as per WP:fringe. I can't go over to the Earth article and start hanging tags on it because I think the Earth is flat and I can find sources to back me up. If the obvious consensus is that it doesn't belong, then it doesn't belong. Rapier (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed through Wp:fringe. Couldn't find a section that dealt with tagging needing consensus. Could you point me to the relevant section, as this intrigues me greatly and would love to read more about it.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm so happy to have intrigued you, and since you show so much interest I'll give you some more to read. I'll grant you that the word "consensus" is not used in the guideline explicitly, but I'll direct you to "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories", in that section. The word "Unwarranted" is what is known as a "subjective" term, and therefore its definition for Wikipedia purposes is determined by a consensus of editors. What this means is people decide what is "warranted" and what is "unwarranted". After that, then the same process is used to decide whether or not the subject being discussed belongs in a group called "fringe".

If a topic is considered to be "Fringe" (that is: "a point of view that radically varies from that of a commonly held belief, based on evidence that is not generally accepted") by a consensus of editors, then hanging a tag that challenges the commonly held belief on the grounds that this "fringe" conspiracy theory challenges the commonly held belief is granting that fringe theory legitimacy it by no means should have, and is therefore an "unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory". Therefore hanging these tags to support fringe therories is implicitly subject to consensus. I understand that connecting logical dots can be difficult, and I hope I've spelled this out for you in comprehensible terms, going slowly and using small steps. Good luck, and I hope this helps! Rapier (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I needed a re-lesson on Fringe, but thanks anyway. Still don't see how adding the tag was pushing a fringe theory. You got to connect a whole lot of dots to get that idea. Anyway, I didn't see the need for the tag either, only questioning the method and logic of its removal. Usually instant removal of tags and banners means to me that the person removing them is trying to hide or protect some POV, but I digress.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The method of removal was called an edit... the logic was because we're not in the business of making nonnotable people notable...we add one loon and we have to add them all, and even the loons don't agree with each other...at some point we'd even have to ensure we take notice of the incredible theory that what may have contributed to the destruction of the WTC was a GAMMA RAY BURST!!!--MONGO 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is much ado about nothing. The main ideas are all that is necessary. If you want to break it down further, than you can go the main article for the subject. It is understood that, since conspiracy theorists aren't the subject of this article, we cover them in a way that succinctly and efficiently describes their importance to the subject at hand and provide wikilinks to them if people wish to know how they further break down. Pretty simple really, it's a matter of weighing what's more important versus what get's into too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree...I can't see a reason to identify specific persons that believe in these conspiracy theories.--MONGO 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is easily solved by deleting the section. I sincerely doubt that a serious article on 9/11 would bother mentioning 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The only hope for this article is to greatly reduce the scope that is here currently and eliminate sections to a simple set of see also links at the end of the article. Until that is done, there is little hope of improving focus and getting the article to Good or Featured levels.--MONGO 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Support A Quest For Knowledge, makes sense. There is a separate article, no? At least then we could mention theories that aren't fringe... although, yes, that's a little hard when it comes to 9/11, I suppose. I mean, there's video of planes hitting the towers, the explosion theory was rejected, there's audio recordings of what was happening on the plane. And, technically, 9/11 was a conspiracy in that terrorists conspired against the U.S. I'll also support Mongo regarding the see as links, it'll work, plus it conveniently allows us to transfer the problems with weasel words to that page instead, thus making this one better (eh... it's a lazy way to approach the problem... but it allows more focus on pressing issues with this page). Next time, though, please be a bit clearer when you revert edits, saying, "Wackos, that's who..." isn't very clear. Atomforyou (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Here are some suggestions for improvement of this article and the articles specific to the 4 flights. I hope they are useful (and not too verbose!).

This article

(1) "hijacked" in the first paragraph: I think some reference should be made here to the terrorists taking over the control of the aircraft themselves, if that is what is believed to have happened. I suggest this because in most hijackings this does not happen: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking.

(2) Information should be added on how soon after the attacks it was known that they had been carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Who found this out, and using what sources of information?

(3) "black box": the only reference in the article is in respect of Flight 93. Information on the black boxes of the other 3 flights should be added to the article. In addition, the Flight 93 reference might be made more specific as to what type of black box provided the described data: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder.

(4) Collapse of the three WTC buildings (in the "Attacks" section): information should be given on the duration of each collapse, together with a concise description of the pattern of each collapse (I understand it was symmetrical in all cases). I don't think the current wording, in which the building collapses are described as having taken place "at" specific times, is appropriate, because only instantaneous events (such as a football kick-off) can really be described in this way. If possible, links should be provided to video footage of the collapses. With 1 WTC and 2 WTC, the collapses are described as having occurred "after burning" for specified periods. I think the wording could be tightened up here with respect to cause and effect. If it is believed that the collapses happened as a result of the burning, that should be stated. If not, the wording should be changed to avoid the risk of readers gaining a false impression of cause and effect. The locations of the burning (i.e. which floors of 1 WTC and 2 WTC were on fire) should also be described.

(5) More information should be provided on the failure of the various responsible government agencies to prevent the attacks. For example why was the terrorist group insufficiently monitored or infiltrated during the planning of the attacks (a consideration particularly relevant to there being 19 terrorists, a relatively large number), and if they used any weapons why were these not detected by Airport Security? What were the reactions of the civilian and military air traffic control authorities once the hijackings had become evident, and could they have done anything differently at that stage that would have reduced the perhaps inevitable loss of life? What lessons have been learnt to help prevent future occurrences? Have there been any apologies or acknowledgements of failure by government officials? (I believe there has been at least one such case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA175

As far as the available information allows, more detail should be provided on "overpowered the pilot and first officer" (the same wording is used for both flights) in the following areas:

(A) What weapons, if any, were used to overpower the flight crew?

(B) What exactly does "overpowered" mean: were the crew killed, rendered unconscious or otherwise permanently overpowered?

(C) Were both flight crew overpowered at the same time? If so, was this by one hijacker or two? If the latter, were both hijackers able to enter the cockpit at the same time - were the cockpit doors wide enough to allow this? If there was a time gap between the first and second flight crew member being overpowered, did the second flight crew member try to resist the hijackers?

(D) Did either flight crew member have time to transmit an emergency signal to Air Traffic Control before being overpowered?

(E) Were their bodies removed from their seats? If so: where to?; how long did this take?; were any of the flight controls affected by this activity?; were the seats then occupied by the hijackers? If so, which hijacker occupied which seat?

(F) If the bodies were not removed from their seats: how exactly did the hijackers take over the controls, bearing in mind that, as far as I know, it's very difficult to operate an aircraft from any position other than a flight crew seat.

(G) If the flight crew were not permanently overpowered: did they attempt to regain control of the aircraft? If so, when, and with what result?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA175

"Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off" reads strangely in view of the earlier "The aircraft's transponder was turned off". Perhaps the former should say "Unlike Flight 11, which had also turned its transponder off".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Here the wording is "stormed the cockpit", and there is some reference to weapons, but it would still be useful to add information on items (A) - (G) above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA93

This article has more detail than the others on the process by which the hijacking took place, but it would still be useful to add information on items (A) - (G) above.

Rostro (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think four, and maybe five, could fit into separate articles.Atomforyou (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, except for (D), the answers for (A) - (G) above are unknown. Although plastic knives and box cutters have been mentioned by the media these are urban myths, so far there has been no evidence to support any kind of specific weapon. No one on United Flight 175 or American Flight 77 reported any weapons at all. On American Flight 11 a stewardess said some sort of spray was used that made her eyes burn and a passenger said someone had been stabbed. If you know how, you can kill someone by stabbing them with a drinking straw so stabbed doesn't even confirm a knife of any type was used. On United Flight 93 a stewardess and a passenger separately reported a hijacker wearing a bomb. There is no evidence of exactly what the hijackers did apart from us being able to make a general statement that they took over the planes. There is no evidence of how the hijackers took over the cockpits. The planes all had open microphones so it had to have been done very quickly for the pilots not being able to warn anyone, but that is all that can be said and that answers (D) for you. "overpowered" is the only word you can use as it is unknown if the pilots were killed, incapacitated or for that matter even if they all decided to surrender without a struggle as the cockpit voice recorders didn't record anything until after the planes were already hijacked.Wayne (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The allegations of Iran

I think there should be a section in this article that Israel might have had something to do with the September 11th attacks, as described by the Iranian government. Any objections? Could we have a discussion here about what could be put in? 74.89.212.141 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for such a digression. The appropriate place for such a discussion is at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Acroterion _(talk) 03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blowback is POV

The section "Al-Qaeda and blowback" should be renamed just "Al-Qaeda" and the subarticles should exclude "Blowback (intelligence)". The subarticle is rather weak piece that doesn't even cover Al-Qaeda. The section text doesn't cover blowback. And the tie in just reeks of the assumption that we supported Osama which caused Al-Qaeda. But this is not supported anywhere and is complete opinion.

Anyway I will make the change if noone has a valid reason to keep it. --MarsRover (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the lead, can we change "Al Qaeda" to Islamist?

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in a page like this, but here goes: I think that asserting baldly in the lead that the terrorists were "Al Qaeda" is POV. I believe there is a certain amount of RS that argues that "Al Qaeda" is not a coherent organisation (or was not at the time), and that the "Al Qaeda did it" narrative is a construct - one that suited both proponents of the War on Terror, and Bin Laden and his supporters. It mischaracterises the nature and structure of this kind of Islamist terrorism. On the other hand, what we can definitely say is that they were Islamists. I apologise if this debate has been had before - but the lede jumped out at me as POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple references that say it was al-Qaeda. Do you have any references saying otherwise? --MarsRover (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would nit agree with that change.Jojhutton (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The main source I was thinking of was Jason Burke, who has argued that Al Qaeda was not a coherent organisation (unlike, for example the Irish Republican Army), and that it misrepresents the situation to state baldly that someone is a member of Al Qaeda. OBL was a financier, but does it mean that everyone who asked for and received finance was "al Qaeda"? I'm not arguing that the lede is "wrong", but that because the meaning of Al Qaeda is disputed - does it mean members of an organisation, followers of a cause, merely recipients of money from OBL...? - the lede is unintentionally POV in its phrasing. How about "Terrorists associated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group" as an alternative?

As a secondary point, I really think the sourcing needs updating on this page. The two sources in the lede for the simple fact of the attacks are a 2004 CBS report on what Bin Laden said (not about the attacks themselves), and a UNSC resolution the day after the attacks (only a day after, when matters were unclear.) Is there not something better? Something from an academic publisher history text, for example. The next one is Fox, which is surely not as good as something like NYT, or again, an academic publishing house. Fox does not have a great track record of accurate reporting on this general topic. A few sources later there's Judicial Watch, which is a conservative organisation. There's also The Online Rocket (note the redlink), the newspaper of Slippery Rock University, used as a source for the number of dead - which is frankly a bizarre choice of sourcing. I'm not disputing the text for these latter sources, just the sourcing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For most people "members of al-Qaeda" and "Terrorists associated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group" means the same. There is fine difference between "associates" and "members" but you're talking about a group of planners and participants. What if some were members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other just received money? I cannot agree with that change since IMHO its more wordy and not really more accurate.

I agree FOX isn't a great source for much of anything. --MarsRover (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

A Good Revision To Include In The First Paragraph

Original: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings.

New: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks believed to carried out by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists supposedly hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. The suspected hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsimon101 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1

"Official version"

The article includes "Some question the official version of the bombings". But no reference or source is given for "offical version". So where can one find the official version of the bombings? Is the Wikipedia article itself the official version? If so, that should be stated somewhere.

86.179.209.122 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What "bombings"? The article is clearly off the mark on this one. No one ever alleged that there were any kind of "bombings" on 9/11. The Official Conspiracy Theory (OTC) states that the attacks were the result of "19 Muslims who hate our freedoms" hijacking 4 aircrafts and slamming three of them into buildings while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania farmland. No bombing there. The most prevalent alternative conspiracy theories entertain the possibility that the WTC buildings that collapsed had previously been rigged with explosives and that the airplanes were mostly there for show. Even though nano-thermite or thermate might be described as explosive substances, I doubt their ignition would be called a "bombing". The terminology used in this case is "Controlled Demolition", not "bombings". Other theories involving mysterious energy weapons, such as the one proposed by Dr. Judy Wood, do not mention anything about "bombings". As for the Pentagon attack, no one claims any "bombing" was involved either, unless a cruise missile can be categorized as a bomb. Frankly, I can't imagine how the notion of "bombings" ever made it into the article. So thanks for pointing out that inconsistency, 86.179.209.122. It definitely should be remedied but first, we must discuss it among ourselves in order to reach consensus. I hope we'll have resolved the issue in time for the 9th anniversary of those horrible events, which is barely a week away. Oclupak (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed "bombings" issue.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely :-) The wording is now "Some question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Most of the alternative theories see the bombings ...". In any case, that wasn't the main point, which was about where the "official version" of 9/11 can be found. 86.174.168.197 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it...not sure why this section has as much in it as it does since the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are both ludicrous and preposterous.--MONGO 05:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Time magazine has used the term "official version". However, "conclusions published by U.S. government agencies" or "account of the U.S. government" would be possible alternatives, in my view.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What about the numerous engineering studies that have been done independent of the feds? Or those that understand that the easiest explanation is usually the right one.--MONGO 06:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If we would refer to them, we would need to take the different conclusions drawn by different authors (i.e. NIST vs. FEMA) into account. What is important here, as opposed to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article, are not the engineering details, but the overall account, i.e. primarily the account given by the 9/11 Commission.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

NIST superceded FEMA in the investigation...NIST has greater engineering expertise but didn't get assigned the job initially. It might have been martians though...or a gamma ray burst.--MONGO 06:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting read here. It's interesting to see how the editors work toward some type of consensus. I see two problems, however. First of all, Mongo does appear to be very dominant in the discussion and carries a very strong POV. That isn't helpful to arriving at a good article. There are definitely others with strong POVs - I'm just trying to be clear that based on a quick read of the information here, MONGO does appear to have very strong POV and may be an obstacle to enhancing the article for increased accuracy.

The second issue is that there must be "credible sources", and the problem is that credible sources get their information from... ??? It seems to me that this article, if it's ever going to be a good one that is accurate, will need to step away from citing "credible sources" of POVS and cut right to the facts - only. For instance, if it is factual that planes impacted the WTC, so be it. If it is factual that burning continued for x amount of time prior to collapse, and that the collapse lasted y seconds with an extremely vertical trajectory, so be it. If it is factual that the commission only addressed certain theories for how the collapses occurred, and did not investigate certain other specific theories, that is a fact that is material to the article.

With this particular incident, the facts that we should know about but seem to lack are as interesting as those that are apparently confirmed by credible sources. It is an interesting fact that there are very few images or videos released by the US Government concerning the PA crash and the Pentagon crash. In fact, it may be quite possible to include all official images and videos on this site. There is a specific, factual number of images that have been released, and it would nice to know that information. Factually, do we have black box information or not? Are there recordings of air traffic control discussions that are available from the government, or not? Is such information 100% complete, or has there been editing or omissions in the data that can factually be cited?

By focusing on facts, and avoiding POV of any kind (including the "offical POV") the article can leave the reader to decide which POVS to explore through links, including the "official POV" which is factually a POV. The difference between a POV and a fact - a POV requires a theory. The official POV is full of theories. The editors must decide if this article is to include either no POV's or if it should include all of them. I suggest going for none, and focusing only on facts. NO POVs.

67.160.118.1 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Greg

Conspiracies, non-conspiracies and FAQ 3

I'm deeply puzzled by the answer to FAQ 3 (Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy?). The tone of A3 strongly suggests (although it doesn't state explicitly) that the attacks of September 11 were not the result of a conspiracy. Yet the article itself begins by saying that the attacks "were a series of coordinated suicide attacks". Does coordination of a series of attacks not amount to a conspiracy?

If 9/11 was not the result of a conspiracy, I can only think of the following alternatives:

1) The attacks were the work of a lone individual.

2) The attacks were the work of 2 or more lone individuals acting independently of each other.

3) The "attacks" were not deliberate attacks at all, but the results of aviation accidents.

To the best of my knowledge, absolutely no one - whether the US Government, the 9/11 Commission, the media (mainstream or otherwise) or independent researchers - has ever proposed 1 - 3 or anything like them. And common sense would suggest that 1 - 3, while theoretically possible, are extremely unlikely to be true explanations for 9/11.

I would be grateful for any comments. Rostro (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. --Tarage (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the official version propagated by the mainstream media IS a conspiracy theory. Let's call it the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). It then stands to reason that the OCT should be presented on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, along with the alternative theories. In a nutshell, all conspiracy theories should be eradicated from the September_11_attacks page, which should be free of any speculation of any kind and should restrict itself to the universally-agreed upon facts. The opening paragraph could be rewritten thus:

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were diverted fom their scheduled itineraries. Two of the airliners were deliberately crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board and many others working in the buildings. Both buildings collapsed within two hours, destroying nearby buildings and damaging others. A third airliner crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C. The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Pennsylvania after it had been redirected toward Washington, D.C. There were no survivors from any of the flights.

The goal should be to transform this article into a Good Article, devoid of any bias whatsoever. It should state the facts, only the facts. Oclupak (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems completely reasonable. The official version of events (like all versions of events) is a conspiracy theory. It makes sense to stick to pure facts of what occurred, without speculation. When you remove speculation, there is no "official" or "unofficial" or "fringe" theory. There is only fact. No one is questioning whether or not the attacks occurred at all, for example. What's the point of forcing one theory into the article without the others? It doesn't make sense.

173.67.21.10 (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no such theory of what you call the Official Conspiracy theory. Giving it its own acronym doesn't help make it official either. There is only what happened that day, based on reliable sources and independent investigations. Continuing to use the talk page as a forum to push your own personal theory in order to place doubt on the correctness of the investigation is contrary to WP:Forum.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've modified FAQ question 3 to clarify that it's about conspiracy theories, not real conspiracies.[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone allowed to go over and change the FAQ without prior consultation with fellow editors? I thought that kind of gesture required a consensus among editors. Was I wrong? Can I go over and change the content of the FAQ myself? Oclupak (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ reflects the long-term consensus of the community. AQFK's edit is in line with the consensus. You have been using this talk page as a forum, as you have been advised, and do not have a consensus for the changes you propose. Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How does one manage to arrive at a consensus if one is not allowed to expose his proposition on the talk page? What I have been witnessing here is that, one by one, all the editors who could agree with a different stance than the one proposed in the article, and which is utterly biased IMHO, is either discouraged to pursue the discussion, or is enticed to engage in a flame war which will get him blocked and ultimately banned. With such a strategy, obviously, the consensus will remain intact, forever and ever, that the 9/11 attacks were initiated by "19 Arabs who hate our freedoms". Oclupak (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You have, on numerous occasions, made the same propositions and accusations. Your proposals have been considered and have been ultimately rejected, by a majority consensus, yet you continue to bring up the same proposals, skimming of the surface of WP:Point and WP:BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read what I had written? My point was that it was virtually impossible for any opposing view to ever alter the consensus as every editor who dares challenge it is driven away. Only yesterday, an anonymous editor brought up a quite valid question, which was what happened to the people whose responsibility it was to prevent an aircraft crashing into buildings, either deliberately or accidentally. He mentioned the heads of the CIA, FBI, NSA, NORAD, DOD, US AirForce, Airline Security and many others. He went on to ask: "The success of 3 of the 4 hijackings implies that, during the planning and implementation of the attacks, the hijackers outwitted or evaded all of the above agencies. The article only mentions investigation of the performance of the CIA; it would be useful to add descriptions of the investigations into the performance of those other agencies, and the outcomes of those investigations." That surely is a worthwhile question and you yourself, Jojhutton, launched an invitation to fellow editors to provide some sources to enable us to add this interesting aspect of the attacks to the article. As you probably know, none of the people in high authority on that day was ever reprimanded. Unbelievably, most, if not all, got promoted. That would be a piece of information worth mentioning, would it not, if it was properly documented? But before any Reliable Source could be gathered, before any editor could respond to your own invitation, that section of the talk page was doomed to semi-oblivion when it was transported to Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_53. The editor responsible for this act of uncivility was none other than MONGO who, it has been alleged elsewhere on this page, was at one time a paid agent of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). If indeed he/she does work for a government agency with a definite agenda to promote a certain bias on this page, and if he/she is allowed to get away with it, one by one dissenting edtors will leave the project and I will never ever manage to reach any consensus. Do you understand? Do you think the anonymous editor who brought up the question of the apparent incompetence of the agencies who failed to protect America on 9/11 will ever bother to contribute to the article in the future? Will he/she even bother to register with Wikipedia if, witin a few hours of asking a legitimate question on a talk page, it is unceremoniously removed, without the slightest explanation? Oclupak (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you have written, and I can also see the slant that you are trying to include into the article. I understand completly what you are saying about consensus, being myself on both sides of similar situations. I even witnessed a situation when a 2 to 1 majority to include information was dismissed by a small faction of editors who where "protecting" a page. So I get it. I understand what you are saying. It does not mean, however, that you will be allowed to continually rehash the same POV, that has already been dismissed. Say it once, I get it, but to continue to say "Official Conspiracy Theory", on several sections of this talk page, is becoming very pointy. As far as the removal of the section by another editor, you'll have to bring that up with him/her. Why tell me? If you have concerns about any editor, you have options as far as notice boards go, so you should go there rather than continue to bring up the same subject over and over again. There is nothing that we can do here about removal of content or editors who may have a bias, rather this talk page is for "improvements" to the article, so if you have an improvement to the article, that has not already been dismissed, that you would like to discuss, please say so.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I thank you for keeping this discussion polite. The concerns are that the proposed additions/deletions are usually dismissed, regardless of whether consensus was reached or not. Of course, there is no definition of what consensus is. I myself have been in situations on this page where my proposals were looked down upon, when there was proper reason for it to be considered. I wish that new proposals aren't discouraged, and that new additions, even when previously discussed, are seen in better light, and considered properly(whether they will be accepted or rejected, that is a different matter). It would also be convenient for other Wikipedia users to participate fruitfully in discussions regarding this matter. I also wish my fellow editors could be more civil and more polite, even when rejecting proposals, because we are all here to celebrate knowledge, and not mock it or disgrace it. Good day to all. MikeLynch (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am fully understanding and simpathetic to the cause of those who want to add information, but are summarily dismissed every time. I have been on that end at talk pages before. Without going into too much detail, Talk:Barack Obama is a prime eaxmple of this "protectionism". I don't stand for it. Yet how many times does this need to be brought up? There is already a section, albeit a small one, on conspiracy theories. There are numerous articles on various conspiracy theories. If an editor would like to suggest an improvemnet to the article, please provide sources at the time of the request. There is no need for anyone else to continue to ask for them. If it becomes clear that the reliable sources confirm notability, then of course, the information should be added into the article. Yet at this time all we have are various talk page sections full of accusations and WP:BLP problems. I know that it is a very touchy subject, but we must walk with care before making claims that violate WP:BLP.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak, I thought I made it clear that you are not to soapbox. As the editors above have told you, and as I have told you, the changes you wish to make have not only been considered and rejected, but have been proposed hundreds of times before and rejected every time. The next time you bring up this sort of rant, I will report you. This is your final warning. --Tarage (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title

I'm not suggesting moving it to "9/11", but I was wondering the reason why it is not titled accordingly, since it's the disaster's most used name. CityFeedback ^talk 19:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency. We came up with this title a good while back. I'm not sure where it is in the archives but this was the consensus. --Tarage (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change (of course not on a whim)Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for external multimedia links

The History Channel has what I would call a substantial amount of video, photo and interactive content. I'd like to add one or more links for it, but not sure if they qualify and, if so, which links to add. Comments? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• 9/11 Attacks
• 9/11 Attacks - 102 Minutes That Changed America
• results of "9/11" search

I think either of the first would be better. the other is too broad, and there are technically a heck of a lot that could be added so it needs to be done carefully. I dont mind either of the first 2, ill let you decide since its your suggestion.Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Im sure this must have been discusses somewhere in the archives. but WP:Consensus can change. What was the criteria for adding this list. Dont need so many repettitve and needless links. Memoryhole, Congress double links can be cut, open directory seems nonsense with nothing specific (although WP:EL does recognise it). There are then 7 multimedia links, and WP:Memorial (which is somewhat replicated with statistics)Lihaas (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

9/11 attacks harm First Amendment

9/11 attacks harm first amendment.

I'd suggest we include this information into the article, it is mainstream by the definition and I'm feeling free to discuss the context. Inthebeginningtherewasaword… (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in Post-9/11, which has other problems, but it seems a better location than the main article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Arthur Rubin, that seems better. I added something to "Aftermath..." page, but would it be better in Post-9/11?Lihaas (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Aftermath..." seems to be for more immediate effects. I can't say I like either the title "Post-9/11" or the structure of the article, but the information seems better placed there, except in regard the (conspiracy) theory that 9/11 was performed or allowed by people in the US government to cause such a result. There already is some comment that the attacks were allowed by the Administration in order to remove personal freedoms guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments; why not also the 1st. But we'd need a source for the conspiracy theory, as well as for the effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Info regarding construction at The Pentagon

I was in D.C. the same week we invaded Iraq- a year and a half after the attacks. The article says The Pentagon was repaired within a year, which I know is inaccurate. The Pentagon was still being fixed and I've got the pictures to prove it. Someone should find out from a credible source when construction was actually finished and edit the article accordingly.

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.249 (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to National Geographic it was completed in the Spring of 2003. I might be misreading though, so maybe someone should double check, just to make sure. Also, I found this article http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50818 on a memorial. Might be worth putting in the article. Just a thought.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flightx52 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A CNN article said the same thing. So 2 sources say Spring of '03. [12] Flightx52 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero"

The phrase "Ground Zero" is used without any explanation as to its meaning. Especially for younger readers, shouldn't the phrase be defined when it's first employed? I'm a little reluctant to wade into editing this article, without someone else saying OK. Ishboyfay (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground zero was used for sites of nuclear explosions only. Using the name for the 911 site is a hint at what really happened that day. Why else would they use this term? Ground zero New York is a nuclear explosion site. This should be noted into the main article. http://www.911thology.cn/911thology.html 77.10.178.55 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ground Zero: noun

• 1. The target of a projectile, such as a missile or bomb.
• 2. The site directly below, directly above, or at the point of detonation of a nuclear weapon.
• 3. The center of rapid or intense development or change: "The neighborhood scarcely existed five years ago, but today it is the ground zero from which designer shops and restaurants radiate" (Robert Clark).
• 4. The starting point or most basic level: My client didn't like my preliminary designs, so I returned to ground zero.
• 5. (Placename) The name given to the devastated site of the collapsed World Trade Center towers in New York after September 11 2001

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. The phrase has been used since the 1940's, so there really is no need to define it here. Younger readers should be encouraged to use a dictionary, and that isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Rapier (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ground Zero" was coined by the media for whatever reason. This was not some invention word by some editor at wikipedia. words and meanings of words change over time, based on need and usage. Obviously the term "Ground Zero" has an new meaning as well as its older meaning. Thats the beauty of a living language, its always changing and adapting. If you need a example of how words change and how they are used, just look at the way society uses the word "Gay" today, as opposed to 40 years ago.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Another anti-terrorist measure?

They say that anyone can add stuff but who are we protecting ourselves from. This encyclopedia entry is locked up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sept 11 2001 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Protection policy, anti vandal rather than anti terrorism. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

anniversary reactions

I just readded the section (although maybe it could be a subsection of "memorials") because this edit [13] says it is misplaced and already included in memorials, but the info is not included in the "memorials" section which just mentions permanent standing memorials not the activities that go on on said day every year.

This edit [14] says "too much recentism" which may hold water for the obama/biden thing, but the 2010 reactions were certainly notable in its cotnroversy generated around the world (as in the requisite article created).Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

For the anniversary the article should be updated. I propose:

• for neutrality keep in main article only this material for which every one has agreement.
• the rest, where are diffs, move to another arts. (basically are 2 version IJT and 11TM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is ripe with recentism, and needs to be kept in a historical perspective. As far as the reading of the list, I am moving it to the memorials section.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

The infobox death toll reads 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers. To be consistent with these numbers I have changed the lead accordingly. It is not POV to list the victim death toll seperate to the hijackers as long as it is explicitely stated. Which it is so please do not change this citing point of view. It is not appropriate to include the hijackers in the victim death toll. This isn't POV, it just commonsense because they were the perpetrators not victims. But by all means discuss here if you really feel that the total victim death toll should include the hijackers. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, hijackers that commit suicide while killing thousands of people are not "victims". While they may be dead, they certainly aren't "victims". Rapier (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes to include them in the same death toll just makes no sense. I note that I started this thread in response to this revert and have since changed the lead again here. I don't think there is any problem with NPOV whatsoever. Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I also feels that it serves no purpose to list the total number of deaths in September_11_attacks#Casualties and then subdividing it into victims and hijackers. It should instead just be subdivided in the first place. What purpose is served by listing the hijackers in the total death toll? Jdrewitt (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The investigation are not final. So the hijackers may be a victims too. Did you saw a jumbo jet drone or do you know how work npn or mosfet junction?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk • contribs)

I've had a look at the current sources for the death toll and found them somewhat dubious. Most reliable sources don't give an exact figure, so we should probably follow that approach. In my view, the number of deaths among responders, which is being reported on by numerous reliable sources, should remain in the lead, but some further details should probably go from the lead to the respective section later on. I've added them all to the lead at this point, so that we can discuss the sources in a coherent way.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree we should use reliable sources for this information. But I also note that during the 911 rememberance service the names of all the victims of the attacks were read out and so there must be a reliable source that provides the official number of victims. Of course in light of new evidence this may change but there must be an official number and this we must use. And we must separate the figure of victims that died from that of the hijackers who were not victims. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the most official figure we can obtain is from the official 9/11 commission report executive summary here. I don't know if the official figures may have changed since the time this report was issued. It states "More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes." So where we write "Nearly 3000 victims" we should cite this using [15]. Of course there must also be a figure for the number of confirmed deaths as this will be those people who's names were read out during the remembrance service, there must be a source that provides this but I haven't managed to find it as of yet. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The death toll in the lead was a total death toll. Removing 19 people from the total death toll, because you do not happen to agree with what they did, is not a WP:NPOV. The info box says victims, which is different from a total death toll, and it would be consistent to leave out or separate the terrorists in that case because they were the perpetrators and not the actual victims. I hope I explained it right and that no one confuses a death toll with and victims toll. Yet it looks as if the lead has been changed so i guess this is now moot.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is moot and this discussion has moved on to finding reliable sources for the actual figure, but your are wrong, it is not in violation of WP:NPOV to state the total victim death toll seperate from the hijackers death toll as long as it is specifically stated. The phrase "there were a total of 10 apples, excluding 2 rotten apples" is the same as saying "there were a total of 12 apples, including 2 rotten apples." It is exactly the same information. Neither is anymore correct than the other and there is nothing in WP:NPOV that says one phrase should be used other the other. But in quoting NPOV you have made an incorrect assumption or my motivations for making this edit. At no point did I state because of my feelings. Although I have to say that any human with even an ounce of decency in their being would find the murder of approximately 3000 innocent people to be wholly wrong. But this was not my motivation for seperating the two death tolls, even though it is also the decent, respectful, moral and right thing to do. My motivation is that the hijackers are not victims of the attacks. They were the perpetrators and so should not be listed in the death toll of the victims. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure why you have taken this tone. Your comment towards me sound like an attack on my character. Please be more civil in the future. Also, please read WP:NPOV to determine why its WP:NPOV to separate the high-jackers from a death toll. Victims toll is different, as I already had written. Reliable sources put the current death toll at 2996. The difference in numbers from the sources is because officially 24 are still only classified as missing, and not part of the official death toll, although most media sources include them in the total death toll. Some that were originally classified as missing, have been added to the official death toll, as family members petition for their names to be added to the list, so again that is why the sources differ. As I said, most reliable source cite 2996 as the death toll.

So why do you want a total death toll that includes the hijackers. That's rediculous and I think consensus will prove that this is not how the vast majority of wikipedia editors would choose to write an article. If your going to continue this path of Iincorrect) wikilawyering then I should point you to WP:AGF. Now, do you have the reliable source for the death toll that stands at 2996. If you do then we should cite it. And it should not include the hijackers. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please comment on the content and not me.

Of course although "Your comment towards me sound like an attack on my character. Please be more civil in the future" isn't exactly related to the article so maybe relax a little yourself? No hard feelings, we just have a differing opinion is all :) Jdrewitt (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If we need a reliable source for the death toll, this is from yesterday's paper. (Can everyone see this article, because I get this from a subscription based web-site?). As far as including the high-jackesr in the death toll, is there a reason why they should be excluded? Remember that a death toll differs from a victims toll.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So you want a total death toll which includes the hijackers? You're entitled to your opinion but I think you will find the vast majority of wikipedia editors and readers will agree that it is the victims death toll that we should list here. It is non-sensical to mix the two together. As I have already said it is no more incorrect to state that "(total number of victims) excluding the 19 hijackers" compared with "(total number of victims + 19) including the 19 hijackers". These two statements are identical. It is not in violation of NPOV to use one wording over the other. However, I think it is better to use the former wording. And I think others will agree. With respect to the article, no I don't have access to it. But yes we absolutely need a reliable source. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First....I don't think that anyone had problems with the numbers. The numbers that were in the articles lead and in the info box were correct according to reliable sources. (Whether or not it was a victims list or a total death list).

Second...I never argued that the lead should be total number of deaths over the victims deaths. To me it was all about wording. If you want to change the lead to say 2977 Victims, that would not be POV, because it is a true verifiable statement, but to say that the total death toll was 2977 is POV, even if one were to say excluding the high-jackers, because one would be making a statement from a certain POV. In this case, that the death of the perpetrators was less tragic. Remember that wikiepdia is global and that any recorded death, regardless of the method, should be treated with respect.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) The sources were dubious, see Cs32en's comments above. (2) The figures are inconsistent with other sources in which it is impossible to provide a precise figure, see [16]. I agree with Cs32en that it is safer to say approximately 3000 victims were killed as a result of the attacks and if possible provide actual official number of known dead backed up by a reliable source. 3) I think that if anyone directly affected by 9/11 read your last statement they would be severely upset by your use of the word respect and in any case that is clearly clearly your personal POV. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you cannot look at this from a neutral point of view. Being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias. My POV has nothing to do with it, in fact my statements counter my personal feelings, mostly because I truly believe in a neutral point of view on wikipedia regardless of how I feel. (If you were wondering, I created these videos). So I don't need to be preached to about POV.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean giving a completely fair view to all. There is a minority of disgraceful excuses of human beings who admire the hijackers and believe them to be worthy of respect. However, the vast majority of human beings everywhere in the world regard them as completely inhumane and do not deserve any respect whatsoever. I know you are trying to follow policy in this occasion and believe you are right but it is incredibly naive to push the minority view that the hijackers deserve as much respect as the victims they murdered. This is not a view shared by the majority of civilised humankind and as such it is not a view that wikipedia should support. I respect your personal view and the videos that you created, I'm glad that you don't actually personally feel that way, but please I completely understand NPOV policy and have not done anything to controvene it. Jdrewitt (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually WP:NPOV states that, and I quote: 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. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is one of wikipedias three core policies, and should not be taken lightly, no matter how much we agree or do not agree with the mode and method of the other side.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of NPOV and the same insidious misconception that leads reporters to give equal weight to two sides of an issue because there are two sides, rather than balancing the actual POV of the world and of experts against fringe cranks. NPOV does not mean "Being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias." NPOV means, as you've quoted, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." and that means that since the 19 fanatical pieces of shit that murdered almost 3,000 people are treated by the majority of reliable sources as 19 fanatical pieces of shit that murdered almost 3,000 people, we treat them likewise. They are terrorists. They are not victims. They are not worthy of "respect". Their deaths are not "tragic." Since this is an encyclopedia, we do not use the emotive language I have used above in the article, but we write about them without for a second forgetting that proportionately, the significant viewpoint in reliable sources is that they were murderous terrorist fanatics. If including them in the total death toll would give the impression that we are honoring them by lumping them together with the victims (as I agree it does) then we should make the editorial judgment not to do so for NPOV reasons.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Then how would you deal with the sources that call them freedom fighters? And believe me they are out there. I guess I already know, since your very POV laden comments already suggest. I just have one question. Why did you say that WP:NPOV does not mean 'being neutral means representing both sides fairly and without bias.? Very curious to hear your answer.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We deal with them by not ignoring the word "proportionate" and "significant viewpoints", as those nutshell words are expanded and explained in more detail at WP:WEIGHT, e.g., "...that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." Yes there are sources that call them freedom fighters. And you can also find sources that say Hitler was a hero and the holocaust did not happen, and Bush ordered the attacks on the World Trade Center, and Dinosaurs cohabited with man, and that crystals and aromatherapy are reliable cancer treatments, but to do so is to ignore the weight such things should be given when you view the dialectic of sources. So when I say "NPOV does not mean representing both sides fairly and without bias" I mean (to draw an example from how the media often does actually skew the issue) that where you have 99+% of the world's eminent biologists telling you that evolution is an indisputable fact, to set up the debate as one scientist on one side and one lone fringe scientist-creationist on the other because both sides exist is not NPOV because it ignores the actual weight to be given to each "side".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fuhgettaboutit is absolutely right. NPOV is not a licence to promote minority viewpoints with an equal weighting to the mainstream view. In fact the policy is there to ensure that wikipedia represents the mainstream view. i.e. if you have a certain minority view but the vast majority of sources support an opposite mainstream view then you should not use your own POV to promote that minority viewpoint. The idea that the hijackers deserve equal or even greater respect than the victims is absurd and a view that is shared by a very small minority. The freedom fighters reference represents a minority viewpoint. Where it is correct for wikipedia to acknowledge that these viewpoints do in fact exist we should not write articles that give an undue weighting to these viewpoints. Instead we write the article according to the mainstream view. Now, my point all along has absolutely nothing to do with POV. It is the fact that it is perfectly correct to write "The total number of dead = xxxx (excluding the 19 hijackers)". There is nothing wrong with writing this, it is clear what the total represents. So factually there is nothing wrong with this. There is also factually nothing wrong with saying "The total number of dead = yyyy (including the 19 hijackers)". Both of these statements are factually correct. Now which one shall we use, its up to us, however NPOV does say that we should stick with the mainstream view which in this instance goes with excluding the hijackers from the total. To include them is akin to including nazi's who died during the holocaust in the total number of people who died in the gas chambers. So as much as I agree you are trying to do the right thing, as neutral editors we must support the mainstream view. Jdrewitt (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this turned around to me pushing some fringe theory. I don't think its a fringe theory to say that the high-jackers died in the crashes. Like I said before its moot, because the information was changed to say victims, which I had already said was accurate to remove the 19 high-jackers from, but to remove them from a death toll was absurd, because they did die, and they do have family members who mourn there loss, and yes even family members who do not agree with what they did, but they mourn no less. I'm not trying to elevate the high-jackers to the same level as the victims, that too would be absurd.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you have misinterpreted the NPOV policy and then tried to use that to justify including the death of the hijackers in the total death toll. This is incorrect. The policy does not apply in the way you think it does and your insistence is what warranted this long discussion. It may well be moot but it is still worthwhile clarifying that it does not go against NPOV to remove the hijackers from the total death toll since this is what the vast majority of reliable sources on the matter do. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Ok, I'm breaking from the NPOV discussion above so that we can discuss the actual matter of what reliable sources are available in order to quote an accurate figure for the death toll. At present we state that there were approximately 3000 victims who lost their lives. However, there are more precise figures available so what figure should we actually quote? I think it is important to discuss this because there appear to be several figures given depending on the reference. I suggest keeping the figure an approximation in line with the official figures given in http://www.c-span.org/pdf/911finalreportexecsum.pdf which are not precisely known. However, there may be more up to date figures available? Perhaps we could quote the official number of recorded victims and follow this stating that the actual figure is likely to be higher, backed up by reliable sources of course. Jdrewitt (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

There is a lot of films of youtube. The films contains notable information. For example film watched by 3.7 mln peoples is more notable than party newspaper printed in 100k or 10000 books burned by Pentagon. Agreement?

So there is need to prepare here collection of links so we can get agreement which later we put to the article. There may be slight problem since some call it conspiracy theories. Lets consider when are 2 theories a) NC and the one b) CT called conspiracy has more folowers , then the conspiracy flip flop happened. The NC non conspiracy theory will be conspiracy theory (and vice versa). So what films do you recommend here?

• v1 911 Loose Change

As this article is about the events and not about the various conspiracy theories, I do not see a need to add links to these theories. Try the conspiracy theory articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV (a neutral point of view... without bias, all significant views ) Show video contradicting 911 Loose Change with let say 400 views.

Youtube is not and never will be a reliable source for videos. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has [linked] some videos published on YouTube, together with short descriptions. (This is all in German.) While the descriptions are from a reliable source, the use or non-use of the videos themselves is described by WP:YOUTUBE and other guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• v2 WeAreChange.UK - 9/11 Questioned in European Parliament
• v3 BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early-- TWICE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could join the discussion instead of posting youtube videos. 77.10.178.55 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, 77.10.178.55. I can't believe what I am seeing here. Loose Change being proposed on September 12 and still not deleted by Sept. 14!! Have the "owners" left the building? Are we finally allowed to discuss the 9/11 attacks without towing the official party line? Really? Well, if that's the case, the first thing I would do would be to change the opening paragraph which is so utterly biased, as I proposed on 4 September in the Larry Silverstein section which was unceremoniously moved to Archive 53, without any consultation, by former U.S. Department of Homeland Security employee MONGO on 5 September 2010. However, as this section is devoted to films about the 9/11 attacks, I would like to propose the following:

• Zeitgeist, the movie (part II deals with 9/11; parts I & III deal, respectively, with religion and the Federal Reserve System): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1817848131611744924#
• Zero: An Investigation Into 9-11: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#

Oclupak (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all Oclupak, WP:NPA. MONGO was cleared of any COI so stop bring that up. Secondly, there is already a page dedicated to such videos and would be a better fit for them. Soxwon (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Soxwon, I am not attacking MONGO. I am merely stating a fact which he revealed himself a few years ago, perhaps absent-mindedly. It is not necessarily derogatory to label someone as a law enforcement officer. I presume some people are actually proud to serve in the Department of Homeland Security. However, as Wildbear has pointed out in the COI issue, the fact that someone has employment with such an agency is not irrelevant when dealing with the 9/11 issue because the USDHS owes its very existence to a specific interpretation of what happened that day. It can therefore be assumed that MONGO's actions, which I often find extremely uncivil, are in line with his duties, whether they are former or present. Having said that, I must say that basically I agree with you. I do not necessarily believe that a Films section should be appended to the article. The reason for my intervention earlier was the exhuberance I suddenly felt when I noticed that suddenly a film as controversial as Loose Change had been allowed to survive on this talk page for two days already. Count'em, two (2)!. Amazing, after all these years of censorship... However, I feel that the article should not be cluttered by yet another avalanche of items. On the contrary, I feel the article should be trimmed down to the bare facts so that an uneducated person wandering here could get a general idea of the story in a succint fashion. That's what I proposed in the Archive 53 | Larry Silverstein section which MONGO hurriedly removed from view on 5 September. I saw on your user page that you "reject the bullshit that the 9/11 Truth Movement peddles". Apart from the unwarranted insult, I respect your opinion and I would appreciate it if you would reciprocate. I don't know for sure what happened on 9/11. Neither do you, I would assume. Actually nobody knows what happened that day except those who were directly involved. Perhaps you think the culprits were Arab terrorists and that Osama Bin Laden was somehow involved. I tend to believe that the perpetrators were linked to some agencies within the U.S. government, or perhaps the Mossad. Neither one of us has any proof of course. All we have are speculations. That is why an investigation should be undertaken, a thorough, impartial and independent investigation, which the Keane-Hamilton exercise was certainly not. In the meantime, allow me to repeat that my aim is not to push my POV as being the "truth", but I wish it was presented in a fair and balanced manner without undue weight in favor of the Official Conspiracy Theory which is so prevalent here. The article should be neutral. Do you understand? Oclupak (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand WP:NPOV. If evidence refutes the story that has been presented as the truth then I shall change my opinions accordingly. I also feel that WP:FORUM does not extend to throwing things directly into the archives. This is a discussion about improving the article. Soxwon (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Snowball 77.10.178.55 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak...we're here to write an encyclopedia based on the known facts...articles based on the conspiracy theories regarding the events of 9/11 can be found elsewhere on this site...surely you might know what articles those are? By now, one would hope you and other people constantly promoting nonsense would understand that we're not going to post those conspiracy theories in this article...--MONGO 09:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO, I wish you would refrain from using words such as "nonsense" to describe the opinions of those who do not share your POV. This article of the encyclopedia, as it is now, is extremely biased. My only wish is to make it neutral. Oclupak (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought "nonsense" was my line <G>. In any case, MONGO is correct; it is nonsense, and is treated as such by all mainstream sources, so we must treat it as such in this article. The nonsense can be mentioned in articles about the nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

But even there, our "job" is to report on the conspiracy theories, but what the CTer's do is use those articles to make their case and are therefore here to advance their agenda. I gave up on those articles a long time ago, but am pleased others with more patience than I continue the effort to keep things under some semblence of order. I did find something really earth shattering though..the esteemed Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth has a demonstration of why the collapse of the WTC, as explained by NIST is "flawed"...I mean with "science" like that, I am amazed all of us aren't demanding the feds do yet another investigation! Click here and start the Youtube video...--MONGO 02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak: I think that you need to give up the COI stuff. This was already brought up at the COI noticeboard and the consensus was that that there is no conflict of interest. If you have some new evidence or a new argument that no one's thought of before, I'd be happy to re-examine the issue. But if you don't, repeating the same rejected arguments is unhelpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The ongoing argument that USDHS "owes its existence" to 9/11 is ridiculous...the Department of Homeland Security is a new department, established after 9/11, but is mainly made up of the same agencies that previously existed just under different departments...United States Customs Service and INS were both eliminated and reorganized...see: United States Department of Homeland Security...one reason the department is so big was due to the combining of various agencies and the creation of the TSA which assumed duties previously handled primarily by either independent jurisdictions and/or private contractors.--MONGO 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

possible interpretation as subtle POV, possible fix

In the introduction:

The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries.[6] In addition, there was at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.[7]

Some may interpret this as "those Muslim are really bad, they killed civilians". Another user discussed with me that a better version would be:

The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians in the New York attack, including nationals of over 70 countries.[6] In addition, there was at least one secondary death – one person was ruled by a medical examiner to have died from lung disease due to exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse.[7]

This is a subtle improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an improvement at all? I mean, it's true, but it's not entirely relevant. Are you trying to say:

• In the New York attack, the overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians.
• The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians in New York.

or something else, entirely. In any case, neither sentence reduces the NPOV violation you claim is there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a relevant point, but I don't see any major POV difference between one or the other. Could you elaberate as to why one is more proper than the other?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

While I believe it is a step too far to claim that people can read that and think "those Muslim are really bad, they killed civilians", I do believe it is a valid point that "those people who crashed airplanes into buildings are really mad, they killed civilians". You would be hard pressed to argue NPOV saying they are somehow saints... --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a subtle improvement so subtle, I can't notice it. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories

The reason why I put the "who" template there was because they are known as weasel words. This isn't a POV thing, this is a matter of guidelines. Who specifically are these proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories? It's a fair question to ask. Atomforyou (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Support--intelati^(Call) 02:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I replace, or do I need to wait a bit longer for consensus? Atomforyou (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding tags and banners shouldn't need a consensus. If you feel that it needs more explaining then you shouldn't hesitate to tag it as so. By it being there, it alerts other users to the potential problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to fix this. Naming one group over another would be POV, and there are far too many tiny splinter groups to list. Do you have any suggestions? Also we're a bit gunshy here, so that is why your edit was seen in that light. Thank you for explaining it. --Tarage (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Say there are many groups with differing views of the attacks. then place (say...) four references that source to the differing views. Problem solved.--intelati^(Call) 05:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, even tags are subject to consensus as per WP:fringe. I can't go over to the Earth article and start hanging tags on it because I think the Earth is flat and I can find sources to back me up. If the obvious consensus is that it doesn't belong, then it doesn't belong. Rapier (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just skimmed through Wp:fringe. Couldn't find a section that dealt with tagging needing consensus. Could you point me to the relevant section, as this intrigues me greatly and would love to read more about it.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm so happy to have intrigued you, and since you show so much interest I'll give you some more to read. I'll grant you that the word "consensus" is not used in the guideline explicitly, but I'll direct you to "Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories", in that section. The word "Unwarranted" is what is known as a "subjective" term, and therefore its definition for Wikipedia purposes is determined by a consensus of editors. What this means is people decide what is "warranted" and what is "unwarranted". After that, then the same process is used to decide whether or not the subject being discussed belongs in a group called "fringe".

If a topic is considered to be "Fringe" (that is: "a point of view that radically varies from that of a commonly held belief, based on evidence that is not generally accepted") by a consensus of editors, then hanging a tag that challenges the commonly held belief on the grounds that this "fringe" conspiracy theory challenges the commonly held belief is granting that fringe theory legitimacy it by no means should have, and is therefore an "unwarranted promotion of a fringe theory". Therefore hanging these tags to support fringe therories is implicitly subject to consensus. I understand that connecting logical dots can be difficult, and I hope I've spelled this out for you in comprehensible terms, going slowly and using small steps. Good luck, and I hope this helps! Rapier (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I needed a re-lesson on Fringe, but thanks anyway. Still don't see how adding the tag was pushing a fringe theory. You got to connect a whole lot of dots to get that idea. Anyway, I didn't see the need for the tag either, only questioning the method and logic of its removal. Usually instant removal of tags and banners means to me that the person removing them is trying to hide or protect some POV, but I digress.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The method of removal was called an edit... the logic was because we're not in the business of making nonnotable people notable...we add one loon and we have to add them all, and even the loons don't agree with each other...at some point we'd even have to ensure we take notice of the incredible theory that what may have contributed to the destruction of the WTC was a GAMMA RAY BURST!!!--MONGO 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

IMO, this is much ado about nothing. The main ideas are all that is necessary. If you want to break it down further, than you can go the main article for the subject. It is understood that, since conspiracy theorists aren't the subject of this article, we cover them in a way that succinctly and efficiently describes their importance to the subject at hand and provide wikilinks to them if people wish to know how they further break down. Pretty simple really, it's a matter of weighing what's more important versus what get's into too much detail. Soxwon (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree...I can't see a reason to identify specific persons that believe in these conspiracy theories.--MONGO 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is easily solved by deleting the section. I sincerely doubt that a serious article on 9/11 would bother mentioning 9/11 conspiracy theories at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The only hope for this article is to greatly reduce the scope that is here currently and eliminate sections to a simple set of see also links at the end of the article. Until that is done, there is little hope of improving focus and getting the article to Good or Featured levels.--MONGO 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Support A Quest For Knowledge, makes sense. There is a separate article, no? At least then we could mention theories that aren't fringe... although, yes, that's a little hard when it comes to 9/11, I suppose. I mean, there's video of planes hitting the towers, the explosion theory was rejected, there's audio recordings of what was happening on the plane. And, technically, 9/11 was a conspiracy in that terrorists conspired against the U.S. I'll also support Mongo regarding the see as links, it'll work, plus it conveniently allows us to transfer the problems with weasel words to that page instead, thus making this one better (eh... it's a lazy way to approach the problem... but it allows more focus on pressing issues with this page). Next time, though, please be a bit clearer when you revert edits, saying, "Wackos, that's who..." isn't very clear. Atomforyou (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A link to 9/11 Truth movement could point to the proponents of conspiracy theories without giving undue weight to any particular organizations or individuals.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

Here are some suggestions for improvement of this article and the articles specific to the 4 flights. I hope they are useful (and not too verbose!).

This article

(1) "hijacked" in the first paragraph: I think some reference should be made here to the terrorists taking over the control of the aircraft themselves, if that is what is believed to have happened. I suggest this because in most hijackings this does not happen: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking.

(2) Information should be added on how soon after the attacks it was known that they had been carried out by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Who found this out, and using what sources of information?

(3) "black box": the only reference in the article is in respect of Flight 93. Information on the black boxes of the other 3 flights should be added to the article. In addition, the Flight 93 reference might be made more specific as to what type of black box provided the described data: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder.

(4) Collapse of the three WTC buildings (in the "Attacks" section): information should be given on the duration of each collapse, together with a concise description of the pattern of each collapse (I understand it was symmetrical in all cases). I don't think the current wording, in which the building collapses are described as having taken place "at" specific times, is appropriate, because only instantaneous events (such as a football kick-off) can really be described in this way. If possible, links should be provided to video footage of the collapses. With 1 WTC and 2 WTC, the collapses are described as having occurred "after burning" for specified periods. I think the wording could be tightened up here with respect to cause and effect. If it is believed that the collapses happened as a result of the burning, that should be stated. If not, the wording should be changed to avoid the risk of readers gaining a false impression of cause and effect. The locations of the burning (i.e. which floors of 1 WTC and 2 WTC were on fire) should also be described.

(5) More information should be provided on the failure of the various responsible government agencies to prevent the attacks. For example why was the terrorist group insufficiently monitored or infiltrated during the planning of the attacks (a consideration particularly relevant to there being 19 terrorists, a relatively large number), and if they used any weapons why were these not detected by Airport Security? What were the reactions of the civilian and military air traffic control authorities once the hijackings had become evident, and could they have done anything differently at that stage that would have reduced the perhaps inevitable loss of life? What lessons have been learnt to help prevent future occurrences? Have there been any apologies or acknowledgements of failure by government officials? (I believe there has been at least one such case).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA175

As far as the available information allows, more detail should be provided on "overpowered the pilot and first officer" (the same wording is used for both flights) in the following areas:

(A) What weapons, if any, were used to overpower the flight crew?

(B) What exactly does "overpowered" mean: were the crew killed, rendered unconscious or otherwise permanently overpowered?

(C) Were both flight crew overpowered at the same time? If so, was this by one hijacker or two? If the latter, were both hijackers able to enter the cockpit at the same time - were the cockpit doors wide enough to allow this? If there was a time gap between the first and second flight crew member being overpowered, did the second flight crew member try to resist the hijackers?

(D) Did either flight crew member have time to transmit an emergency signal to Air Traffic Control before being overpowered?

(E) Were their bodies removed from their seats? If so: where to?; how long did this take?; were any of the flight controls affected by this activity?; were the seats then occupied by the hijackers? If so, which hijacker occupied which seat?

(F) If the bodies were not removed from their seats: how exactly did the hijackers take over the controls, bearing in mind that, as far as I know, it's very difficult to operate an aircraft from any position other than a flight crew seat.

(G) If the flight crew were not permanently overpowered: did they attempt to regain control of the aircraft? If so, when, and with what result?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA175

"Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off" reads strangely in view of the earlier "The aircraft's transponder was turned off". Perhaps the former should say "Unlike Flight 11, which had also turned its transponder off".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Here the wording is "stormed the cockpit", and there is some reference to weapons, but it would still be useful to add information on items (A) - (G) above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UA93

This article has more detail than the others on the process by which the hijacking took place, but it would still be useful to add information on items (A) - (G) above.

Rostro (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think four, and maybe five, could fit into separate articles.Atomforyou (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, except for (D), the answers for (A) - (G) above are unknown. Although plastic knives and box cutters have been mentioned by the media these are urban myths, so far there has been no evidence to support any kind of specific weapon. No one on United Flight 175 or American Flight 77 reported any weapons at all. On American Flight 11 a stewardess said some sort of spray was used that made her eyes burn and a passenger said someone had been stabbed. If you know how, you can kill someone by stabbing them with a drinking straw so stabbed doesn't even confirm a knife of any type was used. On United Flight 93 a stewardess and a passenger separately reported a hijacker wearing a bomb. There is no evidence of exactly what the hijackers did apart from us being able to make a general statement that they took over the planes. There is no evidence of how the hijackers took over the cockpits. The planes all had open microphones so it had to have been done very quickly for the pilots not being able to warn anyone, but that is all that can be said and that answers (D) for you. "overpowered" is the only word you can use as it is unknown if the pilots were killed, incapacitated or for that matter even if they all decided to surrender without a struggle as the cockpit voice recorders didn't record anything until after the planes were already hijacked.Wayne (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The allegations of Iran

I think there should be a section in this article that Israel might have had something to do with the September 11th attacks, as described by the Iranian government. Any objections? Could we have a discussion here about what could be put in? 74.89.212.141 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for such a digression. The appropriate place for such a discussion is at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Acroterion _(talk) 03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blowback is POV

The section "Al-Qaeda and blowback" should be renamed just "Al-Qaeda" and the subarticles should exclude "Blowback (intelligence)". The subarticle is rather weak piece that doesn't even cover Al-Qaeda. The section text doesn't cover blowback. And the tie in just reeks of the assumption that we supported Osama which caused Al-Qaeda. But this is not supported anywhere and is complete opinion.

Anyway I will make the change if noone has a valid reason to keep it. --MarsRover (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the lead, can we change "Al Qaeda" to Islamist?

I know I'm going to regret getting involved in a page like this, but here goes: I think that asserting baldly in the lead that the terrorists were "Al Qaeda" is POV. I believe there is a certain amount of RS that argues that "Al Qaeda" is not a coherent organisation (or was not at the time), and that the "Al Qaeda did it" narrative is a construct - one that suited both proponents of the War on Terror, and Bin Laden and his supporters. It mischaracterises the nature and structure of this kind of Islamist terrorism. On the other hand, what we can definitely say is that they were Islamists. I apologise if this debate has been had before - but the lede jumped out at me as POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple references that say it was al-Qaeda. Do you have any references saying otherwise? --MarsRover (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would nit agree with that change.Jojhutton (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The main source I was thinking of was Jason Burke, who has argued that Al Qaeda was not a coherent organisation (unlike, for example the Irish Republican Army), and that it misrepresents the situation to state baldly that someone is a member of Al Qaeda. OBL was a financier, but does it mean that everyone who asked for and received finance was "al Qaeda"? I'm not arguing that the lede is "wrong", but that because the meaning of Al Qaeda is disputed - does it mean members of an organisation, followers of a cause, merely recipients of money from OBL...? - the lede is unintentionally POV in its phrasing. How about "Terrorists associated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group" as an alternative?

As a secondary point, I really think the sourcing needs updating on this page. The two sources in the lede for the simple fact of the attacks are a 2004 CBS report on what Bin Laden said (not about the attacks themselves), and a UNSC resolution the day after the attacks (only a day after, when matters were unclear.) Is there not something better? Something from an academic publisher history text, for example. The next one is Fox, which is surely not as good as something like NYT, or again, an academic publishing house. Fox does not have a great track record of accurate reporting on this general topic. A few sources later there's Judicial Watch, which is a conservative organisation. There's also The Online Rocket (note the redlink), the newspaper of Slippery Rock University, used as a source for the number of dead - which is frankly a bizarre choice of sourcing. I'm not disputing the text for these latter sources, just the sourcing. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

For most people "members of al-Qaeda" and "Terrorists associated with Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group" means the same. There is fine difference between "associates" and "members" but you're talking about a group of planners and participants. What if some were members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other just received money? I cannot agree with that change since IMHO its more wordy and not really more accurate.

I agree FOX isn't a great source for much of anything. --MarsRover (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

notable?

[17] 109.93.174.237 (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Albert Stubblebine's page already mentions his belief that the official version is not correct. He doesn't appear on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. You might want to ask people there, although I imagine it would depend on how much he's been at the forefront of 9.11 truth campaigns. This page has a small conspiracy section, with a link to the page that deals with them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)