Talk:September 11 attacks

Islamist terrorists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intent of attackers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: How about the twin towers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The onlie true war on terrorism

Editing the main article, Tarage wrote:

(diff) (hist) . . September 11 attacks‎; 06:49 . . (-2) . . Tarage (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 263717783 by Kaelfischer (talk) I don't believe that this is the only 'War on Terror' that has occured.)

... I think you are mistaken, there. We've had a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs (Poverty and Drugs won). We don't usually "declare" war on abstractions. The closest thing to the 'War on Terror' I'm aware of was called the War on Poland. Himmler and his subordinates sent troops into Poland, covertly, to fire into Germany and dressed a guy named Honionk in a Polish uniform, murdered him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz on the last day of October, 1939. The next morning, thousands of German tanks rolled into Poland to defend the Fatherland (Motherland? Parentland?) from further such terrorism. Well, I'll leave the "a" or "the" to other editors to figure out. .. By the way, Tarage, how old are you? ... Wowest (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking my age is reliant how? --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cover up?

This article doesn’t seem to be updated at all?
There is no section about WTC 7? Which is unbelievable to say the least. Why is there no word about NIST's admittance of freefall with regards to that building? [2], [3]
There is no section about advance knowledge? Which is unbelievable to say the least… Why is there no mention of warnings, memos, put options..?[4]
There is no section about torture of the alleged hijackers and other suspects, not a word about criminal destruction of related tapes [5] and so on… all this is lacking in this article which is one of the most biased articles I've seen on wiki since it was born.
All of this should have been added to the article at the very moment reliable and verifiable sources surface.
I thought that Wikipedia is financed by the world wide community and I'm shocked and awed by the fact that this article still looks as if it was written by NSA or Pentacon.
Here is something that should have been referenced as as soon as verifiable reference occurred.

"We tortured Qahtani," DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unbelievable because it is not believable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are truly omissions, I suggest that it is because it is all too easy to divert material to 9/11 conspiracy theories or dismiss new findings as material that belongs there.
On the other hand, your citation belongs nowhere near this article. It would be suitable for inclusion, if it is not included already, in the Mohammed al Qahtani and related articles. Note that you can use the link under Toolbox (bottom left): "What links here" to find related articles, although of course this is a one-way search. Anarchangel (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So who is diverting and turning facts into conspiracy? And why? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I can see. The creation of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" article is not in itself a conspiracy, its just a way to keep various encyclopedia entries of manageable length. We have a separate article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because its a major topic in itself. Including all of the contents of that article in this one would make this page unworkably long. The 9/11 conspiracy article is summarized and directly linked to from this one, for the benefit of anyone interested in alternative theories regarding the attacks. Euryalus (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You've made an interesting discrepancy, so what are we talking about? Conspiracy theories or alternate theories? Either way, I would appreciate some input about mechanism behind decision making. For example, why are the facts about foreknowledge and warnings and… things mentioned or not, directed in such manner that this article can be classified as nothing else but cover up? Who is making these decisions and why, why is there so many repeating issues in these archives and why are all these repeating issues answered with ridiculous (I honestly find them ridiculous) arguments from a single group of editors? I want to know what gives these single minded editors right to reject serious questions or to redirect verifiable information to the far out places where such information doesn’t belong. I want to know what gives this people right to ban people who are raising these questions from editing Wikipedia. I'm stunned by the numbers of folks who are locked out for stating their opinions or trying to improve this article which is fraudulent, full of omission and it can be seen as an attempt to cover thing up. I want to know how is all this possible and why is such approach allowed within the project which is supported by the people for the people of the whole wide world. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise a couple of different questions:

• Why does this article outline a particular version of events, while alternative versions are at 9/11 conspiracy theories? - The simple explanation is that the version on this page reflects consensus among editors of Wikipedia as the version best backed up by reliable sources. Its inclusion doesn't make it true, but as is often pointed out, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Most reliable secondary sources support this version of events, so its included here in the main article on the attacks.
• Why are other theories on the "9/11 conspiracy theories page and not here? - Some reliable sources support alternative viewpoints and these deserve inclusion in proportion to their weight. However, including them all here would make this page unworkably long. Instead the existence of alternative theories is mentioned here with a link to the page with more details. Once again, this doesn't make any of these alternative theories true, but as there are at least some sources supporting most of them they deserve inclusion somewhere.
• Why are alternative theories labelled conspiracies? - Put simply, because the vast majority of them allege a conspiracy or coverup by one or more organisations, either to mislead the public about the real cause of the attacks or to explain why the traditional viewpoint has broad coverage and the alternative versions don't. "Conspiracy" can be a negative term, but in this context it accurately reflects a key part of most alternative theories: that the real events were other than those identified by the 9/11 Commission and reported in the mainstream media and this is because of a conspiracy to cover up the truth. The label is not meant to be a criticism, just a reflection of that recurring element in the various theories.
• Are people advocating alternative views threatened with ban? - Not generally, but editors who disrupt articles by refusing to follow consensus, repeatedly insert unsourced information or personally attack others might be. Please note I'm not suggesting you have done any of these things, I'm just explaining why some others have been blocked or banned from editing these pages. Also, 9/11 is a controversial topic and many editors have sincerely held but completely opposing viewpoints. Edit warring is fairly swiftly dealt with, regardless of the viewpoint of the editors concerned

In summary - there's nothing sinister about alternative theroies being on a separate page. Any theory deserves inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but only in proportion to its coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia cannot determine the truth behind 9/11, it can only document the history nd include mention of causes and culrpits sourced from reliable materials. And everyone is welcome to edit these pages as long as they are willing to work with others and follow the usual Wikipedia editing rules.

Sorry for the length of this response (see WP:TLDR), and if I missed anything, let me know. Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree with some things you've written, but let's rather see how this works in practice. I'd like to add the sentence which will state that CIA tortured alleged hijackers/suspects and destroyed the evidence of its own mischief; they've lied to the Commission and failed to provide the documents requested by the Commission. This is well referenced in mainstream and can be done with single sentence, yet one could argue it doesn’t belong here because there are 'better' (apparently one way) venues elsewhere. Same goes for the statement of US senator who said that NORAD lied to American people and lied to the Commission, which for the reasons yet to be determined doesn’t seem to fit here either. You have provided no answer for such decision making and I cannot see a single reason why would such issues be redirected to nonrelated article about conspiracy theories. As it is article gives little doubt, while there's no doubt that there are huge doubts in all of our minds (see comments here). History here shows many issues which were pointed out repeatedly yet they were, without any valid reason whatsoever, omitted from this article. If there are unanswered questions then article should reflect those, if there are calls for independent investigation then article should reflect those, if there were unheeded, yet clear and present warnings, if there is clear evidence about foreknowledge then article should state so, in my opinion that is. I'd like to know why are such issues omitted from the article, or even worse, why would such issues be tucked away in the void of conspiracy theories? You have written about length of the article, but it's not the length I'm concerned about, it is total lack of NPOV which bothers me the most. Consensus is another thing, and I don't think we have one; history of this talkpage leaves no uncertainty about that and to make things worse, it's even 'forbidden' to put the notice about disagreements at the appropriate place in article mainspace. Well, this also turned out to be a bit longer then intended, my apologies for that. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is reliable sources. You have provided a handful. Realize that in the scope of this article, you are attempting to have a mouse move an elephant. You are going to have to provide far more than you have to have anything added. And I will once again warn you that this is nor a forum page, and is not about personal research. Your predecessors that you speak so fondly about made very simple and blatant mistakes that resulted in their topic bans. I suggest instead of simply viewing them as 'Wikipedia's Bias', you learn what they did wrong, and what you can avoid. You can start by reviewing the archives and making sure what you are suggesting hasn't been suggested and rejected before. But before all else, you are going to need very many reliable sources, the more mainstream and less opinion/obscure the better. Sadly, I am confident you will not find them because they most likely don't exist. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of dead

Why don’t the terrorists count as deaths? Of course their death (as opposed to all others) was intentional, but after all, they are also human beings. 92.104.107.212 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The hijackers' deaths were part of the tactics of the attacks, not a consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New external link

I moved the link from the Congressional report on 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission Report page to here. --Sloane (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The 911 Flights That Never Flew

Please note: The following does not relate to the so called "No Plane Theory." Instead, it explores the available facts regarding whether or not American Airlines flights 11 and 77 actually flew on September 11, 2001. If the evidence is weighted against the actual occurence of these flights, it then begs the following 2 questions: 1. Why does the official explanation of the September 11, 2001 events ignore this evidence? 2. If American Airlines flights 11 and 77 did not fly on September 11, 2001, then who and what was actually responsible for the damage to the north tower of the World Trade center, and to the Pentagon building?

References to the 911 plane crashes, which appear in Wikipedia article [6], have American Airlines flight 11 hitting the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46 AM, and American Airlines flight 77 hitting the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. According to flight departure statistics available from the US government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics website [7], there are no records of American Airlines flights 11 or 77 leaving their scheduled origin airports on the day of the WTC or Pentagon attacks. The statistics do show that American Airlines flight 11 was listed as a regularly scheduled flight departing from Boston's Logan Airport, with a scheduled local(Eastern)departure time of 7:45 AM. The statistics also show that American Airlines flight 77 was a regularly scheduled flight departing from Washington DC's Dulles Airport, with a scheduled local departure time of 8:10 AM. Data is shown for flight 11 and flight 77 for the two days prior to September 11, 2001, but for September 11 no data is available for either of these flights. American Airlines is required by Federal regulations, as stated in 14 CFR, Chapter II, Section 234.4, to report 21 data factors for all flights, both scheduled and unscheduled. These statistical factors are fully defined in a online viewable, and downloadable pdf format document, from the Bureau of Transportation at [8], and Section 234.4 is viewable on page 2 of that document. Public viewing of flight Detailed Statistics for Departures is limited to 12 of the 21 mandated statistical fields, and includes the following data: Carrier code (AA in this case), date of scheduled flight, flight number (shown as 0011 and 0077 for flights 11 and 77 respectively), tail number (this is shown because any plane owned by the airline can be assigned to the flight on a particular day. The statistics show, for example, that on September 9, 2001, flight 11 was assigned to a plane having tail number N315AA, but that the same flight was assigned to a plane with tail number N321AA on September 10, 2001), destination airport, scheduled departure time, actual departure time (this is when the plane leaves the departure gate, after being loaded), scheduled elapsed time in minutes, actual elapsed time in minutes (this would be the total elapsed time from gate departure to gate arrival at the destination airport), departure delay in minutes, wheels-off time (the time at which the departing plane leaves the runway and becomes fully airborne), and taxi-out time (the time required for the airplane to move from the daparting gate to a take-off ready position on the runway. Any scheduled flight that actually departs an airport will have all of these 12 data statistics displayed for public viewing as required by the aforementioned Federal regulations. Bureau of Statistics employees are able to view the 9 additional data fields not available to the public, and these include information about cancelled or delayed departures and reasons for such cancellations or delays. The key data fields of interest, in this topic, are the "actual departure time" (gate departure), and the "wheels-off time." Both of these fields read "00.00" for American Airlines flights 11 and 77 on September 11, 2001, which appears to indicate that neither flight departed the boarding gate, and neither became airborne on that day. Furthermore, the tail number for each of these flights is listed as "unknown." It is logical to conclude, therefore, that no plane was assigned to either flight. The fact that a plane crashes does not nullify the requirement for reporting of Departure Statistics. Indeed, both United Airlines flights 175 [9] and 93 [10], which are also said to have crashed on September 11, 2001, do have Departure Statistics reported. If American Airlines flights 11 and 77 did in fact fly on September 11, 2001, this raises the question as to why American Airlines is exempted from reporting flights that crash before reaching their scheduled destination. Regarding this question, it should be noted that Departure Statistics are also not available for American Airlines flight 587 [11], which crashed in Queens, New York on November 12, 2001, shortly after takeoff. Rickoff (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This REEKS of original research. In fact, none of the sources you provided say anything one way or the other. You mostly have links to other pages on Wikipedia. Unless you can back up this claim with Reliable Sources, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to move along. Original Research is not valid here. --Tarage (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what to do. Find out how to do a FOIA request and ask the FAA about these anomalies. Then write an article or book about it (published by a reputable publisher) and, as I read the rules, you can come back here and quote your book. Right, Tarage? Wowest (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if only it were that simple. With what you stated above, you'd possibly be able to get something put into the conspiracy theories article. To change this one, you're going to need a good chunk of reliable sources to back up these findings, because as things stand now, we have just about all the evidence we need to say 'No, two planes flew into those buildings because the vast majority of sources say so, including quite a number of documented videos.' --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarage - The above article draws no conclusions, and makes no claim other than the indisputable fact of the airline reporting anomalies that are pointed out. These anomalies are factual, and backed up by publicly verifiable records maintained by the US Bureau of Transportation's Office of Airline Information. Do you consider that to be an unreliable source? As the records stand, they do tell us that flights 11 and 77 never departed, since there are no departure statistics. I did not presume to offer this as incontestable evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not actually fly on Setpember 11, 2001, and explained a possible reason for the omission of data in the last two sentences of my article. Rickoff (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Lucky for us then that there's video of them in the air and hitting the towers. RxS (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Er, I don't think so. Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon, not the WTC, but there is no recognizable airplane on any video released of that. Flight 11 was allegedly the first plane to strike at the WTC, but there is only one video, some versions of which have been modified, and the quality is so low that about all you can see is that the plane appears to have two engines. Meanwhile, eye-witness descriptions of that plane are contradictory. Some say it was a small commuter plane. Some say it was white with a blue circle on the side, near the nose. FOIA requests for serial numbers of parts salvaged from the various sites, which are normally recorded when there is an air crash, have been denied with the explanation that the government did not record any serial numbers. The former government suggested that the hijacked planes were the same planes that hit the two targets, but provided no evidence to the public to support that assumption. However there is very little evidence to suggest that any other aircraft was involved, and what evidence there is is debated. This is like a former government's claim that Spain sank the Maine in Cuba. What really happened is still being debated by historians. However, we should be careful not to give the non-departure records undue weight. They could be coincidental honest errors, of course. Wowest (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I don't have a specific reliable source for this, but: The passengers on the planes who made outgoing calls, as well as the people at the originating airports, which the media were interviewing on and after the day in question, all seemed pretty sure that the departures had taken place. It would not be remarkable if the Bureau of Transportation Statistics considered flights 11 and 77 as special cases. Peter Grey (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's video caps of the hijackers at the airport. It's all pretty dopey stuff, but it keeps people busy I guess. RxS (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite. There is video of dark-complected gentlemen alleged to be the terrorists who allegedly hijacked the planes making themselves conspicuous in the airport, but nothing has been released showing any of them boarding an airplane. When the airlines released their passenger lists, none of their names appeared there. Well, if you have a reliable source I don't know about showing that the conspicuous people actually boarded airplanes, please post it. Wowest (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm getting tired of saying this, but if you aren't going to bring reliable sources to back up these claims, don't make them. NOT a forum. --Tarage (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you now saying that flight 77 hit the WTC? O.K. then. How about if we pick up the four frames released from the Pentagon camera and give it the caption "The Bush regime stated that these photographs show United flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?" I think it would improve the quality of the article. Wowest (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were only "The Bush Regime". Fortunately, the vast majority of reliable sources we have say this. Give it a rest. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm overstepping my bounds, but I believe anyone who tries to post conspiracy cruft to the article should first be required to read this list and ask themselves how many of the traits listed there are displayed by their pet theory before posting. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or they could simply not post their pet theory at all, because it doesn't belong here. We brokers of reliable sources have little need for pet theories, unless said theories are in a reliable source itself. But I do agree that a bit of reading could prevent a lot of this. That is why I request that before any major edit is made by a new editor, they read the backlog of talk pages to see if their request has been made and rejected before. --Tarage (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost think we need a FAQ just to address the conspiracy theories and related material which has already been debunked. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We do. People just don't read it, and then assume we are government plants. --Tarage (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Société Générale

A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue was quoted as saying:

“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This means what? Also, when adding a new section, do it at the bottom please. --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Muslim?

This article seems pro-Muslim. For one, the article goes out of its way to tell the reader groups associated with Islam condemned the attacks. Yeah, and so did about every major organization, government, and person in the United States.

Also, we are barraged with the typical "hate crime" lunacy. Is this noteworthy? The major response by the American public was not hate but sadness. Most people urged restraint toward Muslims within the United States. If the "hate crime" section is to be kept we should atleast qualify it by stating a small minority of people acted this way. Mr2b (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a new one. I'm used to getting arguments that this article is anti-Muslim because we refer to the attackers as terrorists and point out the religion involved. I'm not sure there needs to be a change, as we've gone through many iterations to get to this point. However, I suppose since this is something new we could talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The few hate crimes got all the attention. This is due to one factor of Mainstream Corporate Media. They know that scary news will keep the viewers hypnotized through the subsequent commercials, probably too stunned to mute the TV, so we get a LOT of scary news and very FEW cute little warm fuzzy stories. Wowest (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation and the counter-points are a litte US-centric, but hate crimes were a notable part of the hysteria. Peter Grey (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Traffic

Why is there no mention of the gridlock traffic in the city after the attacks or the mass exodus of many of its citizens? I can't find this mentioned anywhere but I remember people couldn't get of the city. Aaron Bowen (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harrison versus CosmicLatte

The sentence at issue is:

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt, as billions of dollars worth of office space was  
damaged or destroyed.

The question is "what was destroyed." Office space was destroyed.

That's rather a strangely constructed sentence, when you look at it.

Looking further, what does it mean? Billions to construct? No. Billions to rent? For how long? Billions to replace? That might better.

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt. Office space which would cost billions of
dollars to replace was damaged or destroyed.

That's my suggestion. Wowest (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Billions of dollars in office space" and "Office space worth billions of dollars" seem to mean the same thing in comfortable English, and might equate to something like "Office space that would be appraised at billions of dollars" in more laboured English. Despite the fact that office space was destroyed, however, neither "office space" nor "destroyed" are syntactically important components of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "billions" (both "of dollars" and "in office space" are prepositional phrases--the grammatical equivalent of junk DNA, if I may offer a metaphor) and the corresponding verb is the auxiliary verb, "were." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example for comparison: "Members of al-Qaeda hijack the planes." "Al-Qaeda" is more semantically interesting than "members," but "members" is more syntactically important because it is the subject of the sentence, whereas "of al-Qaeda" is a prepositional phrase, set off by the preposition, "of." So the infinitive of the verb, "to hijack," must be conjugated to correspond with "members" (hence "hijack") rather than with "al-Qaeda" (in which case it would be "hijacks," at least in American English). You can insert as many prepositional phrases (PP) and relative clauses (RC) as you'd like, and still the subject will be plural: "Members of al-Qaeda [PP] from Jupiter [PP] with thirty toes [PP], who play Scrabble [RC] with kangaroos [PP] that eat ice cream [RC] hijack the planes." "Ice cream" may be singular, but all that matters is that the subject of the sentence is plural. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why nothing about the dancing Israelis?

The dancing Israelis incident that was reported by a number of mainstream media outlets, but funnily never mentioned again seems to paint a clear picture of who was responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks. For those in need of a refresher this is what happened. On the day of the 9/11/2001 attacks 5 Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen and filmed in New Jersey dancing in the streets and congratulating one another and were also reported by residents to the police as jumping for joy while filming themselves in front of the towers after the initial impact. They were also reported to be driving a white, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' written on it and police were told to stop any white van if it was located. Police did stop the van and when they apprehended them they told the police "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". The NYPD then found in their van maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4700 cash stuffed in a sock and foreign passports. Bombsniffing dogs were also brought to the van and reacted as if they smelt explosives. The FBI also ceased and developed their photos, one of which showed one of the suspects holding up a flicked lighter in front of the buildings. Two former CIA officers confirmed that the moving van company 'Urban Moving Systems' was a front for Mossad and said that moving vans are commonly used for intelligence operations, they also said these Israelis were detained for only 71 days before being quietly let go and said "There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this was basically going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11."

Can someone explain to me why there's no mention of any of this?

Phazon - 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me to be nothing but anti-Semitic propaganda. Show me some sources. --Tarage (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was actually in the article for a very long time though much shortened and having the reply to it from the Israeli government. I have no idea why it is not in it now although i may be confused and it is in another article. Tarage is pulling your leg, he knows very well it is supported by RS. BTW they were not dressed as Arabs and were not jumping with joy (the witness who reported them said highfiving and no one else saw them there). Only one of them was Mossad and it also doesn't imply who was responsible. At worst it implies inappropriate behaviour. Wayne (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I was not pulling anyone's leg, and from what you pointed out, stating that they were 'Dancing Israelis' and that they were vital to this article IS propaganda, and I won't have it. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, doesn't need to be on the main article. Hut 8.5 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrobblix (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)I would LOVE to know who deleted the entire section regarding "The Dancing Isralelis". I would love to know the why too. So it's fair to report the joy of Palestinians and at the same time remove any reference to the "The Dancing Isralelis"? It's perfect clear why Wikipedia won't ever be a trustworthy source of reference on its own. Ever!

Go choke on your nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

"...the mainstream theory technically _is_ a conspiracy theory because it implicates multiple individuals..." That's not what a conspiracy theory is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A sourced statement on Conspiracy theory: "The term 'conspiracy theory' may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means 'to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act,'" which is exactly what is alleged of al-Qaeda. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use our article on Conspiracy theory as an authoritative source for this discussion. That article appears to have a bit of a split personality. It can't seem decide if it should be about conspiracies or conspiracy theories. These are two different things. I raised this issue on the article's talk page and so far, no one has responded. [12]

In any case, the referenced cite is a 1976 version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The current version of this source says that conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" [13]. It defines a conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together" and "an agreement among conspirators". [14]. AFAIK, the so-called 'official' account is a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what AFAIK means, but you just gave a dictionary definition and then directly opposed what your definition said. The official account is precisely a theory and it involves a secret plot by a poorly defined group of conspirators. Were there nineteen Arab Oswalds involved? We don't know. There were nineteen passport photographs involved. Were some of these individuals conspicuously present in airports on the morning of 9/11? Apparently so, although most of the evidence seems to be from videos whose location cannot be ascertained. Did some of them get on airplanes? Maybe, although there are no photographs, and their names don't appear on passenger lists. Did some of them pilot hijacked aircraft that morning? Maybe. One of them could have been taken over by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that evil? Adherents would say no, although there is a mystery involved here. How did hijackers take over four airplanes without being stopped by the crews? Coincidence? The ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not always clear to finite human minds. Why did eyewitnesses claim that aircraft approached the Pentagon from two different directions? Were their eyes blinded by His Divine Noodles? This article would be a lot more honest if it contained more language like "according to representatives of the FBI (preferably with names)," or "President Bush stated...." All of the secondary sources do that, but someone decided to go with a tertiary source to get the lede sentence without attribution. Wowest (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "AFAIK" is an abbreviation for "as far as I know". [15] In any case, the identities of the 19 hijackers have been identified and confirmed. If you would like a good resource to find out what really happened, the 9/11 Commission Report provides a detailed and accurate account of Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks. I bought a copy myself because I prefer hardcopy, but it's also available for free on the Internet. [16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[Note: In case the first couple sentences of this comment seem out-of-context, it's because I wrote them in response to a comment that was accidentally placed in this section, misinterpreted by me, and later moved by the original poster to the intended section.] When there is a notable challenge to the status quo, omitting mention of it could contravene the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Now, when a notable and reliable source points out that a third of the population adheres to this challenge, and then refers to it as "mainstream", I can't think of any reason to exclude it. As for "conspiracy" versus "conspiracy theory," the latter certainly has some negative connotations (e.g., their adherents are supposedly "conspiracy nuts"). But by referring to the alternative theories as, well, alternative, then we can suggest in one sense of the word that these are theories about alternative (i.e., other) conspiracies, and in another sense that alternative (i.e., various) conspiracy theories exist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it has anything to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. Rather it has to do with attributing undue weight to fringe theories. There are few (if any) reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED came in response to this post, which was admittedly misplaced, leading me to misinterpret it as a claim that the entire "Conspiracy theories" section didn't belong, when in fact it was aimed only at the "dancing Israeli" idea. However, the Time source raises a serious challenge to the belief that U.S. government involvement is a "fringe theory," when it explicitly states that such a theory "is not a fringe phenomenon" ([17]). But this is all beside the point, which is that even the official theory is a conspiracy theory because it indicates a conspiracy among al-Qeada. "Conspiracy" means something like "covert teamwork" (cf. Gunpowder Plot, aka Gunpowder Conspiracy), not "inside job." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of the term 'fringe theory' and Time Magazine's definition of the single word 'fringe' isn't necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia's policy regarding 'fringe theories' is explained here: WP:FRINGE. The quote from the Time Magazine article is about the relative popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. The only thing it lends credence to is whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. As to whether 9/11 conspiracy theories carry any weight, there are few (if any) reliable sources that say that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fact, if you read the entire Time Magazine article to its conclusion, it clearly dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories as "unreasonable" and then goes on to explore psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in the things that they do. [18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Time documents the notability, not the veracity, of these theories; and accordingly, the WP article reflects their notability rather than veracity, and does so in a relatively small amount of space--perfectly consistent with WP:DUE, which states that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that backs the perspective that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Not one. Even if you could, weight should be roughly proportional and there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what a conspiracy theory is, Tom. It's a theory that a crime was committed by a group of people in cooperation with each other. I'm going to try to add something to the conspiracy theory topic, since the people who generally use the term do so with some obvious DOUBLETHINK. However, the most senior philosopher who has pronounced on this philosophical distinction is Dr. David Ray Griffin, and he even put the term "Official Conspiracy Theory" in a book title. Wowest (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording slightly. The phrase alternative theory has a stigma attached to it. Could we possibly use a word other than alternative? I would be far more receptive if it didn't use that word. Also the mainstream 'theory' is still mainstream if more than 1/2 of Americans still believe it, as the poll suggests. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" works for me, so I'm fine with the new wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does not work, however, is the reduction of the section to a single sentence. Let's not confuse WP:UNDUE with WP:UNWANTED. Because WP:UNDUE states that information is to be presented in proportion to its prominence (which, if we read that pedantically, might suggest that the beliefs of 1/3 of the population merit 1/3 of the article's space), the elimination of context is problematic, because it removes information regarding the prominence of these theories. The fuller version, however, indicates prominence 1) by pointing out that 1/3 of the population has subscribed to the theories, and 2) ironically, by pointing to notable entities (the NIST and "the community of civil engineers") that have aimed to refute the theories, because this indicates that these entities have taken the theories seriously enough to address in the first place, regardless of the conclusions they've reached. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it says absolutely nothing about perspectives being "backed"; it talks about perspectives being held and prominent: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A third of the population is prominent. Time magazine is prominent. The NIST and "the community of civil engineers" are prominent entities to have addressed the issue, even if they have disagreed with it. And the view is held by a "significant minority" of the population, whereas WP:UNDUE states that only "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." A third of the population is not "extremely small or vastly limited." All that matters is that the population holds this view. Whether or not it is correct is entirely irrelevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." While a third of the population is not an individual adherent, it is most certainly a prominent collective adherent. Therefore, to eliminate mention of who--i.e., the significant minority--adheres to these theories is to contravene what the policy is suggesting here. By including the Time reference, we are clarifying who prominently adheres to these alternative theories, and are therefore being perfectly consistent with WP:UNDUE. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does WP:3RR say? And how about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR says, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which is pretty much what I recall it saying when I first read it back in the stone age. I have not made more than three reverts on any page within a day. I don't know what you mean to point to on the ArbCom page, so I'll have to let you be more specific. In any case, this isn't a very substantive refutation of the argument that the conspiracy-theory approach, being held by a third of the population, is therefore held by a significant minority and therefore deserves reasonable mention as per "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The conspiracy theory section has been there for quite a while, and it has included more than just a single sentence. I'm not really advocating anything new here, but seem to have encountered new resistance to the section now that its content has been attributed to such a large segment of the population. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just open a NPOV dispute on the appropriate noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just explain why the statement, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis mine, wording straight from policy) should not apply in this case, and there'll be no dispute. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WP:DR is the place to go if there is a genuine content dispute, but I really don't see why there needs to be a dispute at all. The version I am advocating simply identifies the significant minority that holds a particular view, which is precisely what WP:UNDUE calls for. I am not claiming that the view is true, or that reliable sources claim this; I am simply promoting the inclusion of what is verifiable, which happens to be in accord with WP:UNDUE's direction that proportional mention be given to significant minorities. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing something drastic and potentially alienating, I have requested comment at every single WikiProject in which this article is categorized (e.g., [19]). Please forgive me for slanting the request in favour of my position (being only human, it would have been difficult not to do so), but bear in mind that it is ultimately a request for uninvolved parties to review this section of the talk page and therefore to reach their own conclusions and build consensus in whatever manner it might be built. I will minimize my own involvement with the disputed section of the article for now, as I feel I have satisfactorily put forth and defended a policy-based position, which I will now leave to the larger community to evaluate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if people disagree with my position that the alternative theories need to be put in context, I request that they present precise arguments for doing so--just as I quoted WP:DUE, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents," in support of attributing the view of a significant minority to its adherents--rather than simply reverting or just pointing to something like WP:FRINGE without making an incisive case for why it should apply here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Replacement of Protection

It's clear that when this article is allowed to be edited by non registered users that an excessive amount of vandalism occurs. Please put the lock back in place before we have more such incidents. --Tarage (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) .

One would think that, at the very least, you could have expressed that without being tendentious. What we're seeing might be called a one-sided edit war, or, perhaps better, asymmetrical edit-warring or guerrilla edit-warring. It's rather obviously anonymous truthers versus the propaganda coalition. They are clearly good faith edits, attempting to improve the honesty of the article.

We used to witness Xiutwel, who is probably the most persistently honest editor ever to address this article, bringing up a very few points repeatedly in this discussion. His points were never addressed, but MORTON DEVONSHIRE, MONGO and half-a-dozen others kept claiming that they were previously addressed and referring him to unspecified archives where they hadn't been addressed either. Finally, he was permanently banned from the topic. That's called censorship. So, now you have this anonymous editing.

My own suggestion, a long time ago, was to attribute controversial statements to their sources. What we're seeing, instead, is an anonymous and unsourced retaliatory attribution accompanied by an unsourced accusation. It is the Official Conspiracy Theory, as Doctor Griffin calls it, which is being represented here as if it were proven fact. Sometimes aspects of the theory are tendentiously labeled "scientific." Critics and skeptics are tendentiously labelled "conspiracists" and banned from the topic.

I do, however, agree with you as to the temporary remedy to the edit war, except that it is clearly not vandalism. It is a waste of everybody's time to have to keep reverting things. It would be better to amend the article to make it more honest, but as long as we don't attribute controversial statements to their sources, it's going to attract anonymous editing.

The responsibility we share, as a result of our awareness of this situation is to ensure that school teachers realize that no encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source for historical, geographical or biographical information on any event which occurred after the year 1860. Some students think that copying something out of an encyclopedia constitutes research. Some teachers find that actually makes it easier for them to correct the resultant papers. More darkly, some teachers actually sell Encyclopedia Britannica on the side while assigning papers which tend to make students dependent on it. At least, here, although some of the information is worthless, or worse, there are a lot of other articles which are as reliable as most users would require, and the information is free.

So I have to second your request that the article be locked up again, but it's to stop out-of-control edit-warring, not vandalism. You're supposed to assume good faith.

Wowest (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"You're supposed to assume good faith." Yeah, so are you. It's hard to see how calling people a "propaganda coalition" does that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Tom. I was actually thinking about something MONGO perpetrated a few days ago on a different thread. Wowest (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. Given the fact that there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that plainly explain that 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, and few (if any) that say it was an inside job by the US government, I'm suprised this article mentions it at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the original subject here, if you want the protection restored I suggest you go to WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but someone replaced it already. Curious, though, how so much actual vandalism just cropped up. Very curious. Wowest (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Curious, though...Very curious." That's what they want you to think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. September 11th is a highly important event in history, and there are bound to be quite a number of vandals that wish to harm this article. Just because YOU don't see it as vandalism doesn't mean it isn't. These people are more than welcome to create an account and propose edits in a rational and civil manner. Instead, most simply attempted to either add ignorant statements, blank the page, or push propaganda that was rejected numerous times on this talk page. You can invoke the name Xiutwel all you want, but he is STILL topic blocked, so clearly there is not a minority of people who think he was out of line. You yourself are increasingly toeing that line yourself with statements like the one you made above. I suggest you stop now, or I will start the request admin intervention. I'm sick of your attitude, and I'm not alone. --Tarage (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)