Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 152.91.9.9 (talk) to last version by CodeCarpenter
Replacing page with 'R.I.P'
Line 1: Line 1:
R.I.P
''An event mentioned in this article is a [[Template:September 11 selected anniversaries|September 11 selected anniversary]]''.
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkheader}}
{{FormerFA}}
{{FACfailed}}
{{todo priority|1}}
{{USProject}}
{{WPCD}}
{{FAOL|Swedish|sv:11 september-attackerna}}
{{V0.5|class=A|category=History}}
{{controversial}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{TrollWarning}}

<center>
{| class="talkpagebox" style="width: 80%; background: AntiqueWhite; border:solid #FFCCCC"
|-
| <div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA; ">&lsaquo; The [[Wikipedia:Template messages|template]] below has been proposed for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Off_topic_warning|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus on what to do. &rsaquo;</div><includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|[[Category:Templates for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly> Remember that article [[Help:Talk page|talk pages]] are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. '''Please do not use them as a discussion forum.'''<br>
|-
|}
</center>
-----
'''Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11''' [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-----
<center><div style="background-color: #f0f0ff; border: none; padding: 5px; width: 560px;">
The archives of the discussion of the '''September 11, 2001 attacks''' article may be found here:<br> [[Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive|1]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2|2]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive3|3]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive4|4]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive5|5]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive6|6]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive7|7]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_archive8|8]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive9|9]], [[Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive10|10]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive11|11]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive12|12]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive13|13]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive14|14]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive15|15]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive16|16]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive17|17]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive18|18]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive19|19]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive20|20]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive21|21]],
[[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/archive22|22]]'''</div></center>
<br>

{{disaster management}}
-----

== Jack Kerouac "On the Road" ==

Don t know where to put it, but beautiful hint to 9-11:

"Dean had a sweater wrapped around his ears to keep warm. He said we were a band of Arabs coming in to blow up New York." (page 112 - Penguin Edition. For all others: At the end of the second chapter in Part Two of the book.) [[User:88.73.57.205|88.73.57.205]] 16:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


== Conspiracy Theory Weasel Words ==

Invoking a comparison of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 to those associated with Pearl Harbor is very misleading, as the latter has much less general evidence and support for its claims. It should be removed to keep an NPOV. [[User:Sloverlord|Sloverlord]] 01:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
::I will not allow any conspiracy theory nonsense to be put in this article, and will do whatever it takes to prevent the victims of this Islamofascist tragedy from being insulted by liberals. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 15:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Including reporting them to local law enforcement agencies I presume... [[User:Cripipper|Cripipper]] 14:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Now, was it terrorism or fascism, because they are two very different things? Terrorism is a small group of people. Fascism implies a state sponsor. I believe the evidence points to fascism, but I'd drop the "islamo" part. You also speak of victims... well, it's my nation too, and I feel that I'm a victim, and I feel that this article should reflect objective reality, not your idea of what will make me comfortable. And liberals? That words lost all of its meaning? If you are taking charge of the edits here, then that would account for the sorry state of this article.[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:Local law-enforcement agencies scan the internet for Islamos anyway, so I don't think my intervention will be needed. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 08:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::News flash, it's not illegal to disagree with the 9/11 story. We aren't Canada or Europe. Yet. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 20:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
have u compared your country to canada... we have civil rights you cant even fathom, 1984 bullshit does not exist here, we dont have massive federal agencies observing our every move,we have REAL equality, the right to travel to cuba, not to mention the fact that we dont get slammed as anti- canadian for disagreeing with the prime minister...you guys wasted your money on an army that cant even get its job done in iraq, and now your up to your eyeballs in debt

i suggest you learn a bit more about canada, a very similar, much more liberal version of youre own great country, albeit much smaller

:Yet it's illegal to deny the Holocaust there, which is what I was talking about, which you seemed to miss completely. Not surprising. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

:And Canada's [[List of countries and outlying_territories by area|larger than]] the U.S. [[User:Jpers36|Jpers36]] 22:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--------------------------------------
I wondered why the information available at the below link has not been mentioned on this page. The people on the list include highly respected members of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, USA Army Generals, ex-CIA employees (and many others) who all openly, publically and vehemently voice their belief that the official 9/11 story is deeply flawed (to say the least). If these people's beliefs don't count as anything towards the 9/11 conspiracy theories, then what on earth does count?

'''Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government
Critics of 9/11 Commission Report'''

Many well known and respected senior U.S. military officers, intelligence services veterans, and government officials have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This web site is a collection of their public statements. It should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this web site.

Listed at the below link are highly critical statements about the 9/11 Commission Report and/or calls for a new 9/11 investigation publicly made by over 50 of these senior officials. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the Report is not irresponsible, illogical, nor disloyal, per se. In fact, it can be just the opposite.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

:The 9/11 Commission Report has [[9/11 Commission|its own article]]. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 13:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well I think a mention of the people listed in the above links should be added to the '''U.S. Government response - 9/11 Commission Report''' section on this page as well as to the '''9/11 Commission Report''''s own seperate page. The highly critical statements about the 9/11 Commission Report and/or calls for a new 9/11 investigation publicly made by over 50 of these senior officials is clearly deeply relevant to both of these pages. ''So is anyone going to add them?''

::Still no feedback regarding adding this relevant criticism of the official 9/11 report? If this page contains statements from what the Republican party's official report claims happened on that day, then it should also contain the significant criticism that has been publically voiced by members of that very same political party. If no one is going to add this important information or respond to this suggestion with a satisfactory answer for me then I say that this page deserves to have the banner denoting that it is biased and not neutral.

:::If this page contains statements that are in agreement with the official 9/11 report but does not contains the statements that are from senior levels of government (Republican & Democrats), army and ex-intelligence agency employees which severely criticize the official 9/11 report, then clearly it is a biased and unbalanced encyclopedic page. [10:21am - tuesday 24th Oct]


::::I agree that this article is as of this point a clearly biased version of 9/11, rubber stamping the official government conspiracy story about goat-herders in caves masterminding the attacks. In order to improve it, there should be further expounding of the questions that are raised by the occurrence, i.e. why did NORAD stand down, why was building 7 demolished, why did the head of Pakistani intelligence wire the alleged lead hijacker funds etc. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:SamuelReyes007|SamuelReyes007]] ([[User talk:SamuelReyes007|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SamuelReyes007|contribs]]) 06:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small>

== October 11th Events ==

Stop deleting the information! edit it, don't delete it!

:it has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.--[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::Umm, what has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks? This looks like censorship. This is the talk page. Some one post something here, and we all get to decide if it has something to do with the article. You are not the only one who gets to decide. So, I stand by the original poster... Stop deleting the info! [[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== Introduction should not expand on detail ==

Proposed change:

:[[Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks|Nineteen terrorists]]<ref>{{cite web
|last = Grunwald
|first = Michael
|year = 2001
|url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033107980.html
|title = Terrorists Hijack 4 Airliners, Destroy World Trade Center, Hit Pentagon; Hundreds Dead
|work = Remembering September 11
|publisher = Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
|accessdate = 2006-09-11
}}</ref> affiliated with [[al-Qaeda]]<ref name="CBC">{{cite news | title = Bin Laden claims responsibility for 9/11 | publisher = CBC News | date = 2004-10-29 | url = http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html
| accessdate = 2006-09-07}}</ref> [[aircraft hijacking|hijacked]] four commercial passenger [[jet airliner]]s. Each team of hijackers included a trained [[aviator|pilot]]. The hijackers crashed two of the airliners ([[United Airlines Flight 175]] and [[American Airlines Flight 11]]) into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], one plane into each tower ([[List of tenants in World Trade Center One|WTC 1]] and [[List of tenants in World Trade Center Two|WTC 2]]). A third airliner ([[American Airlines Flight 77]]) was crashed into [[the Pentagon]] in [[Arlington County, Virginia]]. Passengers and members of the [[Aircrew member|flight crew]] on the fourth aircraft ([[United Airlines Flight 93]]) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of [[Shanksville, Pennsylvania|Shanksville]] in rural [[Somerset County, Pennsylvania]]. In addition to the 19 hijackers, [[September 11, 2001 attacks#Fatalities|2,973 people]] died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

--[[User:PTR|PTR]] 19:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:Your suggestions sound good, though I think the following needs to remain included:
::"Both towers [[Collapse of the World Trade Center|collapsed]] within two hours, followed by [[WTC 7]] later that day."
:Aside from that, I have added your change. And, I put commas instead of parentheses around [[American Airlines Flight 77]]. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]])</small> 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

*WTC7 was not directly part of the attack, is can be confusing because it is not previously mentioned. It can be in body, but does not belong in intro --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
::I agree with you on that. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]])</small> 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

::How can you imagine that the controlled demolition of WTC 7 "was not directly part of the attack?" [[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 18:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
:::Because the attack actually happened, whereas the demolition is a mth, and 7 WTC was not a target of the hijackers. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the word "alleged"? The fact is that there was no criminal investigation that proved what happened on 9/11, therefore the government's story is only one conspiracy theory out of about two, which are: (a) 19 Arab terrorists with box cutters did it, and (b) The US government did it. I have no problem with people picking one theory over another, but I do have a problem with unproven theories being stated as if they are proven facts. {{unsigned|64.180.101.191}}
:Theory (a) is definitely true. Theory (b) is nonsense. Could someone please block this user? [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::First of all, never remove someone else's comments unless they are simple trolling and insults. You are walking on ice so thin, it's amazing it hasn't shattered. Second of all, we don't ban people for disagreeing with you. He's done nothing remotely bannable; unlike you. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 12:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:Comparing a 9/11 conspiracy theory to the actual truth is trolling, and it is an insult to Americans and the American government, not to mention the poor souls who were murdered that day. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

::The problem is that the consipiracy theories are simply that. Conspiracy theories. It is in fact trolling when you try to replace well established facts with unsupported claims of massive conspiracy. [[User:Rtrev|Rtrev]] 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
:I agree, what sort of government would want to kill its own people and attack a building housing its own military staff. You cant compare these conspiracy theories to the obvious facts. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

why don't you google USS Liberty and see what your govt (LBJ) said when the unmarked Israeli jets were attacking the ship. He said he wanted the ship at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Happy to napalm and kill his own on the most decorated warship in the fleet. Does the President in that case represent the US Govt? Observer 25 October 2006

:For the attention of 'Cerebral Warrior' ; in response to your question ''"what sort of government would want to kill its own people"'', the answer is a Government of The United States of America.

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

''James Bamford summarized '''Operation Northwoods''' in his Body of Secrets thus:''
"Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."

::I can think of at least [[Reichstag fire|one sort of government]]. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 18:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

:The issue is ''evidence'', not plausibility. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 10:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:: "Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.." This '''is''' evidence of willingness.

:::And willingness is mighty far from doing it, especially in such a media prolific age. [[User:Rtrev|Rtrev]] 13:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:::: You two are clearly prancing around the issue, even when presented with evidence that is undeniable you still cannot find the grace or balls to admit you are wrong. This user 'Cerebral Warrior' asked what government would want to kill it's own people, I have presented proof in black and white that the USA government were willing to do exactly that in order to further their military objectives. End of discussion.

::::: Perhaps it's not a case of users such as Cerebral Warrior or Rtrev not having the grace or balls to see this, perhaps it's more that they are afraid to face up to the reality that their own leaders are prepared to betray them.--[[User:Freakflag|Freakflag]] 13:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

== U.S. Government Response ==

This section begins "Within hours of the attack". Surely someone was aware that the planes had been hijacked before they crashed. Was this really the first government response? [[User:Kernow|Kernow]] 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

== Most Embarrassing Wiki Ever ==

There's not a NPOV; only the governments POV. The ''Responsibility and Motives'' section only gives the governments POV, with no evidence. How is a "1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden" related, and where's the evidence that shows it relates? If this is the "day that changed everything," then why are the only ''Long-term effects'' the ''Economic aftermath'' and ''Potential health effects''? How about a section about the ''perpetual war''? How about some info about this event being used as a reason to invade Iraq? Why is there such a limited amount of media on this page? Right now, there's four different movies in Google Videos top 100 about this day, and I believe they are all public domain videos. Lets add them! We have video of one plane hitting one tower; lets get video of all three towers falling! There's endless hours of video and audio that would be suitable for the media section. Why is the control of this article in the hands of a few, like Tom Harrison? Was Wikipedia meant to be used as propaganda? I only ask, because that's what it seems like it's being used for. Here's a [http://www.apfn.org/APFN/WTC_questions.htm list of about 100 basic and unanswered questions related to this event]. I have only one question... why doesn't this article address any of these questions? [[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 14:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:The article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same. However, it goes without saying that many of those questions are misleading. Terms like "perpetual war" are POV, not "Economic aftermath". I suggest you cut the crap and be a little more constructive. -[[User:Azmaverick623|Maverick]] 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::Seriously, you don't like the term "perpetual war," then how about a section called "War on Terror." What would you call the hostilities sparked by this event, and why isn't it a subsection of the "Long-term effects?" You want to know my POV? It's anger, because this article is a farce. [[User:71.72.236.245|71.72.236.245]] 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

::You say, "article does address many of those questions, and the conspiracy article does the same," but what's the conspiracy article, and why does it exist? Both articles report a conspiracy. Why do we need two articles? Let's merge the two articles! Or, is there really a conspiracy against the '''truth'''. We shouldn't allow two articles. If you want to create a 9/11 Commission Report book report, then that's fine; It shouldn't go here. [[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 22:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My guess is it doesn't address them because most of them are unrelated to the events of that day and are thin veneers over attempts to insert dubious information to prop up widely discredited conspiracy theories. That is generally frowned upon here. [[User:Rtrev|Rtrev]] 21:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Sorry, it's ''generally frowned'' upon to string togeather terms like "discredited conspiracy theories," "thin veneers," "unrelated to the events," and "dubious information," without using any thought as to what they mean. I mean, which story includes "discredited conspiracy theories?" A large number of Americans, and an even larger number of people across the world would say it's the story in this article. [[User:71.72.236.245|71.72.236.245]] 22:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

:Well said, and well named section here. Raise that banner high up! The one which states that this article is fictional satire… lock it up, and let it stay locked until our amendments are implemented, and our questions answered… you vile conspiracy theorists yet have to produce that Boeing 757 whose tale section ricochet from Pentagon and cut support columns of building 7!;)… [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 08:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Hey Slipgrid, guess who's watching? Homeland Security! :-) So cut that anti-American crap before you get packed off to Gitmo. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:::This is by far your last warning: Cut with the homeland security, "lol they're watching" crap. I banned you once for a threat that you said was a joke; the joke's over. Stop it, now. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 11:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Sorry man. But I will remind you that what I said is not entirely false. Many countries do scan certain popular websites to prevent terrorists from using them as propaganda tools. I'm sure Wikipedia is one of those sites. Also what Wikipedia guideline have I violated by making my earlier statement about Guatanamo Bay? It wasn't a personal attack or a legal threat (I didn't threaten to pack him off to Gitmo). [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 11:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:::If it's not false, that's irrelevant - you don't need to point it out every time it comes up. It's annoying and disruptive. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:People do go off topic on talk-pages. All I was trying to do was point out that blatant anti-American rants are hurtful and bigotted and hence must be avoided. [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:People who were (and are) obstructing neutral point of view within this article are directly responsible for [http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35174 this…] I remember those government warnings on this talk page well, and if someone was out of line here, then it's those peopling who put those silly banners on top of it all… Fact is, 911 already blew back, this damage control that we are witnessing here is nothing but pathetic try to avoid inevitable. It's like watching Bush, Rumsfeld, Dick or Rice traveling the globe, talking and fueling more nonsense, while they should be in prison or even better, they should be gently put to sleep… imho, of course… [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 13:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Golbez, why is it that you reprimand me for my comments while letting Lovelight get away with his irrelevant rants? [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:::He's not telling people they're going to jail for saying things. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:Irrelevant rant my plum!;P Isolating this event from global perspective is like writing while blindfolded… I tried to be as decent here as one could be, tried to implement small (rather then jumbo sized) but necessary changes in kind and polite manner… which all together turnout to be nothing but a waste of time. This talk page deserves no better, what is there to talk about? What is there to suggest and/or improve when dozens and dozens of well known facts were repeatedly answered with such well elaborated replies as Mongo's: "No thanks…". Pih… This whole backstage is like divine comedy, free will Vs. determinism… Well, Slipgrid put it really well there, so there is no need to repeat obvious... [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 14:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::Least I replied...but since many here completely fail to understand what an article talk page is about, not much more than "No Thanks" is really necessary.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

== Top image ==

This image has no source and was removed by OrphanBot: [[:Image:WTC1 on fire.jpg]] Does anyone know what the source is? I'm thinking it probably is copyrighted, but I haven't figured out the source.

If we can't use that image, I'm trying to find alternatives.

# On the [[:de:Terroranschläge am 11. September 2001 in den USA|German]] article, they use [[:Image:Twin Towers in fire - 911- Fema picture.jpg]]. This is from chapter 1 of the FEMA report [http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf], figure 1-6, which has "OEM" as the author. I think that's the NYC Office of Emergency Management, who's material I don't think is public domain.
# In going through the chapters, I see that FEMA notes the copyright holder/photographer, next to most photographs. But not all, such as Figure 2-24, 2-26, 2-29 in [http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf chapter 2]. Perhaps this means these photographs are public domain, and are usable here?
# On Flickr, I found some photographs uploaded by Comerking that are marked as Creative commons by-sa, such as [http://www.flickr.com/photos/comer/241189716/ this]. I have seen these before. But, I can't remember the source. Perhaps these were taken people in a NYPD helicopter. Or perhaps by Federal authorities?
# There is another set (creative commons by-sa) on Flickr, taken from more of a distance (from Brooklyn) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/cluefree/sets/354663/]
# Lower resolution photos available include a few taken by the [http://www.nps.gov/remembrance/statue/index.html National Park Service] from Ellis Island.
# Public domain pictures from the Pentagon are easy to come by, such as [[:Image:Pentagon taxi hit by lightpole.jpg]].
# Here's the [[:commons:Category:9/11|commons category]], which aside from [[:Image:Apicofwtc.jpg]], includes mainly pictures of the recovery effort.

If anyone knows the source of the aerial shots, or the image removed by OrphanBot, it would be helpful. Or has other thoughts on what should be used as the top image? --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]])</small> 19:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:My understanding is in U.S. Givernment papers, brochures and their websites, if an image ''IS NOT'' attributed to someone outside of the agency, then the image is within the public domain. I'll search around as well and see what I can find.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
::That is what I thought, in regards to the images in the FEMA report. Of what I've found so far, I think those are the best. Chapter 5 of the report shows one of the aerial shots (noted in #3 above, in Flickr). These are attributed to OEM, and not in the public domain. I'll keep looking and see if I can find anything else, but the image that OrphanBot removed looks indeed like fairuse and not suitable. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:AudeVivere|talk]])</small> 20:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
:::These bots do fine most of the time, but I noticed one lately that was removing the capitalized article titles from text, leaving only the noncapitlaized wording and thereby forcing a redirect to the other article...I generally recheck bot work when I see this, but as you said, the image isn't probably suitable for use. I do wish we had more images or that some folks would be more liberal in allowing images to be in the public domain.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply pathetic: http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/wikipedia.html [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 14:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:*Re that article: hahahahaha... my favorite part is how when the mistake was corrected and the CNN list was used it is implied that Wikipedia (described as a singular malicious entity no less!) was "covering their tracks." I guess the author didn't know about history and/or talk pages. Thanks for that it was really hilarious. [[User:Rtrev|Rtrev]] 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== wikipedia hypocracy ==

when i called the Zionist terrorist, Begin, a "terrorist" i got warned by Wiki. When i referred to his attacks on the King David Hotel as a "terrorist attack" i got warned. But when Arab Muslims attacked us on 9/11/01, it is perfectly okay to to call a spade a spade.

:You were not warned for calling Begin a terrorist, or for calling the King David hotel bombing a terrorist act. You were warned for interjecting opinions into articles. You woyuld have received the same warning if you had called Begin a statesman of the first calibre, or defended the bombing. The issue is not who you are calling what name, but the interjection of opinions.

:Additionally, please sign talk page comments with four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, as you have been advised on your talk page. [[User:Justin Eiler|Justin Eiler]] 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

::This and all [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Keltik31 your other contributions] prove that you must be one of those [http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4046 Minnesota taxi drivers]... [[User:82.230.180.185|82.230.180.185]] 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

==Request to enter 'Dust to Dust' to Multimedia list==
In September 2006 the [[Sundance Channel]] broadcast an hour length documentary, "Dust to Dust: The Health Effects of 9/11." I wish to enter this into the Multimedia reference list. [[User:Dogru144|Dogru144]] 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:Hi there, took a look at that flick, and I've noted the relevance, you have my support… [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
:PS. Hey, you folks at the "Ministry of Truth" are bound to appreciate the fact that BBC is [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html editing old articles] to keep history in perspective, right?;)… brrr, shivers from my part… [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Responsibility and motives section ==

This diff from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=83827066&oldid=83753775 11:56, 26 October 2006] removed among other things the section on ''Responsibility and motives''. This revert on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=83827092&oldid=83753775 11:57, 26 October 2006] failed to restore it, so I put it back manually. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

''Discrepancy:'' Osama bin Laden is listed as the perpetrator and under the section Responsibility it says:
"The United States government determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, bore responsibility for the attacks, with the FBI stating that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."
Then why if the evidence is clear and irrefutable don't the FBI list him as wanted for the Sep 11 2001 attacks on their own website at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm ?
Apparently he is NOT wanted by the FBI for this very attack (the evidence didn't exist or hold up after all?) and hence he should not be listed as the perpetrator or responsible. Since the very source that said they had evidence now say they don't, we should replace his name with Unknown or at the very least put a question mark after his name when listed as perpetrator.

:Failure to place every crime Osama bin Laden is wanted for on a wanted poster is not cause to state that he is not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. [[User:Justin Eiler|Justin Eiler]] 21:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::What evidence do you then present that he was responsible when the FBI has made public that he's NOT wanted for this incredible crime? A spokesman for the FBI saying they have no evidence of his involvement in the attacks and therefore do not seek him isn't enough? Even Bush admits that he does not care about Osama anymore. Why would he do that if Osama was responsible for the death of 3000 US citizens? I was under the impression that Wikipedia seeks to present facts and not myths and conspiracy theories? I guess I was wrong. [[User:Ecke|Ecke]] 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:Again--just because the September 11 attacks are not listed on the poster does not mean he is not wanted for that. The difference is that he has been formally arraigned for the embassy bombings--he has not been formally arraigned for the 9/11 attacks. [[User:Justin Eiler|Justin Eiler]] 15:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:It says on the Most Wanted Terrorists page, that "The alleged terrorists on this list have been indicted by sitting Federal Grand Juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters. Evidence was gathered and presented to the Grand Juries, which led to their being charged. The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."[[User:Kruegerrands|Kruegerrands]] 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== Removing POV terms from the first two sentences of this article ==
The first two sentences currently read as follows:
<blockquote>The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.</blockquote>

The use of the term 'terrorist' to describe the attacks adds nothing to the article except the opinion of the authors. I think everyone can decide for themselves if flying a number of loaded passenger planes into buildings constitutes terrorism.

Similarly, describing those who carried out the attacks as 'terrorists', weakens the article as it makes a judgement for the reader. The article on [[Hitler]] does not start by calling him a bad man, it just notes that he killed 6 million jews and the reader can make up his own mind.

This type of opinionated opening is in clear violation of [[WP:Neutral point of view]] and [[WP:WTA]].

I propose an opening two sentences as follows:
<blockquote>The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] gained control of four commercial passenger jet airliners.</blockquote>

The fact that the attacks were described as terrorist (for example by the UN) can of course be included but must be referenced and must be clearly listed as opinion and not fact.

Let's fix this because having a bad opening to an article calls the whole thing into question.
[[User:Curtains99|Curtains99]] 16:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

:*I disagree with your proposal. We are having a very similar discussion on the Barack Obama page over his designation as "African American" and how to include his racial background in the article. The crux of the issue is whether a label can be applied simply because it is used often by many sources. I have come around to the way of thinking that in many cases it can per the WP guidelines.

:#Your analogy based on Hitler is flawed. Using "bad man" to describe Hitler is not the same as applying "terrorist" to the 9/11 suicide attacks. That would be more like saying Hitler precipitated a genocide (which it does say in the first paragraph).
:#Using the term "terrorist" hardly reflects only the opinions of the authors (and you assume that all of the authors are of the same opinion... which they are not... this article was built by consensus just like every other one). The term "terrorist" is used in almost every description of the 9/11 attacks by major, reputable, verifiable sources including the United Nations, statements from many heads of state, and major news outlets, books, and reputable web sources. Leaving out the term is arguably pushing a POV seeing the consensus that these were "terrorist" attacks.
:#I am not sure that it in any way weakens the article. It simply uses a designation that is definitely the most prevalent in describing these types of attacks.
:#You cite [[WP:WTA]] which shows you can use the term and presents arguments for and against.
:There is definitely room for discussion as to the wording though. But I believe it would be against consensus to remove it and see no real problem with the inclusion other than in a possible rewording. --[[User:Rtrev|Rtrev]] 18:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
::*9/11 is inextricably linked with the words 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' in the Western world and opened the era of [[GWOT]], terrorist threat levels etc. So, yes there should be a good deal of stuff about terrorism in this article but not in the narrative voice.
::#The definition of [[genocide]] has far more consensus than the definition of terrorism.
::#The article was built by consensus of English speaking authors predominantly from the USA and UK. While you are right that many verifiable sources described the attacks as terrorist, [[WP:NPOV]] requires that 'where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'. So here is an academic paper surveying opinion in Middle Eastern countries on whether the 9/11 attacks constituted terrorism [http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-103-2298.jsp]. You can see that a majority of respondents in Jordan, for example believe that these attacks did not constitute terrorism. If you wonder why they would think such a thing, the answer may be further in the article where a majority of all countries surveyed held that it was OK to kill foreign civilians of nations that have occupied Muslim lands. If we leave the description 'terrorist' and we want to comply with NPOV, then we have to say that somehow the published opinion of millions of Arabs is not significant.
::#Again from [[WP:NPOV]]:'None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'. So the first line violates one of the core principles of WIkipedia. If you are one of millions of Arabs reading this article who hold the contrary view, how do you think the article appears? And how does the article appear to anyone who can separate opinion from fact, regardless of their own opinion?
::#Terrorist in included in [[WP:WTA]] as a word that is controversial or has multiple meanings. It states 'The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist. This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article'. The article then goes on to cite reasons in favour and against using the word terrorist, to indicate that the description is controversial. [[User:Curtains99|Curtains99]] 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As from the very beginning of our friendship, I must say how deeply charmed I am from this lovely terminology we use here. It is simply fabulous to see valid and important questions so closely tied with term conspiracy…But, to stay on target here… Terrorism? What is that? It sure sounds like something which is POV to the core, something which some think tank would be proud of… Well perhaps you heard about that old say, one which states that one nation's terrorist is other nation's freedom fighter? [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

== Permenant Semi-Protection ==

This page has been receiving very heavy vandalism from anonymous and new users. I feel permenantly semi-protecting it might really help reduce the vandism, but then again, who knows? If anyone has a better solution, let me know. [[User:SilentWind|SilentWind]] 23:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

== 911 Press for Truth ==
Tom, would you please be so kind and explain why you removed that link from the article? I see that Path to 911 is there as a relevant reference, while we all know controversy behind that piece? In my opinion Loose Change (the most wanted and most watched documentary about 911) should also be referenced, would you folks share your thoughts about these issues…

*[http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ 911 Press for Truth]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 911 Mysteries]
[[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:External links do not belong in the ''See also'' section. Links to conspiracy theories should go in [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] if anywhere. Direct links to videos at Youtube or Google video should be removed in most cases. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

::Conspiracy theories? Wouldn’t you agree that there is world wide consensus on fact that official story is the greatest conspiracy of them all? Perhaps we should have some vote about this whole issue, just to see where we all stand? If you would be so kind to inform me how to put such notion in motion? For example I would like to see that banner which says that neutrality of the article is disputed (since it clearly is), how, where and to whom would I address such plea? I believe that vandalism would be suppressed if main article would decently point to the [http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm dispute] we have here… [[User:Lovelight|Lovelight]] 14:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

:[http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ 911 Press for Truth] would fit in the [[9/11 Commission]] article. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Motive ==

Part of the motive, which should be included, is the rejection of Western ideals, which the U.S. is the greatest symbol of. It the most powerful nation and is not Muslim. The terrorists object American policies in regards to the Middle East. They despise large influential country that is not run by Muslims or serve Islamic fundamentalist interests. They are radical Islamists who have been indoctrinated and have called for the "death" of America for many years. They blame the troubles of the Arab an Muslim world on the U.S. and West. They do not accept democracy. They hate the Western/American ideas of freedom of speech, press, religion. They hate the liberal attitude, for example, in terms of women, sex, dress, religion, gender roles, divorce, entertainment, and many others. They see the American way of life as highly sinful. They may have also wanted something to get the U.S. into war and wage jihad. --[[User:Shamir1|Shamir1]] 02:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:There is a [[September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Motive|section for motive]]. It might help to have more opinions from different (and credible) sources, recognizing that all the theories are speculative, and any statements by the organizers are unreliable. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== 9/11 article is unnecessarily opinionated, factually inaccurate &/or incomplete in parts. ==

1 ) AA flt. # 11 was compromised via their security C/P @ Boston / Logan's Terminal B, contractually operated by Globe Flight Services. UA flt. # 175 was operating from Boston's Terminal C; run by Huntleigh - USA Corp., also by contract. The two flights targeting D.C. were flying from Newark Int'l. ( UA - 93 ) & Wash. - Dulles ( AA - 77 ). Both of their C/P's were contracted by Argenbright Holdings, Ltd. All four C/P's compromised were being operated by Contract Screening Companies that worked for the applicable airlines directly. The ONLY oversight of these operations was Federal, under the FAA. State Airport Authorities then had NO oversight authority over departure C/P operations !

2 ) Since the Airline industry was de - regulated by Pres. Carter, in 1978, the airlines had been permitted to "low - bid" their contracts for security. Following the TWA flt. # 800 incident; the Gore commission recommendations, in 1997, enabled domestic passenger "profile screening" ( At first, by 'manual flagging'; until the first CAPPS software was actualized, in 2000. ) --[[User:Mikemoran576|Mikemoran576]] 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)The Hart / Rudman Commission on National Security also preceded the 9/11 attacks. Despite all this, 9/11 was STILL successfully executed in 2001 !

3 ) Several years before 9/11; a Cessna airtcraft, flown by a "disturbed" pilot, crashed into the White House. Since this incident, two policies were enacted : 1 ) The USAF permanently detached a flight of F - 16 Fighters to the U.S. Secret Service, to protect the White House from air - attack. 2 ) "Stinger" crews ( Two - man teams carrying Stinger shoulder - fired SAM's. ) were supposed to be permanently deployed to the roofs of the Pentagon, The Capitol & the White House ( This was THEN publicly - announced. ). Where were these teams, on 9/11 ??

4 ) The security screeners @ Boston / Logan were shown an FAA security alert memo 1 week after 9/11, that included a xerox copy of a photograph of a disposable BIC lighter that had been illegally altered w/ a stiletto - style lock - blade. This 'makeshift' weapon was found by the NTSB in the wreckage of UA flt. # 93 in Pa. It was clearly breought on - board by one of the terrorists.

5 ) Airline Security Screeners, pre - 9/11, were "at will" contract employees. Not only were they being paid ~ $1 over minimum - wage ( On average. ) but they had no legal pretections of any kind ! They were considered "overhead" by the airlines; existing primarily "for show", so that the airlines could feign adequate security to their paying passengers. This is NOT just an opinion but, was widely accepted by both the airlines & the FAA. The FAA had a "dual - role" mandate; to promote safety & security of aircraft but, also to promote the airline industry. The ATA was supposed to be responsible for airline promotion ( Commercial & Regional. ) but was also responsible for Screener training programs. Both of these issues were clearly "conflicts of interest" !

[[User:Mikemoran576|Mikemoran576]] 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:Greetings, Mike. None of this is really ''directly'' relevant to the article itself. Several of your points are opinion that would require substantive documentation from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], others siply are not relevant (such as the Stinger teams--a Stinger cannot stop a 747 beyond a certain radius, and I doubt Stinger teams are actively on White House deployment when the president isnot in residence). [[User:Justin Eiler|Justin Eiler]] 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

== Just some math changes on the timeline. ==

The tower collapse section, 4.4.1, refers to a CNN timeline (cite number 85), stating the south tower fell at 10:05. The article using the cite says 9:59.

Plus, the number of minutes is not computed correctly, since 9:03 to 9:59 (or 10:05) is not 58 minutes.

Not as major as all the heated discussion here, but a simple pair of fixes to improve overall accuracy.

I leave it to the folks with correct data to confirm the tower collapse time, and to then calc the minutes off that correctly.

[[User:CodeCarpenter|CodeCarpenter]] 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== "Conspiracy Theories" ==

At what point is something a conspiracy theory? Where does Wikipedia draw the line[http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy_theory Dictionary.com] defines a conspiracy theory as:

<blockquote>
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.
</blockquote>

Aren't both sides equally conspiracy theories?

:Why not check Wikipedia itself?
<blockquote>
:A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence. Advocates of conspiratorial views claim that most major events in history have been dominated by conspirators who manipulate political happenings from behind the scenes.
</blockquote>
:(formatting removed due to quick cut'n'paste).

:I don't think the [[al Qaeda]]-based explanation of facts matches this description. Al Qaeda's actions, while secretive in the planning stages, became both "overt activity" and not "behind the scenes" upon execution, as [[Osama bin Laden]] took responsibility for the events. [[User:Jpers36|Jpers36]] 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

==Proper terminology for illegal, premeditated killing==

There is no justification whatever for constantly using the word "kill" and its variants ("killed", "killing") when the precise words are "murdered" and "massacred". The latter words are objective, fair and accurate, although there's nothing wrong with using "kill" for variation and to avoid constantly repeating "murdered" or "massacred." The truly odd thing about descriptions of 9/11 is that the word "killed" is used too much when these words work better by being more exact.

It might be objected that "murdered" and "massacred", while accurate, are unnecessarily emotive, but I can't see how, regarding a subject like this, a few words would introduce emotion -- the emotion is in the subject itself and the emotion inherent in the words only adds drops to that ocean.

So I've changed "killed" and even "fatalities" in a few places to "murdered" and (as a noun), "massacred."

Incidentally, the use of the words "murdered" is absolutely no violation of NPOV. There's nothing subjective about it unless there's an assertion that the deaths occurred accidentally, and no such assertion has been made. Nor does the word itself carry an accusation to anyone in particular.

In general, it's better to be precise with language and better to call something what it is rather than use vaguer, more abstract words when we know the more vivid words are accurate. If nothing else, it helps us think a bit more clearly.[[User:Noroton|Noroton]] 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:46, 16 November 2006

R.I.P

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks&oldid=88159621"