Talk:September 11 attacks

Article Neutrality in Question

Stating as fact that 19 Al-Qaida terrorists attacked on 9/11 is against the ideals of neutrality of Wikipedia.

Many influential people around the globe assert that the US government and the CIA, not Arab terrorists, demolished the 3 towers; people such as Fujita Yukihisa, member of the Japanese Diet (Parliament).

Therefore, all statements on this page should be phrased "It is asserted that..." "The official belief is that..."

Until this article is worded correctly, Wikipedia will be known as a CIA propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.118.1.51 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 06:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything different than the "official" story is called a conspiracy theory. I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page. Reliable to whom? Nothing to get mad over though, If "it" were me , you could bet your ass I wouldn't let anything but my truth appear on a site owned and ran by civilians I ruled over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.53.3 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page." Apparently, not enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The time has come to give up the separate versions of "reality." We now have a reliable source (peer reviewed, outside the 9/11 Truth community, professional in its technical discipline) concluding the article with this sentence: “… we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” Does this belong in the conspiracy theory version, or the "what really happened version"? (The source is the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009)Lookunderneath (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with the essential analytical expertise, and access to the necessary equipment and untampered WTC dust samples, can corroborate the results presented in this journal document. This is unlike the NIST computer modeling results, where the modeling parameters are kept secret. Hence, this journal document is more verifiable and reliable than the official account, in terms of putting forward evidence for the possible cause of collapse. It's time for Wikipedia to allow verifiable documentation to be put forward, instead of holding the topic hostage to hypotheses which can only be taken on faith. At the very least, it stands as another reason to note that the article's neutrality is in dispute. The Original Wildbear (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's place to try to prove that something other than the official report is true. If and when a preponderance of reliable sources question the official story, then you've got something. Until then, it's fringe theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Only idiots are stupid enough to think the WTC was blown up by explosives.--MONGO 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have citations for that claim? And no fair citing this page. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO, may I suggest taking a pause to review Wikipedia:Etiquette. It's something we all should do from time to time. Especially when editing on contentious topics like this one. The Original Wildbear (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What you see as a "CIA propaganda tool" I see as a factual, reliably sourced article that has survived repeated attempts by morons to compromise its integrity in favor of their preferred conspiracy theory. The reason this article is a good one is because of the hard work of several editors. Go away, you are not wanted here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If neutrality is to be maintained then I think "and by the community of civil engineers" should be redacted from the following statement:

"This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the community of civil engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.

I'm not sure what "community of civil engineers" is being referred to here, but clearly the most visible, organized, and vocal set of professional civil engineers who are expressing an opinion on this subject are members of AE911Truth. The web site is here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ and there are literally hundreds of degreed, certified, and well experienced CEs who are willing to provide their names and their credentials. Thus there is no need to refer to some vague and anonymonus "community of civil engineers" in this matter. It amazes me that nowhere in this supposedly impartial article is this web site listed.

In the name of neutrality the main article should provide a pointer to http://www.ae911truth.org/, even if it resides in the conspiracy theory section. This is not the article trying to make any statements for or against conspiracy thinking, it is simply acknowledging that conspiracy investigators are out there and where they can be found. On that site you will also find a documented admission that the NIST investigation never considered the possibility of an inside job and thus they did not look for evidence of it. Thus I find the mention of the NIST conclusion used as a mechanism to refute the conspiracy investigator's conclusions a bit disingenuous. We all know it is embarassing to have to admit that Bush's henchmen laid the thermite charges which brought down not only the 2 buildings hit by air craft but also a 3rd building which was not hit by aircraft (WTC7). But Wiki is supposed to be neutral and if there are people saying he did it and offering verifiable proof to the fact that nobody has been able to refute to date, just report the facts as they exist, no more, no less. Let the people do their own research after a pointer is provided.

If Wiki cannot be fair and neutral in these sorts of matters I fear for the future of this otherwise very fine and usable public resource. You simply can't fool all the people all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck’s sake… do you twoofer idiots even read what you type? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~ My, that was a well thought out response. Who are you and what right have you to respond like that on this forum? Where is a moderator when it comes to this sort of thing? Is that the only way you can respond to requests that Wiki live up to its neutrality commitment? Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks. We are all just trying to make Wiki a better global information resource. Of course if there is some intent to hide aspects of the truth then let's discuss why that seems to be so important to some on this thread. All I am suggesting is that the article is clearly NOT neutral in that it makes statements that are clearly inaccurate as I outlined above. I even suggested some changes that I thought would remedy the situation. I really don't think profanity is appropriate in this forum. Try to elevate yourself, please. 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk)

This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away. --Tarage (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, you’re right. You’re new here, so I should give you a chance.

I’ll give you a bit of advice too: Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories and innuendo. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being too kind to people who do not come here in good faith. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about reliable sources. AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be. Hence, "This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away." --Tarage (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kidding...it was the giaant squid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.92 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is Canada Left Out?

Aircraft already in flight were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico.

I think this statement is very condescending. The USA cannot "redirect" flights to Canada or any other sovereign nation. The USA decided to not allow flights already in the air to land anywhere in the USA and Canada kindly allowed these aircraft to land on our territory. Of the 40,000 international travelers that were diverted to Canadian airports, about 6,600 of them landed at Gander Newfoundland, a town of about 9,500 residents.

If these airplanes were dangerous to USA cities, why wasn't it dangerous for them to land in Canada? Thousands of people slept in private Canadian's homes, some for a few days.

Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.

This passage later in the article seems alright BUT under the section "International Response", Canada is referenced along with Zimbabwe. Does this represent what really happened?

Numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaeda ties.

24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

A rumor that the hijackers came into the USA through Canada or that they had some connection to Canada has persisted to this day. Just recently this non-truth was stated by the current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Congressmen and Senators have had to apologize and retract their statements for repeating this fallacy. The 9/11 commission and all other investigations have categorically agreed that none of the 19 hijackers came through Canada or had any connection to Canada what-so-ever.

"For days after 11 September, Canadians came to the aid of men and women and children who were worried and confused and had nowhere to sleep."

"That emergency revealed the good and generous heart of this country, and showed the true feelings of Canadians and Americans toward each other."

These above comments were from President Bush to the Canadian people December 1, 2004.

Canada's response to the 9/11 disaster are unlike any other countries' response and this article should clearly show that.

David F. Clark (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The article does not suggest that the US held a gun to Canada's head and told it to take US flights. The rest of your points contain minutiae unfit for inclusion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I think the level of detail for this article is appropriate. (Maybe "national response" should be "national and international response" - besides the air traffic, there were security/military alerts in many parts of the world.) Perhaps one of the sub-articles would better address these points. Peter Grey (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

---

In response to the above 2 comments I will summarize what is wrong with the article.

1. The myth that the terrorists had any connection to Canada is clearly wrong and should be stated as such.
2. The generosity of Canada in taking in the flights, denied landing rights to the USA in the middle of the crisis, should be stated up front.
3. No other country assisted even close to what Canada did and that should be made clear.

When people help others, decent people say thank you, they don't spread rumors that Canada was somehow at fault.

Both of the above comments don't respond to my complaint at all. Relevant comments are appreciated.

David F. Clark (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I share your concerns with regard to the wording stating that U.S. authorities "redirected" flights to airports in Canada. Possible alternatives would probably include "U.S. authorities cooperated with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts to redirect planes [...]", or something more specific if there was a notable lack of coordination. I don't yet know any precise wording of the proposed changes or additions, so I can't comment on whether it would be too detailed or not. As an encyclopedia does not reflect the standpoint of any single individual or organization, it is not the place for the U.S. to say thank you (even if this would be the U.S. Wiki, not the English Wiki).

With regard to the list of countries that are mentioned in the article as having introduced "anti-terror" legislation, the list probably (a) is not being updated regularly, and (b) does not include countries like Russia, who have also called some of their legislation "anti-terrorist", as far as I remember. I also very much doubt that a significant percentage of users who read this article would click on the link to Uganda, or Germany, for that matter, to learn more about what is going on in these places. It's also an example of the pervasive overlinking present in the article. --Cs32en (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Thank you for these comments.

However, it was Canada not Mexico that allowed hundreds of planes and thousands of passangers to land during this crisis. My comment about having Canada mentioned in the same sentence as Zimbabwe doesn't mean that that sentence wasn't accurate. That sentence was in the section "International Response" and I would think that what Canada did, deserves a prominent place in this section.

I agree that the wording shouldn't say "thank you" to Canada for what they did but it is hard for me to see why the significant gesture that Canada made (unlike all other countries in the world) doesn't deserve more mention. This article is after all about the 9/11 incident and Canada's contribution should have been mentioned more prominently.

I would suggest the following as the first paragraph in this section called "International Response".

As the crisis of 9/11 was unfolding and the United States refused to allow foreign inbound aircraft to land on US soil, Canada generously agreed to have 226 international flights land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way.

David F. Clark (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The notability of the issue you raise can be shown by a recent CBC news item [2]. I agree that Canada should be given more weight than Mexico (or Germany, or Uganda) in the text (not because it was a gesture, but because it was a more notable event). It's important to show that the addition you want to make is notable or important for the understanding of the topic of the article. News sources or other material described in WP:RS is very helpful to achieve this. Please try to keep your text short, and let me know if you run into difficulties during the discussion. --Cs32en (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

---

As this page is locked to me. (I have read why but haven't been a user for long enough yet.) Could somebody please add the following text to the "International Response" section.

As the crisis of 9/11 was unfolding and the United States refused to allow foreign inbound aircraft to land on US soil, Canada generously agreed to have 226 international flights land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way. see Operation Yellow Ribbon

I believe this paragraph will make the story of 9/11 more complete.

Thanks in advance.

David F. Clark (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi David, the Operation Yellow Ribbon is mentioned in the section "National response". It should move to the "International response" section, with the additions in your sentence. The word "generously" should be left out. If relevant, we can include the information that this has been regarded as generous, but we would need a source for this. Can you reword your proposal and also make suggestion on how to handle the sentence in the "National response" section? — Regards.  Cs32en  15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

---

For the first time in history, SCATANA was invoked forcing all non-emergency civilian aircraft in the United States and several other countries including Canada to be immediately grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the world.[134] Any international flights were closed to American airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration, causing about five hundred flights to be turned back or redirected to other countries. Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.

The above 3 points are copied verbatim from the "Immediate National Response" section. I agree that my copy and the above copy should be placed as the second paragraph of the "International response" section.

My new content:

For the first time in history, SCATANA was invoked forcing all non-emergency civilian aircraft in the United States to be immediately grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the world.[134] All international flights were closed to American airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration, causing about five hundred flights to be either turned back or find alternative landing arrangements. Canada agreed to allow 226 US bound International flights to land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way, three days later. see Operation Yellow Ribbon

The reference to 134 at the end of the first sentence would need to be updated in this copy but I think the rest of the paragraph is ok.

David F. Clark (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question to involved editors (and everyone else)

Can we include the following in the section "International response"?  Cs32en  20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(not involved, but) Seems reasonable to me. –xeno ^talk 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is the "Official Story" the default position?

I'm not suggesting ANY account should be the default position. But it is, frankly, absurd to conclude that one account, lacking in just as much conclusive evidence as many other accounts, should be the point of all questioning. Do you not see how ridiculous the opening paragraph is, or is presumed doctrine, a betrayal of reason, a way of prematurely easing our conscience of all doubt? 62.56.54.45 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is the mainstream position. The term "official story" is almost exclusively used by conspiracy theorists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Occam’s razor? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's also excellent The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories[3] but even still, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. As the definition of mainstream is a set of beliefs accepted by most people with no requirement that these beliefs are true the article rightly uses the official account as the "default" position to inform the reader this is the majority belief. The minority beliefs have their own articles. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The thesis statement or opening sentence of the article is unreferenced and contradicts part of the official record.

According to the FBI, there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

The statement takes for granted that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack, without referencing it's assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead doesn't need references to support assertions which are referenced in the rest of the article. The main body of the article cites plenty of references for these claims. Hut 8.5 06:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the main body of the article, while containing references, does not cite any assertions of proof, and neglects to reference refutations of the citations, neglecting to cite direct statements and government-provided negations of the references to Al Qaeda's involvement. Finally it neglects to cite Bin Laden's own repeated denials of responsibility.

References to the alleged perpetrators and their association with the Jihadist movement should not be made without also referring to their association with American military and security intelligence agencies, of which there is as much if not more weighted proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources repeating the above claims then they may be suitable for inclusion in the article. "Does not cite any assertions of proof" is clearly wrong, as it cites his confession of responsibility. Hut 8.5 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, but this is a sideline for me :) Government statements as covered in presumably reputable news sources repeatedly state the lack of evidence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm

"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks."

Dick Cheney: Sadam not involved, Osama not involved;

These could once be found on the White House site,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

but have since been moved or removed by the Obama work-over of the site. The statement can still be verified at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5486702338652678634&ei=QkEeSrCIHZjw-QHDoOSLAw

Tony Blair:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially..."

BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1961476.stm

"US intelligence officials have admitted they failed to unearth any sort of paper trail leading to the 11 September attacks."

More specifically:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html

"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."

So basically they all state no proof, and proceed to state a conviction, a belief, or other nonsensical assertion of culpability. I don't believe this is a forum, and have found the verifiability of Wikipedia to be a great relief in research. I find the blank assertion that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks on 9-11 to be uncharacteristic; I specifically refer to the USS Cole Attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing as an example where though AL Qaeda's involvement is even more evident than the Setpember 11 attacks, the article does not open with that assertion.

Actually, you mean some guy who has blog claims that he called the FBI and that they told him that there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to links I've posted above; there is more than "some guy" making claims on behalf of unverified or non-public FBI statements concerning the lack of evidence regarding the hijackers, their coordinators and ultimate responsibility for the attacks. Ultimately it's very suspicious that no one has claimed responsibility, and the one video of Bin Laden commending the attacks is not worded or in any explicit way a confession, unfortunately, even if you can verify the translation accurately.

Please do the research as it is not that simple. Lord Robertson (head of NATO) said you don't need evidence because bin Laden's guilt was obvious. Canada's PM, Jean Chretien, said the same. Britain's PM, Tony Blair, said the evidence of guilt wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Even President Bush when asked what the evidence was said There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt and Attorney General John Ashcroft said there is no evidence. These statements are all supported by reliable sources. The FBI website does not list an indictment for bin Laden for 911 and in regard to the most wanted list states: 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 so it is a fair statement to say the FBI is either still investigating to strengthen their case and do not wish to release the evidence they have or that the evidence is insufficient to indict. The only publicly released evidence I'm aware of is his confession which would not be admissible in court and the links the hijackers have with al Qaeda. That he is guilty is the mainstream belief based on what we know but the question is if the available evidence is sufficient for a nuetral court to convict. Wayne (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In defense of Jean Chretien, I must say that despite his statement/s (edit: or perhaps because of them), Canada didn't join the war in Iraq. As for the rest, you're right; there are more statements and documented assertions of non-evidence which, if you follow Mueller's line of reasoning for example, could implicate half the Middle East and most of the immigrant populations of North America as potential perpetrators of the attacks.

The one statement made about "following the pattern" of Bin Laden however is misleading, since his attacks always involved government and military targets, whereas the WTC was neither of those; one has to wonder about the pattern of logic used to make the assumptions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator (talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2

I would like to report this site:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

and the NIST confirmation about UPS:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting material, although it may not meet the standards for reliable sources and if not, it won't be suitable for addition to this article. (However, there is a more specific article, September 11 conspiracy theories, where this material would seem to be more appropriate, and this blog may be quite reliable enough compared to the sources used on that page.) It may be worth discussing this on the reliable sources noticeboard to discuss the matter, particularly if the author is known for writing anything other than this blog. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a WP:RS source. However, it could possibly be considered as a relevant WP:SELFPUB source. In my view, it is relevant within the scope of the appropriate Wikipedia article if (a) WP:RS sources have reported on this source, or (b) the author can be established as a prominent proponent, opponent or commentator on the subject of a given Wikipedia article by WP:RS sources. Note that the opinions of Wikipedia authors on how WP:SELFPUB sources should be treated differ, especially with regard to controversial topics, such as 9/11-related issues.  Cs32en  16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you can read something about the author:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Henry62

The author is a forensic ballistic expert, he worked also in the trial against Pacciani, "the Monster of Florence"; he is a consultant of Italian National Broadcasting Corporation and his English articles are in the most important sites about 9/11. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The "terrorists came through Canada" myth

I added this new section (repeated here below) since it is an important part of the response to the attacks and the fact that senior US politicians (eg: Napolitano, McCain) have repeated this myth as late as April 2009. One editor reversed this section, but I put it back. Are there other opinions?

After the 911 attacks, some US reporters and political leaders claimed that some of the hijackers had come into the United States via Canada, possibly with the help of lax border controls. However, a 9/11 Commission report released in 2004 determined that all of the hijackers had visas issued by the United States, and had arrived in the US from countries other than Canada.[172] Despite this, US sources and even high level politicians occasionally repeat this error. On April 24, 2009 US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain said in a press interview "Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."[173] McCain was speaking in reference to a press interview U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano held in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2009, in which she made the same mistake:

JN: [...] Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there. NM: Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators? JN: Not just those but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It's part of sovereignty. It's part of knowing who's in the country.[174]

Facts707 (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the amount of material we have to cover in this short article, I would suggest it needs to be shortened. Rmhermen (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me to belong in the top-level article. It might go better in Rumors about the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is really not about the attacks - it's not as if al Qaeda tried to frame Canada or as if Americans weren't under-informed before the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Doesn't seem to belong in the top-level article"? Better read that again. U.S. SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY JANET NAPOLITANO and US SENATOR AND 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOHN MCCAIN both blatantly repeated this myth just last month!! Secretary of Homeland Security!! And yes it is certainly about the response to the attacks just as much as anti-terrorist legislation. If this does not go back in the article I'm taking this to arbitration.Facts707 (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. They may find the capital letters and exclamation points persuasive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a little more emphasis of how they did legally enter the US (which *is* legitimate content for the article) would suffice. Wikipedia can't possibly keep up with every ignorant statement by a politician. Peter Grey (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tom and Peter. The information is notable, but much better suited for Rumors about the September 11 attacks than here, and this article should clearly state how the attackers did enter the US. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be called a "rumor," since it is coming from official sources in the same political party which is accused of facilitating the attacks for the terrorists. Wowest (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes because a minority of people believe the Republicans facilitated the attacks, we should totally include it in this article. No, no, a thousand times no. Keep this garbage out of here. You know better than to push that dribble Wowest. --Tarage (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! & Thank You

To all who contributed to this,

I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the articles, materials, and various lists related to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and I want to thank, and to congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job!

Sincerely,

Marc Riddell, Ph.D. --- Michael David (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article constitutes treason against whole humanity.

Now, it is obvious that I don’t share opinion of Mr. Riddell, if you would be so kind and provide an explanation of not allowing such opinion? Would you like to hear the reasoning behind such perspective and/or did you ask Mr. Riddell for one? Also, did you leave a notice at Mr. Riddell's talkpage where you explain to him that this discussion space is not intended for unwarranted praise. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about four freedoms, but you must be referring to misconduct, you can examine it in history, freely. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And what's so wrong with this article that it constitutes treason against humanity? --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It breaks some of our basic policies, such as WP:CON or WP:V, it lacks scrutiny as well as WP:NPOV, it doesn't recognise current events... would you like to examine it fruther? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can fix it since you now what's supposedly wrong with it. --Abce2|AccessDenied 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no he can't, because he is wrong. I suggest TheFourFreedoms soften the way he approaches editing this article, and applying labels, lest he finds himself unable to find anyone to listen to him. Also, I am highly cautious about interacting with him, as he is showing all the signs of a single purpose account, and even a sockpuppet. Tread lightly. --Tarage (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

You must have meant, we can fix it. Why is there no section about 'public doubt' with regards to events transpired? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant there is nothing to fix. You must be ignoring the section labeled "Conspiracy Theories", with a link to the appropriate page for such, 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article has withstood numerous attempts to insert NPOV, and will likely survive yours as well, unless you decide to play ball, and not call an article that has taken years to construct and numerous dedicated editors to maintain "treason against whole humanity". --Tarage (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll call it as it is. You are exchanging your thoughts with a citizen, constitute if you wish. Why is there no section about 'public doubt'. Think thoroughly, tread lightly, if you will. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest changes but you'd better step back from the "treason" business. Keep it up and I'll block you with no further warning. RxS (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a right. It doesn't matter if you are a citizen of the moon, your words hold no more importance than mine or anyone else's. I suggest you drop the ego, as well as the name calling. --Tarage (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There are already entire articles dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And I'd suggest you drop loony talk. Who called you names? And who is speaking about conspiracy theories? I'll heed upon your advice RxS, as time allows. Thanks. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll drop my loony talk when you drop yours. Sound fair? Apart from Conspiracy Theorists, there isn't much to say about "Public Doubt". The brief paragraph already in the article suffices. --Tarage (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing games. Could someone please compare this user's style to User_talk:Lovelight. If it's not obvious enough, i'll start an SPI case. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Basic failure of NPOV

I'd suggest we open discussion with some very basic issues, such as narrative. I'll try to illustrate the POV forks in narrative with chapter about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and I'll presume that editors involved are well rounded with regards to various topics. If we examine this chapter closely we see that the section is in clear contempt of court, Mr. Khalid could have confessed from 'A to Z' but he is still 'alleged mastermind of the attacks'. The key word here is alleged, and this word is missing. If we take reports of the most reputable mainstream media sources, as we should, it is easy to see this impartiality which is lacking here where such careful neutrality should count the most. I would therefore suggest a change in narrative which would recognize the factual state of ongoing, or rather, suspended proceedings and state the fact that we're still dealing with 'alleged mastermind'. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We have several sources, including Mohammed, verifying his involvement in the attacks. We do not need to rely upon a criminal conviction to state his involvement; Wikipedia is not a court of law. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good day to everyone. Factual accuracy, verifiability and neutrality interest us all. You're alleging that we have sources which verify his (self-described) statements about his involvement, at this point in time, such allegation is not true. I'm proposing a change to the article, in interest of neutrality and factual accuracy article should clearly state that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is 'alleged mastermind of the 11 September attacks'. You will find this formulation in every decent and professional MSM report and with that in mind our section here is neither decent, nor professional, on contrary it is biased as well as factually inaccurate. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue. Not to use alleged is a violation of BLP. You can't waive WP policy just because he is an Arab or because the article is Amerocentric. Wayne (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment of course implies that we are dealing with a BLP here, which may or may not be true. But I fully agree that we should follow the BLP guideline and adjust the wording to what reliable sources say.  Cs32en  14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue, he admitted involvement himself and there are plenty of reliable sources that state that he was behind the attacks. [4][5][6]. RxS (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

They allege, it is allegation, they cannot state (claim) something which is yet to be proven. Neither can we. [7],[8],[9],[10],[11] TheFourFreedoms (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is established as correct by encyclopaedic standards, unless you can cite a reliable source that claims otherwise. Note this is not the same as the use of 'alleged' in the criminal justice sense. Peter Grey (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Word 'alleged' is suggested with the regards to MSM sources. Could you clarify what you mean with statement 'it is established as correct', who established it? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It’s common practise in the “MSM” to refer to criminal defendants as the “alleged” perpetrators of their crimes up until the point where they’re found guilty. Otherwise they’d be opening themselves up to lawsuits for libel or slander. I suggest w.r.t. KSM we follow the same policy; regardless of any confessions, he has not yet been found guilty as far as I can tell. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what we really need is a clarification of 'mastermind of the attacks,' especially since the plan was neither subtle nor original. Peter Grey (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Chief planner: somebody who plans, organizes, and oversees a complex attack, do we have a consensus? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In general terms, yes, but if your meaning is a specific criminal offence, then no.

What do you mean, can we put word alleged per sources and where appropriate or not? Would you prefer word suspect? Can we please move forward with this… TheFourFreedoms (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know why we cannot add word alleged to the section although it is widely used by reputable MSM sources and why do long established editors insist on inserting POV? I'd also like to know at which point those 'discretionary sanctions' kick in? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and indeed this seems obvious that we should follow the sources and publish conservatively on a living person. If the sources say "alleged" then so should we. Pending a guilty verdict in a court of law of course. --John (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not say "alleged", however. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Some seem to: [12],[13],[14],[15],[16] --John (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And many don't...we've been through this. This is not a BLP issue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has admitted his role in the attacks and we have reliable sources that have reported it. That's the end of the story unless new information comes to light...if it does we'll make the appropriate changes. This is just an attempt to water down what's in the public record and what reliable sources report. RxS (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Quite a few don't use alleged, and neither should we. There is no credible BLP issue and we should be careful to avoid alleged because it is a weasel word. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent that the group of editors here cannot overcome their own POV and their coordinated actions serve nothing else but to disrupt normal editing processes. I've came to this conclusion after reading the ArbCome case which was closed on 8 April 2008. In this hearing, editors who've I've met on this and other related discussions leave no doubt about the immense strength of their POV. In my opinion, such strong disposition and predetermination cannot serve our common goals. Once again, reliable sources are clear, with regards to the point RxS made, the reports are unambiguous and all of the prominent sources will use derivates of following formulation 'alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks has admitted his role' [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] and so on. Once again, these cherry pickings our fellow editors with their strong POV are suggesting are obstructing our normal editing processes. This discussion leaves no doubt, we are having basic failure of NPOV. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you TheFourFreedoms I came across the same editors who no matter what you say will in no circumstances change their POV some even go as far as to warn you about disruption but alas NPOV doesn't count on this article. BigDunc^Talk 11:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the POV tag from the article since there needs to be a more concerted effort to establish that the article is not in compliance. --PTR (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Global Dimming Research

Hiya, I once edited this page after watching a documentary about global dimming, where after the grounding of all flights for several days after the attacks, scientists got the chance they were looking for to examine the effect of short term pollutants in the sky on levels of sunlight. Apart from reading the wikipedia page on global dimming or recalling the content of the documentary from memory (I'm not a climate scientist), I believe that it is interesting that this rare event had an impact on scientific research. The global dimming page links back here, but not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought and taking a shot in the dark (and by that I mean I did not check on the other article regarding this): Maybe because 9/11 has nothing to do with global warming although "global dimming" occurred for a very very short time and is given as an example? BTW, Vulcan eruptions can cause the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix memo

I'd propose that we add a note about Phoenix Memo to the section about investigations. Any objections? TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it's a little detailed for a main article on a topic. Probably belongs in an article or section about intelligence failures somewhere. It's not really about a part of the investigation so it doesn't really belong there. RxS (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)