Talk:September 11 attacks

---

Exceptional Claim

I'm not happy with this sentence: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders,...".
"Virtually all" is an exceptional claim when refering to scientists. It is undeniable that hundreds of scientists, including some of the most prominant scientists in the US and indeed the world, do not support the mainstream account. The sentence should read: "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists and political leaders and most scientists,..." or else replace the words "virtually all" with "most". Wayne 02:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. If you want that changed, you should talk to the fellows on that page. --Haemo 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh thanks. I just checked it out and that statement has been changed to read:
"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accepted the conclusion that Al Qaeda is solely responsible for the attacks and the resulting destruction, and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account that the impacts of jumbo jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."
This page needs to be updated to reflect that change. Wayne 03:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, it's too long for this page. I'm honestly not in love with the current wording, but we have to be careful of undue weight in writing this. --Haemo 03:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Apparently the "virtually all" claim was from a single source so the above sentence was the result of considerable discusion and consensus. My proposed version for this article is true to the 9/11 conspiracy theories version and is exactly the same number of words as the sentence it should be replacing:
"U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept that responsibility for the attacks rests with al Qaeda and civil engineers generally accept the mainstream account for the cause of the destruction.”
Anyone have objections to this replacing the second sentence of the summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Wayne 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do, it's speculative.--MONGO 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You dispute that U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers generally accept the official theory? The section is a summary of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page (I have been told) so should do just that which it does not atm. This suggestion does, so how can it be speculative here? Argue the point on the 9/11 page, although that sentence was reached after consensus so you should have done so then. Wayne 16:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My objections would be that it's misleading. Why "U.S."? Do Canadian officials believe something else happened? Do Canadian structural engineers disagree? Why not just "agree"? Why are talking about civil engineers at all? There's no context for talking about them. Why "generally"? Why not just "agree" or "virtually all agree"? Is there a substantial doubt about who says what? Which ones "generally" agree? What's the difference between "generally" and "virtually all"? Are we ignoring the distinction between "scientist/expert in the subject area" and "physical chemist who believes the Pentagon was hit my a missile"? What's the rubric here for who constitutes an expert or "researcher" in the area? --Haemo 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement is a result of consensus so it makes no difference if you think it misleading. Besides this article is not for exploring conspiracy theories so we are limited to a short summary in the appropriate section. You can't use POV language to spin the summary just because you dont agree with what is being summarised. Wayne 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's misleading because our article doesn't give any context for it. You can't cherry pick a fraction of a summary of a much larger article, and then pretend it's all okay. The lead of that article summarizes their article. Our summary here should summarize the lead of the other article, and not just select out-of-context parts from it. I mean, why "civil engineer"? Furthermore, citing "consensus" on another page is a poor argument -- if something is poorly written there, it does not compell us to include poorly written material here. --Haemo 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a very poorly worded sentence. As was said above, it is US specific when it should not be so. Also, why "independent researchers" - do the majority of others researchers disagree? "civil engineers generally accept" - why just civil, why not structural engineers, construction engineers, aerospace engineers, architects, etc.? Also, define "generally;" how is that any better than "virtually"? If anything, this is taking something that is fine as is and replacing it with something that is worse. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok so let's see this:

These theories are generally not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, and political leaders...

This would make the wording consistent with that of the other article. Ok now? (Do anyone have a reliable source to support the statement about mainstream jourmnalist personal opinion?) --Pokipsy76 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Another problem: if you write "...journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda" it make no sense to put the footnotes about the analysis of the collpase of WTC because:

1. the belief in the official account about the tower collapse is consistent with the belief about (for example) the governament foreknwledge and responsability in many other ways,
2. structural engeneers are not journalists, scientists or political leaders.

--Pokipsy76 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way to avoid deletion of this article - change the name

The idea to have an "neutral" or "objective" account of the 9/11 events is frankly ludicrous. We all have our more or less severe delusions about the world, from which we interpret both history and current events. With an explosive topic like this where the political implications are huges and the idea on what's true divdes the americans (and nonamericans), it would be unvise to argue that you present a neutral account of these events. It would also be dishonest and fraudulent.

I suggest that the article is namned The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official conspiracy theory. (ZEROpumpkins Lolled at this - ZEROpumpkins 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

We have to remember that whome ever are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, they are guilty of a horrific conspiracy on the american public.

With such a name you would not have to worry about choice of words because it is just an account of the official explaination, not the the unquestionable truth. WikiStenson 10:55, 9 September 2007

You are right in that the name of the article should be, "The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official conspiracy theory", as that is, grammatically, exactly what it is and is what even Pres. Bush called it. However that title is too long and it would probably be disputed for appearing to give equal weight to the alternative conspiracy theories. I suggest putting it into the lead somewhere instead to avoid a possible edit war by POV editors who don't really understand the English language. Wayne 15:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What part of the facts are you disputing? Everything is cited and referenced to reliable sources.--MONGO 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear an answer to that myself. There's some people here and in the real world that would like you to think there's a real question about what happened, but there really isn't. All there is is a very small group of people generating a lot of heat but it's gained no more traction then it did 3 or 4 years ago. Whatever mainstream coverage it gets is driven by the fact that it's a cultural phenomenon, and not by any real suspicion that it's got any solid foundation in the truth. In fact, a couple newspaper folks out west and a local public radio commentator I know have told me at various times that this subject draws nothing but snickering among journalists and the only thing that keeps them from openly mocking conspiracy theories on this subject is their daily struggle to keep a neutral voice in their work.

What does this have to do with this article? It should be clear, in the real world where we all live there is no weight given to conspiracy theory and so it needs to be kept to a minimum in this article. And those who fight this fight on a daily basis should start refusing to get involved in these "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments that fill this talk page. There is a factual and neutral way to present this material and we have a good approximation of it at the moment here. CT'ers will try and argue that it's dishonest and fraudulent to present leave them out of mainstream coverage (even while squabbling among themselves about what they accepted as real CT theory, no energy beams please), but it's not. It's just being responsible and neutral which of course is toxic to their politically motivated hope of increased coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theory. RxS 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk about off topic lol! No one is disputing anything other than the title. The official account is, using correct English grammar, a conspiracy theory! Even George Bush called it that and he's as illiterate as they come. It was a conspiracy to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. WikiStenson was clear on that and I thought I was as well. I say keep the current title as it is shorter. Wayne 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing anything other than the title? Yikes, this whole talk page (and archives) is filled with people disputing just about everything except the background color the page displays. And if you read the first post in this section, it's claimed that an attempt to provide a "neutral" or "objective" description of these events isn't possible. Which is "frankly" "ludicrous". In any case, I don't know how what I wrote was "off topic" as you say, you yourself talked about "appearing to give equal weight to the alternative conspiracy theories". My point is that we should be fighting the never ending efforts of POV pushers to add CT fluff into these articles. RxS 03:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC) by the way, writing in bolded text gives the appearance of yelling, this page is heated enough without the yelling

I say keep the current title because it's 100% redundant to call it anything else. This article is about the 9/11 attacks; they just-so happened to be a conspiracy by a number of terrorists. However, the article is much broader than just the conspiracy, and to call it "official" is ridiculous — because reality conforms to what our reliable sources and qualified experts says on the subject is not a knock against those sources. WikiStenson makes it abundantly clear that he's not suggesting a name-change because of any serious belief the current one is grammatically incorrect — but rather, because he has a point of view. It is just as clear that any such name-change would not be more "accurate" but rather blatant POV pushing. --Haemo 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Stenson. Never gonna happen.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I say give it up. I side with Morton Devonshire. We should call this issue over ASAP. WhisperToMe 23:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a separate article specifically for Conspiracy Theories anyways. This article focuses on the events as it happened reported by the media and the government. KyuuA4 03:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Stenson is correct in the sense that there are several equally supported (scientifically) theories including the one put forward by the US government within a few hours of the attack. This article specifically presents that US government theory and for the sake of honesty that should be disclosed in the title. Perhaps this would work ; "The September 11, 2001, attacks - the official version". Mr.grantevans2 13:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminder. This is not the place to debate what happened and who did it. Neither is this the place to argue against the overwhelming majority view.

  "the overwhelming majority view"
  
  YOU GOTTA BE SHITTING ME!!
  Just because the (government owned) mainstream media doesn't cover the other (more probable) view over and over again
  doesn't mean it's the majorities view.
  You people are in a state of total denial. Just like the Germans in 1933!
  If you don't stand up NOW, you deserve what's comming for you!

Stick to what the reliable sources report, in proportion. Repeatedly advocating for extreme minority views could be considered disruptive to the discussion and result in blocks to prevent the disruption. Vassyana 14:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any renaming of this article happening. The two things that are pretty much beyond dispute are the date, and that attacks occured. Anything else is going to get less support - and probably for good reason.

Including the word "conspiracy" in the title seems like a violation of WP:WTA, and I don't see how it adds to the neutrality of the piece. I can see why some conspiracy theorists would want to see "conspiracy" added to the title, since it might be seen as adding legitimacy to the idea of conspiracy theories in general, but for precisely that reason I don't think consensus will ever support such a change.

There is no good reason why this particular article title should be burdened with a postfix such as "the official version". Wikipedia is supposed to neutrally present facts, weighted according to their level of acceptance, which means in general that we present the generally accepted mainstream view, with all notable exceptions. It adds nothing to start calling articles "The Moon: the materialist view" or "Biology: the mainstream position". Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 16:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Sheffield Steel is correct. There are so many topics with stuff that is generally accepted which might be totally wrong that to try to portray the doubt in the titles would be arcane. I'll change my mind on this and agree with Sheffield; "The two things that are pretty much beyond dispute are the date, and that attacks occured. Anything else is going to get less support - and probably for good reason." Mr.grantevans2 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

At least we've got that much. --Haemo 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheffieldsteel if (as you say) <<Including the word "conspiracy" in the title seems like a violation of WP:WTA>> why this does not apply to 9/11 conspiracy theories?--Pokipsy76 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to propose a rename of 9/11 conspiracy theories, then go right ahead. If you present a good argument that the title is not a neutral description of what the article covers, I may well support you. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that WP:WTA can be violated in that case?--Pokipsy76 20:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting or proposing any violation of any principle or guideline. I am merely pointing out that this talk page is for discussing improvements to this article. Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories is the place to discuss the name of that article and any proposed changes to it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements as well as for discussing arguments given by the users to support their position when discussing improvements.--Pokipsy76 07:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "terrorism" or "terrorist" in the lead

Should we have no mention of these words, or should they be in the attributed form ("terrorism according to X") or presented as fact ("this was terrorism").

• Please write your opinion in as few words as possible. A concise argument is an elegant argument.
• Instead of commenting on other editors' opinions, put your best case in your own section. We already have plenty of rambling arguments on this page.

Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a poll above that makes asking for individual comments simply redundant. The poll indicates zero consensus for not calling the terrorists, terrorists.--MONGO 15:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin

Presented as fact. There is no WP:RS which says it was not terrorism / a terrorist act. Even the conspiracy theorists agree. Calling it anything else qualifies as WP:WEASEL. Alternatively, we could say "generally considered to be terrorism"[1][2][3]…[100]…[1000]…, where we must add all governments and quasi-governmental organizations which call it terrorism, a selection of news media (including al Jazeera), a number of conspiracists, and probably a few other appropriate sources. Although the latter would make editing unwieldy, there's no other way to indicate the level of support for that statement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aude

There is wide consensus among reliable sources that 9/11 is terrorism, from Al Jazeera, the Government of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, Governments of Brazil, India, New Zealand, to Japan, and news media around the world from Ghana, South Korea, Germany, France, and we could go on for a long while with more sources. The view that 9/11 is terrorism is not only an American view or "official U.S. government" view. 9/11 is broadly considered terrorism by governments and reliable sources around the world. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we simply need to say terrorist. The single U.N. reference that's there now more than suffices as a compromise for those who want some form of attribution. We are violating Wikipedia policy if we do anything less than that. No need to change anything now. It's time to close the discussion. --Aude (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Haemo

It's all been said before; the style guidelines encourage us to attribute in the "X says Y" format. However, doing so in this particular article is near-impossible due to the universality of who "X" is. As a reasonable compromise, either an intensifier like "universally" could be used, that that would certainly be rejected by later editors. As such, the current inline note is by far the best solution available. --Haemo 21:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Tarage

This is a temporary posting, since I am currently suffering a kidney stone attack, so I'll be brief. All I have to do is look at my two poll questions to see that an overwhelming majority reject the idea of removing any of the terrorist mentions. Lets face facts people, we have consensus. We've had way too many circular discussions, and all of the voting has proven that we agree. Lets move on already. --Tarage 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-man

Terrorism or terrorist should not be removed anywhere from this article. Mainstream media and pretty much every government call it a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are done by - terrorists. Attributed form is not necessary here. The reference to this as a terrorist attack is widely known and accepted. Having an X said Y here would be like if the Microsoft article began with: "Microsoft Corporation, according to ... is an American multinational^{[1][2][3]...[120]} ..." - its just not necessary. Either call it as fact, which is the majority view or list all the major exceptions which would be unwieldy and probably WP:UNDUE to include in the lead. Mr.Z-man 00:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timneu22

It was terrorism. There is no debate. This article is a sham if "terrorism" doesn't appear. Timneu22 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lendorien

Keep - I find this argument silly. It's like saying The Japanese attack on Dec 7, 1941 wasn't really a sneak attack just because there's a conspiracy theory out there that suggests Roosevelt knew and let it happen.

There is a wide consensus around the world that September 11 was an act of terrorism. It has always been PRESENTED as an act of terrorism by governments around the world, experts and the group that allegedly did it. Not to mention that the great preponderance of actual facts strongly supports that version of events over that of the conspiracy theorists (who's evidence is circumstantial at best). To call it anything else would be silly. Besides, just because there are groups out there who believe the US government was behind it does not make it any less terrorism. Blowing up huge landmark buildings to make people fear something and motivate them into acts they would not generally support through that fear is an act of terrorism, regardless of who did it. Even the conspiracy theorists would agree with that. I say keep it in the lead. It would be ridiculous to remove it. --Lendorien 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Stanselmdoc

Presented as fact. For all the reasons everyone else has said. Stanselmdoc 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Damburger

Attributed form of course - the rules on this matter are quite clear. The fact there is a false consensus here (actually a vocal minority, many who have been induced to come here for the very purpose) has no bearing. Objectivity has suffered because of this mob. Damburger 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hiddekel

Presented as (referenced) fact. Enough already. The allegation that there's no consensus on this is baseless. Even if there is a "silent majority" who disagrees with 9/11 being labelled "terrorism", it doesn't matter: silent people don't count and are in fact uncountable, by definition. Based on every quantifiable measure, including the straw poll above and this rfc, the consensus is that the current attributed assertion that it was terrorism is the best way to go. --Hiddekel 16:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:WLRoss

I have no problem with calling the attacks "terrorist attacks" but prefer using the word hijackers instead of terrorists. It would be hypocritical to do otherwise. This subject came up on another page where consensus was to NOT use the word terrorist despite the subject being found guilty in a court of law of committing terrorists acts and the subjects own admission that he was a terrorist. The only difference is that the subject in question is currently protected by the US government despite the US Justice department saying he is "an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks" who should be jailed. I myself supported calling terrorists just that but now I see it is more important to be consistent and NPOV. Calling someone a terrorist is very POV if you only use the term for those you do not like. It saddens me that I see some of the same editors supporting use of the word here who opposed using it in the other article. Wayne 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Clpo13

Presented as fact. As others have said, there is a boatload of evidence from reliable sources showing that this was indeed a terrorist attack, planned and executed by a known terrorist organization, which also took credit for the attack. Of course, we could always have a compromise, saying "The attacks of September 11, 2001 were acts of terrorism according to every government in the world." If it's semantics we're arguing, a terrorist is someone who commits an act which causes death and destruction with the intent to cause terror (the intent bit is rather important). By that definition, the people who caused 9/11 are indeed terrorists. People will always disagree but it's a plain fact that an act caused by a known terrorist organization recognized as such by an overwhelming number of nations is terrorism. --clpo13_(talk) 08:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mascus

Attributed form. 9/11 is closely associated with the the idea of terrorism in the public mind and in government policy, and this should definitely be mentioned with attributions. Terrorism is irregular warfare carried out by bad people. Despite being non-state actors, the French Resistance were not terrorists because the Nazis were the bad guys in WW2. Despite tagetting and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the atomic bombing of Japan in WW2 was not a terrorist act because either the Japanese were the bad guys or because the action was carried out by the US government who by definition cannot be terrorists. In most large scale violent acts, there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal, meanwhile there is a group of people who support the action as a legitimate response. Calling an event or a group 'terrorist' is just a way of saying you don't feel their actions were justified. On 9/11, some buildings in New York were attacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by suicide hijackers attempting to advance their cause. Millions of Islamists around the world considered this a legitimate response to US actions and policy in the Gulf. If the article states as fact that this was a 'terrorist' attack committed by 'terrorists', the POV of the authors is clearly revealed: that attacking New York on 9/11 was wrong. Wikipedia readers don't need the article to tell them if the action was wrong or right, it just has to present the facts and we can make up our own minds. Mascus 10:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I know we really aren't supposed to reply here, but I have to say something. Are you really trying to compare armies in WWII to Al-Qaeda? There's a massive difference. Besides the whole declaration of war thing, the Allies and Axis were killing each other to capture (or recover) territory, they were not killing to cause fear and destruction just for the sake of fear and destruction or to "advance their cause". The French resistance is different too; they were fighting to assist the Allies in regaining control of their own country. War is bad, but war != terrorism and soldiers != terrorists. And the atomic bombing - Do you know what the alternative was? It could have been much worse. "Millions of Islamists around the world" - I'd love to see a source for that. "there is a group of people who feel the action was unfair and criminal" - I'm pretty sure hijacking an airplane is a crime in the US and most other countries. Mr.Z-man 13:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't answer the most important questions

This article doesn't answer nor pose the most important questions, while it should at least pose them.

1. The towers were constructed to withstand airplane attacks and large extra safety margins were taken into account against these threads. What miscalculations did the engineers make according to proffessionals who should know?

2. How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of a little debree and a little fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand ernormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should?

This article doesn't need to answer those questions as they are contained in subarticles 7 World Trade Center and World Trade Center. KyuuA4 17:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No they do not! They just make statements about what happened. But they do not prove how it could happen that these things that according to scientifically sound engineering priciples should never be able to happen! They do not question these statements and they do not mention other theories nor compare theories against eachother on the basis of reliable data and testimonies.

(And how come that building 6 World Trade Center, Which was much weaker than building 7 and which was situated next to and in between tower 1 and building 7, was damaged but did not collapse and had to be demolished later on?)

Of course we don't — that's what the article Collapse of the World Trade Center is for. --Haemo 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not Wikipedia's job to prove how something could happen with suppositions (which is the only thing they can be) as to why they occurred, our job is merely to report the events. The towers collapsed. That is the fact. If you are looking for theories that are not accepted by reliable sources, please see 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. If you would like to suggest a real edit to this article, feel free to begin a discussion on it. Stanselmdoc 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking conspiracy and i'm not asking you to use unreliable sources, that's on you. But if things happened that could not have happened under sound engineering principles than this article should have a note on that and it should present the facts on where engineering failed and why. For instance, which mistakes were made in engineering and constructing building 7 so that it collapsed and building 6 did not while building 6 was hit harder and should have been weaker. Where are the facts about that in your article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.136.108 (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the attacks. The article Collapse of the World Trade Center is about the collapse of the world trade center. Discuss it there, not here. --Haemo 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Asked and answered. This article is about what happened not why. It's not about buildings 6 and 7 - they have their own articles. If there is something specific you would like to discuss about this article, open a section. This is not a blog or chat room to discuss various theories. --PTR 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And where are the sources to back up what you claim are "facts?" Mr.Z-man 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Building 6 was right next to tower 1 and was heavely hit by debry but did not collapse. Fact. Building 6 was situated between tower 1 and building 7 and must have been hit harder than building 7. fact. Building 7 was much stronger than usual because it had numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned. fact. Building 7 had a sprinkler system as obliged in all buildings of this side. Fact. Building 7 still collapsed while building 6 did not. Fact. This could never have happended if engineering and constuction were according to sound principles. Fact. In a investigation of events of this caracter there must be conclusions about engineering and construction faults. fact.

Al these facts can be found in the wiki articles, and are according to the laws physics and normal legal procedures. Still nothing about engineering and construction faults in building 7 can be found in the articles. While it should be. I don't have the reports, but they should exist. If not than it may really be time to start thinking conspiracy.

Okay, that's enough of this. If you want to discuss this, do it on Collapse of the World Trade Center or Controlled demolition hypothesis. Not here. This is not a forum for general discussion, nor is this the correct topic area to begin with. --Haemo 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A lack of sources is not a reason to put "facts" into an article and call it a conspiracy. Mr.Z-man 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There were no known engineering or construction faults. In fact NIST could not make the buildings collapse in their simulations (NIST Report: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th,"). They eventually did by excluding the Hat Trusses from the simulations and so assume these trusses failed in some way but, as they didn't (nor anyone else for that matter) investigate to find the possible cause, could not comment on it which is why the articles don't have much detail. Because the buildings actually did collapse, NIST based their conclusions on that and not the result of their simulations. The official theory is supported mainly because the alternatives are less likely (Ocams Razor). Wayne 06:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The towers were not designed to withstand aircraft attacks, they were designed to withstand aircraft impacts. According to Collapse of the World Trade Center, they were designed in the 1960s to withstand an impact of a Boeing 707 at 180 mph, in the event one was lost in fog. The Boeing 767s that hit the towers were longer, wider, taller, could carry more fuel than the 707, and were traveling 440-540 mph. Also, "design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages" - that's not necessarily true. After the first couple floors, buildings more than 5 or 6 floors generally have all their floors and structure built the same way up to the roof. The building could have been 20 floors, 47, or 60 floors, the way modern skyscrapers are designed it would have been just as stable in any configuration. "why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire" - Sprinklers are not designed to put out fires just to slow them down, if they were to put out fires, NYC and other large cities would not need so many firefighters. Sprinklers cannot repair structural damage and if the pumps were damaged or the water pressure was low, they would be not be as effective According to the article for 7 World Trade Center, firefighters pulled out around 3:30 due to low water pressure and structural concerns, the building collapsed at 5:20 after being damaged and burning for almost 7 hours. Mr.Z-man 14:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:911 victims.jpg

There has been some disagreement over the inclusion of this image. Arguments in favor of removal have been that it is "mawkish sentimentality" and "makes the page looks like a memorial". I tend to disagree, and instead would explain that it's the only reasonable way to visually depict the victims of the attacks, along with the scope of the dead. This is an important encyclopedic goal, when it comes to explaining the attacks and the reaction to them. Anyways, let's discuss this here, rather than edit warring. --Haemo 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this particular image never seemed a good fit for the article, but my opinion is not strong enough for me to remove the image myself. It's more suitable as a trial exhibit to show the jury. Without this image, I think there are still plenty of images in the article. Or, I think we can find some better image to include. Some places to look for images include WTC (FEMA) and Pentagon (FEMA). Here's one of my own - Image:911_ladder10_flag.jpg, taken on 9/11/06. Though, it may be more appropriate for the page about the 9/11 memorials. Other pictures of mine are on Flickr tagged with "911", though only some appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Willing to upload particular ones if they would be useful. Here are the Moussaoui trial exhibits [1], though not everything there has acceptable copyright status. Some of the best possibilities may be from FEMA, such as this. I suggest we come up with a list of possibilities, including Image:911 victims.jpg and other options, and then make a decision. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flyers of those missing posted along a fence near St. Paul's Chapel

While I'm mentioning these links, it would be good to get FEMA photos on Commons. There are a lot, 806 for the WTC and 967 for the Pentagon, just from FEMA. I can't figure out a way to batch download them, but only download one at a time. Then, the trial exhibits, more pictures taken by DOD, etc. Some are already on commons - commons:Category:Moussaoui_trial_exhibits and commons:Category:9/11. Maybe something useful for the article is already on commons. --Aude (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, this article has too many pictures — so a reasonable discussion that ends with removing this one is okay with me. --Haemo 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be fine with simply removing it. But, there are plenty of choices for images, with suitable copyright status. FYI - here are DOD images [2]. Already have some on my computer, but its simply time consuming to upload to commons and organize them in categories. --Aude (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is cluttered with images so I'd be in favour of removal. Mr.grantevans2 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The only qualm I have is that this particular section is the least cluttered already! --Haemo 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed not because of it's "sentimentality" but because, if it did not have a caption, it would be impossible to know it was even related to 9/11. No disprespect, but it looks like my computor screen did after my graphics card fried a few weeks ago. I think the taxi could go as well. The rest of the pics I feel are excellent and I dispute that there are too many pics on the page. How many are too many? I feel one per appropriate section is ok. Wayne 06:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it may not be politically correct, but I saw the events on TV and the image that burned into my mind was the 2 people jumping from the WTC to escape the fire holding hands as they went down. Is there a reason that image or one like it can not be used? Those people choosing to jump, I think, expressed the horror and reality of the event best of all. Mr.grantevans2 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's too specific; those people may be iconic, but they're not representative of all victims or even most. I do, however, agree that without the caption this image would appear totally unconnected to the events. --Haemo 18:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per discussion here, I have removed the image from the article. Regarding the Falling Man photograph, that's a possibility. Though, it is a copyrighted image and would be used here under fair use. I generally prefer free-use images, but think there may be justification for fair use here. To the right is a photo taken by someone at FEMA, thus it's public domain and no issues with using it here. I'll always remember the numerous flyers posted everywhere for those missing, as shown in the photo. It seems a good fit for the section, though Falling Man would also fit. What do others think? --Aude (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The posters seem too "after the fact" to me. Mr.grantevans2 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular photo was taken on 09/12/2002, so I don't totally disagree. Searching Flickr is another option. We can only use pictures from there that are licensed under Creative Commons-Attribution (CC-BY) and Creative Commons-Attribution-Share Alike (CC-BY-SA).

• [3] - this was taken on 9/18/2001

If there is something else on Flickr or elsewhere that does not have an appropriate license, it's always possible to ask them if we can use it here under a suitable license. I don't have a strong preference for either missing posters, Falling Man, or something else. --Aude (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Falling Man is the best by far. Almost everything else is a reaction to the event whereas the Falling Man is part of the event. Mr.grantevans2 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm more and more supportive of the origional picture. It didn't push any POV, it only illustrated the victims of the attack. Surely that is better than a picture of someone moments away from their death, as powerful as that is. --Tarage 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Facts

It seems to me (just stumbled across this page) that the arguments seem to be about facts. somebody's facts are different from someone else's facts. These are always difficult arguments to solve. Sometimes I like to say that in a way we are all colourblind, and the world is like two colourblind people arging about weather a green stick is blue or yellow. Both are wrong, and yet both are right. Facts are never known, because the entire world can not witness every single event. I could tell you that I did not hit the backspace button once while typing this. Or I could say I did it 100 times. How is anyone to know? At the moment I'm at work (security) and on camrea. Someone could watch the video and say 50 times. Someone else could edit the video and say 75 times. someone else could claim to have the real video and say 25 times. The end result is that nobody will ever know the true facts.

So, what do we do about it?

Wikipedia should follow it's own precedent. Where there is a factual argument, however wrong it might seem, "the majority" wins. Look at the deep throat article. I bet there were people who were sure felt was the guy, but if they had posted that when "the majority" had no clue who he was, that post would have been deleted. Even if he had presented "facts". In the end it turns out he would have been right, but wikipedia is not about being right, because we will never know who is right. Wikipedia is about being as right as you can be at the time and at this time, the majority of news soruces have a single view on what happened, and so that's the view we should follow. Nickjbor 07:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's really difficult to find news sources that disagree about the facts: the difference is instead in the focus given to the specific facts. This happen because news sources are generally politically and culturally biased. Wikipedia instead must have a Neutral Point of View and not the Point of view of the "majority" of the sources.--Pokipsy76 09:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You are misreading WP:WEIGHT. In the abstract, if almost all reliable sources have one opinion (about facts), and a few sources have a different opinion, we may give a few lines to the other opinion. In the case of 9/11 we give entire articles to the other opinions, but this article should primarily have the mainstream view. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinions? Weren't we talking about facts? To have a neutral point of view facts must be presented in a neutral way, and it is not necessarily the way of the majority of news sources (which can be politically and culturally biased).--Pokipsy76 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we're discussing here. Was there something in the article you wanted to edit? --PTR 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The "facts" are disputed by the 911TM people. We should include the facts as reported by the majority, with due weight given to minority interpretations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is about zero. This article is based on the proven record of course, not fantasies.--MONGO 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Pokipsy76, we merely need to properly follow our own policies and everything will be all right. --John 15:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. I agree with MONGO and John, but not Pokipsy76. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not rehash this argument again. Ths is basically the same as above, and I don't see it going anywhere productive. We've got a couple of places already where you can express opinions of this nature, and I'd prefer not to drag out the discussion across this page indefinitely — though said hope is probably quite vain. --Haemo 18:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Section on Osama bin Laden | backup by CIA in the 80's

To have a more balanced account on Osama bin Laden, the events during the cold war should be mentioned.

I have added the following sentence; I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot. Please let us discuss this issue

It is irony of fate, that Osama bin Laden received backup of both CIA and ISI as well as US-$ 3 billion when setting up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1980's to fight back the Soviet occupation of the country. <ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199 |title=How the CIA created Osama bin Laden|publisher=GreenLeft News |date=2001, September 19}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine#.22What_a_Wonderful_World.22 |title=Bowling for Columbine }}</ref>

--Benjamin.friedrich 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR (irony of fate), and the second source is a Wikipedia article, which cannot be used as a source for anything. Only its sources can be used. I'm not sure about greenleft.org.au as a source, either, but that would require some research — probably more than the previous editor did in generating it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A preliminary search of http://www.greenleft.org.au at [4] doesn't say it's a "news"paper. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"I hope it does not get deleted immeadiately by some patriot."...that is all very nice. There isn't a lot of reason to go into a long in-depth analysis of why Osama felt compelled to order the attacks of 9/11. In fact, I think this article is entirely too long and much of the stuff about motivation, etc. should be branched to other articles so we can stick primarily to the events that happened on 9/11 more specifically.--MONGO 17:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is too "original research-y" for this article. As a straight fact it is totally irrelevant; its connection to 9/11 is made by implied synthesis. Can it be proven that money from the CIA went to fund the attacks? It belongs in the Al-Quaeda, Osama bin Laden, or articles about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where there is a direct connection to the subject. Mr.Z-man 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have an entire article about Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Osama Bin Laden. Surely those are more appropriate locations for this material, given it's extremely tangential relationship to the attacks. --Haemo 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Where should this go?

Nigel Inkster, the director of transnational threats and political risk at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, and a former director of the British secret intelligence agency commonly known as MI6, said there was much debate within al-Qaida after the attacks, which led to the invasion of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and to the removal of a safe haven in the southern part of that country. According to Mr Inkster, many al-Qaida supporters believed that the attacks were a "tactical error" for this reason. I'm prepared to accept that this material is not exactly related to the events of the day. However, I believe it is notable, neutrally presented, reliably sourced, and relevant to the subject. Is there a related article that would be a better place for it? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this mentioned in the Al Qaeda article? --Aude (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's perspective is an important element of the story, but this particular item sounds rather speculative. Peter Grey 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we can't check Inkster's sources because, at the time, he was part of the intelligence community. The source for the text above, however, is an article in the Guardian newspaper, which easily meets WP:RS due to their fact checking and editorial oversight.

I guess I'm surprised that I couldn't find a good place to add this text - and that the main article does not contain more information about the context for, and effects of, the attacks. There's a lot of documentation of the health effects of concrete dust fallout, and very little on the figurative fallout that affected the rest of the world. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe it belongs somewhere, but not sure it does in this article. Perhaps it is best in the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO 04:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO. I was able to find a good spot for it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph has some problems

We read:

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks.[130] These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all[citation needed] mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Problems:

1. the phrase "concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda" still do not rule out the belief on a "conspiracy theory", you should say something like "rest exclusively with Al Qaeda".
2. is there a reliable source to support the phrase "not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists"? I strongly believe there is not such a source and therefore the phase can't be stated.
3. The footnotes at the end refer to the collapse of the WTC and therefore are not relevant because we are speaking af "conspiracy theories" in general.

--Pokipsy76 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We do need to clean-up the sourcing, I believe. However, some valuable sources can definitely be found, with a little bit of poking:

• Professors of Paranoia? By: Gravois, John, Chronicle of Higher Education, 00095982, 6/23/2006, Vol. 52, Issue 42 : explains that conspiracy theories are a "fringe crusade" and that academic support for a given theory is "dead on the vine".
• Conspiracy Theories and Official Stories By: David Coady International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 2003 : explains, specifically, that 9/11 conspiracy theories are part of a broad group of conspiracy theories, which run contrary to a body of work with general imprimature by "authorities" on the subject; i.e. governments, scholars, mainstream media, etc.
• Dangerous Machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion By: Ginna Husting & Martin Orr Symbolic Interaction Spring 2007, Vol. 30, No. 2, Pages 127-150 " summarize the mainstream academic and journalistic use of the term, with reference to 9/11 theories, as dismissive and unsupported.

Anyways, these might provide some good sources, even for the "virtually all" or some variant thereof claim. --Haemo 19:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

These books cannot support the wording "virtually all mainstream scientists and journalists" unless they cite some kind of scientific poll about the opinions of scientist and journalists on 911 and give a percentage that can be interpreted as "virtually all". If this thesis is just asserted by the authors of the books and not proved then it does not count as a source for the claim *as a fact*, but only as an opinion of authors who have not a special authority on the matter.--Pokipsy76 12:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed "virtually all" to "most" several times some time ago but it just kept getting reverted which is why i put the tag on it. To me "virtually all" is a POV opinion to help discredit the conspiracy theories by making them seem like fringe theories. Some are fringe but some are just as plausable as the official theory so it is POV to lump them all in the same bag. I did read somewhere last week that a rough poll found that if you exclude scientists/engineers etc who admit to not knowing enough about the claims to have an informed opinion, the remaining scientists/engineers etc are split roughly 50/50. This seems to explain why the majority of the most highly qualified who write on the subject are supporters of the 9/11 truth movement which seemed odd considering the widespread support for the official theory among those with lesser qualifications. This majority may not fully support the conspiracy theories but they do call for an investigation to prove or disprove them. Of course, right wing media MUST support the official theory so that could possibly be virtually all. Journalists on the other hand may support the official theory in public but not privately as they can, and have been in the past, fired for not vocally supporting a view held by their employer. Whatever the case may be, nuetrality demands that "most" should be as POV as you can get without polling all scientists/engineers etc. Wayne 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't actually looked at polls on this before so just checked Zogby. Support the offical theory?: 48% yes, 42% no. Should there be a new investigation to find if US government was involved?: 45% yes, 42% no. That "virtually all" looks pretty tenious. Wayne 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that poll was of random people off the street, not scientists and engineers specifically. As such, it's not relevant to this particular issue in the article. -- 68.156.149.62 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Another non-NPOV problem is with th word "theories": why this focus on the "theories"? We do not have so many theories that assert something specific about what happened, and the few "alternative theories" don't have even so much poluparity. We instead have many people who challange the official account and suggest it is not believable without trying to provide any specific theoriy. This skeptic POV is more popular that the POV of the specific theories. The focus on theory seems to be an attempt tu push a bias on the matter. If you have said: "A number of individual did not accepted as credible the official account on the facts" it would have been less compromising. If the paragraph would have the title "Skepticism about the official account" it could have not the negative connotation that people seems to want it to have.--Pokipsy76 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rallies and Support

I recall going to an outdoor gathering a day or two after the attacks on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Canada. (of about 100,000 people!) I believe that similar events occurred in other cities. Where would be the most appropriate place to add that information? Or is it present elsewhere? Alaney2k 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this section: September_11,_2001_attacks#Memorials Also, in the linked subarticle. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

While you typed that in, I noticed, and tried to retract my comment. Too late! I entered my initial comment because I thought it was missing from 'International Response', but it is in 'Memorials.' Alaney2k 16:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Not my day. That should be 'International reaction'. Alaney2k 16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments for Neutrality Purposes

This article expresses a specific viewpoint on what happened on September 11th. It is not Neutral. Please see the NPOV tutorial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial The entire article needs to be revised to comply with NPOV. Please assist me in doing this.

One of the underlying tenets of all articles on Wikipedia is that a consensus must be reached to make claims such as "coordinated terrorist[2] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists" There has never been an independant investigation of this. Although it is quoted as a fact in many reputable magazine and newspapers, there are also many reputable sources that disagree with this "offical account of events".

Using the "Attribution" from the NPOV tutorial should be changed to something in line with -

"According the United States Government and the majority of American's ... was coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists."

OR

"The United States Governement has accused Islamic Terrorists of... and the majority of Americans as well as media and news organizations agree with this accusation."

JohnDavis2 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see discussion above and post any reputable sources that disagree with this official account of events. Also read the reference (2) noted in the sentence. It is not only Americans and the US Government. --PTR 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've just had this discussion. Repeatedly. See the above discussion. Or the archives. --Haemo 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus among editors here is that the article is currently NPOV and does not need to be revised. I'm suggest we mark this section as {{resolved}} --Aude (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They never cease to come out of the woodwork to they? I'm very tired of the constant NPOV wars, especially from people who don't bother to read any of the archives and just assume their point is new and exciting. Is there any way we can stop this? Can this be concidered disruptive editing? Can we block users for this? --Tarage 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the cost of doing business the way we've chosen. It's tiring but not disruptive or blockable though. Just point them to the archives I guess. RxS 21:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

We concur with your exasperation, Tarage...and it should be noted that the vast majority of those that keep beating a dead horse are often single purpose accounts or new editors with little or no prior contributions. There are a few however, that really do believe in some sort of conspiracy theory regarding this event and have good meaning intentions about trying to add speculations they have read somewhere else, much of which is oftentimes written with some really wild claims, that to the less informed, can be both fascinating and alarming.--MONGO 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am personally offended by the responses to my comment. If you would please take a look at the NPOV tutorial as this will give you a better understanding of how wikipedia articles are intended to be written. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial

It seems that you are all upset with the issue that I brought up because of the multitude of related complaints. If the article remains biased then it makes perfect sense that other editors will continue to complain. The article is clearly violating many of the core principles of wikipedia.

Recent polls indicate that 30-40% of Americans don't believe the "official story" of the September 11th attacks. While a near consensus of the major editors of this article may have taken place, that doesn't not indicate that there is a consensus in the outside world.

There was no independent investigation of September 11th as the Executive Branch of the US Government would not allow one.

The unfortunate reality, as exposed by many reputable newsources, is that the FBI/CIA is attempting to control of many of the articles in Wikipedia. I can imagine that this makes it very difficult to edit articles. I will find out once my 4 day period has ended and I can begin to make changes.

If the editors would like me and others to stop writing about the blatent bias in this article, then please supply an answer as to how this article doesn't not violate the NPOV tutorial. Or I challenge those of you not working for the US Intelligence Community to make changes to the article. JohnDavis2 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am offended that you think we editors are somehow government plants. If this is how you truely feel, and believe to be the case, then you know already that arguing with us will not change anything because WE ARE THE LAW!.

That sillyness asside, I really wish we could concider this trolling. At the very least, when the next incarnation of JohnDavis(figurativly of course) appears, can we simply delete the repetative talk sections they create? That would perhaps encourage the user to atleast ponder why their comments were removed. Or think we are evil government plants even more, but that makes me giggle. --Tarage 04:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd think this was something new, and interesting, but it's not. Luckily, Wikipedia is not "the outside world", which is a very good thing, since we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. If you have some actual suggestion to make for the article, I suggested you make them. However, I strongly encourage you to read the archives and the previous discussion because literally all of your points have been discussed ad nauseum. Suffice to say that the consensus is that neutral point of view supports the current version of the article. --Haemo 23:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, you can make changes right away; there's no waiting period on your account. --Haemo 23:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I find it juuuust a little curious that Mr. John Davis has made only two contributions to Wikipedia, ever. And his very first contribution, he chose to write how this article violates NPOV? Stanselmdoc 00:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The nature of a wiki is that newcomers might repeat stuff and/or new info might come to light, this isn't a puzzle to complete and frame. Mr.grantevans2 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, in theory that's why we have archives, but apparently no one reads them before commenting. --Haemo 02:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Routinely here comes people who read the article and find it is not NPOV trying to discuss the matter in this page. They get some responses from different user saying it is NPOV and that this is the consensus. So the complaining person either:

1) try to discuss/edit the page experiencing stonewalling, reverts and eventually a block and then goes away or

2) immediately goes away.

On the other hand we have the "defenders" of the article that are more or less always the same and seem to have a lot of time to spend here. This is why the article is like it is. If the many people who have different ideas about the concept of NPOV and that routinely come here would have had the same constant presence and monitoring of the article without getting frustrated by the sonewalling the situation could have been different.--Pokipsy76 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who come to complain that the article is NPOV never produce any resources to back up their assertions that there are "plenty of reliable sources that don't support the official version"; they don't provide links to these polls that show people don't believe the "official version" (except Damberger and that poll question was shown above to be a combination-either/or question); they don't usually don't provide possible rewrites here on the talk page that can be discussed; they don't read the archives; they wikilawyer over small print; they are not here to improve the encyclopedia but to make a point; and they usually aren't willing to support their points without being rude, accusatory and argumentative. Does that sound frustrating to you? It is to me. I don't work for any US agency. The article is the way it is because it is supported by the sources. The article is NPOV because of the sources. --PTR 16:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are generalizing a little bit too much? It is interesting to observe that when some of the user that find some paragraph not NPOV do behave in the correct way discussing the subject and suggesting specific rewrites they find no collaboration or even consideration (see for example the sections "exceptional claim" and "this paragraph has some problems"). This apparentely suggest that the people here are not really interested in NPOV issues.--Pokipsy76 16:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of those sections received responses and discussion on the second section is ongoing as of yesterday. Is there a rewrite of that paragraph that you would like to propose? Have you looked for sources? --PTR 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pokipsy76. Generalization is a faulty approach to most all situations, I think. I'm trying to completely stop using the words "always" and "never" and replace them with "likely" and "not likely". Perhaps an inherent nature of this venue is that the more experienced and persistent participants can and usually do carry the discussion points largely by their presence and persistence. There are also many quite helpful veterans who quite sincerely seek out a consensus based upon open-minded analysis (Haemo as an example) but the forceful rhetoric of self-appointed majority spokespeople often chases away observations which might have been useful in improving the article. I think assume good faith is the key to the whole thing and I am annoyed every time I read anyone questioning another's motives or right to present an opinion. The contributing problem is that some of us are hard wired to think competitively in any venue; at least I know I am. Mr.grantevans2 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Generalizing is a faulty approach and I apoligize to grantevans2 and pokipsy76. I'm blaming it on a bad mood. I am also annoyed when I read anyone questioning another's motives or right to present an opinion.

Editing while in a bad mood is a bad idea to begin with. --Tarage 20:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have compiled some websites that verify the claims that I have made and will shed some light on the subject. Clearly there is no consensus on the official story and the wikipedia article needs to be drastically revised.

I have Bachelors and Masters Degrees both from Ivy League Schools in Applied Mathematics. I have experience at Army Defense Contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. I am well read in many fields and a critical thinker analyzing what the mainstream media says before believing it.

Please stop discrediting me as I have valid points and contributions to make.

While it is nice that you claim to have such an extensive education, that has nothing to do with anything here. The wounderful thing about Wikipedia is that everyone, reguardless of their education and experences, can be productive here. Origional research, however, is not helpful. Keep that in mind. --Tarage 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Polls 31% of Americans do not accept the official explanation for September 11th CNSNEWS More then 33% of Americans suspect foul play 16% of Americans speculate that explosives caused the twin towers collapse. ScrippsNews 67% of Americans fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of WTC7. 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks. Zogby

CIA and FBI Editing Wikipedia BBC News Reuters

9/11 "Conspiracy Theorists" This Website lists hundreds of Senior Military/Gov Officers, Professors, Engineers, Family Members, and Media Professionals that don't believe the official story. PatriotsQuestion911

Here is an example: Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.

Article 7/10/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said."

JohnDavis2 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make a suggestion as what you think needs to be revised. We already have a whole article about the conspiracy theories. This article is about the official account. While the Zogby poll data is interesting, it still shows a majority of people still believe the official accounts. Also, that is a poll of Americans only, while this happened in America, it affected the whole world. Wikipedia is supposed to be international; what do the citizens of other nations think? Not to mention the fact that we are using what the majority of sources say. The majority of governments, media outlets, and the UN agree with the official story. Furthermore, your credentials are irrelevant, what matters here are sources and consensus. Also, please stop this FBI/CIA are controlling Wikipedia crap. We already know that people in the FBI and the CIA have edited Wikipedia articles; they are not controlling the articles and by trying to get this article changed you are not fighting against the government, you are dealing with regular people. By bringing it up multiple times, it just makes you look more like another conspiracy POV pusher instead of someone who is genuinely interested in improving the article. Mr.Z-man 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Track down and read the actual questions and results from your polls. "Hundreds" is still a fringe. This article was not mentioned in the article about the FBI and CIA editing. --PTR 18:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also strongly advice you against making any further allegations that other users are government agents, or what have you. It's grossly incivil. Also, this brief summary of the previous discussions might help you out. --Haemo 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

16%? Try again. It's now 4.6%, according to a recent Zogby poll commissioned by 911truth.org. [5] The other numbers in the poll don't look promising for "the truth" either, even with the poll worded in a way to positively spin things for the "truth" movement. Also, web traffic to popular sites like 911truth.org has been dropping sharply, compared to 2006. [6] (look at the 3-year graph) Though, there will always be new people who come along. In this article, we have devoted more than enough space to the theories. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we need not change anything else in the article to give more weight to theories. The article needs to be based on reliable sources as currently listed in the references section. Anything else changed in the article needs to adhere to WP:RS and other policies. --Aude (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I really do not see the relevance of the traffic of 911truth.org lowering in the last year in discussing this article.--Pokipsy76 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The smaller interest in conspiracy theories, as indicated by polls and other measures, means less reason to give any added weight to them in the article. If anything, the section on conspiracy theories is too large. Though, I'm willing to accept the article, as-is, with the current paragraph about conspiracy theories. --Aude (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm still waiting for my check from the CIA! --Aude (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So am I. You would think with all the hard propaganda I'm spewing into this article to keep it POVed, I'd be rich. But that's government for ya. --Tarage 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whew, I thought I'd get in trouble for double-dipping, but with the CIA slacking, I really need the stipend the International Jewish Conspiracy sends me every month. --Golbez 20:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys need to switch to the FBI. Er... on second thought, I haven't gotten my check from them either. --PTR 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Polls refers to American people, wikipedia is not intended to be representative of American culture. If - as you seem to suggest - the space in the aticle for a theory should have a weight proportional on the popularity of the view between the pupulation you should have dedicated about a half to the "official aoocount".--Pokipsy76 07:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You left out some of the most prominent members of Patriotsquestion911. General Wesley Clark is notable but more tellingly, the chairman of the 9/11 commission Thomas Kean, the vice chairman Lee Hamilton and 7 other board members are all members. Thomas Kean said that the 9/11 commission was "set up to fail" and was prevented from performing a proper investigation. They were also "denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials" to the extent that the commission contemplated laying criminal charges against officials for obstruction and deception. So we see that "virtually all" of the 9/11 commission that is supposed to debunk the conspiracy theories actually supports them. As for the article concentrating on what Americans believe, that is neccessary to keep the conspiracy theories a "fringe" view as such theories are a majority view in most other countries. However this doesn't mean they should get more space allocated in this article but it does mean that what is allocated should be more nuetral than it is now. Wayne 09:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the archive and understand that this topic has been discussed many times. However, it has not been resolved correctly, which is why I have started this conversation and am continuing it.

It has not been resolved correctly, or it has not been resolved in a manner that lets you get your way. I think the latter. Enough of this. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The attacks on September 11th were and continue to be an UNSOLVED MYSTERY. As such the article should be written accordingly. Let's take for example the Wikipedia page entitled "John F. Kennedy assassination" the introductory paragraph is written very well and complies with the NPOV tutorial. Read how it talks about who killed JFK and why it is believed he killed JFK. This should be the same for September 11th!!!

Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, an employee of the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza, according to the conclusions of multiple government investigations, including the ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963-4 and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) of 1976-9. This conclusion initially met with widespread support among the American public, but polls, since the original 1966 Gallup poll, show a majority of the public hold beliefs contrary to these findings.[1][2] The assassination is still the subject of widespread speculation and has spawned numerous conspiracy theories (even the HSCA, based on disputed acoustical evidence, concluded that Oswald may have had unspecified co-conspirators), though these theories have not generally been accepted by mainstream historians and no single compelling alternative theory has emerged.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories myself, however I have a very hard time believing the US Governement in its explanation of September 11th. Also, I don't understand why the executive branch would not allow an independant investigation. Why wasn't there any explanation made for the WT7 collapse and why wasn't the entire video footage of the "airplane" that hit the pentagon been released?

Maybe there wasn't a video to be found? Are you aware of the costs that would be required to keep cameras running to look at every possible terrorist target 24/7? I don't, but I know I don't want to pay for it just so conspiricy theorists can have one less thing to theorize about. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be cleared up that the videos of Osama Bin Laden are most likely not authentic. Besides the obvious, that his messages are increasingly political and counter Bush bringing us back Bush's infamous quote, "Your either with us or with the terrorists". Bin Laden was allegedly visited by a CIA agent months before September 11th at a US hospital in Dubai. A quote from the Le Figaro article translated to English,

describing a serious medical problem that could put his life in danger because of "a kidney infection that is propagating itself to the liver and requires specialized treatment". According to authorized sources, bin Laden had mobile dialysis equipment LeFigaro

UnitedPress Guardian I find it hard to believe that he has been surviving in the caves of Afganistan with sever kidney and liver problems. It's also surprising that in the most recent video he looks much healthier then 6 years ago. Not to mention his apparent "reverse aging" with the beard no longer being grey. Reuters

Finally, according to reliable sources many of the the 911 hijackers are still alive. BBC They have not been removed from the US no-fly list. BBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDavis2 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because we haven't learned *anything* more about Sept 11 in the 5 years and 51 weeks since the BBC published that. --Golbez 16:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This page should be revised and I am asking for all of the editors to take part in this large scale effort. I will begin to revise the article first here in the discussion to get your input. I will submit a new introductory paragraph shortly, please be patient.

JohnDavis2 15:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And we editors are saying no to you. Consensus has been reached. Stop trying to restate the same arguments over and over again. You are not going to get your way if you continue to throw these temper tantrums. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Except, with the JFK assassination, no one saw Oswald or whoever on the grassy knoll fire the shot. With 9/11, plenty of people did see planes crashing into buildings. The health of bin Laden is irrelevant. Whether he planned the attacks from a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan or a hospital in Dubai, anything trying to relate his health to the planning and execution of the attacks would be original research, which is not allowed. Notice also "CIA agent alleged to have met Bin Laden" - we should not be giving much weight to allegations. And again, we can't be sure if the CIA met with him or if he was actually at the hospital (as the hospital denied it) so we can't make a direct connection or any fact-based connection at all to 9/11 without an improper synthesis of facts. With all due respect, I don't care what you "find it hard to believe." We should not let our own opinions and speculation creep into how we present facts. We can only present facts as other sources have presented them. Even if the conspiracy theories that say the twin towers were destroyed by space lasers are true, if the vast majority of the mainstream sources and most governments believe the official story, this article should be about the official story.

Also, in reference to your BBC link about the Hijackers still being alive, that story was posted just a couple weeks after the attacks and IMO is the worst piece of reporting I've ever seen from the BBC. It just vaguely references journalists, press releases, Arab news sources, and even "suggestions". In a later story, linked to from an editors' blog post, they clarify their position: "There is some doubt about four of the people named as some of the hijackers may have been travelling on false documents." (emphasis added) As to the other article about the no-fly list, did you even read it? It says it was "compiled hastily" - even Saddam Hussein was on it after he was in custody. Not to mention the fact that that article was written almost a year ago. Mr.Z-man 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I will begin to revise the article first here in the discussion to get your input. I will submit a new introductory paragraph shortly, please be patient. I can almost garentee you that whatever you come up with will be rejected. This is not an issue of POV pushing, you have simply refused to listen to any of what we have had to say. You continue to push your ideology over and over again, when consensus has already been reached. You can cry, you can scream, you can call us CIA/FBI workers(which I have yet to see ANY form of appology from you about), but that doesn't change the fact that any edits you attempt to make to push your POV will break consensus. I will say this one more time; let it go. --Tarage 23:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

drivers license of highjackers

There was something in the news shortly after the 911 attack that some of the highjackers had gotten drivers licences from a state license branch. A woman employee of that state license branch was murdered in the branch parking lot shortly after 911. Nothing is mentioned in this article about that dead end link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.163.55 (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two of the hijackers got their licences legally and the others after presenting legal documents obtained using false information, so it had nothing to do with the DMV who acted properly in issuing them. It's possible the woman was murdered by idiots blaming her for issuing them or it was for non 9/11 reasons. Either way there is no need for a mention in the article. Wayne 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

More Background?

After reading the section above on drivers' licenses I realized there is little info in this article on the events and preparations preceding the attack. The first item is

1. 1 The attacks

I see that in the attack on Pearl Harbor article we have quite a bit of background:

1. 1 Background to conflict

• 1.1 War

1. 2 Prelude to battle

• 2.1 Intelligence
• 2.2 Planning

1. 3 The strike force
2. 4 United States' preparedness
3. 5 Breaking off negotiations
4. 6 Attack

Perhaps we should consider doing more in that area regarding the 9/11 attack? Mr.grantevans2 22:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have Planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks. With Pearl Harbor, there are plenty of historical books written about the planning, probably because the Japanese had plenty of records and there were plenty of people after the war who may have talked to historians. With Al-Qaeda though, I doubt there is as much primary source material available to historians and therefore less secondary source material available to us. Perhaps we could have a summary section in "Responsibility"? Mr.Z-man 23:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

oh,ok, thank you. Mr.grantevans2 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and minority POV

I agree that the "conspiracy theories" are minority view. I would also point out that generic skepticism on the official account is a view that is more common than the belief in a specific theory. So in order to do the due weight why do we dedicate a paragraph to "conspiracy theories" (fringe minority views) instead of dedicating it to "Skepticism on the official account" (slightly more common view than the previous one)?--Pokipsy76 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The term "conspiracy theories" is so loaded with crack-pot, anti-government and UFO association that it should be used much less often and with much better applicability."Skepticism of the official account" might be improved upon but is already much better than the trite and grammatically inaccurate "conspiracy theories" tag. Mr.grantevans2 12:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is a case of 'call 'em like you see 'em'. Then again, thats just me... --Tarage 13:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify: I'm not saying "let's call the conspiracy theories with another name", I'm just saying to dedicate the space actually devoted to the "conspiracy theories" to present the less controversial "skeptic point of view".--Pokipsy76 13:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. You want to replace the conspiracy theory section with a section called "skeptic point of view" and not mention the conspiracy theories on the page? Do we have sources for the skeptic point of view? Could you write up what you want to change here so we have a point to discuss from? --PTR 14:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that last statement by Pokipsy76 does make sense to me. There is too much WP:WEIGHT in this article about the conspiracy theories, and not enough about general dissatisfaction with the official reports. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to avoid speaking about "theories" and just mention people questioning the official account and asking for deeper investigations.--Pokipsy76 15:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to expand on conspiracy theories. This article is an account of what happened, not what some people think happened. The article is well referenced and is an accurate accord of the events. The conspiracy theories are well addressed in other articles.--MONGO 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately culprits of the attacks on September 11 remain a mystery to this day. The official explanation has not been independently investigated and the US Government is withholding crucial information. The wikipedia article needs to be changed to reflect this reality. I will begin this effort shortly. Please also read my comments above in the "Adjustments for Neutrality Purposes" topic. I will rewrite the introductory paragraph within the next few days. Thank you for your patience.JohnDavis2 16:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only a mystery to those who don't want to read the factual evidence.--MONGO 16:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that all the evidence is not available to the general public. There are many unanswered questions that have been avoided by the administration. Factual evidence is not something that is read, it is something that is found during investigations that have not taken place. It's a sad reality that relatives of September 11th victims are forced to put intense pressure on the US Government for an investigation. The era of "innocent until proven guilty" has been amended with a racial motivated and politically driven caveat creating, "innocent until proven guilty unless you’re Muslim" JohnDavis2 16:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Origional Research is not allowed here. Unless you can back up what you claim with factual reports(and numerous ones, concidering how many point against you), then your points will be rejected. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to understand. Please stop making incendiary claims like "innocent until proven guilty unless you’re Muslim". They do nothing but make people more upset. --Tarage 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read what I said above you can see that I'm not suggesting to "expand" anything, I am suggesting to avoid speaking about somethings (theories) to speak about something else (people questioning) that deserve more "weight".--Pokipsy76 17:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The title of the other article is "9/11 Conspiracy theories". If you want to get the title of our section, in line with summary style changed, I suggest you get the other article's title changed first. --Haemo 20:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that there is an article with that title but I can't see how it is relevant in connection to my suggestion. I am not just suggesting to change the title of the section, I am suggesting to change the subject of the section to give the due weight to views that are more common than these "theories".--Pokipsy76 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not in line with the summary style. Our section here is supposed to be an upper-level summary of the given sub-article. Unless the sub-article changes, and that includes the title, our section should not change. Upper-level articles are not changed first; sub-articles are. If you think our section needs to details some nebulous division between "alternative theories" and "conspiracy theories", then it needs to be treated on the sub-article first. --Haemo 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"Factual evidence is not something that is read, it is something that is found during investigations that have not taken place." - Do you work for the FBI/CIA/NSA/MI5/MI6, etc.? How do you know what evidence they have and do not have? If they say they have evidence to support X, and X is reported in secondary sources (the news), we include X in our article. We don't say: "According to the FBI and the news, X happened, but we have not been able to independently verify X due to a lack of publicly available evidence." "the US Government is withholding crucial information" - And they're withholding information on the construction of thermonuclear weapons too, does that mean we should amend our articles about them as well? Mr.Z-man 20:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then what we may be left with is a conundrum; an encyclopedia written by the Government and parroted by its lazy co-dependents(main stream media) who crave and need access. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; just that it may be reality. Mr.grantevans2 22:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If the government, the news, and other reliable sources aren't all lying to us, it isn't really a problem. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you acusing us of being either the government, or parrots FOR the government? Mr.grantevans2, I had more respect for you than that. I guess my judgement was missplaced in you. --Tarage 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not a government(like the USA) nor access-dependent main stream media (like CNN) but I think we rely heavily upon those sources which creates a conundrum when we profess NPOV. It's just a thought,that's all. In terms of Mr.'s comment, it's not necessarily a case of lying but rather conformity of "reliable source" reporting; e.g. The sinking of the Maine "While the cause of this great tragedy is still unsettled, contemporary American popular opinion blamed Spain, and war followed within a few months." Mr.grantevans2 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really believe there is nothing to question in this matter then you seriously have a problem. Even the official story is a conspiracy theory if we follow logical thinking. And since the official story has serious flaws I find it upsetting when people view it as the absolute truth. This entry is very much what people think happened, nothing more, nothing less. --Ingeborgsjon 05:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unless you can back up what you claim with factual reports". What’s the point? They are provided and ignored by POV editors. As said earlier. The chairman of the 911 commission said "The commission was set up to fail, were starved of the funds needed to do a proper investigation, denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials". The majority of the commission are now what you call conspiracy theorists and members of 911 truth organisations. That alone indicates there is more to what happened than what we were told.
"It is only a mystery to those who don't want to read the factual evidence". Maybe it wouldn't be such a mystery if factual evidence was actually supplied to the public. I have no problem with scepticism or even the blind acceptance without question of what the government tells you to think but an encyclopaedia is supposed to be neutral not a fan site. Maybe the official theory is true, but how will we ever find out when POV editors exclude whatever they don’t like by calling it consensus when that should only be used when there are no cites available, not used to overrule cites. Wayne 03:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we've crossed from "editing" to "discussion" at this point. If you're not going to suggest some actual changes to the article, complete with reliable sources then please don't use this page. General griping about the POV cabal which controls this page is neither productive, nor helpful. --Haemo 04:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"POV editors" eh...well, this article is well referenced by the known facts of the case. There is a lengthy article that examines the superstitions already and there is no reason to expand on such superstitions in this one.--MONGO 04:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we STILL arguing about this?! How many times do people have to say consensus has been reached before you stop the POV charade? You keep claiming that somehow there is this vast concpiricy to keep real information out of the public's hands. Fine. Lets for a minute pretend this is the case. Even if you claim to have a mountain of evidence being hidden by the government, unless you can PROVE it exists and SHOW US, then in the eyes of Wikipedia, it DOES NOT EXIST! I have ecidence that the moon is made of cheese, yet the government locked it away and refuses to show the public. Should I edit the moon article to say "there is a vast government conspiricy to keep people from the truth about cheese"? No. This is the exact same thing. True, more people believe that the official 9/11 report isn't completly accurate, but unless you can provide enough proof to override the mountains of evicence and factual reports supporting it, then in the eyes of Wikipedia it isn't worth anything. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. --Tarage 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there are people that say it is a problem to remove a section named "conspiracy theory" because there is an article with that name (and we apparently consider more important to follow the guideline on the summary rather than follow the policy about due weight... I find funny how people that wanted to ignore the guideline about the words to avoid now are so strict wit WP:SUMMARY). However there still is an issue about due weight: the views of people questioning the official account and asking for investigations is surely far more common than the view of people that believe in some specific "alternative theory", this is obvious also if we consider the that the second group is a subset of the first one. So why the more common views is not mentioned while the fringe minority one do have a subparagraph? If you are not willing to avoid speaking about these "conspiracy theories" you should at least be willing to devote an equal space to the views of people that are just skeptic and questioning (see WP:WEIGHT).--Pokipsy76 09:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone is really objecting to including a paragraph titled "Skepticism of the official account" which covers the skepticism without promoting other theories. Does anyone object to such an addition? Mr.grantevans2 11:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please write up a paragraph on this discussion page - with sources - of what you propose to add. There is no way for the other editors on the page to discuss what you have in mind until it is presented to them. --PTR 12:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment also implies that the term "conspiracy theories" is not the general term for so-called "alternative theories". As a number of the academic papers I posted above explain, this is distinctly not the case and therefore undue weight is not the operative issue here. --Haemo 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comments of 78.0.78.35 because they were malicious and harmfull to the editing process. --Tarage 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

None of the above rhetoric is at all relevant to this article, until and unless it is discussed or documented by a reliable source. No matter what sort of cover-up may be going on, wikipedia is not the place to set matters straight. Our job is to document the information that is verifiable. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pokipsy76 would perhaps be kind enough to write something up with areliable source (I think there are many) along the lines of "Skepticism of the official account". I think there is a continuing mis-understanding of Pokipsy76's simple,practical and logical suggestion as being equivalent to the issues of cover-up,conspiracy theories, pov cabals etc. I don't see those 3 issues as being relevant at all to the discussion of Pokipsy76's simple proposal but rather I see his proposal as being an attempt to move away from conflating conspiratorial claims with the well documented and reliable sources which show skepticism of the official account.Mr.grantevans2 14:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a POV cabal here, then there is no reason to continue debating, as your mind is already made up as to who we are. Reguardless, unless you can cite quite a number of verified sources, this is, once again, moot. --Tarage 15:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that, if there are enough sources, then there should be some mention somewhere of the skepticism of some Americans of the mainstream account. However, besides that Zogby poll sponsored by 911Truth.org, are there any sources for that? Why is devoting one section of a 113kb article to the conspiracy theories all of a sudden undue weight? The conspiracy theory article gives a whole section to the mainstream account. There are plenty of sources to document that the theories exist and that a significant number of people believe in some of them. Also, where is the line? At what point does a skeptic become a conspiracy theorist? I don't think the poll successfully answers that. Mr.Z-man 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - Conspiracy Theories

Various 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a significant number of people reject the mainstream account and believe there has been some kind of cover-up. Some conspiracy theorists have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda planned or carried out the attacks. These theories are not accepted as credible by many mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Corleonebrother 18:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems a little stilted, to me. I like this one better, though it needs some clean-up:

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks. More than a third of the American public suspects a 9-11 government conspiracy, although these theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Specifically, with respect to the references. But, I've got some academic sources above which might help. --Haemo 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The first proposal from Corleonebrother is perfect in my opinion, it includes all the points in the right way and is fluent to read. Granted, it still needs references, but that shouldn't be the problem. Ravain 22:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers from the Summer of 2006 are not current. The past tense should only be used with those. It's important to note how the numbers have changed. How there was a peak interest in the theories in 2006, but interest has been subsiding. This also mentions LIHOP and MIHOP theories.

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks. Some theories suggest that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them. Others theories suggest the government carried out the attacks. Belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories reached a height in the summer of 2006, with a 16 percent of Americans indicating belief in controlled demolition theories. Those theories have since been debunked, and a September 2007 Zogby poll found that only 4.6% believe the theory. These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

I have tried to incorporate these points in the above text. --Aude (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aude's is good, but it would be nicer if it incorporated some of the general "skepticism" from recent polls. Something like:

Opinion polls have suggested that up to a third of the American public are skeptical of the official account of the attacks. Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of, planned, or carried out the attacks. Some theories suggest that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them. Others theories suggest the government carried out or assisted Al-Qaeda with the attacks. Belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories reached a height in the summer of 2006, with a 16 percent of Americans indicating belief in controlled demolition theories. Those theories have since been debunked, and a September 2007 Zogby poll found that only 4.6% believe the theory. These theories are not accepted as credible by the majority of mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.

Its significantly longer, but it incorporates more of the skepticism. It could stand some cleanup for style/flow issues. Mr.Z-man 19:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like parts of this, but I tend to feels it's too detailed. The last line is perfect — I think it summarizes the situation well, without being too inclusive, or exclusive. However, the dichotomy raised in the types of theories is misleading, while the controlled demolition section is off-topic and too specific for my tastes. --Haemo 19:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of the polls could be left to the subarticle. It's simply problematic to mention the 2006 poll alone, (especially in the present tense) when the numbers have been changing. LIHOP/MIHOP is the typical terminology used by conspiracy theorists, but discussion of them can be left to the subarticle, I suppose. --Aude (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Zogby poll is a problem too. It was commissioned by 911truth.org, with wording to produce favorable results as possible. 4.6% is probably a high estimate, but not for us to say our own opinion here about that. --Aude (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Haemo - I agree with Aude about that statistic not being current. Aude - I think that's too much detail about the polls. Why not just link to the dedicated article so that the reader can see the trends in the polls for themselves? Corleonebrother 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm against using oppinion polls because they are almost always tilted to one POV or another. I'm against using statistics like "Over a third of people..." because, just like oppinion polls, these two can be corrupted. I would advise against using hard numbers and percentages. --Tarage 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the poll out of the article. Let's come to an agreement on what the section should say, but it's clear from the discussion here that it should not mention polls and specific numbers. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that polls about whether the facts are right or not seem silly. Opinions shouldn't trump the known evidence...and that is all polls are, opinions. When polls are requested by biased entities and worded to deliberately obtain the response they want, the entire poll results are tarnished anyway.--MONGO 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to have agreement that no specific polls or numbers should be mentioned. But the paragraph must somehow give a sense of the popularity of the skepticism and theories; I feel that an inline link to the 9/11 opinion polls article is the best way to do this and will be useful for readers, if they are interested. It is not for us to decide whether or not individual polls are "reliable" or "meaningful"; the dedicated article gives a wide range of polls with all the information necessary for the reader to decide for themselves whether they have any value. Corleonebrother 14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

5% is a large number equalling 15,000,000 people. So I wouldn't discredit it as being so small. Also, saying that the % dropped because those theories were "debunked" is an opinion. The % dropped most likely because the question was asked differently within the two polls. Finally, the last sentence serves only as a purpose to discredit alternative theories and should be removed.

JohnDavis2 14:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice that it does not say the percent dropped because the theories were debunked. It says the theories have been debunked, fewer people believe the theory. It does not explicitly give a reason. Saying "The % dropped most likely because the question was asked differently within the two polls." is an opinion too. And how does "These theories are not accepted as credible by the majority of mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda." serve to discredit conspiracy theories? This article is about the mainstream account, it would be undue weight and would make no sense if we put the mainstream account and the conspiracy theories on the same plane. Does anyone disagree with that? Does anyone believe that the mainstream media, governments and politicians, and scientists who believe the official account are in a minority of their respective group? Mr.Z-man 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the poll data readded to the article since we had not come to a consensus and it is an article synthesis of a poll and not the raw poll data with questions asked and percentages. I'm not sure if poll results are optional for this section but I'm flexible. The problem is that the data is whatever percentage of the 1010 people they were able to get to answer their questions. Other questions were part of a newspoll.org survey which, I think, is an online polling site. --PTR 17:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the love of pete, people, please don't edit war over this. It's getting a wee bit ridiculous. --Haemo 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed to leave it out it until we reached consensus on what it should say. Isn't that what the discussion page is for - to reach consensus before adding contested material to an article? --PTR 19:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. As it stands, we have no consensus. --Haemo 19:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've had to block someone for violating the three revert rule. Wonderful. --Haemo 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you didn't have to. 7 reverts in 52 hours, but never quite 4 in 24. (I decided to rephrase to match the actual article, rather than reverting it, this time, although I'm not really sure it belongs here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing something like 4 in 30 hours, which is pushing it especially given that they're been warned repeated against edit warring, and haven't engaged in discussion here. --Haemo 21:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be mentioned about skepticism. After all the smaller percentages are only the number of people who believe in "specific" conspiracy theories while more than 80% of the public do not believe the official theory in it's entirety. Wayne 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

80%?! Wow... nice twisting of polls. This is exactially why we should leave out all polling data. If you were to ask the public if the sky is blue, most would agree. However, the more specific variations you add to it, you will find that some think it is blue, other's teal, ect; to the point where no one actually believes the sky is blue. This feels a lot like this claimed 80%. Again, unless you can back it up with sources, preferably mainstream and easy to check exactially what questions were asked and how, then that poll is invalid here. --Tarage 08:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think we need to include poll numbers, but I've edited the page to take out inaccuracies and "current" poll numbers, which are actually outdated and over a year old. I suggest take out the poll entirely. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --PTR 15:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Anything is better than the fabled 80%. --Tarage 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok i finally managed to stumble over this discussion, sorry for causing a bit of a mess without looking properly.

Disagree, the section conspiracy theories is only needed, because there are a significant number of people "doubting the official account" or whatever, so this should get some mention, although polls of course aren't ever perfect and vary somewhat it still is relevant and interesting information.

Having read it, I vote for Corleonebrother's version. (That would have been a worthier text to revert to ;)) Ravain 22:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Define significant. Also, without refrence to how the polls were taken, what questions were used, where the polls were taken, who sponcered the polls, ect, they are meaningless numbers. This is why polls in an encyclopedia article are a bad idea. As mentioned above, Wayne believe 80% dissagree with the official story. Are you sugesting we put that number in the article? --Tarage 00:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

80% ??????? Gimme a break. I think things are already being pushed too far with infoboxes like this one. Wikipedia seems to be giving a great forum for these unverified claims. How nuts are all these people? Timneu22 01:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you try to be civil and stop calling people names just because they do not share your view of the world. I also find it offensive when you push obvious inaccuracies (ie:"unverified") to support your POV stance in replying to people.
I will point out where I got the 80% from. In a New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11. In case you spin that the poll wording skews the result here it is: "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth (16%), are mostly telling the truth but hiding something (28%), or are they mostly lying? (53%)" A CNN poll asking the same question found 89% think the government is hiding something or lying. Zogby was even higher. Obviously there is a lot of skepticism and while i dont feel polls should be included the article should indicate that skepticism is not a fringe idea. Just from reading the article it appears that skepticism is restricted to believing the government did 911 or thermite brought the towers down. The problem is that a few people here equate any skepticism at all with believing specific conspiracy theories which is not the case. Wayne 09:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive this page?

Isn't this getting a bit long? Timneu22 10:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I archived everything prior to Sept 12. --Haemo 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest users to mark their section with {{resolved}} when they think they've been addressed, or a consensus reached, so they can be archived. --Haemo 19:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Schools

The following has been removed from the article. This didn't really fit in the section, and lacked references.

In the suburbs around New York City many schools closed for the day, were evacuated, or were locked down. Other school districts shielded students from watching television because many of their parents held jobs in the World Trade Center towers. In New Jersey and Connecticut, private schools were evacuated. Children in Maryland schools, those nearest to DC, were sent home. In Montgomery County, Maryland schools were let out early and closed the following day. Scarsdale, New York schools closed for the day. Greenwich, Connecticut, about 20 miles (32 km) north of the city, had hundreds of school children with direct ties to victims of the attacks. Greenwich and nearby New Canaan, two of the wealthiest towns in the area along with neighboring Darien, had more residents killed, as a percentage of total population, than any other Connecticut town.

Now, I'm not sure which subarticle to put this in, if any. I don't think it fits anywhere. Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like the most likely place for it. However, I'm not really sure it fits there, either, as that section focuses on the psychological effects on children. Until someone finds sources I'm not sure that that section should go anywhere. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Too specific anyways, as all schools across the country closed down for at least the day. KyuuA4 17:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was in high school at the time, and we didn't close. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Many schools across the country did close. I was at Western Illinois that day, and all classes were canceled. Point is, school closing on that day wasn't limited to the New York metro area. KyuuA4 21:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose I was nitpicking a little bit. I think, at this point, it's agreed upon that the section should just be inserted anywhere in any article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Article lead

Hi. I'd like to ask a question about the article lead. Compared with other articles of a similar nature, I'm struck by how little of the article's subject matter is mentioned in the lead. Article leads are intended, as I understand it, to provide a concise summary of the main points of the article. Looking through the material which follows, there are significant subjects which are not mentioned at all in the lead. Do others agree, and if so, would you be happy if I amended the lead in an attempt to address this? SP-KP 18:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a re-write of the lead here, but be aware it's entrenched soil, so you'll need lots of discussion before moving forward. Also note that the body of the article is currently in something of a state of flux, so it might be more productive to focus on sub-sections first. --Haemo 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that advice. Perhaps if I start by stating which subjects I feel are missing and then if we can get a consensus around those, we can take things from there? SP-KP 18:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, here goes. I thought the simplest way of doing this was to produce an analysis section-by-section.

Reflected well

• 1 The attacks

Not reflected

• 2 Responsibility
• 3 Reactions
• 4 U.S. Government response
• 5 Long-term effects
• 6 Memorials

Not applicable to the lead (in my view)

• 7 Media
• 8 See also
• 9 References
• 10 Books
• 11 External links

SP-KP 17:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The 19 Hijackers

Media (BBC) reported long ago that several of the alleged hijackers are alive so I'm wondering why this entry still claim that there were 19 hijackers? The mention of the 19 hijackers should at least be removed from the top of the entry since it isn't verified information. The mention of the 19 hijackers should be mentioned further down along with the different sources. I think it is better to just use the word hijackers since it's not verfiable that there were 19 of them --Ingeborgsjon 06:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We just went over this not a few weeks ago. Consensus was reached, and the status of the 19 terrorists will probably not be able to be questioned for quite some time. Please read the archives before repeating claims that have already been dealt with. --Tarage 08:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm new to wikipedia as a contributor although I've been using it as a source of information for several years. But without having read all the rules I have to say that either the rules are poor or you have made a poor decision on this matter. I've a long experience in argumentation and philosophy and I find it astonishing that you keep the number 19 as an absolute truth although there are credible sources that claim this number to be false. I don't really care what the rules are at this point because it is very unscientific and biased to keep the entry in the form it is in today. I will of course read all the rules as soon as I've got some time over. But right now I'm in a bit of a hurry. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oudated information such as the BBC link above you provided have long since been readjusted wiht new information. The fact that there were 19 terrorists who hijacked the planes is no longer disputed by any credible source.--MONGO 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are you in a hurry to edit this article to fit your views? If anything, you should realize that trying to get consensus from people is not a quick and easy task. Even if you came here with... 10 sources to back up what you claim, they would have to go under peer review from the people here, and most likely 10 sources pointing out contrary beliefs to yours would be found, and the process would continue. Do not edit on Wikipedia if you want fast change; it doesn't happen that way. --Tarage 15:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So your argument is that since 1 BBC article (from 6 years ago) and probably a few conspiracy websites say that some of the hijackers are still alive, every other source that says different is wrong? Mr.Z-man 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The only way for conspiracy theories to remain conspiracy theorists is not merely to think their story happened; they have to willingly ignore the volumes of contrary evidence. --Golbez 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, they also have to believe that everyone who argues contriary to their views are either 'in on it', or so blinded to the truth, they are nothing more than sheep. --Tarage 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Official story criticism

The official story has many flaws and believe that the current entry is trying to avoid to mention that by moving all of that to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. The fact that even the official story is a conspiracy theory doesn't seem to bother anyone. The word conspiracy has a bad reputation because it has been miss used by many. The entry is very biased as it is today. --Ingeborgsjon 06:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the archives of the talk page before questioning this article further. Dispite your persional POV, consensus for the majority of this article has been reached, so it will most likely stay in this form. Please concider this before you post again. --Tarage 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said above I've not had the time to adjust to the rules. Although I actually read alot in the archives before posting both these issues. Still I believe wikipedia has a major problem when it puts the US government as a more credible source than the laws of physics. I know there isn't up to the wikipedia to draw conclusions but as it is right now you are lifting the official theory above all other theories. This is very against free, open and critical thinking. --Ingeborgsjon 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for origional research. Wikipedia is a consensus of the majority without trampling on the minority. As things stand now, this article complies with both of the above. Reguardless of how you persionally feel about the issue, the majority of Wikipedians, as well as the majority of people total, support the notion that on 9/11, four planes were hijacked by terrorists and three were flown into buildings. Unless you can provide well sourced information to the contrary(not that 9/11 didn't happen the way we have it now, but that the majority do not support the current wording), then it will stay this way. Try to understand. --Tarage 15:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong references

At the end of the "conspiracy theories" section we have these references:

• Bazant, Zdenek P., Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson. "Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?". Journal of Engineering Mechanics. in press.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. (March 2007) "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, 133(3), p. 308-319. On page 309, Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).

• Appendix L of the interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, June 2004.

• WTC 7 Technical Approach and Status Summary and updates, Therese McAllister, National Institute of Standards and Technology, December 12, 2006.

to support the claim "These theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda".

But the references are not connected to the claim (as explained also in other part of this page they are all related to the controlled demolition theory, not to conspiracy theories in general) so I suggest to remove them... Do anyone disagree?--Pokipsy76 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The references relate to the claim. The claim may need to be reworded, since it implies that the group who do not accept the conspiracy theories are the same group that assign responsibility to al-Qaida. Common sense suggests that the engineers cited in the sources are part of the former group, but not the latter. But that does not mean that the sources should be removed. Far from it. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggested a number of academic sources above which would be more appropriate. I'm honestly not sure why we're sourcing it at all, given that it's a summary of a sub-article. --Haemo 22:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are speaking about the books on "conspiracy theories" by psychologists you mentioned some times ago I already explained why they are not related to the claim:

These books cannot support the wording "most all mainstream scientists and journalists" unless they cite some kind of scientific poll about the opinions of scientist and journalists on 911 and give a percentage that can be interpreted as "most". If this thesis is just asserted by the authors of the books and not proved then it does not count as a source for the claim *as a fact*, but only as an opinion of authors who have not a special authority on the matter.--Pokipsy76 13:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The references are not related to the claim for a very trivial reason: the claim could be false even if we accept the references as valid. The references just suggest that structural ingeneers concluded that the WTC did collapse by the fire. This has no relation to the belief in Al Quaeda responsability and no relation to the "mainstream journaluist and scientist"'s belief in general.--Pokipsy76 13:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're agreeing with what I said. The sentence needs to be split into two claims: one that says the theories are not accepted as credible by most mainstream journalists and scientists (the sources back that up), and a second sentence that says journalists and political leaders have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda. Maybe we need sources for that, but (as Haemo pointed out) this section is a summary of another article, and criticism of it should be based on whether or not it adheres to WP:SUMMARY - in other words, whether it provides a concise and neutral summary of the 911CT article. Whether it does or not, I can't see why we would want to remove sources from the article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Here I am not discussing the wording of the section, I am just discussing the references that are not appropriate to the text.--Pokipsy76 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing all the references, provided we ensure that the section remains a concise summary of the main 911CT article. I'm a bit concerned that editors may assume that it's okay to add unsourced material (or make other unsources edits) to that paragraph. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)