Talk:September 11 attacks

A Good Revision To Include In The First Paragraph

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

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

Good article reassessment

See Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1

Taking over control of the aircraft

It would be useful for the article to provide more detail in this area ... " ... the hijackers used weapons to stab and kill aircraft pilots ...": what were these weapons: the box-cutters that have often been mentioned? Does "aircraft pilots" refer to the full flight crew (pilot + co-pilot + engineer if applicable) of all the affected flights? How long did the killings take? How long did it take for the dead crew to be removed from their seats so that the hijackers could occupy those seats (if that's what happened) and during this time how were communications from the aircraft to Air Traffic Control affected? Did any of the pilots have time to send emergency signals to ATC before being killed?

Much of this is covered in as much detail as sources can provide, at each of the 4 flights' articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. As far we know, the only mentions of boxcutters being wielded by the "terrorists" were from phone conversations of CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, then Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 which is reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, and Mr. Olson claimed that he had two conversations with his wife after the airplane had been hijacked. It is not clear whether Mr. Olson claimed those conversations were made with Mrs. Olson's cell phone or with an on-board seat-phone because his story changed a few times on that matter.

At the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006, the FBI did confirm that not two but a single phone call was made from Mrs. Olson to her husband; they also stated that the duration of that call was 0 (zero) second. The mainstream media (aka Reliable Sources) never picked up on this oddity. At any rate, the only mention of boxcutters on 9/11 was what Ted Olson said he heard from his wife on that fateful day. No other phone call from any other passenger ever mentioned the now world-famous boxcutters.

As a WP:RS, I offer an image extracted from the official FBI documentation tabled at the Moussaoui trial and which shows that Barbara Olson made a single call at 9:18:58 to someone (presumably her husband) at the Department of Justice and that this call lasted 0 seconds: http://i52.tinypic.com/331zyoz.png).

I know, I know, YouTube videos are frowned upon by Wikipedia for some reason or other but I respectfully submit that anyone interested in this matter should at least take a glance at this interview that the CBC's Fifth Estate public affairs program did with Dr. David Ray Griffin on this very subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA. The CBC is a crown corporation of the Government of Canada and should be considered a Reliable Source, I should think. Oclupak (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview would only be a source for Mr. Griffin's opinion on the topic. If the video is usable (e.g. no copyright violations), it is so only in the article on 911 conspiracy theories. 77.10.186.8 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as much detail as sources can provide. Obviously we'll never know everything, but the phone calls and in the case of United 93, the black boxes, provide the details that were reported by Reliable sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Last warning. Wikipedia is not a forum. "Anyone interested in this matter" doesn't belong here. Stop using this talk page as a forum. Next time I'll report you to the admin notice board. --Tarage (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, if this discussion does indeed result in a change to the article, It shouldn't belong here, because, well, the sources aren't reliable enough, and besides, it doesn't really merit being on this page does it. MikeLynch (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I only became awed when User:Oclupak made sure to put the "Dr." in front of the name "David Ray Griffin"...that must mean this Griffin guy is a real expert that we must all listen to.--MONGO 07:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Official version"

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

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

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

Fixed "bombings" issue.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removal of content sourced to the Washington Post and TIME magazine

MONGO (talk · contribs) has removed content based on articles published by the Washington Post and TIME magazine. The editor argues that these articles are "4 years old" and that they would be op-ed pieces.

Both articles are not opinion pieces, and the Washington Post article is written by a staff member of the newspaper. Also, there are many sources in the article that are more than four years old.

MONGO wants to describe all people who disagree with the account of the events given by the U.S. government as "conspiracy theorists". However, reliable sources have generally used the term "conspiracy theorist" for people who propagate the theories, not for the people who simply believe in them (a larger percentage of the population, according to the opionion polls cited by the Washington Post and TIME magazine. No source for this use of "conspiracy theorists" has been provided.

Maybe the best way to move forward now is to restore the article to the status quo ante, i.e. to the version before MONGO's edits, and to continue the discussion (including on the issues discussed in the section above) in order to reach a consensus on how to improve the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a question...can you explain this? There is no "status quo ante" on this website...--MONGO 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you how, in your view, this edit is related to this discussion. The edit maybe was not perfect, as it included, in addition to several reliable sources, a primary source. While there is no overall "status quo ante" of the article, there is a version of the article that existed before the current discussion took place, and I think it's best the restore this version as a first step, and to continue building consensus on the talk page.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Tracking contributions...do it all the time...I'm good at it. See WP:NOT...Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox for propaganda...especially fringe views and those promoting non-science over science. Both pieces are op-eds...they add nothing to the article except the "loud whisper" that not everyone believes in the facts of the case...some simply have to rely on fantasies.--MONGO 07:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a "widespread belief" (Washington Post) that the Bush administration was somehow complicit in the attacks, and multiple reliable sources have reported on that fact, then this information is notable. That does not depend on whether such a belief is right or wrong. As an aside, I would suggest that you spend more time improving Wikipedia articles rather than tracking the contributions of other users.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think that this paragraph belongs in this article. I very much doubt whether any serious academic work about 9/11 would also include fringe viewpoints. I say remove it entirely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not the article for the conspiracy theories, Se FAQ #3 above as to why.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3 above reads "Should the article provide evidence supporting a conspiracy?" This discussion, however, is not about whether the article should provide any such evidence. It is about whether the information, reported on by multiple reliable sources, that there is "widespread belief" that the official account is inaccurate, should be included in the article. While this is not the article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, neither is it the article about U.S. policy changes after 2001, about the biographies of the hijackers, or about the memorials. However, all these things, including the existence of the conspiracy theories, are closely related to the actual event, and therefore, they are included in the article, usually with a link to the respective sub-article.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned in a recent post that this article needs a lot of trimming to get back to the core of the issue, namely the event itself...just haven't yet decided how or what should be reduced or eliminated.--MONGO 15:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracies, non-conspiracies and FAQ 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Conflict of interest

Significant content edits have been performed by an editor who, by their own statement, was a past and possibly present employee of the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS).(ref). This is about as severe a conflict of interest as it gets for an editor working on a 9/11 article, as the USDHS owes its existence to the 9/11 incident, and its continued existence may be in part dependent upon the American citizenry continuing to believe in or accept the official story. I respectfully request that this editor (MONGO) recuse him or herself from any further editing on 9/11 articles which exceeds correcting non-controversial typographical errors. I have restored the September 11 attacks article to its condition prior to these controversial edits; editors without a conflict of interest are welcome to make edits as they deem appropriate. Wildbear (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that one.--MONGO 02:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What policy or guideline does Wilbear offer, to back up his/her request?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

None...he just wanted to insult me. People have tried for years to get me off the 9/11 pages and they have all failed...in fact, most have been banned...some have returned and been rebanned....some may yet be banned...who knows.--MONGO 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When did this turn to a forum? Please stick to the topic at hand. If Wildbear thinks there is a conflict of interest, then he is eligible to raise issues. I urge my fellow editors to be civil. MikeLynch (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with a specific editor, take it up on that editor's talk page. We don't need witch hunts on this talk page. --Tarage (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

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

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

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

Suggestions for external multimedia links

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

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

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

External links

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

9/11 attacks harm First Amendment

9/11 attacks harm first amendment.

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

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

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

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

Info regarding construction at The Pentagon

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

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

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

A CNN article said the same thing. So 2 sources say Spring of '03. [4] Flightx52 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Ground Zero"

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

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

Ground Zero: noun

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

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

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

Another anti-terrorist measure?

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

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

anniversary reactions

I just readded the section (although maybe it could be a subsection of "memorials") because this edit [5] says it is misplaced and already included in memorials, but the info is not included in the "memorials" section which just mentions permanent standing memorials not the activities that go on on said day every year.

This edit [6] says "too much recentism" which may hold water for the obama/biden thing, but the 2010 reactions were certainly notable in its cotnroversy generated around the world (as in the requisite article created).Lihaas (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Death toll

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the most official figure we can obtain is from the official 9/11 commission report executive summary here. I don't know if the official figures may have changed since the time this report was issued. It states "More than 2,600 people died at the World Trade Center; 125 died at the Pentagon; 256 died on the four planes." So where we write "Nearly 3000 victims" we should cite this using [7]. Of course there must also be a figure for the number of confirmed deaths as this will be those people who's names were read out during the remembrance service, there must be a source that provides this but I haven't managed to find it as of yet. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Can you please comment on the content and not me.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) The sources were dubious, see Cs32en's comments above. (2) The figures are inconsistent with other sources in which it is impossible to provide a precise figure, see [8]. I agree with Cs32en that it is safer to say approximately 3000 victims were killed as a result of the attacks and if possible provide actual official number of known dead backed up by a reliable source. 3) I think that if anyone directly affected by 9/11 read your last statement they would be severely upset by your use of the word respect and in any case that is clearly clearly your personal POV. Jdrewitt (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Actually WP:NPOV states that, and I quote: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. This is one of wikipedias three core policies, and should not be taken lightly, no matter how much we agree or do not agree with the mode and method of the other side.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section break

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

Films

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

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

• v1 911 Loose Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

possible interpretation as subtle POV, possible fix

In the introduction:

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

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

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

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