Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Remember that article talk pages are only there to coordinate the article's improvement, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake. Please do not use them as a discussion forum.

---

Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The archives of the discussion of the September 11, 2001 attacks article may be found here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,

23

Serious administrator abuse

I just began reviewing this page recently and find some serious abuses of Wikipedia policies. First, the discussion page (from the significant portion I've read) indicates very much dissent from the supposed consensus about the article. I see in the history moments where edits are made and then quickly reverted with the claim that a consensus has been built. Then I look at the discussion history and there's clearly no consensus.

I also do not see much in the history that would justify the extreme measures taken to lock this article down. When compared to other articles there is really not that much vandalism or edit wars at the times when it's unlocked. Sure these disputes happen, but they happen everywhere on other articles and those articles routinely move out of protected status.

Rather here it appears that a few editors have parked themselves on these pages and try to keep others away from editing. I even see evidence of administrators abusing their privileges. For example, there is an edit by JoshuaZ to remove comments from the discussion page that contain no personal attack, but rather expressed the frustration I can see many editors are experiencing with these abuses. Please understand that the Wiki concept can't work this way. It has proven itself elsewhere, but this article is not working as intended. If these administrators want complete control over the content of their web page, I suggest they start a blog.

I was barred for supposed disruption (violation of the 3 revert rule) of this page for making a few edits on a small subsection of the page. I discussed those edits prior to making them here, though the reverting editors simply reverted them without any comment on this discussion page (again citing the "stability" of the article). Keep in mind that the sole purpose of Wikipedia is not to stabilize articles. This has to be balanced against other policies and guidelines. The edits I tried to make did nothing to changes the facts presented. Rather I was simply removing words and phrases that were pejorative, unencyclopedic and in violation of the NPOV policy. Those reverting my edits cited nothing to support their reverts, but rather again used pejoratives to back up the use of pejoratives. Though I have been blocked (even from appealing my blockage), I thought I'd begin some discussion here about what appear to me to be inappropriate behaviour by admins and a wish to treat this article as not part of a Wiki. I'm not sure what can be done about this behaviour. It's similar to the pegasus affair where an editor sought administrative status simply to exercise arbitrary power over other editors. However, my hope is that we can find some impartial admin who will somehow facilitate making this article into a part of the Wiki community. --67.175.134.6 04:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) (blocked cplot)

NPOV Dispute

From examining the history here, it appears that a small group of people have worked to ensure this article reflects only a certain POV. Legitimate edits are immediately and repeatedly reverted. Pejorative language is used to describe alternate POVs or more frequently alternate POVs are simply removed from the article.

Much of the article reads like an ABC docudrama and is unencyclopedic. It fails to cite sources or to present particular positions as such, but instead describes theories, accusations and allegations as if they are facts established by God. The article also fails to provide verifiable sources for many of the claims made in the article.

THe POV slant of the article combined with the failure to provide verifiable sources combine to make this article one of the worst cases of NPOV violation I have encountered on Wikipedia. I would recommend the editors and administrators squatting on this article begin to work with the dissenting editors to improve this article and make it meet Wikipedia's standards: especially those of NPOV and Verifiability..

I will try to elaborate on the issues through an examination of the article's history, but as I look through the discussion page and the article's history there are repeated examples of squashing alternate views from this article. Often time these alternate POVs are cited, verifiable and often widely held POVs, yet are excluded nonetheless..--Cplot 17:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Some examples

• Pejorative use of "conspiracy theory" to encompass all other POVs about the attacks on September 11th.
• Claims made without citing the source. For example "nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners." should separate the parts that are undisputed from the particular theories about the event. Planes were hijacked. It should be followed with something like: "The US Federal Bureau of Investigation] believes ..." (this is just one of such numerous NPOV slips in the article)
• Views of the 911 truth movement and other widespread held positions are completely excluded from the article.

agree

• There were numerous polls conducted which show that majority of Americans do not believe official account. That is why Cplot's arguments are even stronger. All claims should be clearly sourced to make it possible to the reader to determine who makes them. Rationales for other claims, inclusions or exclusions (like the Jewish conspiracy remark I discussed) should be discussed and/or sourced. This is not about "conspiracy cruft" - it's about general disbelief and recognition of facts and myths. SalvNaut 18:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree Reading below, and through the archives, one only finds attempts to keep the government's POV, with the main reason for not calling it POV being that they're after money. I try to keep an open mind on this, and there are many suspicious things that contradict the government's findings, but there is also a certain body of evidence that supports the government's theory. If we want to call the article truly neutral then we need to provide alternate, or even, contradicting, points of view, regardless of how many people believe that the government's POV is the only "right" one. When I'm done here I'm going to get an RFC, to get a better idea o what should be done, unless someone beats me to it.--Acebrock 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

comment What a relief to hear another voice of reason, thank you Acebrock. SalvNaut 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

comment Keep in mind that it has only been an hour. Normally an NPOV tag should be expected to stay of for days. In the case of this article (after reviewing its history), I would say more like weeks. It's a bit silly to start counting votes now, but it's really ridiculous to claim a consensus on the topic after a few minutes elapsed. Do these editors think we're all paid to watch this page? In the US it's the Thanksgiving holiday. Many editors are spending time with their families right now. It's only the die hards that are around right now. Within a few weeks a doubt we'll see any consensus for maintaining this NPOV and Verifiability violating article in this way . --Cplot 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

disagree

• 9/11 "Truth Movement" is an effort by a bunch of swindlers to make a buck by spreading falsehoods all over the web...they are morally and ethically corrupt and their "evidence" is not based on WP:RS or WP:V and are therefore not useful for an encyclopedia article. The entire notion of a government cover-up and related conspiracy theories has zero basis in fact.--MONGO 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Your opinion about their ethics is inappropriate here (and you don't have sources to prove it). There is a group of suspicious people in 9/11 Truth Movement, but they are minority. That makes you completely wrong here. Stop spreading defamation. SalvNaut 17:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Mongo, you misunderstand the role of a Wiki encyclopedia article. It is not our task here to assess the truth or motives behind different positions on the attacks. Rather we are here to write an article that presents the various POVs that hold sway about these events. Many have written on this topic and the article does not reflect that. But instead the article only reflects the views of one of the many groups.

If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• There is reality, and then there is the tripe being promulgated by the fringe conspiracy whackos. The fringe whacko theories even have their own articles for some unknown and befuddling reason but they need not repeat that garbage here. We could add paragraph after paragraph about controlled demolitions, missiles, aliens in Roswell, and the connection of 9/11 to Operation Gladio. It doesn't make it any more legitimate. People come to read about what actually happened, not whack job conspiracy nonsense. --Tbeatty 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:You love to blend "fringe whacko theories" with legitimate theories, don't you? If your understanding of these matters is this shallow, you should restrain yourself from editing this article. Thanks. SalvNaut 18:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Which do you consider legitimate? I blended no such thing. --Tbeatty 23:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please do not try to spread conspiracy cruft to real articles. Thanks. Weregerbil 17:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is a article for the conspiracy as well only like a paragraph is needed. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• These theories are given the proper treatment in this article, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. We do provide a forum for the theories at 9/11 conspiracy theories, with a brief summary here and link to that article. Nothing more is needed in this main article, which also needs to summarize all other aspects of the attacks and various sub-articles. --Aude (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The same could be said of the Government's theory--Acebrock 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not at all. First, it's not the "government" theory. It's the account that has been presented in media outlets, worldwide such as Al Jazeera, Times of India, the CBC (Canada), and major media outlets in the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and China (list could go on), as well as the United Nations. I've yet to see a reliable source that presents conspiracy theories as facts. --Aude (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The point is there are other credible views of these attacks than are not presented in the article. That's what makes it an NPOV violation. Not only have those views not been given due weight, they've been given no weight at all. Saying that "we covered other POVs in s small section pejoratively entitled 'Conspiracy theories' does not give weight to the many credible views and issues posed about September 11th. In fact it does the opposite. It suggests that no one need take anything seriously except for what a few minority editors here think. --Cplot 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no credible alternative views - no dancing Jews, no holograms, no hidden explosives or secret missiles. There are conspiracy theories: social pathologies commonly associated with major events. We use summary style, linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and we link to 9/11 conspiracy theories from the template. That is due weight and to spare. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, credible views will air on C-Span's Book TV this weekend. The September 24 KPFA event from Berkeley, CA, 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out. Featured speakers: David Ray Griffin, Kevin Ryan, Peter Dale Scott, Peter Phillips, Ray McGovern, EST PST Friday Nov 24th: 4:00pm 1:00pm; Saturday Nov 25th: 3:30am 12:30am, 10:00pm 7:00pm

• The conspiracy theories have their own page. After five years I would think this would be done and settled. As for claiming uncited, I see 105 entries in the references section now. I see someone just put the NPOV tag back on the article. Please, take it down and respect the long established consensus of the community. --StuffOfInterest 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• There is a conspiracy theory article. This one should have a short paragraph, as it does, and point to that article, as it does. --PTR 23:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• The article is NPOV. The alternative explanations are correctly called conspiracy theories (at least I can't find a better name for them), and the article links to a page describing them in embarrasing detail. No change is needed. --Regebro 13:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (no way to claim consensus either way)

Tbeatty, there is clearly no consensus yet on the NPOV. How could their be there's only been minutes since the tag was placed on the article. It would normally take 10 days or so to make such a determination. In the case of this article I would imagine it will take much longer since so many dissenting editors have been chased away by a poorly behaving core group of editors. --Cplot 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk archives. This has been discussed for years. Please do not add conspiracy cruft here, this is not the place for it. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page archives and the history of the edits. And I find the NPOV violations even more disgraceful. It's now time for the editors here to take seriously these alternate POVs (without pejorative dismissals, which is mostly what I see in the archives). Some waiting time must be given to an NPOV dispute to let these issues and grievances be aired. This is how a Wiki is supposed to work. Again, if you don't wish to write an article that reflects all the relevant points-of-view then I suggest you start a blog. --Cplot 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is hijacked. Of course there is NPOV dispute but a group of editors decide there is not. I think we are heading towards RfC here... SalvNaut 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A little perspective

The problem comes from trying to put the dissenting opinions (i.e. conspiracy theories) on an equal footing as the version supported by evidence. By and large, the conspiracy theory version are rejected entirely in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Typically they contain errors of fact, misunderstandings of the mechanics of solids, and/or unreliable evidence.

Now, there certainly is a particular zeal in removing unencyclopedic material, and occasionally it may be to excess, and in those rare instances where legitimate points are raised, the edits may be rejected without sufficient discussion. But that problem is manageable. Unfortunately, many people in the US are so frightened by the idea that their government was unable to stop terrorists that they find comfort in believing anything else, no matter how implausible. There is an whole folk mythology, not to mention an industry of disinformation, which challenges the conventional account, and there are editors who, innocently or maliciously, try to give the the mythology undue credibility. (It escapes me why someone who sees a discrepancy between an encyclopedia and rantings on a partisan website would immediately assume it's the encyclopedia which is wrong.)

But this is not truly a good-faith dispute regarding point of view. The issue is not what emotions people have or what narratives human creativity can fabricate, it's what the evidence supports. The conspiracy theory stories are, at least so far, not supported by evidence. Peter Grey 20:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: There is evidence which supports them, I encourage you to take a real close look, if you have time (just look closely at the case of WTC7 and molten metal beneath its rubble, then check 9/11 commission account, NIST account - their work is unbeliveably far from good science, even engineers associated with NIST confirm that(i.e Glenn Corbett[2])) . Unfortunately, no summary of this evidence is reported in mainstream media (oh, you might want to watch C-Span this weekend, see my previous post). It's easy to comment "reasonably" on those things from high-up, but when you bow down, take a close look... SalvNaut 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Corbett is not an engineer and is not associated with NIST and he confirmed nothing. He's a fireman. As far as I can tell, he lobbied the NIST to investigate and the NIST does NOT support any whack nutball theories and they are a principle target of these fringe groups trying to sell their stuff. --Tbeatty 23:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What?

GLENN CORBETT is a fire captain in Waldwick, New Jersey, a professor of Fire Safety at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, a member of the New Jersey State Fire Code Council, and a technical editor of Fire Engineering Magazine, the nation's 128-year-old fire service trade journal. He was on the committee advising the National Institute of Standards and Technology on its investigation of the WTC disaster, and came to a critical assessment overall, although he fully supports the hypothesis of collapse due to plane impacts and fires alone.

New Civil Engineer condemned NIST for not releasing their computer animations saying its parameters were pushed over limits. Fire Engineeringjournal "has good reason to belive that FEMA report was half-baked false". Kevin Ryan pointed out hundreds of inconsistencies and flaws in "art of making science". SalvNaut 00:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. He's not an engineer, he's a fireman. Good for him, though, for supporting the reality that the collapse was due to fire and plane imapcts alone. Tbeatty 00:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet, lack of good secondary sources does not allow us to change this article diametrically and it's not my intention. But when I tried to change one small defamating thing it took a lot of energy and nerves. SalvNaut 21:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no reliable, credible evidence supporting the various conspiracy theories. The supposed "evidence" has been assessed and found to be unpersuasive, if not outright false or irrelevant. Most of what I've seen could be refuted with one engineering textbook. Peter Grey 00:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Assessed by who? Found to be unpersuasive by who? Where can I read about it? Where is molten metal evidence refuted or explainded in a way according to official theory? Where is sudden outburst of molten metal, with white smoke plume, from the side of WTC just before collapse explained? NIST has thrown some FAQ without even making any research into their answers. Where are zinc and barium anomalies from dust study explained? Where is the style of the collapse of WTC1&2 even analyzed ?(not in NIST report). Where is WTC7 report? I could continue... but I'm not sure if there is a need for that. SalvNaut 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Try these. If you cannot tell which sources are legitimate, perhaps this is not the right article for you to contribute to. Peter Grey 01:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What is legitimate? What is credible? Is it always the same as "true"? I made a lot of study into these theories. Many other scientists, politicians did too[3]. Applying science leads to only one overall conclusion. Please be careful when you back yourself up with "legitimate" sources, not with arguments. SalvNaut 02:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Too much of this discussion is in the form of vague generalities and trying to describe the truth. The discussion should be around what are the various theories (including the only represented theory right now) about what are the political, economic, cultural and physical processes that influenced and were influenced by these attacks. It's not relevant whether one editor or another thinks that someone's research into this is bunk. The point is we have to describe those sources views nevertheless. More importantly, the article as it currently stands represents the views of certain sources as the truth rather than citing that view in accordance with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Clearly there's a difference of opinion here with no clear consensus. What we need to do next is work together to figure out what's needed to fix this very broken article and build a consensus rather than just insisting one's already there.

Again, we're not trying to decide who is crazy, wrong, misguided, stupid, or naive. Were trying to write an encyclopedia article that describes the subject and attributes various viewpoints to the authors who hold those viewpoints: whether that's NIST, FBI or whomever). Right now the article fails to do that on many accounts. Clearly I think we could get agreement on certain facts that none of us would dispute. Beyond that, we have to start attributing positions to who's making them and not just state them in the NPOV violating way as if its just an undisputed fact. I don't see any reason why we can't at least come to that agreement here.

Finally, I ask those who keep removing the NPOV template to stop doing that. Give it a little time for the discussion to take place and a real genuine concensus to be reached. A NPOV template is not meant as an insult, it's merely suggest that some editors may be unaware of other significant views on a topic. --68.30.31.232 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a specific error in the article, or facts where there is legitimate disagreement, that can be discussed. But wishing something to be true is not a NPOV dispute. Reality and fantasy are not two equal sides of an issue. This talk page (and its archives) have established consensus on suitability of sources. Peter Grey 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reality and fantasy? Consensus? Peter, it's time for you and your boys to leave Neverland. You can easily exit via vault of Building 7, that tiny wabbit whole to wonderland down at Pentagon, or you can simply fly away carried by pixie dust, just like flight 93 did… Didn’t you hear chimes ringing? It's time to turn that page… since neutrality of this article is disputed from here to eternity, appropriate notice should be posted at the entrance post. Vandalism and article bias are quite different categories… Lovelight 09:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only is Captain Hook not a terrorism expert, he a fictional character. Peter Grey 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out that the consparcy theories have a large following here are some google results: 9/11 Pentagon missle strike gets 702,000 results, 9/11 controlled demolition gets 620,000 results, and 9/11 government involvement gets 1,110,000 results. Also Popular Mechanics tried to disprove these, showing that they do have some sort of mainstream following.--Acebrock 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also angels are real 23,700,000 results, Elvis lives 1,500,000 results, aliens probed my ass 386,000 results. Weregerbil 18:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pleas... if you use Google, do it correctly. "angels are real" 10,900 (angels are real, by the way), "Elvis lives" 197,000 results,. SalvNaut 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) I'd also like to point out that a full third of americans believe that te terrorists had something to do with 9/11--Acebrock 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the conspiracy theories have a pop culture following, that is why they justify their own article. This article, however, is about the actual events as supported by evidence. Peter Grey 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

When Americans are asked "how often does the Earth revolve around the Sun: once a day, month, or year", 20% say once a day, 13% say once a month, 47% say once a year, 20% say it's a trick question: in reality the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Yet our article on the Solar system is not composed of 53% alternative theories. I think this article too would be best served by having as little on the alternative theories as possible.

When asked which is smaller: an electron or an atom, 56% say atom. The articles on atom and electron do not give equal time to this point of view.

Some other things Americans believe: 78% believe in angels, 68% devil, 25% witches, 31% astrology, 51% ghosts, ...

Peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. There are things that are best not decided by an American popular vote.

Keep this article about reality, and put peoples' beliefs elsewhere. Thanks! Weregerbil 18:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this example is sort of stupid but interesting, as this question was indeed very tricky - simple answer is that they both revolve around their center of mass, the more advanced answer is that both experience chaotic but stable (for ever?) movements due to solar system gravitational field.

So as you can see, the answer populated by mainstream media, repeated by most of "enlightened" ones isn't true either. Be humble when judging reality, will you? SalvNaut 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (btw: can you give a link to this study?)

Anyway, let's get to the facts. The devil is in the details. SalvNaut 19:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, center of mass was never the question, orbital period was. But thanks for playing anyway, regardless of any and all nitpicking, obfuscation, and missing the point by a few parsecs. Weregerbil 20:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have it. My point was that "The devil is in the details" and question was ill-posed: "how often does the Earth revolve around the Sun".SalvNaut 20:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll Posted?? The devil is in the details?? whatever,...Weregerbil's point is well stated,.... Peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. There are things that are best not decided by an American popular vote.--146.244.138.215 15:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more on that. Still, the devil is in the details. SalvNaut 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputes

There's quite a few disputes going on here, so I've full protected the page. Perhaps a nice short outline of what specifics we have would be nice? One of the concerns I've seen is that of NPOV, so perhaps specific paragraphs could be listed below neatly? Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 05:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed edits

• On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[37]

sourced with: ^ "Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001.

I think it should either be sourced better, or be removed. On the day of attacs there were numerous claims (6 airplanes hijacked etc...) which turned out to be false. (the same goes to Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article) SalvNaut 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

But Osama has admitted to masterminding the event...the news reports about more than 4 planes proved false and there is no reason to bother mentioning it in much detail.--MONGO 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Osama firstly rejected, then finally admitted (btw: admit is not a proof of complicity from the formal pov). But... what does it have to do with "communications that pointed..."?? Who said that there were such communications? Media? Some goverment agency? I would like to know, or know it's just another myth as many. SalvNaut 19:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? CBS news said it..it is cited...has CBS news said that someone blew the buildings up? What myths are you talking about? I simply love the 9/11 truth movement [4]...there right on the top left of their "truth" based website is a DVD that is FOR SALE...yes, folks that's right...for only $15.00, you can BUY yourself some truth...as I said, swindlers trying to make a buck. Buyer, beware.--MONGO 19:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please stay on the topic? Do you also know that all of those DVD's are available for free? You can download them if you want. Buing DVD is a form of donation. My question was why something that CBS reported is considered to be true?

Thanks to that I also assume that you wouldn't mind sourcing here Paul Tomson's The Terror Timeline as it is composed from mainstream media reports. Good. SalvNaut 19:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Terror Timeline" is based on some facts and some myths...it is a conglomeration deliberately designed to mislead....and getting back to the 9/11 Truth Movement...the link from "Improbable Collapse" form the upperleft of thir mainpage takes one to a page that clearly states...

"In addition to your purchase from the e-store, please consider making a donation directly to 911truth.org. Your financial support is needed so that 911Truth.org has the resources available to sustain this important work. We can't do it without your help. Thank you! You can make a donation here:"...so it isn't "free"

there may be another link somewhere on that website to a download page, but that is not available form the main link to that the DVD. It's all about making a buck off the deaths of thousands of people.--MONGO 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course... many peple said on tv that someone blew the buildings up. Here you go (from Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center#Brief_History):

On the day of the attacks, there were reports suggesting explosions and secondary devices. Several journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives and some experts made similar suggestions in the days following the attacks.

• • Ha ha...thanks for the laugh above..short excerpts from audio and video with primary scope of the entire dialogue cut out to only support the argument of controlled demo...note 3...just some guy talking to BBC saying he heard explosions...of course he heard explosions, that's what happens when a wide body jet hits a building...what would one expect to hear? Birds chirping?...note 4...same deal as above...so what. note 5...who said what...devices in the building...who said this aside from the reporter...who planted the "devices"...just a snippet that has nothing to sink your teeth into...note 6...all the guy is saying it was planned...there is zero indication who he says planned it...zero...just a snippet of a small section of the entire dialogue. I guess for some people it's simply easier to believe that some huge group well organized are the only entity big enopugh to pull off such a huge amount of destruction...maybe it provides comfort to those who have trouble believing that a vast amount of damage could be the result of a limited number of terrorists.--MONGO 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to disturb reality around you. Guy in note 3 said he heard explosions "much much lower". Anyway, something in similiar tone could've probably been said of CBS report about communications with Osama - you know how those journalist bastards are - they grasp every sensation. That's my point here. SalvNaut 21:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OH, pleasant...the reality problem is the fact that these are just little exerpts of the entire conversations...so no way of knowing what their full intent was by their arguemnt..it's that simple. Explosions "lower" could have been any number of things...but without proof of controlled demolition, we don't reference in some youtube video link that gives only a snippet of info. The facts of the case are that Osama has admitted to masterminding the events of 9/11. The reason the FBI wants him for the embassy bombings is due to matters that pertain to the ability to adjudicate him better as an international terrorist.--MONGO 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

• On the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.[37]

sourced with: ^ "Latest on the attacks on America, 7:00 PM", CBS News, September 11, 2001.

I think it should either be sourced better, or be removed. On the day of attacs there were numerous claims (6 airplanes hijacked etc...) which turned out to be false. (the same goes to Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article) SalvNaut 18:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone is aware if this fact found it's place in 9/11 commission (ommission) report? SalvNaut 20:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This was already answered above so asking twice is disruptive...don't be disruptive.--MONGO 20:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

??— Preceding unsigned comment added by SalvNaut (talk • contribs)

Mongo, stay on topic. SalvNaut is clearly trying to fix these serious NPOV problems. You cannot simply say "well the article reflects my POV so I've asnwered you". One suggestion would be to restate this as: "CBS News reported that on the day of the attacks, U.S. intelligence agencies intercepted communications that pointed to Osama bin Laden.' This way it makes it clear and verifiable. A reader can verify that CBS reported this. A reader cannot veify that US intelligence agencies interecepted communications. --70.8.139.192 21:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

First off...get a username...secondly, Osama admitted to being the mastermind. I don't care if the CBS news issue is removed, but we're not going to alter the facts to fit some POV that Osama had nothing to do with the event, when the preponderance of evidence indicates he did. As far as "serious" NPOV problems...what...shall we have the article become full of conspiracy theory nonsense, or stick to what is provable? There is no POV issues, except from those that want to believe the impossible...that was addressed above.--MONGO 21:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Provable? I don't think that that's in wikipedia policy. Verifiable, yes, provable, no policy that I've seen. The conspiracy theories are verifiable, they aren't Original Research, and they can be presented in a Neutral Point of View, so for the most part that argument is moot--Acebrock 21:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That there are conspiracy theories is a fact....that the theories are based on fact is the issue...they are not based on facts and hence, in accordance with the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy, they get a passing mention and a link to their own article under appropriate titles.--MONGO 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahoy mate, good to see you up and runnin' ;P Lovelight 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I quote WP:NPOV#undue weight NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It's a prominently held view that 9/11 was caused by the government, as shown by google results. Also I quote Jimbo:

• • • • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
      • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
      • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

many of the conspiracy theories meet criterion 2, not 3 as you seem to believe. A full third of people is a significant minority, and as such it is currently unduly underweighted--Acebrock 22:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are opinion based...we don't reference opinion based nonsense to accodate your POV. I am well awre of the undue weight clause and it doesn't matter how many people "think" the government was behind the attacks or anything like that...the fact that it is not supported by the verifiable evidence is the reason such nonsense is relegated to the appropriately named daughter articles. It is a violation of the undue weight clause to include them here. They are mentioned and linked...this has been disucussed with POV pushers of nonsense for years now and the conspiracy theorists have brought zero new evidence to the table to refute the known facts.--MONGO 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

who says that the government's story isn't based on opinion? The causes of autism article is based on scholarly opinions. And the extreme male brain theory section is based purely on opinion, yet the opinion of a reputable researcher, and apparently a number of people believe it. Also it's the Christian's opinion that they will be raptured away, the only proof is in one edition of the bible. And cite one policy that says that there has to be evidence to have something included in an article. If one third of americans believe that the goverment had something to do with 9/11 than it's notable enough to recieve more than a blurb--Acebrock 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics. Apart from that, do you folks remember the initial reaction of Osama? He said: "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,"… it was on Al Jazeera, as well as CNN. Lovelight 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo wrote: "First off...get a username...secondly," Mongo do you have no regard at all for what Wikpedia is trying to accomplish. Everywhere throughout Wikipedia there are users who take NPOV seriously; who take verifiability serioiusly; who take no original researcy seriously, unlke you. And many of those who make valuable contributions to Wikpedia do so annonymously: another tenant of wikis. Again, if you don't like the idea behiind wikipedia, then don't participate. But please don't come in here and insist Wikipedia be like Fox News or the New York Times. Just go participate in those insitutions if that's what you're looking for.

Secondly, Osama bin Laden is a living person and so we must be careful to adhere to Wikpedia's policies on that. There has not been any indictment of Osama bin Laden on this: let alone a conviction. Most of the evidence that I presume exists has never been aired in a court of law. Now I believe Osama bin Laden had something to do with these attacks, but that doesn't let me (or anyone else) run rough shot over over Wikpedia policies and guidelines. We're here to write and encyclopedia: a wiki encyclopedia. Join in that process or just recuse yourself. Looking through these dicussion archives I find a lot of evidence that you're here to disrupt and not contribute.

Now that it's clear that there is not a concesnsus among editors, it's time for us to figure out a way to make this artricle meet Wikipedia's standards. There are so many problems in this article it's going to take a log of work. Your attempts to shout down every editor you don't agree with only makes it that much more cumbersome to fix the article. --68.30.46.228 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish you luck POV pushing in this article...and don't tell me to go elsewhere...how dare you! All I asked you to do was to get a username...you'll be much more likely to have your efforts here treated with respect if you create a username and use only that when you contribute...that is simply the way it works on an article such as this one, whether you like it or not. Osama has admitted to masterminding the attacks...that is about as clear as it can be.--MONGO 07:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Admitting to "masterminding" is orthogonal to being guilty of masterminding. Don't you remember 80's/90's when afer each terrorist attack numerous terrorist organizations claimed responsibility? Anyway, I'm sure that people connected with Osama had something to do with 9/11 - question is what exactly, where did the money come from? etc.

Getting back to the point again: Changing this sentence to "In the evening of the day of attack CBS reported that....,which hasn't been confirmed later." is a good proposition. I already made some research into this and couldn't find nothing more about it? Has anyone found something? We don't want to spread disinformation, do we? SalvNaut 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What I've found so far is this report about communication intercepted betwen Osama and his stepmother on 9th of September[5]. So... who knows what CBS report was about (foreknowledge?). Maybe it's not a good idea to use CBS report from the day of attack as a source? SalvNaut 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Reworking the article so that it follows Wikpedia policies

First, from looking at the history, I think many of the vandalism problems were simply caused by a failure of editors to compromise and strive to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. So I think one of the advantages of working out a true consensus here so that we can unlock the article and have it join the greater Wikipedia community.

Second, as has already been mentioned scientific surveys indicate the official story is only one piece of the description this encyclopedia article should address. Dismissive arguments suggesting the public is just stupid or misguided or mentally defective are not relevant here (unless you want to cite someone who makes these arguments; again no original research here). Here's a list of sources discussing the waning confidence of the worlds population in the official story.

• Polls Show Drop in Assurance Since the Attacks of Sept. 11
• 9/11 Polls Find Lingering Fears in New York
• Americans Question Bush on 9/11 Intelligence
• Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

Keep in mind that the last piece showing the views of New Yorker residents reflects community with quite a significant proportion of eyewitnesses to the attacks and also a high proportion of people directly effected by the attacks.

Third, one aspect of the NPOV problem with the page is that (as mentioned above) it fails to describe the posiitions of the advocates of one particular theory as just that: advocates of one particular theory. So, for example, the article says:

9/11 "consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks by Islamic extremists"

intead of saying:

"Consisted of a series of coordinated hijackings of four commercial jetliners which were subsequently flowin into New Yorks’s World Trade Center and the headquarter of the US military: the Pentagon in Alexandria, Virginia. The FBI believes 19 islamic extemsists associated with al-Quada and Osama bin Ladin were behind the planning and execution of this attack"

The first example reads like a novel, The second reads like an encylopedia article. This is only an example and I'm not weded to this wording. However the entire article is filled with these NPOV problems.Fixing passages in this way will also facilitate including other cited views of the attacks (as well as cited crticisms of those views).

Fourth, I'm including a list of sources that support what many of the dissenting editors — a majority by my count of recent discussions and edits — believe should be included in the article. These sources all meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. There may be counter arguments that also criticize these pieces, but those counter-arguments need to be cited in verifiable publications and not simply crafted as original research here on the discussion page. The David Ray Griffin books are largely secondary sources so make ideal sources to cite here on Wikipedia.

Fifth, the use of the term "conpsiracy theory" is simply perjorative when used to characterize the positions taken in these books. They know more theorize a conspiracy than the views of the official account (theorizing that 19 hijackers under the umbrella of a poowerful worldwide organization know as al-Quada coordinated the attacks). So using pejoratively is inappopriate in the article and here in the discussions. Using it to describe only some of the theories of the conspiracy (in the non-pejorative sense) is confusing and misleading for readers.

So with the scientific surveys, the preponderance of verifiable sources and what looks like a significant number of wikipedia editors seeking to fix these NPOV problems, we need to get serious about that discussion. This means we have to stop arguing about whose wrong, false, stupid, misguided, mentally deranged, etc. We need to focus on crafting a discussion here that shows the genuine disagreements by the various parties weighing in on this tragedy. As the NPOV policy states:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. (highlighed portions to underscore the misunderstaniding about NPOV represented in the discussion thus far)

Perhaps we could start another sandbox article here on this page (or a linked page) to begin to fix the problems. Then when we reach a genuine consensus we can move that article to the main article. In the meantime we can work on the most egregious violations of NPOV and make the article read like an encyclopedia article rather than an historical novel (it is some nice prose however, I don't want to mess that up).

Verifiable sources that represent a significant view excluded from the article:

---

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

• Template:Harvard reference

---

--Cplot 03:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What you say is good and reasonable, but the probleme here is that we have two standpoints. Both standpoints obviously thinks that THEIR standpoint have all the factual support, although evidently only one of them really can be. So what do you do to solve that? One of the POVs must be factually incorrect, but we can't agree which one that is. If you let both POVs have equal footing, then the article becomes POV. The article needs to be NPOV, that is reflect what is the generally accepted majority view.

One solution made in this article is to have the majority view, and put the large minority view into a second article, linking from the first. Do you find that like a reasonable solution? --Regebro 10:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Two standpoints is part of the communication gap here. There is an assumption by some that this is an adversarial political or metaphysical discourse, operating in an information vaccuum. But this article describes historical fact, and what little there is in the way of opinion or speculation is limited to credible experts. Alternate interpretations that have already been proven inaccurate are peripherial to the subject matter. Peter Grey 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure no one would like to rewrite 9/11 conspiracy theories to here. But this article in present form makes no mention about certain facts or discrepancies - it's difficult to discuss about it in general. Each should be looked into individually. I agree with using proposed sources in certain cases. As we are into the sources - Mongo, what would be your source to claim that The Terror Timeline is not appropriate? (you once accused it of being full of lies, while it is made of media reports - why would Paul Thompson lie in an attempt to gather information?) SalvNaut 11:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Each should be looked into individually. This has been the point all along. The article has been vetted and fact-checked, but of course errors are still possible. So identify them, and they can be corroborated or corrected. Errors are not a NPOV dispute. Peter Grey 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What I oppose here is repression of other reputable views by scholars, researchers, politicians - take this movie Oil, Smoke and Mirrors for example - this is a good example of different approach to the events of 9/11. Whether it's true or not it could be noted because of notability of proponents. Think what you want, but those are former highest rank politicians, experts etc. SalvNaut 12:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose the repression of other reputable views. I also oppose the repression of notable views (as you mention later). The views of the mentioned movie are indded notable, even though they are not reputable. So these views should not be repressed. Are you of the opinion that these views are being repressed? --Regebro 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

History of this talk page shows clearly, it is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of a fact. Lovelight 16:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarbro writes:

one of the POVs must be factually incorrect, but we can't agree which one that is. If you let both POVs have equal footing, then the article becomes POV. The article needs to be NPOV

This again restates a misconception about NPOV I see here again and again. There are conflicting views on these attacks as with any historical event. We, as the edtiors of this encylopedia article, are not supposed to determine which one is correct. By doing that we make it reflect our own judgment and insert our own POV. The Wikipedia NPOV policy requires that we include the significant POVs. I think we would be hard pressed to determine which view was more widely held, let alone which one was correct. We would have to have information nonoe of us could possibly have to make an irrefutable judgement over which one was correct. So I encourage all the editors here to read the Wikipdia policies. In some ways it's liberating that we do not have to figure out who's correct. --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are conflicting views. But this is not about a historical event to be compared with say, the resons behind the Battle of Hastings. When such as thing is discussed, everybody knows that it can on a certain level only be a matter pf sepculation. Therefore it is unfair to say that this is a debate about a historical event. It is a bout a FACT, namely, who is the instigator behind the attacks. And when you discuss this, only one answer can be correct. But yes, I'll rephrase what I said above. Only one of the viewpoints can be correct. Including both as equally correct does not make the article POV, but it does make it incorrect. And we don't want that either. Therefore, I suggest that we in the main article state the verifiable views, those who have credible sources and those statement that can be proven to be correct. We then,from the main article in a prominent place point out that there are many notable alternative views, and link to them, in a separate page. That to me seems to satisfy all requirements. The main article is factually correct and verifiable, but the alternative views are NOT repressed, but instead given a prominent place and full billing in their own article. Does that sound OK? --Regebro 19:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No that does not sound OK. That is something you could write on punditry blog: not on a wikpedia article. Yes we do have facts that are largely undisputed: hijackings of planes; collisions of planes into the twin towers; thousands of US citizens killed; military personnel killed at the Pentagon;; 3 buildings of the WTC complex collapsed; 4 other buildeings destroyed; fires raging in the WTC debris for weeks; further buildings around WTC needing demolition; a 16 foot diasmeter hole in the side of the pentagon. These are all facts the article can talk about without even citing sources (I imagine all the editors agree on these things).

Then we have analysis of these facts by various interested parties: as with any historical event. Weighing in on this if the FBI, CIA, bin Laden, G.W. Bush, the 9/11 commission, FEMA, NIST, Griffin, Jones, Tarpley, Hufschmid, Meyssan, Thompson, CNN, CBS, MNBC, Fox, ABC, NBC. One way to desribe the NPOV problem with the artcile is that it takes the POV you endorse as your own above (Regebro). It presents the views and analysis of some of these theosirsts of the attacks as if they too are undisputed facts. Then it leaves completely out of the article the views of the other theorists of the attacks. Again, please read the NPOV policy, and try to understand that just because an article adequately reflects your point-of-view does not mean it is correct or meets wikipedia standards. Again, the correctness of these views does not belong in our discussion nor should they be endorsed as "correct" in the article. --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain to me what you are now saying differs from what I said above, and what is not OK with my suggested solution? You are consistently talking an generics, and never specifying anything. You don't say what disputed facts are presented as undisputed. You say my suggestion is not OK, but you don't say what is wrong with it. That makes further constructive discussion very hard. --Regebro 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter Grey, again look at the NPOV policy. Certainly we want to limit the historical facts, and "opinions or speculation" presented here to credible and verifiable sources. All of the sources I listed above fit that criteria. Their views are not reflected in this article at all. Verifiable sources and no original resarch are also important parts of Wikipedia policy. However, as with any historical facts, there are always multipel views, interpretations, weight and opinions about those facts. Currently the article does not reflect that. Instead it one-sidely treats certain historians and leaves completely out of account the others. That's precisely what a NPOV violation does. It would be good if an admin could go ahead and add the template back to the article so that other editors will be alerted to our need to fix this article. --Cplot 17:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please state which views you're referring to. The article is 11 000 words; just saying you disagree with it doesn't tell us anything helpful. Do you mean a new viewpoint, which might possibly be legitimate and which merits discussion, or one of the conspiracy theory interpretations that are already known to be incorrect? Peter Grey 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat here again. The correctness of the views has no place in this discussion! Nor does the use of pejorative phrases such as "conspiracy theories". If you mean conspiracy theory in the non-pejorative sense well then what this article is largely and unavoidablely about is theories to tie together the facts that someone apparently conspired to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 and bring about significant loss of life and physical devestation. We are not interested here in the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of those theories. We are writing an encylopedia article that presents the various views (ivew that are sourced, verifiable and not views that are original research: like claiming something is correct or incorrect) --Cplot 20:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1) An encyclopedia is not a chat room. Readers of an encyclopedia expect narratives that are true, false, or of unknown status to be distinguished. 2) This is a summary article. All the points not present here are addressed in a suitable sub-article. Peter Grey 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter you're asolubtely right: Wikipedia is not a chat room. In chat rooms individuals try to convicen one another of the truth of their position agaainst the falisty of someone else's position. This is not supposed to take place here at Wikipedia. We're supposed to leave editors alone in the positions they advocate and instead respect the views of other editors and strive toward a narrative that includes the truths as understood by each of the various editors. This is true especially when so many editors here (I would say a majority) are complaining about the missing parts of the narrative. Second, its fine to provide a summary article. However, if you start out with a summary article that violates NPOV than you're more likely to end up with the linked articles also faling to meet Wikpedia's standards. --Cplot 23:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter,Regebro, others. Let's take one of things that strike me, that is complete lack of information about suspected foreknwoledge about the attacks. Please, just take a brief look on those two lists from 9/11 Timeline.[6][7]. Those are ALL media reports about foreknwoledge, insider training (among others confirmed by a professor of finance at the UI). Recently Bob Woodward's book has been published in which he outlines the fact that so many warnings about 9/11 were ignored by Bush administration. Ok, so we have those media reports, books, other important people criticising. And where on Wikipedia can we read about it and it's implications? Only in 9/11 conspiracy theories article. So,... tell me... can't you see a bias here? It similiar with other topics like failure to investigate the events of 9/11 properly - those all facts we read here about, we can't be sure if they are 100%true, if they're everything we should know. Renaming the other article "9/11 contending theories" or 9/11 inconsistencies might be considered a solution... but then, it would have to be really cleaned up to represent real contending theories, not everything at once (including pure anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, which until recently was so boldly underlined here). This article needs major rewriting - not only this would be a whole lot of work but some editors were very opposing in the past to any changes made here. I, for example, don't feel qualified enough and don't have enough time to propose major rewrite. I suppose that others who might have had this in mind, were successfully repelled from here. SalvNaut 20:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Foreknowledge is relevant only when discussing what the government could have done to PREVENT the attacks, not when discussing who DID it. It is a logical fallacy to think that partial foreknowledge of an event is proof that you did it. I can't see how a discussion of foreknowledge would be relevent for this article no matter who ordered the attacks. --Regebro 21:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't say it's a proof. I say it is very relevant. I don't know how can't you see this. SalvNaut 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't proof it isn't relevant. This is a factual question, not speculation. --Regebro 01:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You say official version is a proven fact, beyond doubt? ...According to their version "noone foresaw this kind of attack". So, you think that nothing that contradicts official version should find it's place in this article? (so you can read about foreknowledge only in 9/11 conspiracy theories article?). I don't know - one could imagine Wikipedia work like that - I just don't want to. The real question is wheather Tomphson's Complete 9/11 Timeline satisfies WP:N, WP:V. I does, I belive. SalvNaut 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything even remotely similar to that. --Regebro 11:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Those reports have been around forever. Al Qaeda was known to be planning and executing attacks for the 10 years prior to 9/11. Insider trading was suspected immediately following the attacks and I believe the trading was Al Qaeda organizations looking to pay for the attacks with derivatives. Here's the deal: 19 Al Qaeda hijackers crashed four planes on 9/11. Certainly there are different recollection of events and the miniscule details as there always is when there are numerous eye witnesses. But the basic facts are not disputable. There is no credible "alternative theory." There is no credible evidence of a conspiracy other than Al Qaeda conspiring to kill Americans. There are no credible voices that claim the towers collapsed from anything other than as a result of the fully fueled planes crashing into them. The Jews didn't do it. George Bush didn't do it. Iraq didn't do it. The CIA didn't do it. The owner of WTC 11 didn't do it. The military didn't do it. Bill Clinton didn't do it. Mohammad Atta, and his 18 cohorts, however, did do it. --Tbeatty 21:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a great example of what I have described above - this is how it looks like when you try to improve this article. With this kind of attitude, with ignorance of evidence like insider trading a day before attack, with jeering at different, opposing views, it seems completely pointless to discuss with you, Tbeatty. What you say are liesis untrue. There are credible voices, there is credible evidence to have another open investigation. Sorry, that's how it looks like. SalvNaut 21:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I already said that I recall hearing about the trading of short derivatives. I've read your evidence and all it says is that it happened and I had already heard that within weeks of 9/11. Your source lacks the detail of who did the trading. The obvious answer is that groups tied to al Qaeda did the trading and that is what I have read immediately following the attacks. I don't dispute that al Qaeda would have invested in short positions on airline stocks if they knew a terrorist attack was coming. That was their MO. Why do you think thisis anything other than terrorist organizations using the attacks to finance their operations? Occam's Razor should play here very nicely. Please don't call me a liar again as I have lied about nothing. --Tbeatty 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I see you have quite developed theory about the trading. Well, that's good but I would preffer to hear this theory be investigated, while it wasn't. Traders were never officialy tracked down and official statement was that this trading was nothing unusual. Why should your theory or mine be important here? Be careful with razors, you can cut out something important possibility. I don't care what are official theories, yours, others, mine. I just point out that there are notable views on those matters which could be at least mentioned here with NPOV. Why in the world, a reader would have to look in the 9/11 conspiracy theories to gain information about foreknwoledge, or derivative training, or failure to track down the money for the hijackers? Anyway, this sort of "overall" discussion is rather pointless. I understand your pov and see it as pro-official version, you try to explain everything according to it - I don't see how this would be NPOV, and why should we do this here. I'll get back with some proposed edits in future. SalvNaut 12:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty mentioned Occam's Razor and you then stated "Be careful with razors, you can cut something important."...next time I see you suggesting bodily harm, I will block you indefinitely.--MONGO 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect some kind of cultural misunderstanding here. I was suggesting possible harm to knowledge. Physically I use Gillette, not Occam. SalvNaut 14:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning comes across the same...and your efforts here do little to retract the comment. It was unnecessary and uncalled for.--MONGO 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So if it wasn't investigated, what is there to mention? Leaving it as an open, false light, libelous charge that something nefarious may have happened is not very encyclopedic nor is it within policy. There WERE insiders and they were the al Qaeda terrorists. Implying anything more is libelous garbage. --Tbeatty 16:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all it's terribly incompetent to leave such thing not investigated - but I see that you swallow it without a problem. Why you keep repeating something completely unverifed? Why your opinion should matter? I would like to include opinions on this (to balance oppinions like yours) by Andreas von Bülow, Michael Meacher, David Ray Griffin and Bob Woodward's report on foreknowledge. SalvNaut 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Just to bring everyone up to speed on the natrue of an NPOV dispbute and when a template can be removed, please take a look at this from the NPOV dispute tag article.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

--Cplot 06:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Luckily there was consensus to remove it as there has been for a number of years. --Tbeatty 21:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you're just trying to be provocative here, but for the record, no consensus had been reached and the inappropriate repeated removal of the template only allowed a period of an hour in total for editors to make comments. From that period alone there were significant numbers of editors weighing in on both sides. Hence no judgement on consensus could be made (I don't think the word consensus mean what you think it means). --Cplot 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

image

please change MEDRES to HIGHRES on the commission cover image. --Ysangkok 13:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like that should be non-controversial, so I went ahead and did that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Say, how come that we always have some image(inary) problem in the nick of fiery discussions? Lovelight 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Examples of NPOV problems

Here are some missing analyses of the attacks that are missing from the article or do not receive proper NPOV treatment and due weight. These all are all from the verifiable, credible sources I listed above. Again, the correctness or incorrectness of these issues are immaterial to our discussion here. Its important that they be included in the article amidst the other hypotheses currently given a slanted POV treatment.

Conspiracy Theories

The use of the phrase "conspiracy theories" in the article is inappropriate. If what we are talking about are theories all the editors agree are waco and unsubstantiated than I do not see any reason to even include those in the article. Theories such as "the Jews did it" of the "illuminati did it" are no doubt verbalized about these attacks. But they are probably also blamed for Elmo TMX, yet that article makes no mention of conspiracy theories. However there are sources of theories surrounding these attacks that do not belong under the conspiracy theory heading that are also not represented in the article at all: Griffin, Jones, Tarpley, Hufschmid, Meyssan, and Thompson, just to name a few.

I do not have the above sources at hand at the moment but from memory I'll try to list important analyses that are missing from this article.

A possibility of controlled demolition

Jones and others have found evidence — such as signs of molten iron, visual analysis of the collapses, and chemical and physics analysis borne out through experimentation — that the collapses may have been due to a controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 on September 11th. If this hypothesis is correct it accounts for the greatest number of fatalities on that day. This evidence says nothing on its own about a government conspiracy, but it does suggest the attacks were much more elaborate than alternative hypotheses.

Simultaneous failure of routine defenses

Fighter jets, routinely scrambled for commercial aircraft flying off course and typically intercepting wayward aircraft within 15 minutes, were not scrambled at all until every plane had already crashed. The time between the first reported hijacking and the last collision was over an hour. Again, this does not suggest Elmo TMX flew the plane into the pentagon. However, it is a notable failure on the day of the attacks and it is cited by sever authors published in verifiable sources.

Documented efforts to delay, obstruct or avoid Congressional or other independent investigations

Some of these sources present evidence that members of the US Congress, calling for a serious and more thorough investigation of the attacks, were intimidated by executive branch agents.

The scientific surveys showing the doubts about prior investigations and the need for further investigation

The NYT and other articles cited above should also be included in the article. They show the doubts Americans (and others around the world) have about the current state of investigation into the attacks.

These last two subsections demonstrate the partiality of the official investigations (partial, both in the sense of incomplete and partial in the sense of representing an account of interested parties). The article how it currently stands presents only that one partial account: and it presents it (as some of the editors try to insist above) as simply the facts mam. Again, there are other partial accounts not included in the article.

Attacks used as a pretense ("an opportunity" according to Rumsfeld) to ram through administrations policies

Some of these sources also document this quite well. This is an important part of the US government response that is absent from that section. Some of these policies include homeland security, war against terror, war in Afghanistan, war in Iraq, the use of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base as a "zone of total despotism for the administration", TSA intimidation of airline passengers, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and so on. The article makes no mention of these and is written as if readers are a bunch of kindergartners on a tour of the Whitehorse.

---

These are accounts of the attacks in verifiable sources written by reputable authors. They should be incorporated into the main sections of the article. They should be interspersed through the various sections and subsections of the article Some of these sources provide additional analysis of the nature of the attacks (section 1), allegations and culpability (section 2), reactions (section 3), the response of US government entities (section 4), and the long-term implications of these attacks (section 5). Throwing them into an incited and pejorative subsection entitled "Conspiracy theories" or into another article with the same title advances a particular POV, or as Mongo calls it: it's POV pushing.

I welcome other editors to add to this list above and make comments and criticisms below. Again, we're not arguing whether these accounts are correct or incorrect. We are discussing how these accounts can be included within the article to fix the NPOV violations.

---

Comments

• All of these points are secondary. This article summarizes a notable historic event. It is not a random collection of every point that can possibly be connected to it. Not every element of the overall story belongs in this article, and whether something is true, or false, or of unknown status, is highly releveant. It is necessary to discriminate:
  • The acts of the terrorists and their consequences, and
  • Issues that, while an important part of the story, are not direct consequences of the terrorists' actions and typically are addressed in separate articles:
    • Folklore like the conspiracy theories and the controlled demolition hoax.
    • Unpreparedness and the contributory negligence.
    • Obstruction of investigation.
    • Political exploitation of the tragedy.
  • Speculation and innuendo by the general public, which are not encyclopedic content, except where they constitute a notable pop culture phenomenon, and then only where clearly identified as such. Peter Grey 00:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, here are some comments:

1. Right, tickle me Elmo make no mention of conspiracy theories because there are no notable conspiracy theories about Elmo. When it comes to 9/11, there are TONS of notable conspiracy theories. That's why they are mentioned, yes, even have their own page. They ARE theories of the kind normally called conspiracy theories. I understand that you don't like the word, but unless you can come up with an equally clear word for these kinds of theories, I see no option than to keep it. I don't like that the democrats call themsleves liberal. As a European, that word mean something different to me. But I don't go around claiming that all references on Wikipedia to the democrats being liberal are POV. They aren't. It's just a word usage I am not happy with but have to accept.
2. All arguments for a controlled demolition has been thoroughly disproved. Nothing indicates a controlled demolition, and in fact, the installation of the explosives would not have gone unnoticed, and therefore a controlled demolition is an impossibility. Therefore we can not take up controlled demolition as a credible alternative event explanation. Stating disproved statements would remove Wikipedias credivility. We can't do that. You say this is not to discuss whether the claims are true or not, and fine, lets then not just discuss it. The fact still is that we can't take up disproven statement and claim them as credible theories when they aren't, adn the controlled demolition theories are not in any way shape or form even remotely credible.

   This is only your personal POV and it does not represent truth, sorry. Other people like Jones, Hoffman, Griffin, Ryan, who made more research than you have different opinion. So there is no need to shift discussion to this level, really. If your oppinion matters, then mine too. SalvNaut 02:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

   No, that is not a POV. If you read the NPOV article you see that this isn't a quetsion of view or opinion. It doens't even fit into that categorization. It's a question of factual accuracy. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

3. The eventual failure of defense routines is a valid topic when one discusses how much the government could have done to prevent the events. Blaming the goverment is not a necessary topic when noting the chain of events, as this article does. In fact, it could be construed to be POV. The article is controversial, it needs to be as FACTUAL as possible, nothing else.
4. Again, the goverments unwillingness to make an investigation is not a valid topic when mentioning the chain of events.
5. You want to include documents that say that possible the scientific investigations are flawed because of political reasons. That would break NPOV. Scientific research is disproven by other scientific research, not by political intrigues.

Cpan, it is quite evident from your list of things above, that what you find missing from the article are efforts to blame the Bush government, wholly or partially for the event. Adding such bits would break the NPOV policy. We can't do that, which you yourself agree with.

That *should* end the debate, but somehow I suspect it doens't. ;-) --Regebro 01:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. There are no notable conspiraqcy theories in the sense that all of us editors here would agree these are alternative views and criticisms are outlandish enought to be disparaged as "conspiracy theories". Your analogy to thee democrats and liberals is a false analogy. The democrats self-identify as liberals so the term is not disparaging in their view. The term "comspiracy theory" as its being used here is only in the disparaging sense. It's a word not to use and unencydlopedic.
2. Yours starting to try to prove and disprove things again. Take it to a usenet group somewhere else. I would welcome the inclusion of counter-arguments to the controlled demolition evidence. That's a great way to make the article conform to the NPOV policy
3. I and I would guess many other of the dissenting editors here would argue that the defense failures are very important pieces fot these attacks. Without those, it makes it look like the US was just some emporer with no close and that anybody with a few friends with box-cutters could have succeeded in a major attack at any time.
4. The issue of avoiding investigation belongs in the article long before the current draft"s overly long disucssion of all the of different investigations that all agree with each other.
5. you misunderstand. I merely want to include discussion of the views of the public (part of the public reaction) of the attacks and investigations. This is very relevant in a discussion of these attacks.

Finally, I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself on this, but Regebro please read the NPOV policy. You completely misunderstand it. The relevant facts for this article are what the editors determine through compromise and concesnus are the relevant facts. The relevant facts are no simply what you say they are.. Including criticism of the Bush administration does not violate NPOV. That is rediculous. it balances the article so that it comforsm with the NPOV policy. Should we go change the Iraq war article to say that no one has died in Iraq to ensure we don't cast an unfavorable light on the Bush administration? I'm trying my best to presume good faith in these dicussion, and things seem to be improving, but some of these arguments you're continuing to make are absurd, seem intentionally obtuse and intentionally disruptive. --Cplot 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One could go long way around, but in short, those statements above are crap. Commission report was even greater crap then yours, since you need a blink of a Google to verify why that whole investigation wasn’t an investigation at all, since people involved have been anything but independent ((actually first person which came to Bush's mind was Henry (you damn loon!) Kissinger)). Honestly, I'm tired of all this, and I do expect some decent perspective from you all. It took Bush 411! days to appoint Chairman of that commission, and there is (partially) decent article about it even here on Quikipedia (pardon my sarcasm…), so way don't you look that up? I've proposed a section about government foreknowledge some time ago, and as you see I'm not the only one with such things on mind… 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yours starting to try to prove and disprove things again. Take it to a usenet group - Please learn the difference between an encyclopedia and a chat room. Views of the public have their place (usually a sub-article), but in an encyclopedia they don't supercede what is known to be true or known to be false. Peter Grey 03:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Truth? How do we know it's true? Also what policy or guideline says that it has to be real or true to have an article? If truth were necessary, then evolution, creation, gravity, etc. would have be deleted because they're all theories. Once again this seems like POV pushing on your part, as well as mongo's. And, lastly, prove to everyone here without a doubt that this article is 100% true. if you can't, your argument is moot--Acebrock 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, how DO we know it's true? How do we know ANYTHING is true? Big questions. Luckily, we have answers. See Scientific method and if you want the philosophy behind it, Epistemology. Yes, evolution, creation and gravity are theories. That does not make them "untrue". You seem to think that nothing can be a fact and theory at the same time. That is a common misunderstanding, but nevertheless a misunderstanding. Evolution is a theory. AND a fact. The conspiracy theories with 9/11 are theories. And NOT in any way shape or form based onfacts, but based on misunderstandings, misconceptions and sometimes just plain paranoia. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that truth is subjective, and reality only exists in the mind--Acebrock 18:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what Jones did, he applied scientific method to Collapse of WTC, he analyzed ALL the data and come to different conclusion. His paper was peer reviewed by 4PhDs, (two physicists) (not by engineering journal, but why it should be? He takes physical approach there, why would engineer know better on this apporoach?). You must be aware of the fact that NIST report hasn't been peer-reviewed and that it has outspoken critics from both (official, inside job) sides? SalvNaut 16:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that Jones applied proper scientific method is fork bendingly silly. From the scientific method Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the science community. Pouring molten metal out of a 6 inch sauce pan is just a trick, not science. And yes, engineers need to be involved in these things, applied science is where the rubber meets the road and without their input it's incomplete. Rx StrangeLove 17:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Jones never claimed his experiments were final, he always urged for another proper investigation. He is "making a case" for controlled demolition hypothesis investigation. And his experiments weren't so stupid if you look at them closely (the pan was red already while aluminium wasn't). Then, why NIST which has millions of $ didn't made those or similiar experiments? What about molten steel in the rubble? Do you really fell satisfied with this one RxStrangelove?: "The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."(NIST) SalvNaut 17:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If they are not final, then their use on Wikipedia is of little value. Anyone looking at this with no preconceptions couldn't be very surprised there was molten metal after such a violent series of events. The NIST is under no obligation to spend my money investigating claims made by anyone with an axe to grind. And arguing about whether a sauce pan full of molten metal can give any real insight to such violence is beyond silly. Rx StrangeLove 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's beyond silly to focus on a sauce pan, and then make a comment about violence. Orange glowing saucepan full of hot, but silver alluminium gives insight exactly into that. "Anyone looking at this with no preconceptions..." - well that's the point... without... but with scientific knowledge? SalvNaut 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not focusing on a sauce pan (full of what could be anything). If you've read my comments, I talked about the NIST's obligations when researching the events of that day, Jones research being of little value as it stands right now, the existence of molten metal after the collapse (and how it shouldn't have come as a surprise), the scientific method and how Jones is playing at it and how applied engineering needs to be involved when researching engineering topics. So, no....I'm not focusing on that sauce pan...though it is pretty funny you have to admit. Rx StrangeLove 18:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm only guessing what you consider funny here. That's how science works - from small discoveries to big ones. Wasn't that funny when Darwin concluded about affinity between humans and apes from looking at Mockingbirds' beaks? Jones' points are really strong from physicist's point of view - molten metal is barerly explainded by something else than explosives (F. Gordon has some other theory which involves self-inducing thermite reactions - it needs to be investigated, strange isn't it?). NIST was under obligation to gather as much data as possible and provide theory that explains all the data. They failed. They contradicted themselves often (fire temperatures, pancake theory, sagging floors, allegedly dislodged fireproofing). They did bad science. SalvNaut 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what's funny, pouring molten whoknowswhat on your desk and calling it science, that's comedy. No documentation, no controls, no reproducibility...no science. Though comparing Jones to Darwin is pretty funny also. Your assertions about the NIST are only that, maybe they didn't do perfect science either but that doesn't mean anything goes, and that we have to track down every lunatic with a video camera and spend a bunch of money investigating the results of their bad science. Jones doesn't have to believe what NIST (or every other mainstream source) says but if we going to take him seriously he has to do better. extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and all that. Rx StrangeLove 19:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The experiment is perfectly reproducible. You would prefer to have some charts and so? Here you go, here it is explained how black body radiation depends on temperature: Black body radiation (check where bright yellow is). Can you come up with better experiment that would show exactly what Jones is trying to say about molten alluminium?(and would not need many 1000$). Extraordinary claims need the same kind of evidence as every other claim. Btw: what about WTC7 - isn't it extraordinary to claim that it collapsed the way it did only due to fires and some damage?SalvNaut 19:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can it be? What was the aluminum mixture? How much of it was there? What temp? How large was the pan? What kind of wood and how much of that was added? What kind of plastic? Bad science. Bad reasoning. Jones can keep his rotating charts until he has done some science. Re: your comment on my Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence point, tu quoque is just a logical fallacy. Rx StrangeLove 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a fallacy - I just think that NIST did bad science. I hope you are in the same way critical of NIST putting their claim about "organic material glow" in their FAQ and not providing any data about it, not even making any experiments probably, as you are of Jones's experiments. I really hope you are. But to not "tu quoque" anymore (thank you for a new phrase), I won't defend Jones on his paper and presentations and dust analysis etc. as they could be done better (as always). I sustain that they are absolutely enough for what they were intended, that is to make a case for serious investigation of CD hypothesis. Dismissing the paper and hypothesis as you and many others do is inappropriate, unscientific, imho. Jones and Scholars are calling for a release of all evidence about both towers - would you support them? Thanks for the discussion. SalvNaut 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tu quoque is considered an ad hominem argument, close enough for a fallacy for me...and that's what you are doing. Look at what started this: That's what Jones did, he applied scientific method to Collapse of WTC, he analyzed ALL the data and come to different conclusion. That's you, way up above, and that's what we're talking about here. NIST may have done perfect science, it may have done none at all...it's not relevant here. What is on topic in this thread is that Jones has done nothing at all that would qualify as good science. Later in that paragraph you say that NIST report hasn't been peer-reviewed; defending Jones by attacking NIST....Tu quoque. So, no I don't think that he rises to the level needed to spend a bunch of $$$ on...and I would in a second if I thought he was on to something. All evidence? No, not for the fishing expedition they are on. Rx StrangeLove 21:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is nothing extraordinary with that claim. And if Jones tries to claim that aluminium needs high temperatures to melt, he is correct. The types of temperatures you get in intensive fires like the ones that was in WTC, and just the types of temperatures you do NOT get in a controlled demolition. --Regebro 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Swedish, dutch, structural engineers, demolition experts and many, many people think it is extraordinary. Don't grasp straws, please. And you completely misrepresented/misunderstood Jones's claims and arguments. Please read Jones's paper, presentations. and NIST report before further discussion. Thanks! SalvNaut 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Many may "think" so, but it still isn't. Science is NOT a matter of popular opinion. You don't understand how science works. We won't get further in this debate until you do. --Regebro 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regebro, you proved that you discuss about theories and you haven't even read most important papers to them. Stop to instruct me about science, will you? When I say they "think", I mean they are academics and they value their words, and their opinions are most probably strengthtened with reasoning, but still are nothing more than opinions. Where did I say otherwise? I could understand your agitation, but instead of arguing here I urge you to read Jones's paper, NIST report and Kevin Ryan's critique of it. Thanks. SalvNaut 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily discuss theories, but not in a discussion that is nominally about somethng else. As requested MULTIPLE TIMES, by MULTIPLE PEOPLE. If there is some section or thing you think could be improved, feel free to take that up for discussion, but do NOT do it in a context of "the whole article is POV", because if you do we nee dto concentrate about discussing if the article is POV or not. And I'll continue to instruct you on science when you show misunderstandsings about it. Jones paper for example doesn't even ATTEMPT to prove the controlled demolition hypothesis. Yet you bring it up in a discussion about the controlled demolition hypothesis. That shows that you don't udnerstand how science works. --Regebro 11:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

One of my proposed edits (already made partially) has just been archived, second one is waiting under section "Proposed edits". Please have a look there. "by MULTIPLE PEOPLE" - that was me there, too, insisting on discussing edits - this discussion is sort of orthogonal to that, it somehow has emerged and is already finished...you know how it is goes when already started. "Jones paper for example doesn't even ATTEMPT to prove the controlled demolition hypothesis." - Wow, if you have read whole paper, that's very good. It does not attempt to prove - it points out very significant data that, according to Jones, makes CD hypothesis a must to be investigated, we agree here, right? Please, stop instructing me on science without a good reason, just to gain (false)advantage in discussion. Ok? :) SalvNaut 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"it points out very significant data that, according to Jones, makes CD hypothesis a must to be investigated, we agree here, right?" We agree that this is what Jones sais. We don't agree that he is right, or that his opinion has any scientific worth. Also, if Jones things the CD hypothesis must be investigated, he is free to investigate it. And if he finds PROOF for it, THEN we can include it on this page. But as of today, there is no proof, or even indications. To be completely and utterly clear on this topic: The CD hypothesis has as much scientific and factual basis as the theory that the towers were eaten by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The logic is the same: "Hey airplanes can't fly into towers! Therefore the theory that the towers was eaten by the flying spaghetti monster must be seriously investigated!" Eh, no, it doesn't. Honestly, it doesn't. --Regebro 17:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

".., or that his opinion has any scientific worth" - by saing that you show yourself completely ignorant (I doubt if you've read his paper with understanding). I've never proposed to include CD hypothesis here as a fact. Do you have any academic experience? Your comprehension of science is quite limited. SalvNaut 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cpan, I HAVE read the texts on NPOV. I'm sure you have too. But you allow yourself to get blinded and not see what they are saying. Further comments:

1. No, not everybody has to agree. If one editor thinks that Tickle me Elmo is a jewish conspiracy from outer space, this does not have to be mentioned in the article. With sex billion people around the world, I'm sure there is at least one evidently incorrect opinion on every wikipedia article. These do NOT have to be included. Wikipedia is NOT a complete listing of humanities ideas an opinions. it is a dictionatry, and the articles should therefore state the truth, not list every idea and opinion that somebody might have. Incorrect opinions and theories should be listed if they are NOTABLE. The 9/11 conspiracy theories ARE notable, and they are therefore listed. They even have their own article. YOU are argiung that we should consciously give known falsehoods equal billing in the article, just because you say so. Do you think that makes sense?
2. No, I'm not trying to prove and disprove things. I just mention the fact that is is completely and totally disproved. You want to include things we KNOW are completely and utterly false in an article. Counter-arguments to the controlled demolition theory exist where they belong: In the conspircay theory article.
3. "Without those, it makes it look like the US was just some emporer with no close and that anybody with a few friends with box-cutters could have succeeded in a major attack at any time." Which of course is completely correct. Are we getting to the core of why you feel the need to cling to conspiracy theories? Well, that's not what we are discussing anyway...
4. No, in an article where the EVENTS are described, it necessary to mention the research of those events. It is NOT necessary to mention the politics behind the research.
5. "I merely want to include discussion of the views of the public (part of the public reaction) of the attacks and investigations." No, you are evidently NOT trying to merely include this, as your above points are all about including completely different things. In any case, I don't see how that belongs in the article. The article is about the attackes. There is a section about public response. The article is not about the investigations. Why would you want to include a section on public respons to that? Oh, right, because you desperately want to have text in the article that blames Bush for the attacks. Which would be POV, and which we therefore can't have.

Your points here boils down to one simple thing: You want to point the blame wholly or partially on the Bush-administration, something that would inherently be POV. In your quest to do so, you claim that UNLESS the article includes such a blame, the article would be POV. That is false. POV is when you misrepresent opinion as fact, which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. The resolution to this, as the NPOV article sais are to let facts speak for themselves. Therefore, the article tries to be FACTUAL, and not state opinions. Of your five points here, only one is about factual things, the controlled demolition part. But when it is pointed out to you that the controlled demolition theory is proven to be false, you say it's not about being false or not. Yet, that's EXACTLY what it is about. --Regebro 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the controlled demolition hypothesis proven to be false? Isn't an article that only shows the Governments POV, just POV? Slipgrid 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be POV. That's why this article tries very hard to follow the NPOV rules and be factual. So as to not be POV. The controlled demolition hypothesis is proven to be false in many places including the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories, and also earlier in this debate. (although it should be noted that the separate page of the controlled demolition theory is strongly biased FOR the theory by almost leaving out any arguments against controlled demolition. --Regebro 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

According to many notable persons it is not proven to be false. How did you read it from 9/11 conspiracy theories article? Since when articles are proofs for anything? The only thing we know from officcial account about CD is one sentence from NIST report, which says that they didn't found anything to it. Well, where is data? Where are experiments? The data which found its place in NIST report strongly suggests possibility of CD. Steven Jones provided more data. Why do I explain it, anyway? eh... SalvNaut 15:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" of persons is irrellevant. Paris Hilton is a notable person. Would you take her opinion on a scientific matter seriously? No, I thought not. This is not about notability or about persons, but about facts and science. You can't claim that a NPOV article is POV just because it doens't have YOUR POV. I think neither you or Cpan has understood what NPOV is, or possibly, you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. --Regebro 17:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the "government" POV. It's the account that has been presented in media outlets, worldwide such as Al Jazeera, Times of India, the CBC (Canada), and major media outlets in the U.K., France, Germany, Australia and China (list could go on), as well as the United Nations. I've yet to see a reliable source that presents conspiracy theories as facts. We give the theories appropriate due weight. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole notion of an "official account" is a straw man fallacy. The 9/11 Commission Report is merely one (secondary) source, and by no means the most reliable or informative. Independent accounts which agree with reality are going to agree with each other. Demolition has been disproven, repeatly. If you've been duped by that hoax, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't have anything to do with an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Peter, could you point me to a place where I could probably see that "independent accounts" settled what happened to WTC7? SalvNaut 17:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We already have a place for discussions about alternate perspectives on the September 11, 2001 attacks -- it's at 9/11 conspiracy theories, to which this article already references. This page is for the actual account, not the pop-conspiracy theory. Morton Devonshire^Yo 18:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a question.

If 911 was perpetrated or even known about by the government and/or Bush administration so they could gain public support for attacking Iraq, then why ,pray, did they not just say that Saddam Hussein's army did it?--SweetNeo85 17:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how easily some fall into whatever Bush administration say, they could've probably got away with that, for some time at least. They've got away with non-existent WMD's, no doubt.

My real, speculative answer would be: Firstly, Osama and CIA are/were long-time "friends". Secondly, have you ever played war strategy games? Look, here is Afghanistan, here is Iraq... hmm what's that in the middle? SalvNaut 17:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

So, are you asserting that AlQuaeda and the CIA were working in cooperation? Secondly, are you also asserting that we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan for strategic purposes in order to invade Iran? Please, don't give cryptic answers. Be straightforward. Then you will see clearly if there are any fallacies to your arguments.--SweetNeo85 18:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it, if history has taught us anything, it's that governments can't keep a secret and this would be a whopper. Any major (or minor) news organization would go wild with it, and anyone who could clue them in (or write a book) would be set for life. Occam's Razor would be of use here, but it's used only selectively on these pages. Wild and convoluted theories make it easier to rave out loud without people thinking you're completely insane. Rx StrangeLove 18:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Goverments can't keep secrets? Are you a CIA agent to conclude so? :) What about project Manhattan? What about JFK assasination? What about explosion in Moscow in 2000, which was blamed on Chechens and then war begun? What about those things we have completely no idea about? Do you know that Holocaust was considered a conspiracy theory for some time after war (and to this day is by some)? Occam's razor can only be used when there is 100% confidence that all the relevant data was gathered (and this assumption is very often flawed). SalvNaut 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that we don't know anything about those things we don't know anything about. Is there something you know about JFK you're not telling us? Because nothing has been proven so far....just more theories. The Manhattan Project? Lot's of people knew about that, and would have said something if the US wasn't completely united about that war...which it isn't now of course. Apple and oranges. I don't understand how a flawed conspiracy theory about the Holocaust fits into any of this. Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

JFK? Oh, I forgot we all know Oswald did it... and then some freaky businessman killed Oswald... of course... except maybe for special commission which issued a statement that there was some conspiracy involved with high probability... and that all documents are top classified... nothing proven... does that make you right - goverments can't keep secrets??. You might want to read how exactly informations about Holocaust were denied at first. Take a look here, too: List of proven conspiracys. SalvNaut 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it doesn't make anyone right. Just because one conspiracy actually happened doesn't mean they all did. And re:JFK...nothing is proven. That list of proven conspiracys is pretty big huh? Must be hard to keep that stuff a secret when there really is a conspiracy. Rx StrangeLove 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the US government would dare try anything like that. From 9/11 onwards I think it was widely agreed that terrorism was way out of control, however I highly doubt any US official would aid or incite it. They probably decided to take full advantage of the tragedy to do all the things they always wanted to do but would have never got away with under normal circumstances (pass the PATRIOT Act, attack Afghanistan and Iraq etc). If they were behind it, I don't think they would try it on that scale; they probably would have done it in some small town in the USA or abroad.--Rudjek 18:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinions, opinions, do you know what Adolf Hitler used to say on that topic? He use to say: "The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." Lovelight 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for taming the discussion at this page

• Enforce an attribution (citation) only rule.
• Keep all the discussion of conspiratorial talk / [implied] accusations

to wikipedia articles on alternate theories of 9/11 attacks.Dogru144 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, since we don't care about theories, since we work with facts. Warnings of the clear and present danger must be mentioned. Inside trading, and unclaimed options should be noted. Obvious freefall (CD) of building 7 is obvious and it should be described as such. That constant gibberish of US administrators about 911 link to Saddam and Iraq deserves a few lines and (independently speaking) I don't give a rat's ass about patriotic acts and political correctness on that one… anyway, don’t wont to repeat what we all know, but please do restrain from such conspiratorial terminology when addressing to valid and reasonable questions or well known facts. Lovelight 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dogru144, I'm not sure exactly what you're proposing since everything after your first bullet point looks garbeld to me. However, I do support the first point. This is not a usenet newsgroup. We are not trying to convince one another of the facts. We are trying to craft an article that includes relevant positions from verifiable sources. The facts we are concerened with here is whether position X was indeed published in source Y. We are not here to convince one another of our disparate POVs.

Having said that, Its clear from this discussion that those proposing the so-called comspiracy theories are citing particular sources (Jones, Griffin, etc). while those opposing these so-called conspiracy theories are not: instead saying tthings like: "it has been disproven again and again" or "they're silly". These sorts of rebuttals do not belong on Wikipedia. Dogu144's first bullet would require citing specifically who says "Jones is silly" in a verifiable source? This is the material that can then be used in the redraft of this NPOV violating artricle. --Cplot 19:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• We are advised to leave our emotions outside, but as we all know such things r easier said then done;). Anyway, those garbled issues were already discussed in the past.., however there was this hard and impenetrable line here. If things have changed, I'll state each and every case again… there is nothing to refute there, just facts… Well then, should we acknowledge foreknowledge and warnings of imminent attacks? We can start appropriate section below… Lovelight 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to make this into a discussion of what is true or not. That's fine with me, but you have so far claimed that this isn't what it's about. You have up to now claimed that this is about the article being POV, not that it's incorrect. Have you changed your mind? Because now you require verifiable sources to the claims. That makes no sense, unless you are contensting the correctness of the claims. So, what is it? Is this about the articlebeing POV, or the article being factually incorrect? --Regebro 20:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regebro, this gives me an opportunity to cite the NPOV policy once again. NPOV requires we not do oritinal research (decide what's true) and instead focus on an article that cites verifiable sources (sources that we can verify exist and in that sense is atruth).

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

Actually I meant this wiki policy quotation but the prior one is relevant too:

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. (highlighed portions to underscore the misunderstaniding about NPOV represented in the discussion thus far)

So as I'm sure you understand, there is not a contradiction in my position. But thanks for asking the faux question it helps ensure that every disruuptive editor here (including each disruptive admin) has no plausiable denial on not understanding what they're doing wrong. --Cplot 21:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This does contradict your position. You want to put in opinions, and conclusions that are disproven. This is:

1. Not competing version of what the facts are. It's conclusions and opinions. Thus you want to MAKE the article POV from being NPOV.
2. The quotes you have from the NPOV page are about opinions, not facts. You need to understand the difference between these. --Regebro 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The first step of "taming the discussion at this page" is posting a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" on this page. Slipgrid 01:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also in WP:NPOV

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

--PTR 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One can look at any part of this article and find POV problems. Here's a quick example.

In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, in which Osama bin Laden is talking to Khaled al-Harbi. In the tape bin Laden admits foreknowledge of the attacks.

This section cites | this CNN story. It does not reflect the POV in | this CNN story from the same day, or | this Guardian Unlimited story from the next day. That is a conflict of two different POV, and both should be reflected in this article. And, every section of this article contains the same bias POV. Again, the one and only one way to start "taming the discussion at this page" is posting a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" on this page. --Slipgrid 01:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• The neutrality of this article is NOT disputed, except by a small group of conspiracy theoriests who do not understand or accept what the word "neutrality" means. They think it means that we have to present all theories as equal, even of they are proven to be wrong. That is NOT what it means. NPOV means that you keep the article FACTUAL. Most suggestions of how to make the article NPOV involves going AWAY from factuality and putting in MORE opinions. That would make the article LESS NPOV, not more so. --Regebro 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• In reference to the post I made above, that paragraph is point of view. It is widely believed that the video is a fake. Two mainstream articles point this out (see above) the day of, and the day after, the tapes release. I have not seen any further evidence to support that the tape is not a fake. Where is this proven? The day that the tape was released, there were millions of people saying it was a fake. That's not my POV, that's theirs. Watch the tape yourself. The guy doesn't look like UBL! UBL is left handed, but the guy in the tape if right handed. But, for get that. Here's a third mainstream article that shows that the world has a great deal of doubt about the POV expressed in this article. You can say that the tape is valid, but all the evidence is to the contrary. Where's your evidence? Where's your support? You have one CNN story, and I have a CNN story from the same day that reports on the doubt of the tape. And people are still expressing doubt. If you like, forget what the tapes shows, though it clearly shows a farce. What are the major views that this article fails to address. It's not opinion; it's major doubt on the factuality of this article.—Slipgrid 09:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss certain details of the page, you are welcome to do so. Start a new section on the talk page and discuss it. But do not claim that one problem with one detail of the page is a NPOV dispute or makes the whole article POV, because that is simply not true. --Regebro 09:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about this. You chose a section of the page, and I'll show you how it is POV. The whole article is the same way. I've tried creating new sections on the talk page, and taking it one sentence at a time, but all I get is Tom and Mogo saying that they are not interested, or the article reflects the facts, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. It's to late for that. This article is disputed, and this is one of the many disputes. You go through the talk history, find all the disputes, and address them, the way they should of been addressed a long time ago. The burden's not on me. Those disputes were not addressed, and by your response here, I have no faith that they will be address, so a disputed tag needs to go up.—Slipgrid 10:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• How about this: YOU support the things YOU say, instead of requiring of me that I do your job. OK? --Regebro 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I did. I support this one change, and no one has said anything against it. Now, someone should make the change, or tell me why that section is not POV.—Slipgrid 12:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• No you did not. The discussion now is whether the article as a whole is NPOV or not. Pointing out *one* detail where you don't agree with a afactual statement does not make the article as a whole POV (it's doubtful whether is even makes that DETAIL POV, as most factual disputes are not POV in any normal sense). Now we are discussing whether the article as a whole is POV. This is evidently not so, and you have evidently no arguments for this. As I mentioned, if you want to discuss details, do so, but not under the general heading of claiming that the article is POV. You also say that you HAVE discussed the details, but that you failed to convince people to change. Well, what does that tell you? --Regebro 12:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the first thing people need to do right now is archive this talk page and restart the discussion. The discussion also need to be extremely focused. Otherwise it becomes incomprehensible to outside readers (and that's exactly the way it is right now). Taxico 02:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I think that's a bad idea. Maybe we should make all the archive pages into one page, so we can see in one glance just how disputed this article is.—Slipgrid 07:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was being gentle.

Basically, the bulk of the edits in the current impending edit war are involving conspiratorial accusations or conspiracy-toned analyses. Yes, we should deal explicitly with facts, particularly verifiable facts.

Secondly, yes, we should hew to a NPOV orientation. Much of the contributions material should have been directed to the talk page. Dogru144 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I find myself in agreement with Dogu144 again (I think). I've proposed the elimination of the "conspiracy theory" section entirely. I don't believe the issue of conspiracy theories si any more notable for the 9/11 attacks than for most any other event. I'd be happy if the phrase never appeared in the article. Common beliefs that Sadaam Hussein or the Taliban were behind this should be mentioned (and the ways those ideas were spread), but I would be opposed to calling those conspiracy theories. --Cplot 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are in agreement with Dogu144, then you are in agreement with me, as he says pretty much exactly what I have been trying to say. And as has been said here several times before: If there is some bit or detail you are not hapy with, take that up for discussion. But do not use that detail to claim that the article as a whole is POV, or as an excuse to mangle up the article, or to rewrite it, or as an excuse to put your OWN POV into the article. I have also asked for better words that "conspiracy theory" to describe a theory that has in it's center a conspiracy, but you haven't come up with one yet. I hardly think you want to remove all menton of the conspiracy theories, right? I think that would make the article rather less NPOV. ;) --Regebro 11:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The discussion has more than demonstrated there are serious doubts about the article’s adherence to the NPOV policy. Could we get an administrator to add the {{POV}} template to the top of the article.

After that we should try to focus on specific edits to the article to bring it into compliance. This means we stop trying to convince one-another about what we think is factual or credible in the article and work on including verifiable sources and what they have to say about these attacks. Again, it doesn't matter if I think the NIST report is wrong, I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that. Rather the proper way to proceed is to include cited criticisms of the NIST report and other cited count-criticisms. --Cplot 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including criticism of the NIST report so long as they are as credible as the NIST. Anything from a reviewed Civil or Structural engineering peer reviewed journal is acceptable. Anything less is undue weight. --Tbeatty 05:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all this was only an example. And you're already moving the debate in the wrong direction. It's not up to only you to decide what sources are credible. A significant number of editors here find Jones paper credible (for many editors more credible because of it's independence from the Bush Whitehouse), so it belongs in a NPOV article. Besides the NIST report does not even meet your criterion, so we'd have to throw out all mention of that. Again, we need to end the stone-walling. Too many editors have expressed their interest in fixing these NPOV problems. Just because a minority of editors have the time to spend here guarding a NPOV violating article, doesn't make it OK to violate the policies of Wikipedia. For those disruptive editors still have trouble understanding how to work towards a NPOV compliant article, I'd suggest you also take a look at the Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.. --Cplot 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is never going to happen, so save yourself the frustration. The 9/11 Truth Movement has ZERO credibility, and you have no credible sources to cite to support these incredible claims. Morton Devonshire^Yo 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

it has to happen to conform to Wikipedia policy. It's unfortunate that you disagree with the policies, but you should take it up with the board and not here on an article discussion page. We need to all try to be diligent to use this talk page for it's purpose. And that purpose is to discuss ways of improving the article. Right now the most pressing matter is crafting a NPOV redraft of this entire article. This page is not here for stonewalling. It's not here for unilateral declarions — against a significant number of editors — that one or another source is not credible.. It's not for convincing other editors that they're stupid or misguided, or that you have somehow found divine truth. There are other venues for those discussions and this page has already been sidetracked into those discussion way too much. Cplot 06:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The sources you might cite to to support 9/11 Truth Movement/LIHOP/MIHOP/Controlled Demolition claims do not meet the reputable sources requirements of our policy WP:RS. I'm talking about Wikipedia rules here, which prevent citation to blogs and self-published web sources. Incredible claims require extraordinary citation. Morton Devonshire^Yo 07:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jones’ paper is in Template:Harvard reference which unquestionably meets Wikpedia's guideline for reliable sources. In entering this collected volume, the paper was also reviewed by four PhDs (including 2 physicists). The 9/11 Truth movement website likewise publishes sources that meet Wikipedia's guideline. It is not a blog and it certainly doesn't fall under self-published. There are many web only (non-print) publications out there like the 9/11 truth movement that meet the guidelines for a reliable source. Cplot 08:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are always some exclusive (or eccentric) tags looming over main article, administrators would you be so kind to remove full protection, or recognize the nature of this dispute at the entrance point. Lovelight 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has NOT proven that there is dispute about the article beiong NPOV. All your siggestions about chamnging it is about going AWAY from a NPOV fact-based article, and put in MORE POVs. That would make the article LESS NPOV. You have not been able to point out what in the article is not NPOV, and you have constantly confused opinions and facts. The discussion has, if anything, proven that the article IS POV, thanks to your unability to point to how the articles would be NPOV. You need to accept that the article as a whole is NPOV and factual. If there is some details you find POV, you can discuss them,. but the article as a whole is clearly NOT POV. A neutrality dispute is not you saying "It's not neutral" over and over. Or, to quote some mor notable sources on this issue:

"An argument is not just contradiction". http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm. --Regebro 09:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of theoretical talk about what is potentially wrong with the article, but it's not bringing anything to a resolution. The major issue appears to be: how to apply the NPOV policy, particularly the undue weight rule, to sources with various degrees of reliability. This disagreement is not what views exist, or what is notable, but whether certain opinions should be given 'equal time' in this, the summary article, or should be restricted to matters of folklore.
  • One argument is that Wikipedia editors should consider every source as equally authoritative, because every judgment call is potential for NPOV violation, or absolute truth is unknowable, or some such.
  • The other is that clearly unreliable and misleading sources should be limited to support of conspiracy theory folklore. Consider the popular example of Steven Jones' paper. Building collapse is a question of structural engineering. It is not a political or philosophical question, nor is it a matter of popularity. Most importantly, it is not subject to appeals to intuition or analysis by amateurs. Steven Jones is not a demolition export or a structural engineer - he is an amateur, and has no more authority on the subject than any other amateur, and furthermore his findings are known to be incorrect. (This has been demonstrated a few times in the archives of this talk page.)
  • So we have this question: In an area which requires engineering expertise, how are non-professional opinions, even ones that, tragically, are popular, to be treated under the rule of undue weight? Peter Grey 16:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection requested

Unprotection of this article has been requested at WP:RfPP; however, the talk page still seems rather hostile to me, and I'm a little hesitant to unprotect. Is there a general consensus for unprotection of this article? AmiDaniel (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree... Remove Protection.--y23 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there must be a way to sort this out. After all, the murderous events of 911 happened in a particular fashion, the fact that how they are happened is disputed does mean that there is considerable differences in perception. One is not cynical to assume that there was an intentional deception, (war ALL start with a deception), one can however be accused of total naivite believing the 'official version'. Wikipedia should reflect this, wikipedia often sets examples in other fields, too.. the official version of Henry Kissinger's entry would look different, too.

Agree... Remove Protection.--Slipgrid 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Slipgrid has made it clear above that he will, against consensus and against wikipedia rules, start adding POV to the article if it gets unprotected. --Regebro 11:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I'm not the one in the edit war. I do my work on th talk pages. But, why would it be a bad idea to put up the disputed tag? 20+ Pages of talk history show dispute.—Slipgrid 12:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether we are discussing. Evidently we are discussing. The discussion is about whether the article deserves a disputed tag or not. It doesn't, but it's evidently clear from the discussion about that neither you nor Cplot will accept this. Therefore, the article needs to be protected until you guys agree :

1. that the article does NOT need a general NPOV tag,
2. to stop trying to push YOUR agenda and YOUR POV into the articles and
3. to instead try to discuss each issue separately.

--Regebro 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. This article is disputed by many.
2. The truth has no agenda.
3. We have twenty pages of discussion, with it being ignored by people like you.

—Slipgrid 15:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. • I agree. So please stop pushing YOUR agenda. --Regebro 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• My only agenda is the truth. What's yours?—Slipgrid 17:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK, so stop pushing AN agenda then. I don't really care who's it is, just stop pushing it, please. --Regebro 18:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, you stop pushing your agenda. I'll fight any day for the truth and Wikipedia against trolls like you.—Slipgrid 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• This comment violates WP:NPA. Please keep a civil tone. --Regebro 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Regrettably, there does not seem to be any consensus. Peter Grey 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree-It appears this article will be attacked and reverted ad nauseum. --Tbeatty 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - Discussions are still too heated. --PTR 14:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree There is no consensus to give undue weight to conspiracy theories. I don't think User:Cplot and the few others will respect consensus. Cplot has created a POV fork at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/NPOV-rewrite1 that severely violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree I was the one who requested unprotection, but for completelness I'll add my name here. There are many others who I know would support it too. The sampling of opinions you see here are just those editors who have a lot of time on their hands (including myself here) and not a real sense of the concensus of all editors in volved in this dicussion. No where in Wikipedia's policies does it say that a minority of editors (who just happend to have a lot of time on their handds) can decide what the truth and the facts are for an article. I am convinced the disruptive editors here are only pretending to be obtuse and know full well how to interpret Wikipedia policy. There responses to one editor after another have beeen disruptive and often playful yet insulting. At the very least the article should indicate at the top that a significant number of editors feels this article does not reflect the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. --Cplot 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - From some of the comments, there appears to still be too much disagreement to unprotect the article. I feel there will need to be a full RfC to get it settled on if enough editors believe the conspiracy theories (or alternate theories) deserve more space in the root article. --StuffOfInterest 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I did that at the beginning of the debate. anyone for an RFM?--Acebrock 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It couldn't hurt to get some uninvolved eyes into it. I fear that this may end up all the way at ArbCom before it is done. Although I don't edit on the article beyond vandalism repair, I'm tainted as I have too much personal experience with the Pentagon attack. --StuffOfInterest 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree Still far too much conflict. I'm filing an RFM right now--Acebrock 20:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that was pretty much what I expected--no consensus for unprotection. We'll leave it protected for a while longer. AmiDaniel (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to leave protection, be decent, place appropriate tag at the top of article… Lovelight 07:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unprotect no amount of mediation or further discussion is going to result in anything other than further efforts by the conspiracy theory supporters to try and get their way here. We may as well unprotect the article and resume reporting them for 3RR as we have already done on 3 editors in the last week. Misusing Wikipedia to promote nonsense is going to be the end for any chance this project has of gaining credibility.--MONGO 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine there's ever been amore obvious neutrality dispute in the history of Wikipedia (though if there is I bet these editors know about it). I second Lovelight's suggestion to add the template to the article. --Cplot 08:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Redraft to comply with NPOV

As has been pointed out above, I have established a new talk space for editors who do not want to deal with the disruptive editors standing guard over this article and talk page. Here you'll find a draft rewrite of the article that is meant o conform with Wikipedia's policies. I ask that the disruptive editors here to please leave this spacea alone for the other editors to craft a more encylopedic article conforming to the NPOV policy. All others are welcome to join in the drafting and associated discussion. If the disruptive editors comply, discussion should be much lesss disruptive, frustrating, intimidating and abusive. --Cplot 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I nominated that for deletion as it is a POV fork of this article. You have already been blocked twice in the least week for 3RR on this article and would likely have been blocked agin on the rtelated Steven E. Jones article had I not protected it on your preferred version just today. If anyone is being disruptive, it's most definitely you.--MONGO 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you know full well that the disciplinary actions taken against me are part of a vindictive approach, by a small group of relentless editors, to punish editors they disagree with. The admin who blocked me was involved in these debates and so did so inappropriately. This is not a POV push, this redraft is to make the article comply with NPOV policy All civil editors are invited to join intio the discussion and redraft. My position is that the conspiracy theories have no place in the article or even to have their own artilce. They're not notable enough around 9/11 attacks. Finally, I was the one who requested the protection on the Steven Jones article to avoid a potentially libelous editor to the article. Disruption does not mean disagreement as you seem to think it does. --Cplot 21:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your answer assumes that the article as it stands is POV, something that you and many others in several long discussions now and earlier has completely failed to show. Thus, the consensus is that the article IS NPOV, and therefore it does NOT need a rewrite to become POV. If you make a fork of an article that consensus agrees is NPOV, to change it's POV, that must reasonably be because you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed sources are more reliable than reports produced by Whitehouse

Two things I want to stress here. First to quote from the NPOV dispute guielines again:

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether [an NPOV] dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed.

And second. The sources being insisted upon as reliable are no more reliaable than the one's proposed above. In fact, Wikipedia guidelines suggest more caution or even suspiscion for the sorts of sources blessed by the disruptive editors. I quote:

Reliability is a spectrum, and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Typically peer reviewed publications are considered to be the most reliable, with established professional publications next. Government publications are often reliable, but governments vary widely in their level of reliability, and often have their own interests which will explicitly allow for withholding of information, or even outright deception of the public.

As this shows, the article is currently slanted towards these government sources even though Wikipedia provides guidance that the books listed above may be more reliable. In my estimation, the US has never had a government more notorious for its outright deception of the public than the present administration. And yet the article solely relies on those sources (or secondary sources reporting on government sources). --Cplot 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your perception of the current administration is your perception and has nothing to do with the fact that all news media has confirmed the "official story". There are no reliable sources that support a conspiracy theory of the events of 9/11.--MONGO 08:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite on this one, but as an administrator, this really isn't appropriate behavior. The media hasn't confirmed what the administration says. The media reported what the administration said. Sometime the media launches independent investigations, and then that would be valuable material for the article. Griffin's book ".The New Peral Harbo..." is one such investigation from the media (the book pubslhsing media). However, I don't see how you conclude from Griffin's book that he has confirmed the administrations story. It's quite the opposite. You should take a look at it if that's what you thought. The point is Wikipedia's guidelines tell us that a book like Griffin's is a more reliable source than any of the government reports used for this article. You've uncovered another splendid example of why there are such seirious NPOV problems here. Wikipedia doesn't deal with "official stories" that's something for Pravda. Wikipedia is for enyclopedia articles that need to reflect the relevant stories: not just the Whitehouse. --Cplot 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, shameful consent (and complicity) of mainstream media when it comes to forging of our post-911 actuality should certainly be noted in the article. However, that doesn’t mean that "associated media" is useless, as a matter of fact, apart from those jumbo sized issues, we have verifiable and notable sources there… We are working on encyclopedia and we should deal with facts, why should we care if streamed media lost its freedom, compass or knowledge how to perform investigative journalism? Are we here to confirm official story in spite ridiculous amount of inconsistencies in it? Anyway, we both know that administrators and editors in mainstream enjoy exactly the same.., vast and immeasurable freedoms we have here. Those sources are as reliable as this one is, they are questioned as this one is… your point is pointless… Lovelight 09:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

- There are some big misunderstandings here, that goes through the whole discussion. Cplot and others think that "reliability" is the only concern for sources, and that reliability is in itself a matter of POV. They therefore think that ANYTHING you say and ANY part of science is POV, and therefore they demand equal billing for all theories, no matter how nutty they are. But first of all, reliability is only a matter of concern for factual claims, and also only for factual claims that are not easily independantly verifiable. This includes things as eye-witness accounts. They have to come from reliable sources. As an example, claims that have to do with say...(trying to find a neutral subject)... the making of Tibetan prayer books, have to be made by somebody that is an acknowledged expert on prayer books. A person who is an acknowledged export on pasta machines, is NOT reliable source on Tibetan prayer books, even though he is an honest and good man.

Secondly, there are things that do NOT need reliable sources, and that are things that are easily and evidently wrong. More importantly, the do not get helped by reliable resources. Or, in other words, a "reliable" source does not make an incorrect claim correct. It doesn't matter how notable the person doing the claim is, or even if the person is supposed to be a reliable authority on the subject. No amount of authority makes a false statement correct, and if a statement can be easily show to be false by anyone, no amount of authority makes that statement worthy of inclusion. So if the expert on Tibetan prayer books say that a 200 year old Tibetan prayer book are made by lizard-headed martians from the skin of George W Bushs face, this claim should NOT be included in the article on tibetan prayer books, because the persons authority on the subject does not override the evident and overwhelming impossibility of the claim. If the expert on pasta machines makes that claim, it should be included even less. :)

So what are then these reliable sources that we CAN include? Well, here comes the next mistake: Cplot above tries to claim that government sources are not realiable. I agree. But he includes in "government sources" independent research that have been done on the governments request, or in any other way contradicts his POV. That is an incorrect standpoint based on the fact that HE doesn't like what they say. Again he thinks that reliability is nothing but a POV. But it isn't. It CAN be POV, but it is not always so. In fact, in most cases it is not. Sources that are biased are not reliable, but thise sources must then be SHOWN to be biased. For example, a source should be seen as biased, if the researcher only get payed if he reaches the desired conclusion. But a resarcher that gets payed no matter what conclusion he gets is not necessarily biased.

In short, the talk about government sources are in itself a red herring. Very few of the sources in the article are can be seen as "government" sources. If there are sources in the article that are not reliable, again, please take them up one by one. The sources that has been mentioned in this article as missing (that is Steven Jones) can not in any way be construed as being authorative on the subjects which they try to make claims, and should therefore not be included.

Again, I have to ask the critics to stop talking in generalities and start making specific claims of what they percieve as problems with the article so we can discuss these specifics, instead of discussing vague generalities for which you have no arguments. --Regebro 13:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, why don't you go a bit back into the history of this talk page? You'll notice cycle after cycle of reoccurring "specific claims" with all appropriate references. You'll also notice that all discussions, no matter how far from conspiracy talk they were (foreknowledge, 911/Iraq link, building 7…) ended with reverts (if we would get that far) in spite the fact there are no valid reasons or arguments for such actions. The sort of "consensus" (or quorum if you prefer) we have here is our foremost problem. POV tag at the top of the article is necessity. Such action would recognize dispute and show that there is some good will among all editors. I'm certainly not in mood to spend a fine day on drafting draft, just so that Aude would come with such puzzling reply: "as maybe later…?" Or to hear Mongos infamously elaborated, yet rather simple and apparently irresistible veto… Lovelight 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cycle after cycle, you say. So, you say that you have constantly and repeatedly failed to point out any errors or POV parts of the article. Not one of your attempts to point out sections that may be POV has succeeded. If every single specific claim you have of bits and pieces being POV is rejected, what does that tell us about the article? Does it tell us that it's POV, or NPOV? --Regebro 15:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, look at the history of the talk page and learn where you are… I'm saying that administrators such as MONGO are force checking article to reflect official story, and that this is done against consensus. Are you aware that we had government warnings (tags) here? Are you aware that decent and valid suggestions to improve article are stopped without arguments with simple: "No, thanks"… Here, read this… Saying that there is no POV dispute here is like Rice saying that there were no warnings about attacks while she held one in her hands… Lovelight 16:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If what you claim is true, and I was the only person doing the reverts to this article, I would have been blocked dozens of times for violating 3RR. Your attempts to introduce misinformation in this article has been repeatedly overturned by a large number of editors...clear indication that the consensus is not in favor of your alterations. My arbcom case here has nothing to do with this article...zero. Yes, when people come along and try and force feed us a bunch of nonsense like you have been doing for a long time now, we can waste our time rebutting your comments, say nothing at all (probably the best option), or just provide a simple...No thanks.--MONGO 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, you know the answer to this question. Considering the accusations in the village pump discussion that US Bush administration officials are involved in this page, then of course Lovelight's edits were "repeatedly overturned by a large number of editors". Of course the repeition of the mantra "clear concesnsus" is unwarranted and I know you know that too. Come on Mongo, stand up for what you know is right. This is conduct unbecoming an administrator. --Cplot 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What? What conduct are you talking about? I stated that had I been the only one that had been doing all the reverts as Lovelight claims, then I would have been repeatedly blocked...much as you have already. Your edit warring as of late is conduct unbecoming an contributor.--MONGO 18:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested Edit

After reading the discussion at the village pump I arrived over here to look through this discussion. I can't believe that this NPOV disputes has been going on for so long and this is the first request I've seen for an NPOV template. Don't any of you understand how to work towards comprommise and NPOV. I would recommend reading the NPOV tutorial. And by all means someone add a the template. --67.37.179.61 03:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but all this was pointed earlier, we had requests like these before… Here, let me quote Lovelight on that one: "And I won't that false flag about reasons for dispute to be removed immediately, there is no vandalism here but from your side, the lack of accuracy and outrageous bias of this article is obvious and appropriate warning should be clearly stated at the entrance point." You know, all this repeating tends to bore after a while… Perhaps we can protest, and tag all our posts with appropriate reminder for everyone? Lovelight 08:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I read the discussion and came to the complete opposite conclusion. It seems odd that your first contribution to Wikipedia is to the Village Pump. What account do you normally use? --Tbeatty 04:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my first contribution, I've been contributing for years (and reading even longer): just anonymously. Tbeatty, I think you might be one of the ones they village pump is talking about. So I'm not surprised you would not read it the same way. --67.37.179.61 04:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's considered good form to identify your previous editing IP/Usernames lest someone consider you a sockpuppet. --Tbeatty 04:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be taken elsewhere. (or at least start a new heading). --Cplot 06:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• We could also discuss those government issued tags we had here around memorial. Would you care to share a sample of those Mongo?;P Lovelight 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about it? Lovelight 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

None of the issues mentioned in that RFM are issues that are debated or need to be mediated. The RFM as it stands is ridicolous. That said, I don't oppose mediation in any way, but I hope that the list of issues needing mediation can be improved to something at least remotely resembling what we are actually discussing, which is whether the article is POV or not. --Regebro 12:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Foreknowledge is one thing often discussed here, and it should be part of the mediation.—Slipgrid 12:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No. You guys are now trying to suddenly jump from the dispute that we ARE having, to completely other things. That is <lots of words I can't use according to WP>. The thing you, Cplot and Lovelight has been try to push so far is whether the article as a whole is POV or not. This is not even mentioned in the RFM. I don't oppose mediation, but I can not support that RFM. Sorry. You have to redo that, and as issues to be mediated list the things we actually discuss, and not completely different issues. --Regebro 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm reading up on how mediation works. Most notably it sais Note: Only members of the Mediation Committee may remove material from the RfM page or otherwise edit comments, but on the other hand it sais Do not, under any circumstances, edit the "Issues to mediate" section unless you are the party who filed the request I don't know if this means that the requestor (Acebrock?) can change it or if he can ask the Mediation Committee to change it. If it doesn't get changed I will have to disagree to this mediation, since it's a request to mediate issues that isn't in conflict, in an abvious attempt to misrepresent the dispute. The fact that the RfM was files with such an attempt to misrepresent the dispute also gives me little hope that Acebrock really wants mediation. --Regebro 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn’t aware of such concept until today, but I did ask recently if there are other ways to break this hula hoping and looping. I'm grateful to see that exclamation at top, thanks Ace... Lovelight 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the list of issues to be mediated now include not only such patent nonsense as "Whether clear and well documented facts should be called conspiracy", "Whether article should only draw sources approved by the Bush administration", but it now also includes argumentation: Because of sensitive and evergreen nature of article which is probably the most disputed, vandalized and abused entry in Wikipedia brief summary of all "double think" issues is impossible. However good willing mediators should quick-scan related talk page archive and recognize seriousness of discussions as well as misbehaving of administrators. This inclusion of argumentation in the statement probably would have made the RfM rejected anyway, but I though I would speed up the process, and add my disagreement immeditely. I'm all for a mediation, but it is clear from the edits made by Lovelight and Cplot that you are not interested in it. If you want a mediation, do it *seriously*, and stop misrepresenting the dispute. This discussion is so far about, and only about, whether the article should be marked as POV or not, and why.

(I'll better point out here that Acebrocks original point was "Whether including conspiracy theories in detail is POV" which I think is not a misrepresentation. Acebrock: Thanks, and I'm sorry Lovelight and Cplot messed up your RfM).--Regebro 15:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted those edits since they were done hastily and without knowledge of due process… RfM is now in original form, apologies for any inconvenience as for my unintentionally damaging edits… Lovelight 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Where Cplots edits also done without knowledge of due process? ;) How dow you know, are sock puppets? (just kidding ;)). OK, as the RfM stands now I have no quarrel with it. I still think mediation is pointless and that you guys are not interested in listening to reason, but that's the mediators problem. --Regebro 17:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I too apologize for my edits to the RfM. I tryied to find an explnation of the process but did not. --Cplot 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion/RFM/NPOV

Does anyone want to start discussions on the areas of the article that they believe are POV - one at a time - or do we just want to argue in general terms? This is degenerating into, "It's POV.", "No, it's not.", "Yes, it is."--PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one actually wants to discuss the article then. --PTR 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have brought up specifics before. See:

• Reworking the article so that it follows Wikipedia policies
• Examples of NPOV problems

However, as the RfM stands now, I cannot support it. My view is that conspiracy theories have not been significant enough nor notable enough surrounding the 9/11 attacks to be included in the article at all. My NPOV problems mostly relate to the slanted state of this article where a minority of editors camping out here insist that only sources casting the Bush administration in the most favorable light can be included here. Is there any way for the RfM to simply list NPOV dispute, or does it have to characterize the dispute? --Cplot 18:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there can be appropriate section called [8] "Additional issues to be mediated" where involved parties can refine their concerns? There is also some mentioning of it on chairman's talk page. Lovelight 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Requested Edit removed by Mongo without explanation

Please add the {{POV}} template to the top of the article. The preceding discussion demontrates a clear dispute over NPOV problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplot (talk • contribs)

Mongo, you put your name into this situation. Not me. This is conduct very unbecoming an administrator. --Cplot 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)