Talk:September 11 attacks

Islamist terrorists

I note on the IRA section you ask not to use the word 'terrorist' or 'terrorists'. Yet on this article it is used. This is against your own rules! Or is it when IRA killed British people that was allowed, whereas when Islamists killed Americans this is not allowed, therefore they are 'Islamist terrorists'. Please explainBettybutt (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be an issue to bring up on the talk page for the IRA article, not here. A United Nations source was used for justifying the term "terrorist" on this article. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the following from discussion page 'Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here.'

It is POLICY to NOT use the term Terrorist, nowhere does it say it's fine if the UN uses the word. The British, Irish and American Governments used the word about IRA, so that ought to be just as acceptable.Bettybutt (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:WTA is a guideline, not a policy. Additionally, the guideline does not say that we can't use the terrorist. Also, it is the belief of the editors of this article that we must use the term terrorist based on its use in reliable sources to satisfy WP:NPOV (which is policy). Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not calling the the 9/11 hijackers terrorists would be sugar coating the truth.--MONGO 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say it would violate neutrality policies not to use the word. But I did go through the instances of the word "terrorist" in case it was excessive. It wasn't. I removed a couple instances, for article flow rather than neutrality (mentioning the timeframe of one section in its first paragraph, and in the other case because we didn't need to explain what al-Qaeda was in a subsection of the al-Qaeda section) for what that's worth. Thompsontough (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Intent of attackers

The Chambers dictionary defines 'terrorism' as thus:- terrorism noun the systematic and organized use of violence and intimidation to force a government or community, etc to act in a certain way or accept certain demands. terrorist noun, adj. ETYMOLOGY: 18c.

It can be successfully argued that the primary objective of the September 11 attacks was not terrorism as it is defined above. Given that the two principle targets were one major military target (Pentagon) and one major economic/financial target (World Trade Center) the attacks can be considered nothing short of a conventional (albeit 'home-made'/improvised) military attack against a country's infrastructure with a view to decimating said infrastructure. This is completely different from terrorism where the primary objective is to terrorise. An example of proper terrorism would be low-flying Israeli F-16s routinely breaking the sound barrier over the civilian population of Gaza. This isn't POV either; it's just that there cannot be any objective to breaking the sound barrier over a civilian population other than to create fear / terror. While it is true that the people of New York and those directly affected by the attacks of September 11 may well have been terrified it is not neccessarily true that the primary objective of the attacks was to create terror, but instead to destroy a central part of America's infrastructure. The opening days of the 2003 Iraq war, saw the so-called 'Shock and Awe' - a military attack against the Baathist infrastructure. There is no doubt that the civilian population of Baghdad would naturally have been terrified during such attack - but that does not mean that Shock and Awe was an act of terrorism carried out by terrorists. The September 11 attacks are no different. 81.141.105.11 (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a question of the intent of the attackers - since we can't question them, you will need a reliable source that has determined that terror was not an objective or was secondary, in which case the article could reflect that there is disagreement. There is, in fact, an argument that the hijackers' goal was retribution for US military activity and they didn't care about terror, but to my knowledge that has not been asserted by any expert. Peter Grey (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is an extraordinary claim doesn't make it a valid one. I'd appreciate future contributes to come packing reliable sources before making claims like this, or this WILL turn into a forum. --Tarage (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I submit part of a transcript from an interview between Osama Bin Laden and Al-Jazeera television correspondent Tayseer Alounim, dated October 2001. The full-length interview is quite lengthy and I have posted a link to it below. This particular segment supports the notion that al-Qaeda was intending to destroy the central-nerve system of America, as opposed to terrorise:-

BIN LADEN: However, this prohibition of the killing of children and innocents is not absolute. It is not absolute. There are other texts that restrict it. I agree that the Prophet Mohammed forbade the killing of babies and women. That is true, but this is not absolute. There is a saying, "If the infidels killed women and children on purpose, we shouldn't shy way from treating them in the same way to stop them from doing it again." The men that God helped [attack, on September 11] did not intend to kill babies; they intended to destroy the strongest military power in the world, to attack the Pentagon that houses more than 64,000 employees, a military center that houses the strength and the military intelligence.

Q: How about the twin towers?

BIN LADEN: The towers are an economic power and not a children's school. Those that were there are men that supported the biggest economic power in the world. They have to review their books. We will do as they do. If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.transcript/index.html 81.141.105.11 (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

While this does go to lengths to say what Bin Laden's other motives were, it does not specifically state that he did not intend them to be attacks of terror. And since the world community as a whole has almost unanimously labeled them as such, I feel it should stay. --Tarage (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the last sentence "If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop" isn't about destroying the central-nerve system of America. It's about terrorizing the US until we change policy. That fits perfectly with the definition above.

In any case, the goal of the 9/11 was to goad the US into invading Afghanistan, which again would be a policy change. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Even so, I think there is a successful case for disagreement and debate on this issue. The past nine years has seen the use of language manipulated for propaganda purposes by forces whose objectives have subsequently been rendered questionable by popular culture. In such times, the dictionary should be the bible in determining truth, and not the polymorphic rudiments of a particular era's Government, or Government's propaganda campaign. Until such time as the question mark surrounding the intent of the attackers is cleared up, I suggest 'Islamic terrorists' should be replaced with 'Islamic militants' - a far more semantically stable definition, of which I'm sure everyone can agree on. 81.141.110.96 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-said. My biggest problem with the word "terrorist" is that it's emotive (after all, the root word, "terror," is a feeling). The fact that the word appears in reliable sources is enough to point out that the word has, indeed, appeared in reliable sources, but let's not forget that Wikipedia itself should strive to be reliable--and not just reliable, but dispassionate. I'm sure we can find reliable sources that refer to the hijackers as "monsters," but that doesn't mean we should say, "On that morning, 19 monsters affiliated with al-Qaeda..." There's a difference between being reliable and being encyclopedic. Because people do have emotions, publications can reliably reflect human affect. But an encyclopedia is supposed to be rather more detatched. Click the wikilink in the preceding sentence, and you will see that Denis Diderot has given encyclopedias something of a timeless agendum: "Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us." While he goes on to say "that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy," Diderot's Encyclopédie was by no means an attempt to make anyone feel warm and fuzzy inside: "All things must be examined, debated, investigated," he said, "without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." What this all boils down to is, the encyclopedic voice is a voice to speak across time and space; it is emotionally detatched; it feels no terror, and therefore knows of no terrorists, even though it can quote the voices of those who do. It appears to me that the debate about using the word "terrorist" has boiled down to some overblown conflict between WP:TERRORIST and WP:RS, or perhaps between WP:TERRORIST and WP:IAR: Do we avoid the "loaded" language because it's non-neutral and therefore biased toward a certain segment of the population, or do we use it because reliable sources have used it, or even because, "Duh, they were terrorists!"? As far as I'm concerned, such a debate misses the point entirely. An encyclopedia should not try to make everyone happy; it shouldn't care whether it makes anyone happy, except insofar as it satisfies people's thirst for knowledge. And it should not simply parrot reliable sources, because an encyclopedia reaches beyond historical reliablilty, even while taking extensive note of it, and strives for ahistorical objectivity. I therefore believe that the word "terrorists" is not simply inappropriate, but actually foreign to the encyclopedic voice. When it speaks this word, it does so with a heavy accent that makes the word seem out of place unless the word is being explicitly attributed to someone else. Therefore, it might be appropriate to say something like, "On that morning, 19 people referred to by several commentators as Islamist terrorists..." although it would be considerably more succinct to follow through with the above suggestion that "terrorists" simply be replaced with "militants," which is both factually indisputable and emotionally uninvolved. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the practice of modern encylclopedist's agrees with you. See:

"Al-Qaeda, international terrorist network, founded by Osama bin Laden." - Encarta

"al-Qaeda: Islamic-extremist international terrorist organization, nominally controlled by Osama bin Laden." - TheFreeDictionary

"Osama bin Laden , 1957?-, Saudi-born leader of Al Qaeda [Arab.,=the base], a terrorist organization" - The Columbia Encyclopedia

"al-Qaida [], al-Qaeda El Kaida, von → Osama Bin Laden gegr. islamist. Terrornetzwerk." - Brockhaus

"...the transnational terrorist organization known as al-Qaeda." - Britannica (although Britannica can't decide on one term and also calls it a "Islamic terrorist organization", "broad-based Islamic militant organization", "Islamic extremist organization", "Islamic extremist group", "Muslim extremist group", "Muslim militant organization" or simply "the Muslim group al-Qaeda") Rmhermen (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the modern encyclopedist is no Diderot. Encyclopedia-building is a serious business, and paid contributors don't want to alienate consumers by hurting their feelings. But if the encyclopedic voice isn't going to detatch itself from current sentiments in order to speak objectively to future generations, then who is? As volunteers, Wikipedians have nothing to lose by making their encyclopedia better, i.e., more encyclopedic, than other encyclopedias. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me offer an example for comparison. When you're watching a documentary, you don't expect the narrator's voice to quiver as he says, "And then along came the t-t-t-t-terrorists." You don't expect him to yell. In a show about animals, you don't want him to say, "Awwwww, giraffes!" Sure, documentarians can become "involved" with their topics when they're involved with filming, but when it comes time for post-production, you expect a degree of detatchment and professionalism if you're looking for a smooth and solid whole. Perhaps the wrong claim is being made by those who simply assert that "terrorists" is the wrong word to use, because they'll quickly be countered by assertions such as, "But 'terrorists' appears in reliable sources!" or, "But I can cite a definition of 'terrorism' that leaves no doubt as to whether that is what actually occurred!" What people should be stressing is that "militants" is the right word to use. It, too, can be reliably sourced, and it, too, can be said to denote what the hijackers actually were. If "terrorists" had no synonyms, then it would have to do. But "militants" is better than "terrorists," at least in terms of encyclopedic professionalism, because it connotes less emotion. If both "terrorists" and "militants" are equally satisfying in a conceptual, intellectual sense, then why is the former being preferred over the latter? You could make a good old WP:NPOV or WP:WTA case by asking, when either of two words would suffice, why choose the more "loaded" of them? But here I'm trying to go even deeper, asking, when either of two words would suffice, why choose the less "encyclopedic" of them? The encyclopedic voice is not your voice or my voice (I am American, just for the record, and felt plenty of "terror" on 9/11) or the collective voice of those who "stand united" (whatever that could possibly mean nowadays, having completely lost the practical implications that it had in the days of pre-united American colonies); the encyclopedic voice is the voice of someone who, to paraphrase Diderot, doesn't give a hoot about anything except the transmission of knowledge. In an era in which grand narratives have all but shattered, the encyclopedic voice may be the only entity left to speak both for our ancestors and to our descendants. So again I ask, why choose the more emotionally involved and historically "sticky" word over the more detatched and ashitorically fluid term? If both are equally valid on an intellectual level, then there seems to be some emotional motivation (which may be a redundant thing to say, if the words "emotion" and "motivation" are, as I suspect, etymologically related) for choosing "terrorists." I charge--and suspect that Diderot would, too--that such motivations ought to be minimized in an encyclopedic effort, and therefore that the affective term, "terrorists," should not be spoken comfortably by the encyclopedic voice. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Militant" and "terrorist" do not say the same thing. "Terrorist" is insufficient because it refers to a type of tactic, without telling us much else, but it's correct. Peter Grey (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

If we ignore the emotional overtones of "terrorist," we could reasonably describe it as a "terrorist" attack, with "terrorist" used as an adjective. But the emotional connotations are unavoidable when it is used as a noun, which looks like little more than name-calling unless it can be established that all of the 19 hijackers had previously engaged in terrorist (adjective) activity. Analogously, if I go walking in the woods and happen to discover a new species of toad, then I have made a "biological" discovery, but this does not make me a "biologist." I think it is safe to assume that those 19 men had not previously blown themselves up in terrorist attacks--so can we really, dispassionately label them terrorists? Emotively, of course we can; but considering the "encyclopedic voice" that I have been advocating, isn't it possible that this would appear more like angry name-calling than like quiet categorization? This distinction, I think, could be made more easily in the German language, in which the equivalents of "He is terrorist" and "He is a terrorist" are grammatically correct but have different meanings. Omitting the article ("a") creates a stronger association between the subject (he) and the subject-completion (terrorist); it suggests that one is a "professional" terrorist of sorts, whereas the inclusion of the article makes it clear that he is being referred to as a terrorist in a particular instance. (My knowledge of the German language isn't good enough to know for certain that this particular example would be used in comfortable German, but I can think of analogies.) But you're right: In the English language, anyway, calling them "terrorists" does not provide much information. Perhaps calling them "militants" or "radicals" provides even less, but I frankly don't see why we're calling them anything other than "Islamists" and "hijackers." While I can imagine the encyclopedic voice referring, with some effort, to an "act of terrorism," and while I can also suppose that it could even utter the word "terrorists" as a means of dispassionately categorizing individuals with a history of committing acts of terrorism, I can't hear it comfortably name-calling people because they've committed a single act, regardless of how emotionally affected people may have been by that act. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "name calling", it's a descriptive tag that nearly every reliable source on the planet uses. That's where we draw our usage. "We" don't label them anything, we use labels that WP:RS use. Aside from that, the analogy is a terrible one. Being a biologist, as we would describe one, needs some certain pre-conditions...schooling, expert knowledge in some field of study etc...one can become a terrorist (as reliable srouces use the term) with few if any pre-conditions. I can walk outside right now and decide to be what someone later would describe as a terrorist. RxS (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that the word appears in reliable sources, but those sources do not state how the word should appear in encyclopedic phrasing. For that, I earlier invoked the creator of a reliable source of his own. As I said in this revision of this comment that I made above, I'm sure the word "monsters" also appears in reliable sources, but they do not dictate that it is encyclopedic to state, "On that morning, 19 monsters..." It is obvious that the encyclopedic voice just would not do that; it would rather find a more tempered and dispassionate way of attributing the epithet to its sources. My point is that "terrorists" is little different than "monsters" in the sense that it has emotive, reactive, and definitive qualities to it, whereas such qualities contravene the encyclopedic spirit, in which, as Diderot says, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." My point is, I think, a bit more nuanced than, "It does/doesn't appear in reliable sources, so let's use/not use it." I'm rather aiming for, "Okay, so it appears in reliable sources. What is the most encyclopedic way to document this fact?" As for the analogy, I know it's not perfect, but the point is that, when people are not being emotionally reactive (e.g., name-calling), they often attribute nouns to people with more discretion than they attribute adjectives to people's actions. To call someone a biologist means more than to say that they have made a "biological discovery" (all PhD biologists are supposed to have made at least one discovery), and to call someone a terrorist carries more weight than to say they they have committed a "terrorist act." If a statement is to carry extra weight, then the person making the statement should realize what the extra weight entails. No harm would be done by referring to the hijackers as "Islamists" or just "hijackers"; no information would be removed if "terrorists" were omitted and "act of terrorism" were added in its wake, or if "terrorists" were qualified as "Islamists widely referred to as terrorists" (although the last option is a bit of a mouthful). The ideal wording for the encyclopedic voice would be a wording in which it unambiguously feels neither terror nor anger. The epithet "terrorists," in isolation, may well echo the terror and anger felt by many people (myself included), some of whose sentiments have been reliably documented--but it does not reflect the detatchment of a voice that aims to speak across time and space as a messenger to the generations. I apologize if this sounds unnecessarily epic, but I find it important that encyclopedists strive to reach beyond the here-and-now, lest nobody else does. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're assigning too much emotion to the word, I don't sense that it's being used from anger or terror. In any case, your equivalence between terrorist and monster doesn't exist. I doubt any reliable source uses the word monster in the same context that the word terrorist is used. Maybe some opinion pieces or blogs but that's about it and the usage certainly doesn't rise to the level needed to justify using it, I know (or assume) you don't mean it literally but still. The thing is once we start making editorial decisions on terminology that don't match reliable source and mainstream usage, we're sailing pretty close to the wind in regards to our own policies. Using the terms hijackers or (especially) Islamists strip away the context in which acts were conducted in...and context is important in an encyclopedia as it is anywhere else. Not to sound like a broken record, but we're tied to reliable sourcing for our content and context...as time goes by and usage changes, so will ours. But we can't antcipate that by trying to reach beyond the here and now. I'm afraid we're stuck with it. RxS (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Al-qaeda was responsible for the September 11 attacks. In the wikipedia entry for Al-qaeda, the opening paragraph describes Al-qaeda as a 'Sunni Islamist Extremist movement' as it's principal definition. 81.141.110.96 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The onlie true war on terrorism

Editing the main article, Tarage wrote:

(diff) (hist) . . September 11 attacks‎; 06:49 . . (-2) . . Tarage (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 263717783 by Kaelfischer (talk) I don't believe that this is the only 'War on Terror' that has occured.)

... I think you are mistaken, there. We've had a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs (Poverty and Drugs won). We don't usually "declare" war on abstractions. The closest thing to the 'War on Terror' I'm aware of was called the War on Poland. Himmler and his subordinates sent troops into Poland, covertly, to fire into Germany and dressed a guy named Honionk in a Polish uniform, murdered him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz on the last day of October, 1939. The next morning, thousands of German tanks rolled into Poland to defend the Fatherland (Motherland? Parentland?) from further such terrorism. Well, I'll leave the "a" or "the" to other editors to figure out. .. By the way, Tarage, how old are you? ... Wowest (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking my age is reliant how? --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The proper word is relevant. -69.124.55.254 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cover up?

This article doesn’t seem to be updated at all?
There is no section about WTC 7? Which is unbelievable to say the least. Why is there no word about NIST's admittance of freefall with regards to that building? [2], [3]
There is no section about advance knowledge? Which is unbelievable to say the least… Why is there no mention of warnings, memos, put options..?[4]
There is no section about torture of the alleged hijackers and other suspects, not a word about criminal destruction of related tapes [5] and so on… all this is lacking in this article which is one of the most biased articles I've seen on wiki since it was born.
All of this should have been added to the article at the very moment reliable and verifiable sources surface.
I thought that Wikipedia is financed by the world wide community and I'm shocked and awed by the fact that this article still looks as if it was written by NSA or Pentacon.
Here is something that should have been referenced as as soon as verifiable reference occurred.

"We tortured Qahtani," DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is unbelievable because it is not believable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are truly omissions, I suggest that it is because it is all too easy to divert material to 9/11 conspiracy theories or dismiss new findings as material that belongs there.
On the other hand, your citation belongs nowhere near this article. It would be suitable for inclusion, if it is not included already, in the Mohammed al Qahtani and related articles. Note that you can use the link under Toolbox (bottom left): "What links here" to find related articles, although of course this is a one-way search. Anarchangel (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So who is diverting and turning facts into conspiracy? And why? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody, as far as I can see. The creation of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" article is not in itself a conspiracy, its just a way to keep various encyclopedia entries of manageable length. We have a separate article on 9/11 conspiracy theories because its a major topic in itself. Including all of the contents of that article in this one would make this page unworkably long. The 9/11 conspiracy article is summarized and directly linked to from this one, for the benefit of anyone interested in alternative theories regarding the attacks. Euryalus (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You've made an interesting discrepancy, so what are we talking about? Conspiracy theories or alternate theories? Either way, I would appreciate some input about mechanism behind decision making. For example, why are the facts about foreknowledge and warnings and… things mentioned or not, directed in such manner that this article can be classified as nothing else but cover up? Who is making these decisions and why, why is there so many repeating issues in these archives and why are all these repeating issues answered with ridiculous (I honestly find them ridiculous) arguments from a single group of editors? I want to know what gives these single minded editors right to reject serious questions or to redirect verifiable information to the far out places where such information doesn’t belong. I want to know what gives this people right to ban people who are raising these questions from editing Wikipedia. I'm stunned by the numbers of folks who are locked out for stating their opinions or trying to improve this article which is fraudulent, full of omission and it can be seen as an attempt to cover thing up. I want to know how is all this possible and why is such approach allowed within the project which is supported by the people for the people of the whole wide world. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You raise a couple of different questions:

• Why does this article outline a particular version of events, while alternative versions are at 9/11 conspiracy theories? - The simple explanation is that the version on this page reflects consensus among editors of Wikipedia as the version best backed up by reliable sources. Its inclusion doesn't make it true, but as is often pointed out, the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. Most reliable secondary sources support this version of events, so its included here in the main article on the attacks.
• Why are other theories on the "9/11 conspiracy theories page and not here? - Some reliable sources support alternative viewpoints and these deserve inclusion in proportion to their weight. However, including them all here would make this page unworkably long. Instead the existence of alternative theories is mentioned here with a link to the page with more details. Once again, this doesn't make any of these alternative theories true, but as there are at least some sources supporting most of them they deserve inclusion somewhere.
• Why are alternative theories labelled conspiracies? - Put simply, because the vast majority of them allege a conspiracy or coverup by one or more organisations, either to mislead the public about the real cause of the attacks or to explain why the traditional viewpoint has broad coverage and the alternative versions don't. "Conspiracy" can be a negative term, but in this context it accurately reflects a key part of most alternative theories: that the real events were other than those identified by the 9/11 Commission and reported in the mainstream media and this is because of a conspiracy to cover up the truth. The label is not meant to be a criticism, just a reflection of that recurring element in the various theories.
• Are people advocating alternative views threatened with ban? - Not generally, but editors who disrupt articles by refusing to follow consensus, repeatedly insert unsourced information or personally attack others might be. Please note I'm not suggesting you have done any of these things, I'm just explaining why some others have been blocked or banned from editing these pages. Also, 9/11 is a controversial topic and many editors have sincerely held but completely opposing viewpoints. Edit warring is fairly swiftly dealt with, regardless of the viewpoint of the editors concerned

In summary - there's nothing sinister about alternative theroies being on a separate page. Any theory deserves inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia, but only in proportion to its coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia cannot determine the truth behind 9/11, it can only document the history nd include mention of causes and culrpits sourced from reliable materials. And everyone is welcome to edit these pages as long as they are willing to work with others and follow the usual Wikipedia editing rules.

Sorry for the length of this response (see WP:TLDR), and if I missed anything, let me know. Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I disagree with some things you've written, but let's rather see how this works in practice. I'd like to add the sentence which will state that CIA tortured alleged hijackers/suspects and destroyed the evidence of its own mischief; they've lied to the Commission and failed to provide the documents requested by the Commission. This is well referenced in mainstream and can be done with single sentence, yet one could argue it doesn’t belong here because there are 'better' (apparently one way) venues elsewhere. Same goes for the statement of US senator who said that NORAD lied to American people and lied to the Commission, which for the reasons yet to be determined doesn’t seem to fit here either. You have provided no answer for such decision making and I cannot see a single reason why would such issues be redirected to nonrelated article about conspiracy theories. As it is article gives little doubt, while there's no doubt that there are huge doubts in all of our minds (see comments here). History here shows many issues which were pointed out repeatedly yet they were, without any valid reason whatsoever, omitted from this article. If there are unanswered questions then article should reflect those, if there are calls for independent investigation then article should reflect those, if there were unheeded, yet clear and present warnings, if there is clear evidence about foreknowledge then article should state so, in my opinion that is. I'd like to know why are such issues omitted from the article, or even worse, why would such issues be tucked away in the void of conspiracy theories? You have written about length of the article, but it's not the length I'm concerned about, it is total lack of NPOV which bothers me the most. Consensus is another thing, and I don't think we have one; history of this talkpage leaves no uncertainty about that and to make things worse, it's even 'forbidden' to put the notice about disagreements at the appropriate place in article mainspace. Well, this also turned out to be a bit longer then intended, my apologies for that. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is reliable sources. You have provided a handful. Realize that in the scope of this article, you are attempting to have a mouse move an elephant. You are going to have to provide far more than you have to have anything added. And I will once again warn you that this is nor a forum page, and is not about personal research. Your predecessors that you speak so fondly about made very simple and blatant mistakes that resulted in their topic bans. I suggest instead of simply viewing them as 'Wikipedia's Bias', you learn what they did wrong, and what you can avoid. You can start by reviewing the archives and making sure what you are suggesting hasn't been suggested and rejected before. But before all else, you are going to need very many reliable sources, the more mainstream and less opinion/obscure the better. Sadly, I am confident you will not find them because they most likely don't exist. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Most probably because all mainstream sources are manipulated and will never show anything different from the "official" version. Why for example, can it be added [all the arguments] at the architect and engineers for 9/11 website. Even the FBI aknowledges their efforts and research. And also why it's not said anything about the new discoveries on the nanothermite found in the site zero? . Wikipedia should show all sides that prove scientific arguments, not take their validity putting them as "conspiracy theory". Echofloripa (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream sources are bad because I claim there is a conspiracy to manipulate them, so take my word over theirs, and ignore them for me, an anonymous editor on the internet." How about no. We don't care about 'proving' anything. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. --Tarage (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of dead

Why don’t the terrorists count as deaths? Of course their death (as opposed to all others) was intentional, but after all, they are also human beings. 92.104.107.212 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The hijackers' deaths were part of the tactics of the attacks, not a consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So what? Reports on the Virginia Tech shootout included the gunman in its victim count. I think the hijackers should also be included in the death statistic. Unless, of course, we don't know how many hijackers there were. Micasta (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree, the deaths of the hijackers are still consequences of the attack. SGGH ^ping! 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The gunman case counts as significant precedent to include the attackers as deaths. Strongly Agree due to precedent. Annihilatron (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New external link

I moved the link from the Congressional report on 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission Report page to here. --Sloane (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The 911 Flights That Never Flew

Please note: The following does not relate to the so called "No Plane Theory." Instead, it explores the available facts regarding whether or not American Airlines flights 11 and 77 actually flew on September 11, 2001. If the evidence is weighted against the actual occurence of these flights, it then begs the following 2 questions: 1. Why does the official explanation of the September 11, 2001 events ignore this evidence? 2. If American Airlines flights 11 and 77 did not fly on September 11, 2001, then who and what was actually responsible for the damage to the north tower of the World Trade center, and to the Pentagon building?

References to the 911 plane crashes, which appear in Wikipedia article [6], have American Airlines flight 11 hitting the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46 AM, and American Airlines flight 77 hitting the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. According to flight departure statistics available from the US government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics website [7], there are no records of American Airlines flights 11 or 77 leaving their scheduled origin airports on the day of the WTC or Pentagon attacks. The statistics do show that American Airlines flight 11 was listed as a regularly scheduled flight departing from Boston's Logan Airport, with a scheduled local(Eastern)departure time of 7:45 AM. The statistics also show that American Airlines flight 77 was a regularly scheduled flight departing from Washington DC's Dulles Airport, with a scheduled local departure time of 8:10 AM. Data is shown for flight 11 and flight 77 for the two days prior to September 11, 2001, but for September 11 no data is available for either of these flights. American Airlines is required by Federal regulations, as stated in 14 CFR, Chapter II, Section 234.4, to report 21 data factors for all flights, both scheduled and unscheduled. These statistical factors are fully defined in a online viewable, and downloadable pdf format document, from the Bureau of Transportation at [8], and Section 234.4 is viewable on page 2 of that document. Public viewing of flight Detailed Statistics for Departures is limited to 12 of the 21 mandated statistical fields, and includes the following data: Carrier code (AA in this case), date of scheduled flight, flight number (shown as 0011 and 0077 for flights 11 and 77 respectively), tail number (this is shown because any plane owned by the airline can be assigned to the flight on a particular day. The statistics show, for example, that on September 9, 2001, flight 11 was assigned to a plane having tail number N315AA, but that the same flight was assigned to a plane with tail number N321AA on September 10, 2001), destination airport, scheduled departure time, actual departure time (this is when the plane leaves the departure gate, after being loaded), scheduled elapsed time in minutes, actual elapsed time in minutes (this would be the total elapsed time from gate departure to gate arrival at the destination airport), departure delay in minutes, wheels-off time (the time at which the departing plane leaves the runway and becomes fully airborne), and taxi-out time (the time required for the airplane to move from the daparting gate to a take-off ready position on the runway. Any scheduled flight that actually departs an airport will have all of these 12 data statistics displayed for public viewing as required by the aforementioned Federal regulations. Bureau of Statistics employees are able to view the 9 additional data fields not available to the public, and these include information about cancelled or delayed departures and reasons for such cancellations or delays. The key data fields of interest, in this topic, are the "actual departure time" (gate departure), and the "wheels-off time." Both of these fields read "00.00" for American Airlines flights 11 and 77 on September 11, 2001, which appears to indicate that neither flight departed the boarding gate, and neither became airborne on that day. Furthermore, the tail number for each of these flights is listed as "unknown." It is logical to conclude, therefore, that no plane was assigned to either flight. The fact that a plane crashes does not nullify the requirement for reporting of Departure Statistics. Indeed, both United Airlines flights 175 [9] and 93 [10], which are also said to have crashed on September 11, 2001, do have Departure Statistics reported. If American Airlines flights 11 and 77 did in fact fly on September 11, 2001, this raises the question as to why American Airlines is exempted from reporting flights that crash before reaching their scheduled destination. Regarding this question, it should be noted that Departure Statistics are also not available for American Airlines flight 587 [11], which crashed in Queens, New York on November 12, 2001, shortly after takeoff. Rickoff (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This REEKS of original research. In fact, none of the sources you provided say anything one way or the other. You mostly have links to other pages on Wikipedia. Unless you can back up this claim with Reliable Sources, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to move along. Original Research is not valid here. --Tarage (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's what to do. Find out how to do a FOIA request and ask the FAA about these anomalies. Then write an article or book about it (published by a reputable publisher) and, as I read the rules, you can come back here and quote your book. Right, Tarage? Wowest (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if only it were that simple. With what you stated above, you'd possibly be able to get something put into the conspiracy theories article. To change this one, you're going to need a good chunk of reliable sources to back up these findings, because as things stand now, we have just about all the evidence we need to say 'No, two planes flew into those buildings because the vast majority of sources say so, including quite a number of documented videos.' --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tarage - The above article draws no conclusions, and makes no claim other than the indisputable fact of the airline reporting anomalies that are pointed out. These anomalies are factual, and backed up by publicly verifiable records maintained by the US Bureau of Transportation's Office of Airline Information. Do you consider that to be an unreliable source? As the records stand, they do tell us that flights 11 and 77 never departed, since there are no departure statistics. I did not presume to offer this as incontestable evidence that flights 11 and 77 did not actually fly on Setpember 11, 2001, and explained a possible reason for the omission of data in the last two sentences of my article. Rickoff (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Lucky for us then that there's video of them in the air and hitting the towers. RxS (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

.

Er, I don't think so. Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon, not the WTC, but there is no recognizable airplane on any video released of that. Flight 11 was allegedly the first plane to strike at the WTC, but there is only one video, some versions of which have been modified, and the quality is so low that about all you can see is that the plane appears to have two engines. Meanwhile, eye-witness descriptions of that plane are contradictory. Some say it was a small commuter plane. Some say it was white with a blue circle on the side, near the nose. FOIA requests for serial numbers of parts salvaged from the various sites, which are normally recorded when there is an air crash, have been denied with the explanation that the government did not record any serial numbers. The former government suggested that the hijacked planes were the same planes that hit the two targets, but provided no evidence to the public to support that assumption. However there is very little evidence to suggest that any other aircraft was involved, and what evidence there is is debated. This is like a former government's claim that Spain sank the Maine in Cuba. What really happened is still being debated by historians. However, we should be careful not to give the non-departure records undue weight. They could be coincidental honest errors, of course. Wowest (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I don't have a specific reliable source for this, but: The passengers on the planes who made outgoing calls, as well as the people at the originating airports, which the media were interviewing on and after the day in question, all seemed pretty sure that the departures had taken place. It would not be remarkable if the Bureau of Transportation Statistics considered flights 11 and 77 as special cases. Peter Grey (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's video caps of the hijackers at the airport. It's all pretty dopey stuff, but it keeps people busy I guess. RxS (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite. There is video of dark-complected gentlemen alleged to be the terrorists who allegedly hijacked the planes making themselves conspicuous in the airport, but nothing has been released showing any of them boarding an airplane. When the airlines released their passenger lists, none of their names appeared there. Well, if you have a reliable source I don't know about showing that the conspicuous people actually boarded airplanes, please post it. Wowest (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm getting tired of saying this, but if you aren't going to bring reliable sources to back up these claims, don't make them. NOT a forum. --Tarage (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you now saying that flight 77 hit the WTC? O.K. then. How about if we pick up the four frames released from the Pentagon camera and give it the caption "The Bush regime stated that these photographs show United flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?" I think it would improve the quality of the article. Wowest (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were only "The Bush Regime". Fortunately, the vast majority of reliable sources we have say this. Give it a rest. --Tarage (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm overstepping my bounds, but I believe anyone who tries to post conspiracy cruft to the article should first be required to read this list and ask themselves how many of the traits listed there are displayed by their pet theory before posting. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or they could simply not post their pet theory at all, because it doesn't belong here. We brokers of reliable sources have little need for pet theories, unless said theories are in a reliable source itself. But I do agree that a bit of reading could prevent a lot of this. That is why I request that before any major edit is made by a new editor, they read the backlog of talk pages to see if their request has been made and rejected before. --Tarage (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I almost think we need a FAQ just to address the conspiracy theories and related material which has already been debunked. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We do. People just don't read it, and then assume we are government plants. --Tarage (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a harsher policy on how to deal with repeat offenders of this nonsense. Coolgamer (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

We have one. People who make repeated edits that are clearly detrimental to the advancement of this article are topic-banned. Believe it or not, it's a lot more peaceful around here than it used to be because of them. Doesn't stop sock puppets though, or people who toe the line... --Tarage (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree with Coolgamer. The policy seems too lenient. While this page might be more peaceful than it used to be, when I look at all the articles related to 9/11 as a whole, I tend to see the same POV pushers making the same types of changes over and over again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(random un-indenting for readability)

A lot of errors get made with regards to planes taking off and not being recorded. You don't record each time you open the garage door to goto work, do you? The points you have presented are poorly supported and mostly conjecture. Annihilatron (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Société Générale

A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue was quoted as saying:

“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This means what? Also, when adding a new section, do it at the bottom please. --Tarage (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Muslim?

This article seems pro-Muslim. For one, the article goes out of its way to tell the reader groups associated with Islam condemned the attacks. Yeah, and so did about every major organization, government, and person in the United States.

Also, we are barraged with the typical "hate crime" lunacy. Is this noteworthy? The major response by the American public was not hate but sadness. Most people urged restraint toward Muslims within the United States. If the "hate crime" section is to be kept we should atleast qualify it by stating a small minority of people acted this way. Mr2b (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a new one. I'm used to getting arguments that this article is anti-Muslim because we refer to the attackers as terrorists and point out the religion involved. I'm not sure there needs to be a change, as we've gone through many iterations to get to this point. However, I suppose since this is something new we could talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The few hate crimes got all the attention. This is due to one factor of Mainstream Corporate Media. They know that scary news will keep the viewers hypnotized through the subsequent commercials, probably too stunned to mute the TV, so we get a LOT of scary news and very FEW cute little warm fuzzy stories. Wowest (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The explanation and the counter-points are a litte US-centric, but hate crimes were a notable part of the hysteria. Peter Grey (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, more than one book states that several hundreds of civilians were rounded up in the US, most presumed Muslim, most jailed without clear cause. My colleague says Rove and Kristol got concerned on hearing this, but how can we or they know which of the published reports are best? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks

Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Traffic

Why is there no mention of the gridlock traffic in the city after the attacks or the mass exodus of many of its citizens? I can't find this mentioned anywhere but I remember people couldn't get of the city. Aaron Bowen (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Harrison versus CosmicLatte

The sentence at issue is:

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt, as billions of dollars worth of office space was  
damaged or destroyed.

The question is "what was destroyed." Office space was destroyed.

That's rather a strangely constructed sentence, when you look at it.

Looking further, what does it mean? Billions to construct? No. Billions to rent? For how long? Billions to replace? That might better.

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt. Office space which would cost billions of
dollars to replace was damaged or destroyed.

That's my suggestion. Wowest (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Billions of dollars in office space" and "Office space worth billions of dollars" seem to mean the same thing in comfortable English, and might equate to something like "Office space that would be appraised at billions of dollars" in more laboured English. Despite the fact that office space was destroyed, however, neither "office space" nor "destroyed" are syntactically important components of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "billions" (both "of dollars" and "in office space" are prepositional phrases--the grammatical equivalent of junk DNA, if I may offer a metaphor) and the corresponding verb is the auxiliary verb, "were." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example for comparison: "Members of al-Qaeda hijack the planes." "Al-Qaeda" is more semantically interesting than "members," but "members" is more syntactically important because it is the subject of the sentence, whereas "of al-Qaeda" is a prepositional phrase, set off by the preposition, "of." So the infinitive of the verb, "to hijack," must be conjugated to correspond with "members" (hence "hijack") rather than with "al-Qaeda" (in which case it would be "hijacks," at least in American English). You can insert as many prepositional phrases (PP) and relative clauses (RC) as you'd like, and still the subject will be plural: "Members of al-Qaeda [PP] from Jupiter [PP] with thirty toes [PP], who play Scrabble [RC] with kangaroos [PP] that eat ice cream [RC] hijack the planes." "Ice cream" may be singular, but all that matters is that the subject of the sentence is plural. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why nothing about the dancing Israelis?

The dancing Israelis incident that was reported by a number of mainstream media outlets, but funnily never mentioned again seems to paint a clear picture of who was responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks. For those in need of a refresher this is what happened. On the day of the 9/11/2001 attacks 5 Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen and filmed in New Jersey dancing in the streets and congratulating one another and were also reported by residents to the police as jumping for joy while filming themselves in front of the towers after the initial impact. They were also reported to be driving a white, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' written on it and police were told to stop any white van if it was located. Police did stop the van and when they apprehended them they told the police "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". The NYPD then found in their van maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4700 cash stuffed in a sock and foreign passports. Bombsniffing dogs were also brought to the van and reacted as if they smelt explosives. The FBI also ceased and developed their photos, one of which showed one of the suspects holding up a flicked lighter in front of the buildings. Two former CIA officers confirmed that the moving van company 'Urban Moving Systems' was a front for Mossad and said that moving vans are commonly used for intelligence operations, they also said these Israelis were detained for only 71 days before being quietly let go and said "There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this was basically going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11."

Can someone explain to me why there's no mention of any of this?

Phazon - 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me to be nothing but anti-Semitic propaganda. Show me some sources. --Tarage (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was actually in the article for a very long time though much shortened and having the reply to it from the Israeli government. I have no idea why it is not in it now although i may be confused and it is in another article. Tarage is pulling your leg, he knows very well it is supported by RS. BTW they were not dressed as Arabs and were not jumping with joy (the witness who reported them said highfiving and no one else saw them there). Only one of them was Mossad and it also doesn't imply who was responsible. At worst it implies inappropriate behaviour. Wayne (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I was not pulling anyone's leg, and from what you pointed out, stating that they were 'Dancing Israelis' and that they were vital to this article IS propaganda, and I won't have it. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, doesn't need to be on the main article. Hut 8.5 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would LOVE to know who deleted the entire section regarding "The Dancing Isralelis". I would love to know the why too. So it's fair to report the joy of Palestinians and at the same time remove any reference to the "The Dancing Isralelis"? It's perfect clear why Wikipedia won't ever be a trustworthy source of reference on its own. Ever! Scrobblix (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Go choke on your nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for speaking for Tarage. As he is a frequent editor on this page I mistakenly assumed he would be more familiar with the subject. Thanks Hut 8.5, I knew I had seen it somewhere and it is proof that it has not been censored. It does suggest possible advance knowledge so is appropriate there but does not need to be mentioned in every 911 article. Specifically it is here. Wayne (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

"...the mainstream theory technically _is_ a conspiracy theory because it implicates multiple individuals..." That's not what a conspiracy theory is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A sourced statement on Conspiracy theory: "The term 'conspiracy theory' may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means 'to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act,'" which is exactly what is alleged of al-Qaeda. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use our article on Conspiracy theory as an authoritative source for this discussion. That article appears to have a bit of a split personality. It can't seem decide if it should be about conspiracies or conspiracy theories. These are two different things. I raised this issue on the article's talk page and so far, no one has responded. [12]

In any case, the referenced cite is a 1976 version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The current version of this source says that conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" [13]. It defines a conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together" and "an agreement among conspirators". [14]. AFAIK, the so-called 'official' account is a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what AFAIK means, but you just gave a dictionary definition and then directly opposed what your definition said. The official account is precisely a theory and it involves a secret plot by a poorly defined group of conspirators. Were there nineteen Arab Oswalds involved? We don't know. There were nineteen passport photographs involved. Were some of these individuals conspicuously present in airports on the morning of 9/11? Apparently so, although most of the evidence seems to be from videos whose location cannot be ascertained. Did some of them get on airplanes? Maybe, although there are no photographs, and their names don't appear on passenger lists. Did some of them pilot hijacked aircraft that morning? Maybe. One of them could have been taken over by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that evil? Adherents would say no, although there is a mystery involved here. How did hijackers take over four airplanes without being stopped by the crews? Coincidence? The ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not always clear to finite human minds. Why did eyewitnesses claim that aircraft approached the Pentagon from two different directions? Were their eyes blinded by His Divine Noodles? This article would be a lot more honest if it contained more language like "according to representatives of the FBI (preferably with names)," or "President Bush stated...." All of the secondary sources do that, but someone decided to go with a tertiary source to get the lede sentence without attribution. Wowest (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "AFAIK" is an abbreviation for "as far as I know". [15] In any case, the identities of the 19 hijackers have been identified and confirmed. If you would like a good resource to find out what really happened, the 9/11 Commission Report provides a detailed and accurate account of Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks. I bought a copy myself because I prefer hardcopy, but it's also available for free on the Internet. [16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[Note: In case the first couple sentences of this comment seem out-of-context, it's because I wrote them in response to a comment that was accidentally placed in this section, misinterpreted by me, and later moved by the original poster to the intended section.] When there is a notable challenge to the status quo, omitting mention of it could contravene the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Now, when a notable and reliable source points out that a third of the population adheres to this challenge, and then refers to it as "mainstream", I can't think of any reason to exclude it. As for "conspiracy" versus "conspiracy theory," the latter certainly has some negative connotations (e.g., their adherents are supposedly "conspiracy nuts"). But by referring to the alternative theories as, well, alternative, then we can suggest in one sense of the word that these are theories about alternative (i.e., other) conspiracies, and in another sense that alternative (i.e., various) conspiracy theories exist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it has anything to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. Rather it has to do with attributing undue weight to fringe theories. There are few (if any) reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED came in response to this post, which was admittedly misplaced, leading me to misinterpret it as a claim that the entire "Conspiracy theories" section didn't belong, when in fact it was aimed only at the "dancing Israeli" idea. However, the Time source raises a serious challenge to the belief that U.S. government involvement is a "fringe theory," when it explicitly states that such a theory "is not a fringe phenomenon" ([17]). But this is all beside the point, which is that even the official theory is a conspiracy theory because it indicates a conspiracy among al-Qeada. "Conspiracy" means something like "covert teamwork" (cf. Gunpowder Plot, aka Gunpowder Conspiracy), not "inside job." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of the term 'fringe theory' and Time Magazine's definition of the single word 'fringe' isn't necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia's policy regarding 'fringe theories' is explained here: WP:FRINGE. The quote from the Time Magazine article is about the relative popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. The only thing it lends credence to is whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. As to whether 9/11 conspiracy theories carry any weight, there are few (if any) reliable sources that say that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fact, if you read the entire Time Magazine article to its conclusion, it clearly dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories as "unreasonable" and then goes on to explore psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in the things that they do. [18] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Time documents the notability, not the veracity, of these theories; and accordingly, the WP article reflects their notability rather than veracity, and does so in a relatively small amount of space--perfectly consistent with WP:DUE, which states that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that backs the perspective that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Not one. Even if you could, weight should be roughly proportional and there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what a conspiracy theory is, Tom. It's a theory that a crime was committed by a group of people in cooperation with each other. I'm going to try to add something to the conspiracy theory topic, since the people who generally use the term do so with some obvious DOUBLETHINK. However, the most senior philosopher who has pronounced on this philosophical distinction is Dr. David Ray Griffin, and he even put the term "Official Conspiracy Theory" in a book title. Wowest (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording slightly. The phrase alternative theory has a stigma attached to it. Could we possibly use a word other than alternative? I would be far more receptive if it didn't use that word. Also the mainstream 'theory' is still mainstream if more than 1/2 of Americans still believe it, as the poll suggests. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" works for me, so I'm fine with the new wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does not work, however, is the reduction of the section to a single sentence. Let's not confuse WP:UNDUE with WP:UNWANTED. Because WP:UNDUE states that information is to be presented in proportion to its prominence (which, if we read that pedantically, might suggest that the beliefs of 1/3 of the population merit 1/3 of the article's space), the elimination of context is problematic, because it removes information regarding the prominence of these theories. The fuller version, however, indicates prominence 1) by pointing out that 1/3 of the population has subscribed to the theories, and 2) ironically, by pointing to notable entities (the NIST and "the community of civil engineers") that have aimed to refute the theories, because this indicates that these entities have taken the theories seriously enough to address in the first place, regardless of the conclusions they've reached. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it says absolutely nothing about perspectives being "backed"; it talks about perspectives being held and prominent: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A third of the population is prominent. Time magazine is prominent. The NIST and "the community of civil engineers" are prominent entities to have addressed the issue, even if they have disagreed with it. And the view is held by a "significant minority" of the population, whereas WP:UNDUE states that only "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." A third of the population is not "extremely small or vastly limited." All that matters is that the population holds this view. Whether or not it is correct is entirely irrelevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." While a third of the population is not an individual adherent, it is most certainly a prominent collective adherent. Therefore, to eliminate mention of who--i.e., the significant minority--adheres to these theories is to contravene what the policy is suggesting here. By including the Time reference, we are clarifying who prominently adheres to these alternative theories, and are therefore being perfectly consistent with WP:UNDUE. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does WP:3RR say? And how about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR says, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which is pretty much what I recall it saying when I first read it back in the stone age. I have not made more than three reverts on any page within a day. I don't know what you mean to point to on the ArbCom page, so I'll have to let you be more specific. In any case, this isn't a very substantive refutation of the argument that the conspiracy-theory approach, being held by a third of the population, is therefore held by a significant minority and therefore deserves reasonable mention as per "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The conspiracy theory section has been there for quite a while, and it has included more than just a single sentence. I'm not really advocating anything new here, but seem to have encountered new resistance to the section now that its content has been attributed to such a large segment of the population. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just open a NPOV dispute on the appropriate noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just explain why the statement, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis mine, wording straight from policy) should not apply in this case, and there'll be no dispute. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WP:DR is the place to go if there is a genuine content dispute, but I really don't see why there needs to be a dispute at all. The version I am advocating simply identifies the significant minority that holds a particular view, which is precisely what WP:UNDUE calls for. I am not claiming that the view is true, or that reliable sources claim this; I am simply promoting the inclusion of what is verifiable, which happens to be in accord with WP:UNDUE's direction that proportional mention be given to significant minorities. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing something drastic and potentially alienating, I have requested comment at every single WikiProject in which this article is categorized (e.g., [19]). Please forgive me for slanting the request in favour of my position (being only human, it would have been difficult not to do so), but bear in mind that it is ultimately a request for uninvolved parties to review this section of the talk page and therefore to reach their own conclusions and build consensus in whatever manner it might be built. I will minimize my own involvement with the disputed section of the article for now, as I feel I have satisfactorily put forth and defended a policy-based position, which I will now leave to the larger community to evaluate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even still, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. The Time Magazine article does not conclude that 9/11 conspiracy theories are "'not a fringe phenomenon' but rather "'a mainstream political reality'". It concludes by calling them "unreasonable" and exploring psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in unreasonable things. Other reliable sources have said similar things. Popular Mechanics, for example, calls 9/11 conspiracy theories "wild" and "outlandish". [20] I can cite numerous reliable sources that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unless this key information is included and given proper weight, it is in violation of WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "conclude" isn't the best choice of words, because the Time article does indeed "conclude" with the suggestion (by one writer) that the views held by a third of the population are problematic. Granted, two-thirds of the population would agree with this writer. And probably the vast majority of people can agree that the specific theory he cites as "unreasonable"--the theory that it was a missile rather than an airplane that crashed into the Pentagon--is implausible. But the passage in the WP article was never meant to suggest that Time endorses any of these theories. I specifically worded it to say that "Time magazine cited a poll," which, well, it did. The point is not that Time endorses anything so outlandish; the point is not that I do (in fact, I don't); the point is that a significant minority of the population endorses the view that there is some likelihood that U.S. government officials are culpable to some degree. It just so happens that this fact comes from a poll that comes from a magazine that questions the sanity behind this fact, but the fact itself remains, and it remains embedded in a reliable source, even if it its implications are incongruous with those of the source as a whole. What I have yet to hear is an explanation of how 36% of the American population is not a significant minority that holds a particular viewpoint, and of how this significant minority does not therefore deserve mention in accord with both WP:V, which is apathetic about the truth of a belief, so long as the belief can be located in a reliable source, and WP:DUE (indeed, a section of WP:NPOV), which grants that the views held by a significant minority should be attributable to that minority. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if people disagree with my position that the alternative theories need to be put in context, I request that they present precise arguments for doing so--just as I quoted WP:DUE, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents," in support of attributing the view of a significant minority to its adherents--rather than simply reverting or just pointing to something like WP:FRINGE without making an incisive case for why it should apply here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:UNDUE: Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. If there are any reliable sources supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint then the number is very, very small, whereas lots of sources support the mainstream viewpoint, so we should give very little weight to the conspiracy theories. The fact that a significant percentage of the American public happen to support the viewpoint does mean we should mention it somewhere and possibly cover it in sub-articles (we do), but it does not mean we should give it anything other than minimal weight in the main article. Hut 8.5 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being precise. I think that's a reasonable argument. Still, because the rest of that quoted sentence is, "not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," it would seem to get at the heart of the matter if things were reversed a bit--i.e., most of us adhered to conspiracy theories, but most sources advocated the mainsteam account. In that case, one "prevalence" would be up against another, and that sentence would dictate which prevalence guides the allocation of weight in the article. To reformulate what I suppose has been my main point all along, even if the conspiracy theories are given minimal weight, they should probably be attributed to their source (in this case, 36% of the American public); in other words, attribution should be part of what is reasonably considered "minimal weight"--it's a conceptual feather, so to speak: functionally important, but physically lightweight. Anything else is weasel-wordy and, while it might not contradict the letter of WP:RS, it arguably contradicts the spirit, because it implies that it's sufficient to know that a perspective exists without knowing its reasonably knowable source. A previous wording stated that "conspiracy theories have emerged," without indicating from whence they "emerged." And what does "emerged" mean in this context anyway? Did they emerge, in a technical sense, like consciousness emerges from a sentient organism? Or did they emerge, in a colloquial sense, like swamp creatures emerge from the deep? Pretty spooky stuff either way. So if we're looking to be succinct, then perhaps we could say something like the following: "Proponents of various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This adds a simple relative clause and keeps things short and sweet, but steers clear of the weasels and swamp creatures. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's still not accurate. The word "propenent" means "one who argues in favor of something : advocate" [21]. Just because you agree with a statement doesn't mean you go around arguing in favor of something. Second, the Time Magazine article states (in reference to the poll) US "government officials...carried out the attacks themselves". That's not the same thing as "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted". In fact, the latter I would agree with since we know that the Taliban (who are individuals outside of Al-Qaeda) at the very least gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The first problem should be easy to fix: "Proponents of" --> "Adherents to." As for the second, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be changed at all. The key word in "who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population" is include. "Individuals outside of al-Qaeda" is a much larger group of people than US "government officials," but it does include them. So the group of people who believe that non-al-Qaeda members in general were involved does include the 36% of the American population that believes government officials in particular were involved. So that leaves us with, "Adherents to various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." If you can think of an even better way to attribute the opinions to their adherents, that'd be great--but to state them without attributing them at all is the very definition of weasel-wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 'adherents' seems too strong. But in any case, I think you completely missed my second point. By altering the wording of the Time Magazine article, you've completely changed the meaning of what it said. There is a huge difference between saying that the US government carried out the attacks themselves and saying that people outside of Al Qaeda helped carry out the attacks. See my previous example of the Taliban who gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda but are not part of the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The view stated in the WP article is "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This is considerably broader than what the Time article says, but it includes the Time-cited view that U.S. government officials (who are, indeed, among the set of "individuals outside of al-Qaeda") carried out the attacks (which is, indeed, among the conceptual set of allegedly having "planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks"). To say that conspiracy theory adherents "include [the] more than one-third of the American population" that implicates the U.S. government in carrying out the attacks themselves is not to say that conspiracy theory adherents are limited to this segment of the population, and therefore it is fully accurate to say that those who broadly believe "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" are inclusive of the population that more precisely thinks that U.S. government officials carried out the attacks. It isn't perfect, but it's considerably less weasel-wordy than just saying that the theories happen to "exist" or that they mysteriously "emerged." If you can think of an even better way to word this in a non-weasel fashion, that'd be great, but as far as I can tell, the key word "include" accurately places the relatively specific beliefs cited in Time within the relatively inclusive group of beliefs mentioned on the WP article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Taliban giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, I don't think that is what's being meant in this sense of "conspiracy theory." Perhaps the WP article is wording things too broadly (maybe "individuals outside of al-Qaeda" should be replaced with something like "individuals outside of al-Qaeda and even the Taliban," "individuals not typically associated with al-Qaeda," "individuals outside of al-Qaeda, potentially including U.S. government officials," or something else along those lines). But in any case, the broad group of alleged suspects and crimes mentioned on WP is inclusive of the narrower group cited in Time, so I'm quite sure that the word "include" makes the clause factually correct. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the ultimate question is this: How can the section be phrased so that it's neither so long as to seem undue, nor so short as to be weasel-wordy? I feel that my explanation of the function of the word "include," in my past few entries here, justifies the phrasing I've suggested, or at least some variant of it, but perhaps someone else could say it even better. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the phrase "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" comes from. As best as I can tell, neither the Time Magazine nor the San Francisco Chronicle articles say this. The Time Magazine article says that 9/11 conspiracy theories are the belief that "the entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials" [22]. The cited reference (the San Francisco Chronicle) defines 9/11 conspiracy theories as the belief that "the perpetrators included members of their own government - that somehow the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Pentagon, was either behind the attacks or simply allowed them to happen" [23]. Why don't we simply use one of these definitions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Replacement of Protection

It's clear that when this article is allowed to be edited by non registered users that an excessive amount of vandalism occurs. Please put the lock back in place before we have more such incidents. --Tarage (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC) .

One would think that, at the very least, you could have expressed that without being tendentious. What we're seeing might be called a one-sided edit war, or, perhaps better, asymmetrical edit-warring or guerrilla edit-warring. It's rather obviously anonymous truthers versus the propaganda coalition. They are clearly good faith edits, attempting to improve the honesty of the article.

We used to witness Xiutwel, who is probably the most persistently honest editor ever to address this article, bringing up a very few points repeatedly in this discussion. His points were never addressed, but MORTON DEVONSHIRE, MONGO and half-a-dozen others kept claiming that they were previously addressed and referring him to unspecified archives where they hadn't been addressed either. Finally, he was permanently banned from the topic. That's called censorship. So, now you have this anonymous editing.

My own suggestion, a long time ago, was to attribute controversial statements to their sources. What we're seeing, instead, is an anonymous and unsourced retaliatory attribution accompanied by an unsourced accusation. It is the Official Conspiracy Theory, as Doctor Griffin calls it, which is being represented here as if it were proven fact. Sometimes aspects of the theory are tendentiously labeled "scientific." Critics and skeptics are tendentiously labelled "conspiracists" and banned from the topic.

I do, however, agree with you as to the temporary remedy to the edit war, except that it is clearly not vandalism. It is a waste of everybody's time to have to keep reverting things. It would be better to amend the article to make it more honest, but as long as we don't attribute controversial statements to their sources, it's going to attract anonymous editing.

The responsibility we share, as a result of our awareness of this situation is to ensure that school teachers realize that no encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source for historical, geographical or biographical information on any event which occurred after the year 1860. Some students think that copying something out of an encyclopedia constitutes research. Some teachers find that actually makes it easier for them to correct the resultant papers. More darkly, some teachers actually sell Encyclopedia Britannica on the side while assigning papers which tend to make students dependent on it. At least, here, although some of the information is worthless, or worse, there are a lot of other articles which are as reliable as most users would require, and the information is free.

So I have to second your request that the article be locked up again, but it's to stop out-of-control edit-warring, not vandalism. You're supposed to assume good faith.

Wowest (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"You're supposed to assume good faith." Yeah, so are you. It's hard to see how calling people a "propaganda coalition" does that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Tom. I was actually thinking about something MONGO perpetrated a few days ago on a different thread. Wowest (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. Given the fact that there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that plainly explain that 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, and few (if any) that say it was an inside job by the US government, I'm suprised this article mentions it at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

To get back to the original subject here, if you want the protection restored I suggest you go to WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good, but someone replaced it already. Curious, though, how so much actual vandalism just cropped up. Very curious. Wowest (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Curious, though...Very curious." That's what they want you to think. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. September 11th is a highly important event in history, and there are bound to be quite a number of vandals that wish to harm this article. Just because YOU don't see it as vandalism doesn't mean it isn't. These people are more than welcome to create an account and propose edits in a rational and civil manner. Instead, most simply attempted to either add ignorant statements, blank the page, or push propaganda that was rejected numerous times on this talk page. You can invoke the name Xiutwel all you want, but he is STILL topic blocked, so clearly there is not a minority of people who think he was out of line. You yourself are increasingly toeing that line yourself with statements like the one you made above. I suggest you stop now, or I will start the request admin intervention. I'm sick of your attitude, and I'm not alone. --Tarage (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article was vandalized right after unprotection. Kanonkas has protected the article, and there is no need to remove protection. AdjustShift (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead section of 9/11 article

The end part of the lead section of 9/11 article says:

"Rebuilding the World Trade Center site has proven more difficult, with controversy over possible designs as well as the pace of construction. Construction delays, revised cost estimates, security concerns, and public criticism have all led to changes and delays to the final plans in rebuilding the complex to this day."

I don't think it is appropriate to mention what is written above. I've replaced it with:

"The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. The Freedom Tower is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become the one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers are expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site."

I believe it is important to mention about Freedom Tower on the lead section, and also about the recent progresses regarding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site. AdjustShift (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Did any helicopters at all take off that day?

This source describes an effective helicopter airlift from the World Trade Center in 1993.[24] The source cited stated that helicopter rescue would be "impractical", but I don't interpret it to be worded strongly enough to indicate for sure that absolutely no one escaped by helicopter. Can someone think of a source that says categorically that absolutely no one made it out from the roof in a chopper? Wnt (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are all the relevant passages from the Commission Report[25]:

• "Doors leading to the roof were locked. There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards, making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. Although the South Tower roof had a helipad, it did not meet 1994 Federal Aviation Administration guidelines."

• About the 1993 attacks: "Several small groups of people who were physically unable to descend the stairs were evacuated from the roof of the South Tower by New York Police Department (NYPD) helicopters. At least one person was lifted from the North Tower roof by the NYPD in a dangerous helicopter rappel operation- 15 hours after the bombing. General knowledge that these air rescues had occurred appears to have left a number of civilians who worked in the Twin Towers with the false impression that helicopter rescues were part of the WTC evacuation plan and that rescue from the roof was a viable, if not favored, option for those who worked on upper floors. Although they were considered after 1993, helicopter evacuations in fact were not incorporated into the WTC fire safety plan."

• "At 8:56, an NYPD ESU team asked to be picked up at the Wall Street heliport to initiate rooftop rescues. At 8:58, however, after assessing the North Tower roof, a helicopter pilot advised the ESU team that they could not land on the roof, because "it is too engulfed in flames and heavy smoke condition." By 9:00, a third NYPD helicopter was responding to the WTC complex. NYPD helicopters and ESU officers remained on the scene throughout the morning, prepared to commence rescue operations on the roof if conditions improved. Both FDNY and NYPD protocols called for FDNY personnel to be placed in NYPD helicopters in the event of an attempted rooftop rescue at a high-rise fire. No FDNY personnel were placed in NYPD helicopters on September 11."

• At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD helicopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel-laden fire in the North Tower would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter.--Sloane (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Helicopter attempts were considered, and you can see various copters in the area. The heat from the building was so intense that it was decided that a rooftop rescue was impossible due to the heat interfering with landing and steering, and the fact that the smoke made visibility very touchy. Coolgamer (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section should be removed per WP:Fringe Theories

The well documented conspiracy theories on Obama's eligibility are being removed from the article about him despite front page news on the story from mainstream media sources including AOL, keith olbermann, and others. The reason cited for removal is the policy on fringe theories. If this is done, it is only fair to remove the conspiracy theory section here also. It is a double standard to be inconsistent on where and when to enforce the Fringe Theories rule--Rsjmsb (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because Obama is a WP:BLP, so extra discretion must be used. There is a double standard, and for very good reason. And because the so-called Obama "birthers" are really on the fringe, whereas 9/11 "truthers" (or at least those who believe that the Bush administration is in some way culpable) are relatively large in number--a point that I have sourced before and would be happy to source again. WP:DUE distinguishes between significant and insignificant minorities. And because, last but not least, accusing Wikipedia of "double standards" is not a highly recommended tactic (cf. WP:POINT and WP:WL). There are times when it is reasonable to compare one article to another; for example, the content of Article A might already be covered by Article B, or Article A might contradict Article B. It may even be good to point out editorial inconsistencies among articles and suggest that a standard protocol be followed. But arguments along the lines of "Article A sucks, so Article B should be able to suck too," or "Wikipedia censors conspiracy theories about a liberal president but not ones about a (neo)conservative one" are, to say the least, something less than penetrating. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, what Wikidemon said here. Different people work on different articles, and different people come to different interpretations of policies and guidelines. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"No, because Obama is a WP:BLP, so extra discretion must be used. There is a double standard, and for very good reason....9/11 truthers (or at least those who believe that the Bush administration is in some way culpable)"

Aren't the people in the Bush administration, well, people? How can WP:BLP not apply? I'm not saying this article is in violation I don't think that this article is in violation, but it certainly applies.

"9/11 "truthers" ... are relatively large in number--a point that I have sourced before and would be happy to source again. WP:DUE distinguishes between significant and insignificant minorities"

I think that you've misunderstood Wikipedia's policy on undue weight. It states "neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" (emphasis mine). The number of people who believe in a particular conspiracy theory is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what reliable sources say on the matter and there are very few (if any) reliable sources that say that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the people in the Bush administration are people, but the Bush administration was not a person. It might contravene BLP a bit to point out in this article that alternative theories implicate Bush or Cheney (or, for that matter, Marvin P. Bush or Larry Silverstein) in particular, but this is precisely why I'm wording things more generally. And the reliable source, in case you have forgotten, is Time magazine (I'm sure I could find others), which points out that a third of the population has subscribed to these theories, even if the magazine doesn't ultimately subscribe to them itself. Indeed, WP:DUE says that the views have to be published by a reliable source, not advocated by that source. And for good reason, I think. If views had to be advocated by the publisher, then an inordinate amount of information would have to be excluded from the encyclopedia. For instance, most people throughout most of history (now if that isn't a majority, then I don't know what is) have been illiterate (or if not illiterate, then relatively inarticulate). The subjective experiences of these people have had to be documented by outsiders who may find their customs unusual or downright immoral. Also, if sources had to advocate the information they contain, then much scientific data would have to be omitted. Scientists will simply document their findings without making claims about their truth or goodness; really good scientists will even conclude their reports by pointing out potential flaws in their approach that could lead to the falsification of all the data they collected. Here, the "conspiracy" view has been published by a reliable source that attributes this view to the significant minority that holds this view. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the people in the Bush administration are people I believe that we are both in agreement that the article doesn't violate this policy, so let's move on.

Time magazine (I'm sure I could find others), which points out that a third of the population has subscribed to these theories Per WP:FRINGE, the number of people who believe in a fringe theory is irrelevent. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans believe that aliens crash-landed outside of Roswell, but you won't find Roswell mentioned in our article on astrobiology because Roswell conspiracy theories aren't a serious topic except perhaps as a social phenomon.

most people throughout most of history (now if that isn't a majority, then I don't know what is) have been illiterate (or if not illiterate, then relatively inarticulate) You completely lost me on this one.

Scientists will simply document their findings without making claims about their truth or goodness; really good scientists will even conclude their reports by pointing out potential flaws in their approach that could lead to the falsification of all the data they collected. That terrorists are responsible for 9/11 is well-established. There is no serious debate on this issue. You're probably thinking about scientific research into cutting edge areas of science. NASA may issue a report including qualifiers about how the Phoenix probe measured the amount of salt perchlorate in Martian soil, but when explaining the path that the Phoenix probe took to Mars, they won't include qualifiers about Mars orbitting the Sun (and not the Earth). That the Sun is the center of the Solar System is well-established. There is no serious debate on issue. Just like 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the September 11th attacks, the conspiracy theories are a notable pop culture phenomenon, but they really don't belong in this article since they are at best only indirectly connected to the actual events. Peter Grey (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Our guidelines on Summary Style say that this article should contain a summary of the sub-article 9/11 conspiracy theories as long as the 911CT article exists. If you think it shouldn't, nominate it at Articles for Deletion. If you do, be prepared for an uphill struggle. The problem with deletion is that the subject is inherently verifiable and notable, because numerous reliable sources have documented these conspiracy theories, and stated that a significant minority have some belief in them. (Whether or not such beliefs are correct is of course irrelevant.) I hope this clarifies the situation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In the past, a user has requested mediation on this issue. The dispute was resolved by a mediator. For more information, see the case page.

NPOV tag

An editor has re-added the "neutrality disputed" tag to the article, but has not yet explained what part(s) they consider non-neutral, nor suggestions to fix it. Anyone is welcome to add tags to the article, but if they're not explained they don't mean a great deal and will just be removed again.

I've invited the editor who added the tag to come here and explain the problem, and this is an invitation to anyone else who supports the tag to do so as well. Otherwise, after a reasonable period to allow debate, I'd suggest the tag simply be removed once again. Euryalus (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We have a long-lasting history here. This article, in its present state, is much like 9/11 Commission, it's 'set up to fail'. As for NPOV tag, it is warranted from the beginning to the end of it, from A to Z as someone once said. Euryalus, do tell, are the editors which hijacked this article really willing to (re)open debate? If so, they should leave this article be, leave it alone and see it evolve. Then again, administrators here and there are reluctant to look into 'wabbit hole', as they gaze into the eye of a behemoth they rather indulge into inanity of tremendous proportions. I for one think that such irresponsibility has no precedence in known history.

I wonder, will the editors who are actively and undoubtedly engaged into 9/11 Cover Up be held responsible for their actions? As that fellow who infiltrated Wikipedia and lied to us all, what was his name? And don't tell me I'm exaggerating, I've just took a look after a few months and I see that 'conspiracy theories' are bound to be propelled from this official narrative, now that's a long lasting agenda of the single minded fringe group if we ever had one. DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a long history here. WP:CONSENSUS is that the conspiracy theories should not be included prominently as there is no reliable source for their accuracy, although there are reliable sources for their existance. We do not deal in truth, but in verifiability. The rest of your rant borders on WP:NPA, but I can consider it understandable. Yes, I know, consensus can change, but there really should be a new argument or new evidence for that to be brought up. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I'd remove that rant myself, but then you did show understanding and you have my regards for it.

Let me rephrase that altogether and address the topic.

I'd say that article is biased as it fails to reflect upon public opinion, or revelations we had in last couple of years. I'd say it's written with extremely strong POV. I'd estimate that some of the sibling articles are in much better state and carry much better formulation than the narrative we have here.

These attack are questioned, there is no global consensus of whom carried 'em, and there is not even a hint about it in here, apart from that little conspiratorial section, which actually doesn’t belong here, but that would be a matter of (re)opening serious debate. That is if you folks decide to place that tag where appropriate thus calling people for some decent and well rounded discussions about the venues which would improve this..., I'll stay polite. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that those with the urge to remove tags state their concerns here. If you need a sample example of POV issues, have a few.

Article fails to give due weight to the fall of WTC 7, narrative with regards to that collapse is inaccurate, reference is outdated and that puny sentence where it's referenced is excellent place to study POV in all of its ugliness… there is only one explanation/allegation for such course and it is not a simple omission it is a fully blown and fully grown Cover up.

There is not a word about the fact that hijackers were wiretapped before 9/11 or that two of those vile villains were staying just across the highway from NSA headquarters, there are no words about memos and warnings and rescheduling of war games and so on… all of which would be appropriate for section about advance knowledge, which appears to be missing, must be because it's classified as conspiracy theory, or something as witty as that.

It may not seem so, but I'm keeping my temper, I will not touch too many issues, those who want to contest the need for POV tag are free to share their views. I see there is a convenient search tool for history here, give it a go, see how many times people stated that this article needs a tag. I'd say it was one time too many and any decent and long lasting editor who still has a strength or will to venture into this talkpage is well aware of the fact that the number of editors which want to see a proper warning for our visitors outnumbers the usual enforcers here by far. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you use said search tool to see that every single one of the arguments you have made have been rejected. Come back when you have a new one, otherwise, just stay gone. --Tarage (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talking about usual enforcers, eh? Why have you placed that invitation in first place Euryalus? And where is the person which placed original tag? Well, time wasted, world seems mute. Best wishes to all, as ever. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No soapboxing, please. If you have some reliable sources that back up what you're saying, fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

back up, back up, over and over again.... and then you talk about soapboxing, here, A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Or how about this one? The one which (among other blistering issues) shows why we have utter failure of NPOV, as clearly as possible. Further more, the one which should serve us all as reminder of the fact that we really have a cover up here.

It states>

A plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Nearly as many (38%), though, are aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it. People are least likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse (14%)..

See, a single sentence, a reliable, verifiable reference and we already have a third tower "people don't know about", and not just that, but the one which Commission failed to investigate. A single damn sentence which is in one form or another rejected here by the... pih.

One has to wonder about responsibility Wikipedia has for such "ignorance", yes?! You know, reliable sources are not a problem, at least not these days and at least if we don't venture into fuzzy realm of conspiracy theories. Uf! I see I'll have hard time restraining, tell you what, that POV tag would be nice, take some time, look into history here, plenty of repeating issues and whole plethora of acceptable sources, we can continue this if and when proper warning is given and I'm not the one who will place it there. Not allowed, it seems. DawnisuponUS (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been covered before. The number of people who believe in a fringe theory is irrelevent. What matters is what reliable sources say on the matter and there are few, if any, reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As far I can see this is about tag and I’d say that request is understandable. WTC 7 does need a bit more coverage. It would be best if we stick to the topic. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooooh the sheer amount of prejudice one has to deal with in here. Where in the world I've written that US government is behind the attacks? If we manage to place that tag there, we will hopefully be able to deal with advance knowledge, unanswered questions, lack of global consensus and very natural and pretty persistent call for independent investigation. What in the world happened to good faith? Wouldn't that be one of our guidelines which editors should hold in their minds before embarking on a fringe? Have you folks forgotten about that? Caught in conspiracy theory, are we?

I agree, let's stick to the topic.

Again, references are not an issue these days, for sample example there is no doubt that 9/11 attacks harm First Amendment, after all we have a long lasting history here which prove that point to the letter. We should consider the full weight of such mainstream reports as one just provided, they carry great significance and deserve to be explored as a venues which will improve the article and bring some well needed NPOV to it.

I'll place those tags now, I'd appreciate some decent, and I mean decent input and reasoning from those who feel the need to remove it. Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As has been said before, the tags were considered and removed in the past. Unless you can provide new arguments, they are going to stay removed, and per the ArbComm parole on this article, you will be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the points raised above were discussed here. Well, good job Winston, carry on. 93.139.80.215 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just go make your own Online Encyclopedia... with blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the Online Encyclopedia and the blackjack! Eh, screw the whole thing... --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tarage, this sort of nothingness sums up your contribution to this article, it's not even original nothingness, just plain nothingness it is. No wonder we cannot have a decent discussion here, eh? DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep crying. I'll keep ignoring you. --Tarage (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No real conversation can take place when a steady stream of new editors come through here and claim that people here are "covering up" 911 events and hope they will be held "responsible". Accusing people of a felony (at best) pretty much ends any meaningful debate. RxS (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)¨

Sentiments are understandable. Editors want article to be tagged, arguments were made and we don't see single response to issues brought forward. I think that article should include ‘public doubts’ surrounding attacks, I've already shared opinion about WTC 7, references that are provided serve well to show we’re not dealing with fringe phenomenon and we should recognize dynamics and historical developments. Editors should share their opinions and give reasons for inclusion or exclusion of tag. Let's stick to topic, please. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Zogby poll finds 45% want new 9/11 investigation, why is there no mention of this? We have a whole article about 9/11 opinion polls reported in mainstream media, yet they are insignificant for this article. These references are swarming with references, how many do we need to accept the fact that this article lacks NPOV, a proper warning should be given. DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been covered above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What part of 'We don't care about polls' don't you understand? We care about RS. Polls are far too easy to taint. --Tarage (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some folks have a really hard time to deal with an explosion of disbelief. Well, this is going on for a while and I'd say its time to deal with it. Not to ask who are we? Covered with what? All of these links are reliable and verifiable and carried by mainstream media. Those abide by the strict rules we have imposed here. Tainted polls? What are you mumbling about? Tarage you have classified opinions of the people who demand answers to unanswered question and who are voicing the call for independent investigation as rubbish, you are one of the editors who should thread lightly, I'd suggest you do so or it will be hard not to point out the obvious again. I'll wait for another response, do try harder. Mainstream is mainstream. Conspiracistas, that would be people who spew conspiracy theories in light of the disturbing facts, are nuisances, redundancy which this place had to stand for long enough. You're trying to end this last exchange without single argument, apart from the same ol' approach which one would expect from a shill, certainly not from independent and free minded editors. Perhaps we need to establish our own little commission and put this in front of the ArbCom with request to disclose what is the agenda of the editors who dismiss valid references without any decent argument whatsoever. DawnisuponUS (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Because an Italian film maker and an opinion piece on the film 'Loose Change' completely outweigh the piles of RS we have collected over the years. Once again you accuse editors and stoop to blatant name calling. You bring nothing to the table except for your own twisted addenda. We've had a commission. We've had an ArbCom. They ruled against you. I'll say it once again, so please read it as hard as you can. 'Just because a poll says something is true, doesn't mean it is. We don't care about what polls say, we care about what reliable sources say. One poll is one reliable source. Nothing more, nothing less.' You have to give us a lot more than that to even hope of changing this article. Majority rules, and you are the minority. Enjoy your stay, however brief it may be. --Tarage (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• At issue is not a debate among Wikipedia editors, but the conclusions and opinions of informed experts. The popularity of a conspiracy theory is unrelated to its validity (if any). Peter Grey (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that fellow editors are caught up in conspiracy theory; again, I'm not interested in those as much as you folks appear to be. I'm requesting a tag because this article lacks a section about advance knowledge, unanswered questions and call for independent investigation (among other disturbing issues). I'm calling for a tag because POV pushers here excluded WTC 7 from any scrutiny although we have ongoing debate about it within the mainstream. I'm calling for a tag because POV pushers pushed out the disturbing aftermath in which members of commission clearly stated that they were 'set up to fail', I'm calling for a tag because POV pushers pushed out the ongoing issues with regards to the trials of alleged hijackers… the cherry picking and the tone of this whole article is POV. That said, Tarage you are the part of insignificant minority, we'll have another hearing if we must, one which will show without any doubt that a single group of editors used their administrative privileges to block and hush and distort the voices of the many. While doing so, this group didn't only broke our own guidelines, this group actively participated in creating tin foil nuttery, this group used libel instead of arguments, this group acted in the very same manner you're acting now. Glad to see you Peter, do you think we can get some work done? I'd say it would be about time. DawnisuponUS (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

this whole article is POV. You've got to be kidding me. The article is fine as is (with possible exception of the section on a fringe theory on a serious topic). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between questions which are unanswered, as opposed to questions whose answers do not fit your pre-conceived notions. The latter are not Wikipedia's problem. The existence of criticims, even legitimate ones as in the case of, say, the 9/11 Commission, do not create NPOV violations, particularly if they relate to sub-articles, and are not directly connected to *this* article. Peter Grey (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My pre-conceived notions? What are you, clairvoyant, or just mean? You have no clue what assume good faith means, I'll heed on that. Not to say, that you're clouding the issues, where issues are clear. I might as well write it again, you and your conspiracy theories do not interest me at all. I'll seek remedy for this situation and this form of conduct elsewhere. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you identified your specific objections, people would not have to guess at what they are. Peter Grey (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your issues are clear? You've typed a lot, but you haven't actually made a real argument, not that I can see. If you want your complaints to go anywhere, you have to cite reliable sources which specifically state the things you want to claim. So far, you haven't done so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My specific objection was repeated again and again, the article lacks neutral point of view, I've illustrated this again and again and i'm reluctant to open new section until we get more uninvolved editors in here and reach consensus about placing or not placing that tag. We can start dealing with things mentioned or not after this process is over, I would hope that this effort to actually get things done without loosing focus is understandable. Call for more opinions was made and there is no rush. Let's see if we can bring in some decent and universally diverse debate. That said, I'm interested, where could one find reports about editors which are on topic ban with regards to this article, as well as the editors involved and reasons given for their "eviction"? I would hope that this is not something what needs to be sought in history and that we would have a convenient record somewhere. DawnisuponUS (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to discussion of the tag. However, under the circumstances, it's your obligation to go through the megagigabytes of discussion to ensure that each of your arguments has not been previously rejected. The specific points that I've checked all have been. Now, consensus can change, but accusing editors who have agreed to the previous consensus of being "caught up in a conspiracy theory", even though the BBC article suggests states that the truthers who approached them are loony, is not productive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the previous discussions, for example, I'm aware we've changed the long lasting "consensus" with regards to the part of the article that deals with WTC 7, but then 'a well established editor' came along and broke that consensus single handedly, no reason provided, no consequences whatsoever, while the person who build the consensus was indefinitely blocked for his/her's effort. Go figure, eh? We need more people in here, let's see if there will be answer to call. I will restrain from name calling, but I'm not only "accusing" the editors here to be lost in conspiracy theories, I'm alleging that the group of editors who made its nest here is not capable of building consensus, the only thing this group is capable of, is to enforce their own POV in manner we call gaming the system,[26] or worse. Editors who are working on this article for a very long time may, willingly or not, do tremendous harm to its development. If we have "consensus" build by the same group over and over again, we don't have a consensus. To say it another way, we have a history in which remarkable number of individuals came here with somewhat similar views, references, opinions. These individual editors are meeting the same pack over and over again. This pack is dismissing their views in coordinated and recognisable pattern. The sum of these individuals (who ended up with topic ban, or worse) outweighs the pack we're dealing with here tremendously. Let's just stick to the point and leave these sort of "accusations" for 'step two', if the actions taken so far fail to yield any results. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"...where could one find reports about editors which are on topic ban with regards to this article..." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories may be helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Many, many thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, we should heed upon those recommendations and decisions. Zogby poll finds 45% want new 9/11 investigation. Here's another pretty obvious question, why do we lack a section about concerns that there has been a cover up? DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is interesting, we should heed upon those recommendations and decisions." We are. It clearly states that "Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content". You haven't provided any reliable sources which support the viewpoint that 9/11 is anything other than a series of coordinated terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists affiliated with Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I did, I'm not sure why you're missing those? But I'm surly exercising extreme patience. Please try to assume good faith, we're not prejudicing anything, well, at least I'm not. Have you noticed the reference about World public opinion? It is the poll which shows that majority in only 9 of 17 nations believes that al qaeda was behind the attacks. This was reported in mainstream media and you cannot have it more reliable and verifiable than that. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We've already explained this to you several times now. The opinions expressed by lay people in a poll is irrelevent. What matters are the opinions of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of the people are irrelevant? To whom? To you? Who are we? Bring the we to light, will you? In meantime try to stick by the subject, if you can, we're talking about the tag. DawnisuponUS (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To wikipedia. Please read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In the meantime, there is no need for the tag since you haven't actually provided anything in which to discuss. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason Wikipedia doesn't regard polls as reasons to give a subject more coverage is that there are a lot of concepts which have a lot of support from the general public but very little from experts in the field. Nearly half of the population of the US believes in creationism, yet Wikipedia's article on Evolution hardly mentions it. Why? Because the vast, vast majority of biologists think it's nonsense. Similarly lots of people believe in UFOs, magic, astrology or other concepts firmly rejected by the scientific community. About a fifth of Americans think that the Sun goes round the Earth, and that atoms are smaller than electrons. [27] If Wikipedia decided to rewrite all its articles to give coverage to these ideas it would become a laughing stock overnight. Though 9/11 conspiracy theories do get lots of support in polls they have essentially zero support amongst reliable sources. Until that changes they cannot be given significant coverage in this article. Hut 8.5 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've decided to share your opinion but I'm afraid you've made Ad hominem argument. To clarify, I've pointed to various polls, these polls have no connection to the conspiracy theories, none whatsoever. You have to strive really hard to turn the poll about (lack of) knowledge with regards to WTC 7 into poll about conspiracy theory. Same goes for the polls, or rather calls for new investigation and other things pointed out above. I see absolutely no difference between these polls, and say, poll about popularity of Barack Obama or George Bush. Now, one could argue that people who approve certain presidents believe in the UFO's but this will not stop and have no barring on the inclusion of such information into related articles. If we heed upon your explanation we'll end up removing all the polls from all the articles, and such rule would be, well you may judge it for yourself. I would kindly ask fellow editors to shift their focus from conspiracy theories because those are not the subject of this article. I'm not sure why these "conspiratorial arguments" continue to surface. If we state that "plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse", we're not saying that the building was destroyed by fire or CD, we're saying that "plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse". Just that and nothing beyond that. Now, please, give it a thought and tell me what is wrong with such approach? Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

First, that's not what ad hominem means. Second, if we can't know what people are thinking when they answer the pollster, that makes the poll less useful to us, not more. Third, a poll of Obama's popularity is the measure of a politician's popularity because the respondents have first-hand knowledge of their own political views. Members of the public in general do not have first-hand knowledge of a particular building collapse, no matter how high-profile. Fourth, it is undue weight to spell out that a minority of the population is versed in structural engineering. And no, surveys of opinions on UFOs are not acceptable in biographical articles (unless you can demonstrate that UFOs belief influenced voting patterns). Peter Grey (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

{ec}"these polls have no connection to the conspiracy theories, none whatsoever". That's not true. The poll was sponsored by 911truth.org, a web site notorious for spewing forth 9/11 conspiracy garbage.

"I'm not sure why these 'conspiratorial arguments' continue to surface." Besides the fact that the poll was sponsored by a 9/11 denialist web site, this appears to be nothing more than a back door way of getting 9/11 conspiracy theories into the article. You yourself proposed your own conspiracy theory about "editors who are actively and undoubtedly engaged into 9/11 Cover Up" and "there is only one explanation/allegation for such course and it is not a simple omission it is a fully blown and fully grown Cover up".

There's also the issue that you still haven't provided any reliable sources that support your complaints. I've asked you repeatedly and each time you've failed to do so. 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Quest For Knowledge (talk • contribs)

Peter, you're shooting blanks, we have research which shows that "A larger proportion of adults were able to recall in vivid detail the news of the 9/11 terror attacks than could describe the birth of their first child, the study found." It must be because of the nature of such monstrous atrocity. The reason public is unaware of the third collapse is the fact that mainstream media never repeated the footage, as it did with the twins, the reason is 9/11 Commissions failure to investigate or even mention the collapse (apart from the footnote) in the same manner in which Wikipedia failed to mention such failure in investigation. As per your other point… well, do tell, what in the world lack of knowledge about collapse of the WTC 7 (not about mechanism of the collapse, about the sheer fact that third building collapsed) has to do with engineering? Pray tell, do you know what 'ad hominem' means? Now, let me repeat the question, a very simple question it is.

Why we cannot include the fact that "plurality (43%) is not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse". DawnisuponUS (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like irrelevent trivia to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, polls are a 'reliable' source for 1 WTC and 2 WTC, but not 7 WTC? And what about the other two dozen buildings destroyed by the same attack? At any rate, folk recollections of non-specialists - whether or not encyclopaedic - are not the subject of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the answer? If it is, I'm honestly not sure to what. DawnisuponUS (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that this article follows WP:NPOV

Please share your opinion about neutrality of this article; a brief description would be welcomed.

Yes, this article is presented from neutral point of view

1. It reflects the view of all reliable sources, which, does not include the editor voting against, below. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
2. We've had this debate so many times, it's becoming obnoxious. Yes this article is NPOV. No, it does not need to be changed. Enough already. --Tarage (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
3. As having read all sources, this article is NPOV and factually accurate and verifiable, based on what occurred. As an Engineer, the reasonings for 'cover-up' are hilarious, and already get their minor mention that they more than deserve in this article.Annihilatron (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this article is biased

1. I gave my share of reasons/opinions, I'm stating that this article in its present state borders with 9/11 Cover up - DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
2. There is much information available from reliable sources which leaves this accounting incomplete and non-NPOV as it currently stands. It appears that Wikipedia is attempting to sweep even well-supported issues associated with the 9/11 attacks under the rug by redirecting them to other articles or disallowing them altogether, resulting in a very biased view on the topic being presented to any visitor to the September 11 attacks article. The Original Wildbear (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
3. I myself have been long annoyed by conspiracy theories that seem ideal to smear some of the points that are broadly recognized. I’m supporting perception that article is biased. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No vote, this poll is not helpful

1. Constructive discussion is not possible for a broad generalization such as the neutrality of 121 kb of text. Peter Grey (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article follows NPOV.

1. The editor(s) who have claimed a POV issue have not actually provided a case for it. I have repeatedly called for them to provide a case and they have repeatly failed to do so. Since there is no actual argument to support allegations against NPOV, this should be summarily rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. We have seen issues in this discussion for which I also believe that deserve inclusion. Advanced knowledge and 9/11 in popular culture among others. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

From third opinion

Because there are more than two editors involved in this dispute, I recommend filing a request for comment or requesting mediation. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I accept that the article is marginally NPOV but it suffers from the exclusion of anything that "may" be used by conspiracy theorists to support their own cause. As I've stated many times, just because something may be used by conspiracy theorists does not make a conspiracy true or even any more likely. The article also contains verbiage that carries uneccesary implications supporting the official theory. Ie:Is it appropriate to say "19 Islamist terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda" in the lead? There is evidence that some were not islamist in the strict sense of the word so it's use is possibly POV and it would be more correct to just say "19 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda". Wayne (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with word usage. Often when writing articles like these, such things will creep in. Perhaps review is necessary. Annihilatron (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

pentagon

I think that how the government could easily prove it was a terrorist attack by releasing the video of the plane hitting the pentagon, but wont. The drone theory should also be added. Mustanggt5000 (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Mustanggt5000

I agree, questions with regard to Pentagon should also be raised. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That the Pentagon was struck by a jet as part of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has already been established by reliable sources. Sorry, but we're not supposed to give undue weight to fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Take this with good faith, for I'll try to use this edit in effort to illustrate what I'll describe as misfortunate "flaw" in conduct. Editors not so involved in conspiracy, or if you prefer, editors not so wary of conspiracies, may actually see more than one perspective with regards to the tapes mentioned above. If we would get more people here, and manage to ignite decent discussions we'd probably end up with less predictable and repeating set of answers. For example, I cannot remember the correct number, but last time I've checked there were some 80 tapes which are still beyond the reach of FOIA and public eye. The existence of these tapes and the fact that they are under the key has nothing to do with conspiracy. This is a fact. If we would be neutral, we wouldn’t have any problem to mention the tapes or the fact that Pentagon was forced to release some of the blur under public scrutiny.

If we would be neutral, we wouldn't have any problem with stating the fact that videos which were released were released due to lawsuit and that they didn't answer some long standing doubts and questions. I'll stop here, because this is another issue which should be discussed under NPOV tag section.

The object which struck the Pentagon is not necessarily subject of conspiracy theories; it may as easily be the subject of public interest. DawnisuponUS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If the official video released shows no plane hitting the Pentagon then we are not talking about Conspiracy Theories, but Conspiracy Facts. modernclics —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC).

Other versions

It should be made more clear that the version of events mentioned in this article is that of the United States government and that no particular explanation is 100% accurate. This article needs to clearly highlight that there exists other popular versions in regards to the attack, or should I say more accurately, demolitions, and also reinstate the many inconsistencies that have occured piecing together the final story. It is not a conspiracy theory, but part of the real event therefore needing voice in this article. The eyewitness testimonies explaining seeing other aircrafts, and the Mossad Arabs celebrating, are not pieces of a conspiracy, but pieces of reality. Hope someone has the time, and will to shed some truth to this article, I know its hard arguing with anti-troll loving zionist wikipedians, but persistence pays off. The mere fact of the people here trying to shed some truth, considering the mass amounts of discussions in the archives and present, is enough to grant their voice. Remember people, history is being written, if written wrong, you are stuck with lies. Thanks. --93.97.181.187 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Leave this be, this is a talkpage. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a repeat of your rant, and it's not obviously related to improving the article. But, if you want to take credit for it, and don't mind being banned from the article, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Call it as you wish, but It's an outside opinion and we really lack those here. What was the last constructive thing you did? You could answer that question which is hanging in the air whole day and no one is willing to chew on it. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose adding your name to the 9/11 ArbComm warning list is constructive. I've done other things since then, but I certainly can take credit for that constructive comment. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! We don't have a decent argument so we'll simply ban the editor. It proves the point I've been making all along, eh? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since you were the one complaining about NPOV, it's your job to come up with an argument backed by reliable sources. I've asked you repeatedly to provide such an argument and you've repeatedly failed to do so. It should be fairly obvious that these repeated disruptions serve more to hurt Wikipedia than to help it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the references and points provided so far are not sufficient, I'll provide more when I'm finished dealing with Morton's friends. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided an argument as to why uninformed opinions of non-experts, no matter how well documented, can contributed to this article. Peter Grey (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And if I can add to that, events mentioned in this article are not the US governments "version", the content is drawn from reliable sources and experts working in their field. And, among those sources there is not any controversy at all about what happned that day. That, I'm afraid, is that. Fringe theories are mentioned and have their own articles. Other than that, much of the logic behind putting the NPOV tag on this page is faulty enough to spin the Earth right out of it's orbit. RxS (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How about answering an editor instead of resorting to personal attacks? Such behaviour by some editors is the main cause of the mess these sections always seem to devolve into. Many of the replies to people like DawnisuponUS would result in their being banned if they had written it yet such behaviour never even results in a warning. I'm tempted to believe this is baiting someone you dont agree with to get them into a position where they can be banned.
Reply to DawnisuponUS: This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out conspiracy rhetoric. Also you may avoid the baiting by some ignorant editors. Wayne (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we update the FAQ?

I didn't notice it myself until a few days ago, but this talk page has a FAQ towards the top. Should we update it to include a summary of why the opinions of lay people in a poll don't override what reliable sources say about a subject? Obviously, this won't deter someone editing in bad faith, but it might help in some cases. I don't know. Just thought I would throw this out there and see what you guys think. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent request. If someone wants to obtain a good gauge of general public opinion on a matter (perhaps to determine whether it is fringe or mainstream), are they better off looking to CNN News or to Zogby polls? An explanation would be useful. The Original Wildbear (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Article Neutrality in Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Date

This article is out of date. Under Section 5.2 Investigations:Collapse of the World Trade Center, the article lists August 2008 as the conclusion of the investigation. That date corresponds to the draft WTC7 Final Report. The actual WTC7 Final Report came out in November 2008.

A major difference between those two reports concerns the downward acceleration of WTC7. In the draft report, the downward acceleration was stated as 40% of freefall. In the FINAL REPORT, the NIST authors defined three stages of collapse. The middle stage, lasting 2.25 seconds, the NIST authors said exhibited a freefall drop extending approximately 8 stories. Lookunderneath (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources (so wrong for so long)

This question is only for those have have experience tracking the reliability of sources:

Is the data in the following book (about reliable sources) included in the judgments wikipedia makes as to what are reliable sources?

Title: "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits--and the President--Failed on Iraq"

I see there is a debate in the discussion archive about conditions under which the BBC can be deemed reliable, but I find that surprising. Prior editors seem also to still be in a nasty war over the basic issue of whether all the hijackers are rightly named or known. Your discussion suggests this is messier than I expected ...

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes, it's messy, this business of history. WRT your question, a single source, or a multitude of sources, can be "right" or "wrong", but wikipedia's purpose is to evaluate, and use sources, not determine truth. Thus, wikipedia may be more "right", or "wrong", on a topic, depending on the sources used, but the preponderance of what is deemed as "reliable" sources, not "truth", is expected to win out. Ronabop (talk)

Super Explosives

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

---

Recently carried scientific study showed there was Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. This study passed rigorous Peer review. I'd suggest you folks start rewriting this, this… I'll stay polite. Redandgraychips (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice this is your first edit ever, so welcome to Wikipedia. I've read the abstract of the paper you linked to but its not clear what particularly you are suggesting be added to the article. If you have an actual set of words you'd like inserted, please put them forward. Anyone can edit articles, so there's no need to ask other people to do it for you. As a polite warning however, this article is unsurprisingly a contentious one and you should propose any changes here on the talk page to get consensus for them before adding to the actual page.

I suspect the reason you've linked to this study is you believe there is an alternative explanation for 9/11. If so, this is not the page you should be discussing this, as this article is principally about the attacks themselves. Other issues are included fairly briefly here because they are discussed in much greater detail at 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, 9/11 conspiracy theories, 9/11 Commission Report and Criticism of the 9/11 Commission to name a few. There are many alternative theories on causes and motivations, and not space here to detail them all, which is why these other articles exist. Including points from the study you mention on this page would give it undue weight in an article largely dedicated to a different topic.

So in summary - welcome to Wikipedia, feel free to use this talk page to propose actual wording changes to the article, and if what you want to include relates to an alternative theory for 9/11 please consider whether the material would be able to be covered in more detail at one of the other articles mentioned above and linked directly to this one, rather than trying to get consensus for a change to this page. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Postscript - can I add that your editing style bears a strong resemblance to User:DawnisuponUS. Please confirm that this is not also your account. Euryalus (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the results are independently confirmed, that's one thing, but by itself the "study" is not a sufficient reliable source. The "study" is biased - it considers the comparison of dust samples with rapid-ignition thermite, but makes no other investigation. This is the kind of backwards scientific method employed by creationists and Holocaust deniers. Nor does it make any kind of determination as to whether the chemical components originated before or after the impact, fire and collapse. Also, one of the authors is Steven Jones, a known promoter of the demolition hoax. Peter Grey (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion and links at Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Hut 8.5 09:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think that people here have any right whatsoever to libel scientists and scholars as conspiracy theorists and I don’t think that you can weasel out from this one. This is certainly not promotion of hoax, it is promotion of science. After all, this study marked the end of conspiracy, we are now dealing with scientific facts. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The presence of those materials doesn't prove anything. Single-purpose-accounts created to push conspiracy theories are not likely to be taken very seriously. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We're not proving anything, we're reporting scientific findings. Of course no one takes this place seriously, it’s swarming with conspiracies, it is less reliable than prison planet and it has the same irresponsible approach to some very serious issues. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's promotion of fringe theory, which is not wikipedia's purpose. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Bentham Science Publications here, which is presumably highly relevant as both sides use this to make their case for or against potentially including Bentham papers as sources. We should let every editor present his or her information or views on this question, which should not be confused with the question of whether any hypotheses are true or not. Wikipedia is not about the truth, see WP:V. Then we can at least try to build consensus based on the information that has been presented. --Cs32en (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There's more to it than that. If the general tone of a wikipedia article contradicts the preponderence of what reliable sources have to say about a topic, then it puts wikipedia in the business of POV-pushing and originating information - which is not wikipedia's place to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates have endorsed Bentham Science Journals. This was removed yesterday by one of the “well established” editors, although it is more than related to discussion and although it clearly shows that we're dealing with one of most reputable sources ever provided on these pages. Please restrain, assume good faith and thread lightly. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Some requests:

• First, you're clearly not a new editor - please indicate what your other account name is so we know who we're talking to.
• Second, talk pages are for suggesting changes to articles - if you have a specific change you wish made to this article, please provide a rough outline of the words you'd like included so a consensus can be reached on whether they should go in. Until you actually propose something to be included in the article, this conversation is likely to go nowhere. It's not enough to "suggest you folks start rewriting this" - you're the one who wants the change, you should be the one who proposes some words for it.
• Third, given the points raised above you need to explain why what you want included satisfies WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and depending on what it is, WP:FRINGE.
• lastly, as you know there are a great many pages on 9/11 topics. You might like to explain why what you want included should be on this page and not one of the other ones.

This is not meant to sound unfriendly, but until the above are addressed as a start, this disucssion is unlikely to ever reach consensus regarding any changes to the article itself. Euryalus (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm editor who worked on this article around 2006; I’ve stopped my work voluntarily. I'll do what you've suggested as soon as time allows, at this point in time I'm not much interested in editing though, I’m far more interested to see more people in here, while doing my best to keep the “enforcers” from “shooting” everyone who comes in. I’m also inclined to state that I deeply appreciate your inputs, for those seem to be complementary to what I’ve just pointed out. Above, editor stated that study we're considering is discussed elsewhere. It should be discussed here. This article needs to be updated; this is very hectic subject, yet we have extremely lengthy status quo. We are far, far away from the fringe if the whole nations are aware (see Danish public TV News here) of the undisputable scientific findings published in reputable scientific paper, we have an obligation to include such findings in the article. I’ll answer your other points/concerns as soon as possible. In meanwhile I would like to encourage everyone to join the discussion. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who removed it yesterday. It was added just as a link with no context or explaination. I'll do the same if links keep getting added in the same manner. In the meantime, Baseball makes the cental point here. The vast majority of mainstream/reliable sources and experts working in their field do not subscribe or support (or really report or study) these ideas. That's why we do not and will not. They have their own pages and that's where they belong. And just as a note, the findings are a long long way from undisputable, even laymen can immediately see how dubious they are...but that's not why we're here.

If you want to continue this discussion, do it on a conspiracy theory page. Even before that, state what your other accounts are. RxS (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Once we get a peer reviewed study which contest the findings published at Bentham Science Journals you'll be able to provide something that will substantiate your layman opinion. As for your claim about mainstream media and lack of interest in these "ideas", as you've called them, it is plainly wrong. This article is in poor state because of cherry picking, certainly not because we lack reliable sources that touch upon this or that subject.

But that is really not the issue; the real issue here is somewhat brilliantly devised tactica that comes along with smear terminology. Take one look at the "conspiracy movement" which is established by the very editors who work on this article, you included. What is the purpose of this vast "conspiracy talk" we have here? If not to cloud the serious issues, so that people would 'confuse' "unanswered questions" with "conspiracy gibberish". We had conspiracy lists here, probably still have them, as those serve to dismiss and libel prominent people who would otherwise be, and are, very strong voices of reason.

No matter what you say, this whole drama we're having here has the same ol' players, and parts they are playing have become historically insignificant and boring to watch and that is one of the reasons I've came back to see if we can draw some new, independent editors here. If we take you RxS, as one of the "long established" editors here, what may we learn from your conduct? You have just dismissed 18 months of peer reviewed work published in scientific journal endorsed by Nobel Laureates as conspiracy theory? A very strange form of conspiracy nuttiness to say the least, a very fine example of the "background issues" we have here.

You may as well block this account, I've shared all about my origins I'm ready to share, after all, that's the way you folks keep consensus around this article, you don't build it, you enforce it. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

To which minority are you referring to? Could you provide a source? Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, User:Huntdowntheconpiracists has made clear they're "not much interested in editing" the article, won't reveal their primary account and has declined (so far) to actually propose any specific changes to the text. To date there's also zero support for the suggestion that the bentham study be included or referenced in the article, per WP:UNDUE as well as other issues.

I can't see any of the above changing, and until it does we're not getting far with this discussion. Is there support for marking the thread as closed and moving along? Euryalus (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no point to propose change to the article (with regards to this topic) until we resolve the differences around Bentham source. I’m still waiting for reference which would explain WP:UNDUE claim. Polls and media reports are clear about the massive weight we’re dealing with. Would you like to open a new section for that topic? That said, where’s the rush? I’d appreciate if we would wait; perhaps someone new will come in and give us a thought. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE & WP:UNDUE seem to be the main arguments. I've examined the discussion about the polls; guess there's no need to go there again. But if these polls are rejected, I would like to know from where fellow editors draw their conclusion that we're talking about the minority views and fringe theories? From the information available and already provided in this and previous sections, I'd say that we're talking about either dualism of a sort; or I'd go as far to state that it is vocal minority which supports what is usually referred to as "official conspiracy theory". I'd say it is especially so if we look at things globally, rather than locally.

I would once again kindly ask for reference which would support the notion that we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet by and large, the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement, taken seriously by few and laughed at by most. RxS (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your link doesn't seem work, let me help. I've noticed that opinion the other day, it is interesting opinion, but it speaks against the point you're trying to make, so you may be thankful that it doesn't meet the lowest of our criteria. Have you even read the comments there? Either way, we're not discussing 9/11 truth movement or conspiracy theories, we're discussing a brand new scientific finding and reasons for or against their inclusion to the article.

Here, this multiplicity of sources shows that majority of people believes that there were other culprits than al Qaeda behind the attacks. Could you provide WP:RS and WP:V link which would dispute such reports? Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You asked for a reference that supports the notion that we're dealing with fringe or irrelevant views/opinions/theories and I gave you one: the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe movement. That was your question and you got an answer. Tap dance all you want but it's clear where mainstream media, reliable sources and experts working in their field stand on this. Thats how we we draw content and not polls. Most people don't know how jet engines work but there they are...not dropping from the sky. RxS (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for WP:RS and WP:V reference, and I'm still asking/waiting. Reliable sources and experts discovered nano-structured thermite in WTC dust. Where does the mainstream media stand? It is clear to me, but you obviously need a reminder. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a typo in RxS's post (it has a | at the end of the URL). Here's the corrected link [28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion, has been largely ignored by the mainstream media By the way, your assertion that reliable sources and experts discovered thermite is wildly inaccurate. All this excitment on the basis of one remarkably shoddy paper..."dust samples collected and sent to the authors"..indeed...6 to 8 years after the event. Please stop wasting our time. RxS (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Huntdowntheconpiracists as a sock of User:DawnisuponUS etc. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled, imo, that is pretty good opinion piece, it is titled What's crazier, believing the U.S. orchestrated 9/11 or that Saddam did?, it is pretty valid question if you ask me. There are 34 comments bellow that article at the moment I'm writing this. Each and every one of the people that commented there have understood what author tried to deliver, each and every one of those comments questions the findings of the commission as well as official narrative of 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure what you folks are trying to prove, do we even have a difference of opinion? Well, as pretty as that source is, I'm afraid it is not acceptable by the high standards we have here. Have you read the study, the collection and source of the samples is made clear there. Still waiting. I'vecommittedathoughtcrime (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As the only advocate for including this material is apparently a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, and as there are no actual proposed changes to the article arising from anything above, I've archived the thread as earlier proposed. Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Survivors

In the opening text it states "The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There are no survivors from any of the flights."

To me this should be changed to "There were no survivors from any of the flights". Otherwise the current wording implies there were survivors from the planes who subsequently died.

 Done Thanks for spotting this. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong fact: article asserts the death toll of 9/11 was 6,000, it was less than 3,000!

The article it cites was incorrect. The wiki article gets the death toll right earlier, but at citation # 56 it gets it wrong. This line should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abagchi (talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The line is this one:- "Weeks after the attack, the estimated death toll was over 6,000." In context I don't think its wrong - this was the estimate shortly after the attack. Obviously this was scaled down a few months later to a more accurate figure. Euryalus (talk) 07:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for 48 hrs

I have semi-protected (no new account, no IP edit) this talk page for 48 hrs due to the ongoing sockpuppetry / block evasion noted above. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission "Admits Lies"

Text removed as potential copyright violation from The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11 (Hardcover) http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0151013764 Rmhermen (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The deleted text is part of the "Product Description" that can be found on the page indicated in the comment above. How can reproducing a text that is clearly intended for everyone to see be a copyright violation? --Cs32en (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The published statements of John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission and the obvious conclusions noted in the book description (neither of which apparently even consider the vast amount of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 was staged by the US government), yet again clearly indicate that the Wikipedia article on 9/11 and related content is a fraud.

I want to know, what is needed to rewrite this 9/11 article and related Wikipedia content from a neutral perspective that fairly considers the evidence for and against the official conspiracy theory. What exactly is required under Wikipedia rules for the article to found be false, misleading or fraudulent? What sort of proof do I need to provide? How to do I get a fair hearing? Please be precise. 142.46.214.106 (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What do the preponderance of reliable sources say about 9/11? The answer to that question is the answer to your question. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the false dichotomy argument (yet again). There has always been scope for legitimate criticism of the 9/11 Commission, which is known to have been obstructed in its mission, and there is evidence, albeit circumstantial, of negligence and cover-up of negligence. Hence the 9/11 Commission Report is not the sole source for this article. If a reliable source documents negligence or other factors, then there may well be a case for modifying this article (or more likely certain sub-articles). This is vastly far removed from anything supporting the lunatic fringe conspiracy theories. Peter Grey (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

142.46.214.106: Wikipedia defines neutrality according to what reliable sources say about a subject. Thus, if reliable sources say that 9/11 was a series of coordinated suicide attacks by 19 Islamist terrorists, then that's what Wikipedia's articles should say. To change this article to include conspiracy theories, you can either lobby Wikipedia to change its policies or lobby reliable sources to say 9/11 was staged by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Farmer's and indeed all the 911 commissioners views that 911 was a lie is documented in reliable sources and not disputed. Rather than the "all 911 is a lie" position given by the anon the accusations only cover the response to 911. It should be in the article and in fact no legitimate arguement can be made to keep it out but care should be made to ensure it goes no further than the claims actually made. Wayne (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need more coverage of criticism of the 9/11 commission in this article? The commission gets a grand total of three sentences, one of which is about criticism. There's a whole sub-article devoted to criticism of the commission, and it already quotes Farmer. Hut 8.5 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It is not critism. It is that the actions and timeline for the Pentagons response is not reliable. Wayne (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an omnibus article focusing on the actual attacks. It only briefly touches on the 9/11 Commission so including extensive detail on the Commission's findings and anyone's later comments on them would be giving it undue weight in the context of this page. If you have reliably sourced material you want to include, that relates to the 9/11 Commission process, findings, accuracy or consideration of alternative views, you would be better suggesting them at Talk:9/11 Commission, Talk:9/11 Commission Report or Talk:Criticism of the 9/11 Commission.

It's also been pointed out numerous times before but is worth restating that it is not the role of Wikipedia to sift through all the material on 9/11 in search of the truth. Wikipedia is not an investigative website and doesn't advocate for or against any cause. Instead it documents subjects, based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These sources could indeed all be wrong, but it is not the role of Wikipedia to expose that "wrongness" and quest for the real facts of the matter. Such a quest might be a noble thing but this isn't the place for it. Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Box cutters

The article mentions box cutters as the weapon used yet according to the 9/11 Commission Report this was based on a single eyewitness account (Barbara Olson) from flight 77 that was proven to be fictitious. The Secretary of Defense report (2007) states simply that "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots" without mentioning any weapon. The reference to box cutters should be removed from the article as the weapons used are still not known and the claim that they were box cutters is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like the references cited support the wording that is there. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Can you be more specific about the source for "proven to be fictitious?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And the reports at the time indicated box cutters. Quoting standard sources is by no means "original research". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I getting this right?

• An otherwise reliable source has reported that a person has claimed that boxcutters were used.
• A source that would probably be considered as more reliable has apparently come to the conclusion that the claim was not supported by sufficient evidence and has not included the claim.
• The Wikipedia article assumes that the claim is true and contains the claim without attributing it to the source in the text. --Cs32en (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems I need to clarify.

• I do not dispute that the news sources say Box cutters were used.
• The sole primary source for those claims that Box cutters were used was their mention in an alleged phone call by Barbara Olson on flight 77 to her husband (The 9/11 Commission Report).
• The FBI determined that this phone call did not happen [29] and said that Barbara Olson made only one call that failed to connect with a call duration of 0 seconds. This finding is not disputed.
• As to evidence for the weapons used, Flight 175: No weapons mentioned. Flight 11: one call said a chemical spray was used while another said a passenger had been either stabbed or shot (caller not sure which). Flight 93: calls mention passengers stabbed (unspecified weapon) and a bomb (no evidence found). Flight 77, no weapons mentioned.
  Conclusion: The sources that say box cutters based their claim on speculation and misleading information since proven false. As reliable sources confirm this we should delete mention of box cutters and probably also any mention of weapons at all as it would be OR. Perhaps it's best just to use the terminology currently used by the DoD, "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots" (Office of the Secretary of Defense: Pentagon 911, 2007 page 12.) Wayne (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were a reliable transcript of the Flash presentation. Accepting for the sake of argument that it says what you say it does, I don't think we can reasonably use Prosecution Trial Exhibit P200054, a primary source, to over-ride the secondary sources. That said, it's possible the paragraph as written implies we know more than we do about exactly what happened on the planes. Some rewording similar to what you suggest may be in order. We might add a reference to http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/ or something more recent. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And we should add to the WP:RS policy page a sentence to the effect that reliable sources should be used unless found to be unreliable... --Cs32en (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)