Talk:September 11 attacks

Undue weight to hate crimes section?

It seems to me that undue weight is being given to the hate crimes section of the article. Surely it deserves mentioning for posterity, but its own section borders on WP:RGW. Thoughts? Instaurare (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is less than 200 words in an article that is in total not far off 10,000 words. That hardly seems to be undue prominence, and it is sensible located in a section on response. Unfortunately, hate crimes were one feature of the response to 9/11, and I fail to see how mentioning this has anything to do with WP:RGW.--Korruski^Talk 14:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

New Poll

This is an encyclopaedia not a forum. 'Debate' and 'balance' are not mandatory. Reliable sources are.

New poll finds most Americans open to alternative 911 theories. One in two surveyed have doubts about the government's account of 9/11. 46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse. Shouldn't those views be reflected here? PecosinRat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC) I suggest you read the rest of the Talk page. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and uses facts from properly sourced, reliable references. This page and the article are not for conspiracy theories - there are plenty of other sites on the internet for you to air these views. David J Johnson (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Agree with David. Not a reliable source. --Tarage (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Suggest you read about Newton's laws of motion. They can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion . Three buildings fell on 9/11 symmetrically at (or very near) free fall acceleration into their own footprints. This is visible in any number of videos from 9/11. Building collapses into the path-of-most-resistance where thousands of tons of supposedly undamaged steel and concrete should have slowed (and probably stopped) any collapse is impossible by itself, but for the buildings to fall at free fall speed and to fall symmetrically... No one of these things is possible, but for them all to happen at once means that the story of 9/11 as told here in Wikipedia--no matter how many references used--is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Start here... ...and you will find that Newton's laws do predict the reality of what happened. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Your personal views on engineering aren't admissible on Wikipedia and reflect the common and mistaken notion that buildings are so enormously strong that they must necessarily fall over sideways if they fail. Specifically, your analysis is based on a common misunderstanding of the fundamental difference between static and dynamic loading. Read Bazant, as recommended above. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Bazant's theories, which he proposed in a draft paper two days after 9/11, have not been supported by any experiments in the 12 years since he hypothesized them. Further, the basic notion that a building can fall at the same speed as free fall (Building 7) and at the same time crush itself is only a personal view, not supported by Newtonian physics or experimental data. Further, there have never been any high-rise steel superstructure buildings that have failed symmetrically. Failing symmetrically is not about strength. Instead, it is about the probability of all 250+ columns on 90+ floors of Tower 1 WTC failing simultaneously all the way down to the ground. For critique of Bazant's theory and his supposed proof read Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" in the International Journal of Protective Structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Speaking of analyses based on a misunderstanding of the basics...Unless you have some specific suggestions for improvements to this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM, we are done here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The changes needed in this article are so large that it should be rewritten from scratch. What are the rules for that and where is the place for that conversation if it isn't on this page? Finally, you've spoken dismissively and with authority, are you speaking just for yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC) This page is the place to gain consensus for article improvements. So far you've been using it as a soapbox for advocacy of fringe viewpoints, which can be a handicap in obtaining consensus. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The first paragraph in this discussion might suggest that the idea that the official story was a complete fabrication is no longer fringe--if it ever was. 3,000 people died on September 11th and hundreds of thousands more in the useless wars that followed. The facts suggest that the murderers who started it all are likely still walking around among us. What more compelling argument is needed for a Wikipedia article that reflects that reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Presumably you have reliable sourcing in prominent mainstream media that the account upon which Wikipedia's content is based is a total fabrication? A New York Times article explaining who actually did it would be sufficient. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Nearly everyone on the face of the Earth has a reliable source for knowledge that the official report on 9/11 is fabricated. They only need to recall the videos from that day to have a clear vision of three steel superstructure buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed. Those characteristics cannot happen in a "natural collapse" initiated by plane crashes and fire, they only occur with controlled demolition. That is a set of facts that doesn't need confirmation by the NY Times to be known to be true. Three thousand people died in NY on Sept 11 followed by hundreds of thousands of additional unnecessary deaths. Whatever the Wiki-rules are the enormity of the crime and the obviousness of the evidence outweigh them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) They didn't collapse in their own footprints...debris from all three towers damaged and destroyed numerous other nearby buildings. The controlled demolition conspiracy theory ranks up there as one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories of all time.--MONGO 05:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC) so, all the reliably sourced media reports (e.g. BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera) are all fabricated? --Aude (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC) In the 1960s the supposed attack in the Tonkin likeike3Gulf that led us into the Vietnam War was reported in all the reliable media. There were no contradictory reports. There is nothing sacrosanct about media reports. Debris was thrown in all directions around the WTC, but the bulk of it stayed inside the WTC site. The debris from Building 7, a 47-story tall building, didn't cross the street (fewer than 100 feet) to hit the Post Office building. Ridicule is not really an argument against physical evidence, merely an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC) If Wikipedia was around in the 1960s, it would cite "all the reliable media" about Tonkin Gulf. --Aude (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) @Ilikeike3: The point here is that your proposed changes go against Wikipedia policy for sourcing and avoidance of original research, and they promote fringe theories, as they are based on your personal opinions and not on a preponderance of reliable secondary sources in major media. Those are all fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and they are what keeps the encyclopedia from becoming an chaotic outlet for every person with views on perpetual motion machines, water-fueled cars, cold fusion, anti-vaccination, the disappearances of Lord Lucan, Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa, the true identity of Jack the Ripper, and whether world leaders are really reptiloids or just a drug cartel. At this point you're just using this page as a soapbox to advocate a fringe POV. It appears that this discussion is at an end. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC) The list above is also not an argument against easily discernible physical evidence. The discussion is not at an end, just the ability of this site to have one. Wikipedia's article on 9/11 is not neutral. It adopts a standard for determining truth that ignores what can be easily seen. Two plus two still equals four even if the NYTimes hasn't confirmed it. Thank you for the relative civility here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC) The list above is a series of examples of why Wikipedia insists on (indeed, requires) the use of published mainstream, preferably academic sources for everything. This isn't something that's subject to argument, it's a fundamental principle. So no, your views on what the videos look like are not admissible as a basis for content. Apart from that, this is not a subject that is reducible to 2+2=4: reasonable people can disagree widely on their personal interpretation of the complex events of 9/11, so we cannot rely on such interpretation. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Was not this started from the poll which was determined to come from an unreliable source. Next it moved onto physics, moved back to "not fringe" because of the aformentioned poll and finally back to physics. I suggest closing this as not a forum. If User:Ilikeike3 has a reliably sourced change she would like to make then suggest it. If not this needs to be closed as not a forum. VVikingTalkEdits 01:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Biased article.

9/11 is a lie. The attacks were only film tricks. On any of such events, the general public is always excluded from the place where it's happening, but some reporter cameras always get the images. Why? Not because it's dangerous. Because it's faked! They can even pretend that the paralympic games are copyrighted so you aren't allowed to film and the mutilations will always look real on television although they would look different and less convincing in your amateur video. 9/11 and the following wars were indeed part of a psychological experiment. But this experiment was not about obedience to authority, race stereotypes and such sick stuff. When you believe that, then they've already shit in your head. The main problem are the illusions. They come first. Nowadays, they can show anything they want using 3D computer animations, green screen and other digital tricks. It has to be assumed that when you grow up with these illusions, watch TV or play video games for three hours a day over a period of 20 years or such, that you have a distorted sight for reality. You will not be able to make realistic estimations about human characters or physics anymore. They already knew that beforehand. So they made some rules. When you want to open a museum or want to print or broadcast something in public, you need a license. And you have to follow their catalogue of rules. Even the internet is only trash because of their filter scripts. You might call that censorship, but they have good reasons. They're actually only making a psychological study about harmful media effects and need to see whether their sick shit is believed. You had to go to school regularly for another reason: so they have a more detailed documentation about the impact of specific media content on you. Of course education is important, but they also wanted to see how media crap impairs your education. They even pretented with their catalogue of lies that the computer was new and that there was a huge progress in computer science during the last 50 years. This ain't true. The industry indeed was only allowed to sell trash computers with limited CPU clock, little RAM and also hard disk space if they even had one during the last decades. There are laws for the industry, too. During the 80s, 3D graphics in video games was almost impossible because the architectures were slightly too weak. My idea is that they assumed that flat sprite graphics lack realism and don't have such a big impact on the learning processes about distance, powers and space and also that the depicted stuff will subconciously be believed less. I bet, this will turn out to be true. You might not believe me, but what else do you believe then? Have you ever wondered why you were born so close to a millenium? And that the computer was so new when you were born? This is unlikely. The truth is simple: on the one hand they wanted to have a more broader media entertainment, on the other hand this has harmful effects. And they wanted quality. Just like they don't sell bad food, they needed a quality seal for movies, virtual reality arcade games and stuff. So they made a study. And it is harmful. I know a guy who gets panic attacks whenever there's a normal firework because they put him to Iraq (where some of them were told that it is their patriotic duty to produce action movie scenes, pretend that they were actually in combat and keep their mouths shut about it btw). This is of course a bizarre reaction. But that's not PTSD, it's the effect from bizarre media depiction of mutilation and explosions. ("Officer Dan has magic legs!") Bizarre perception-> feeling in danger->bizarre reaction to protect yourself. Quite simple. It makes people sick, even if they don't believe it consciously. Subconsciously it will always be believed more or less to some extent.

Actually, murder is impossible. The world is much more safe than you'd think and many diseases don't exist. I cannot prove my assumptions, but I've got overwhelming hunches that most media content is simply bullshit. I don't want to be offensive, I just don't believe it. And it's horrible when you believe such things. Because you cannot feel safe and always feel in danger. Read across the lines and make puns with the written lies. When there are some odd names or references, you can be assured that it are just hoaxes. My favourite words are, btw, "rainbow" and "dura". Like "rainbow press" or "dura mater transplants".

This is not a forum for your personal views on 9/11

why this article is so biased? why he reverted my edit? SpidErxD (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC) You added a statement about conspiracy theories that used Wikipedia itself as a source. You need third-party sourcing. Additionally discussion of that topic has been ongoing on this page for some time without a consensus to add. :Please avoid accusations of "bias" as you have, I'm personally not convinced that conspiracy theories don't merit mention, but you need to approach the subject with greater care for referencing and appropriate placement in the article, after finding consensus. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Read last line of Assassination of John F. Kennedy Summary.SpidErxD (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC) You are right, the article is biased. Its biased against fiction. The article only includes facts, not made up fiction.--JOJ Hutton 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The article on the assassination of Kennedy reflects the fact that there has been sustained academic research into the assassination and whether Oswald had co-conspirators. No comparable research or writing in academic or prominent mainstream sources exists for 9/11. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC) @JOJ Hutton. I don't believe in Official story that 19 hijackers from 7500miles arrived in USA and carried out attacks with Cutters,Knives and Satellite phones. Most of the Engineers don't believe in Free Fall Collapse of WTC7. 92% Americans don't know that Al-Qaeda was created by USA in 1980s and Osama was a CIA agent. 911 dragged USA into war against Israel enemies. War on Terror caused 20times more damage to US economy than 911. Many US soldiers died in Afghan,Iraq war and many US soldiers will die in Syria,Iran War.Corporate Media lied about 911 & Iraq War and they are lying about Syria & Iran. SpidErxD (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article

Hi folks,

This article is a core part of WikiProject September 11, 2011 and I think we can it back to at least GA status, but I want to know what needs to happen for that to occur. MONGO, you appear to be an active participant. Thoughts? Sportsguy17 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably close to GA now...the refs have to be checked out...User:A Quest For Knowledge is the last person to bring it to GA.--MONGO 22:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

References 288 and 294 have broken parameters. I'm going to go fix them right now. Otherwise, it looks fine. Perhaps looks closer to FA than GA. Sportsguy17 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. It's been a while since I validated the references or read through the article beginning to end. I'll see what I can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

I've run the article through the WP:Checklinks tool and it found 15 broken links which I've tagged with {{broken link}}.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A poetic view to the september 11 attacks titled " Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view"

From - sunil malhotra,new delhi 9/11 is an event signifying retributive justice, it's futility, seen from an eastern perspective. The poem below was penned in its aftermath, absorbing the essence of the underlying retributive phenomenon, and churning it with an Indian thought and ethos, grounded in the tenet of forgiveness,tolerance. We destruct, then we reconstruct. One shatters life and it's notions. The other rekindles hope and faith, resurrects. An architectural cum a spiritual view is attempted through the verse to inspire courage,hope and spiritual freedom. The attached verse is in three parts- a letter to it's reader, an introduction to the verse and finally the verse "Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view".https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:pencils_and_chalks.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallu729 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's... interesting, but the article is bloated enough as is. Not sure if this would fit anywhere. I appreciate the effort though. --Tarage (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

It seems that not a single element going against the official version is present in this article. So, not a single book or a single article is deemed a "reliable source"? Strange, to say the least. --Japarthur (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not "reliable"; those that are published are published in fringe journals, and those that are from "experts" are not from experts in the appropriate field. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that all references in this article meet this standard? --Japarthur (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a number of unreliable sources here, already, but I suspect everything here is sourced to a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So, an unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes a reliable source? --Japarthur (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you can interpret what I said in that manner, but it's partially correct. An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If this logic is at work here, Wikipedia looses much of its interest, IMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 01:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to simply parrot back the same lines over and over again, don't bother. Arthur has been more than polite with you, but you aren't listening. If you wish to include any new/different information, provide reliable sources stating that information. Per the above, sources from fringe journals and from experts speaking of fields outside their expertise do not count as reliable sources. If you cannot do this, please cease this pointless discussion. --Tarage (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I looked like parroting Arthur's words, but they are so incredible I wanted to be sure that is what he wanted to say. Do you agree with him that "An unreliable source cited by a reliable source becomes reliable for the fact that it was said, not for its content."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japarthur (talk • contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That is, broadly, correct. If an unreliable source says 'X happened', and then (say) a reliable major newspaper says 'Some people have been saying that X happened', then we might want to use this as a source to say that people believe that X happened, but not that X actually happened. Does that make sense? However, I don't think it's actually what Arthur Rubin was saying. I think his point was that this article may contain some unreliable sources, but as long as all facts are sourced to reliable sources then it's not a problem if we also double-up with some unreliable ones. What's not ok is if we have facts that are only sourced to unreliable sources. Hope this helps clarify.--Korruski^Talk 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

So, major news organizations never said anything that was against the official version of what happened and never proved wrong? --Japarthur (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. I was talking theoretically to explain a point about sourcing on Wikipedia. You find a reliable source that goes against the official version, and I'm sure everyone will be happy to add it.--Korruski^Talk 13:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Conversely, does a reliable source citing an unreliable source become an unreliable source? There have apparently been many books written contesting the official version (just type in "9/11 conspiracy" in Amazon and you get over 1,000 results), by people with either training or various experience in the subject, so surely they would be considered a reliable source. Books like this one, written by James Fetzer, a distinguished scholar, to name but one, who is used as a reference on the JFK Conspiracy article page for his own book on that subject, means if they are considered reliable there then they should be considered a reliable source here. But that's not the issue here. There is already an article which covers this called 9/11 conspiracy theories, but the real question is why does this article have no section on, or linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories the way the Assassination of John F. Kennedy has, which links to the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories? It is my understanding they as sources would still be considered "fringe theories" or "fiction", and would therefore have no place in this article. That is apparently the general consensus (majority, not unanimous) here from editors who have worked on this article. However, that reasoning conflicts with the linking process on the JFK articles. Here's another question: is an unreliable non-fringe theory source more reliable than a reliable fringe theory source??? -- Jodon | Talk 17:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

(unindenting for ease of reading)Actually, this article does link to the conspiracy theories page in the 'cultural impact' section. You could argue that the JFK conspiracy theories are much more mainstream and well-embedded in popular culture given that they have appeared in a number of bestselling novels, non-fiction books and movies. 9/11 conspiracy theories have generally been relegated to fringe forums, self-published material and a handful of very niche books with limited circulation. Of course, that's my own fairly subjective assessment, I don't know if that's actually the reason for the difference or if it's just a typical wikipedia case of WP:otherstuffexists. In answer to your last question, I would say - no in theory. In practice, though, I suppose there's an argument that a non-fringe theory is likely to have a wide range of sources, ranging from the highly reliable to the somewhat questionable, and that's probably fine (though obviously not perfect) whereas a fringe theory that is supported by only one somewhat questionable source is probably not going to be ok. I'm not really sure how productive this theoretical argument is, though. Bottom line - if you have well-sourced material you want to add, then do so. If you have identified poorly-sourced material you want to remove, then do so. Just make sure you explain your actions and be prepared to discuss them here if anyone objects.--Korruski^Talk 09:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(Whoops, Korruski snuck in an edit while I was typing) It's a stretch of logic there. Let me clarify what Arthur and Korruski are saying. This article has many reliable sources that overlap to state what is currently stated in the article. Some of them may not be 100% reliable, but due to the overlap, the entire narrative is more or less complete. There have been sources that state things contradictory to this narrative, but they are not reliable. There is due reporting of the phenomenon behind them in the appropriate articles such as the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. In most cases, any new source provided by zealous editors such as Japarthur either contradict existing conspiracy theories, or are not reliable, or both. To put it simply, there is a mountain of sources that state what the article states, and a handful of piles of sources that say various other things. To include more than a mention in the main article of these theories would be placing undue weight on them. Lastly, Wikipedia is a living breathing entity with numerous editors. There is not one right way to build a page, and just because one page does something one way does not mean another must adhere to that page's guidelines. Consensus has been built through calm debate and discussion, and unfortunately it would take quite a bit to reverse it. I hope that helps you both understand the current state of the article and why hyperbole is a waste of time. If you have reliable sources to bring to the table, please do so. Otherwise, I'm afraid this discussion is moot. --Tarage (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)