Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 25

Citation 24

The cited link is brokent/not available right now. The cited fact states that amongst other countries, India and UK introduced anti-terrorist legislations. I can't figure out what legislations in these countries are being referred to.

Debunking Loose Change

Great video debunking the idiocy known as Loose Change.

plonk. Blue King
Just looking at the site name is enough to debunk this pile of crap ;) Elfguy 15:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


Is someone going to revert to the previous version? The content looks professional, but there isn't much of it! Wave of Mutilation 05:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

already taken care of... Generaleskimo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a vandal that uses edit summaries to make it look like he is helping... - Adolphus79 05:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Alternative Theories Section

I've been away on other things, and haven't got to starting the Alternate Theories section yet. (Nothing mysterious has happened to me! ;) I think it is safe to start on a foreknowledge section, and a dissenting government officials section. I did look at what it was saying about that one Bin Laden tape on 9/11, and admit that when you see the whole tape, some shots look considerably more like Bin Ladin than others. The bit about the ring, when Islam prohibits it is still out of place. That guy laughs a lot, too. Bin Laden doesn't seem to be the kind who has a good sense of humor, but it did seem a more informal situation. Still, the video is darker and has poor resolution, so that may account for some of the difficulty. I downloaded a low-resolution video from of the second plane hitting the tower, and there is a red spot off-center from the plane just before it strikes, similar to those in Loose Change, but I guess I need to quit being cheap and just order some of the documentaries to get better resolution. I've read about half of a page on Able Danger somebody pointed out to me above, and it is interesting. This may not be quick, but as it is a minority view, we won't be able to get into much depth here anyway. Thanks for helping guard the Wikipedia content, BTW, guys. I hope there is a way to ban outright vandals, by IP mask, not userid. --ThaThinker 23:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to applaude your efforts, but fair warning: There are a number of bullies on this page who will fight tooth and nail to prevent any facts that dispute the official theory of events from being included. Instead of reasoned rationale debate, they will attempt to label you a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist and will marginalize your contributions by pointing you to the 9/11 Conspiracy theories page. I tried and failed to do this a few weeks back, eventually giving up in frustration. I even went so far as to post a warning to contributors such as yourself, but it has since been buried deep in the archives. [1]
Hopefully you have more success than I did Digiterata 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't resort to calling 9/11 conspiracists lunatic here, because that is against Wikipedia policy. However, "facts that dispute the official theory of events" is a misnomer. Such "facts" cited by the 9/11 Truth Movement are unsubstantiated or thoroughly refuted; please visit the links I provide in the Alternate Theories section above. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The 'alternate theories section' is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 12:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tom is right. There shouldn't even be any debate, for the reason he cites. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should address some disagreements over some of the particulars. It isn't screamingly obvious that every detail of the Commission Report is correct, in fact much of it is disputed and there are lots of omissions. Anything at all that doesn't jive perfectly with the official version goes to the "conspiracy theory" can? That ain't right. SkeenaR 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Maybe the offical version is the only one that is encyclopedically correct as it pertains to this subject, and the other silliness is correctly placed in the article Tom Harrison pointed out.--MONGO 20:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It can't be true that the official version is the only explanation of events that can be encyclopedically correct as evidenced by the dozens of other articles that contain information which is in contradiction with the official version. SkeenaR 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article contains verifiable information from reliable sources. The "alternate theory" articles use information from unreliable sources, and much of it is original research -- the alternate theory articles are poor encyclopedic work and should be rewritten or deleted. Morton devonshire 21:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if these other versions are unsubstantiated and full of wide-eyed POV, then they are best left out of this article. WP:OR--MONGO 21:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Morton, that's just a bunch more opinion from you. I'm inclined to agree with Mongo on silly unsubsustantiated wide-eyed POV OR. SkeenaR 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's my opinion that the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Seattle Times/PI et al. are reliable sources, and Alex Jones,,, and other blogs are unreliable sources. That's Wikipedia policy, not merely my opinion. Check WP:RS and WP:V Morton devonshire 21:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've ever noticed but things don't necessarily have to come from Jones or "truth" or whoever to be in contradiction. The mainstream media and the gov't as reliable...what a joke...we always get the straight goods from them. Go get the WMD''ll be a and hummers from the Iraqi girls. Oh yeah...the Taliban have been overthrown...Afghanistan is now an ally in the War On Terror...a member of the Coalition of the Willing. Do you believe that shit Morton? SkeenaR 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the resulting War on Terror didn't go as well as promised, but I seriosly have to ask: What does any of that have to do with editing this page?--DCAnderson 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about silly unsubstantiated wild eyed POV OR and reliable sources. Yes, they make promises too. SkeenaR 22:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well remember that all the things you are talking about there didn't exactly stay very well hidden. We can reliably say no WMDs were found. We can reliably say that Iraq has been a qaugmire. We can reliably say this because the media reports on it, this same media that is supposedly in the pockets of the government. The government isn't 100% reliable, but if they screwed up on 9/11, we'll hear about it. In fact we have heard about all the things they could have done better, that was essentially the whole point of the 9/11 commission.--DCAnderson 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I didn't write here to argue. I just wanted to say that this article is missing some encyclopedic info. But now that you mention it, no these things we were just referring to don't stay hidden forever, they manage to stay hidden just long enough to say "it's too late now". In the past, some of these types of things have been shown to happen by design. As to the point of the Commission, it's the opinion of some that it was to get to the bottom of things, and it's the opinion of others that it was meant to be a government sposored whitewash. SkeenaR 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So how long do they have to keep it a secret?--DCAnderson 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a secret, or which things are secret. But if you want an example that I've brought up on this page before about reliable information- all the unreliable, wide-eyed POV, agenda driven private sites under the control of one or two webmasters were trying explain in no uncertain terms that there were no WMD's in Iraq, while the MSM and gov't were cramming it hard enough down the throat of the public that most people suddenly thought it was a good idea to go on these cakewalk missions to spread freedom and democracy around the world and to the poor backwards dumbasses who attacked us because they hate us for such things. My only point is that I think we should rethink what we consider reliable and unreliable sources, or if we might use many different kinds of sources. I think we need to diversify this article a bit. Either that or it should be deleted and reposted at the State Department and DHS. SkeenaR 23:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well you should consider how many non-conspiracy theorists there were who were pissed off because Bush chose to invade before allowing weapons inspections to take place. But no, it was just the conspiracy theorists who saw it coming. *roll eyes*--DCAnderson 23:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying, and you are misrepresenting my comments. When I mentioned this example previously, I used Scott Ritter as the example of someone claiming that there were no WMD's there. Mostly, he was only taken seriously by alternative media rather than mainstream. He is not from the "wild eyed" crowd, nor were the "tin-hatters" the only ones to take him seriously, but for the most part the MSM pushed the govt line and the rest is history. Roll eyes he says. Does it hurt them to see this? You can't stand the fact that georgie and o'reilly were completely full of shit? That Tin Hatter Alex Jones was right that time? It doesn't matter anyway. I think I've made my point about the sources. SkeenaR 00:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

George Bush and Bill O'Reilly could both be described as "full of shit?" Stop the presses! My whole world is coming apart...gah... Papa Bear, nooooo!--DCAnderson 00:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere there's a chat board that wonders where everyone is. Tom Harrison Talk 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I'm done :) SkeenaR 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Different types of point of view

An observation that bears repeating: this article is Wikipedia's version of events, based on verifiable enyclopedic content; the US government version has its own article.

Some of the discussion seems to suggest all the content is opinion without being definitively true or false. That might apply to good-faith political opinions, but it does not apply to engineering opinions. Most objections come down to some variation of "why is a controlled demolition not being seriously considered?" The simple answer is that it does not merit consideration. A deliberate demolition of the towers while rescue efforts were on going would constitute pre-meditated mass murder, and if any evidence pointed to it, then without question a thorough investigation of the crime would be necessary. However, there is no such evidence. While it is true there are some observations consistent with a deliberate demolition (and these are almost all based the lowest-quality video and photographs), there are no examples of observations simultaneously consistent with demolition and not consistent with catastrophic structural failure.

Meanwhile, more valid, and useful, questions such as whether there was negligence before or political exploitation after go unaddressed. Peter Grey 03:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a little deceptive, since the government version of events did not begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. This article is POV mainly not because of POV statements, but because it seems to assume the government view is the right one, as your POV statement does, while giving no consideration for the opinions of a substantial minority. You assume if there was good evidence of it, that there would be any will to undertake a criminal investigation. If this was a conspiracy that reached, for example, into the highest levels of government, we might well NOT expect that. There are good and responsible reasons to suggest they were controlled demolitions. Numerous secondary explosions, both reported and measured, and what appear to be squibs shot from many angles, and pools of molten metal lasting for MONTHS are in fact not consistent with melting on account of what is basically kerosine. Is it my fault you haven't done your homework?


The challenge is to see how much holds water once the dust settles.

Much I think would have to be changed about this page to remove support for the government theory. Better to have one introduction page that links to all the sub-pages. 9/11 skeptics have much better evidence than the people who characterize us as wearing tin-foil hats would give us credit for, at least in our opinion, and so long as there is a substantial minority that supports it, it deserves mention. I suppose somewhere, there is or should be a rule in wikipedia that it also stand some test of reasonableness, and so while I am not sure if the point is moot or not, it is the opinion of many of us that many such good arguments exist. In science, nothing is true or false, only more or less probable, BTW. This should not prevent one from reaching working conclusions, as in a forensic investigation. Of course, no forensic investigation is possible in the current case, as the evidence was unlawfully removed from the scene of the crime, and the investigation was underfunded, not allowed access to the crime scene, and perfunctory at best. Exploitation of 9/11 as an excuse to abridge our constitutional rights is sorta peripheral to the events themselves, but might be linked to from here. Any other pearls of skepticism to offer us as to problems with the official theory you'd care to volunteer? The Flat Earth theory gets at least mentioned on the Earth page, even though it has nothing anywhere near as tangible to point to in the way of evidence as the 9/11 critics do. If our complete exlusion with uncritical acceptance of the government position isn't POV, then I do not know what is. If we were cranks, we would deserve better. We would suggest that our evidence is much better than that.

If a lot of people wish to remove all disputed assertions from this and have POV sub-articles, as Mongo suggests, this is also possible. The downside is, how can we identify the person in first alleged Bin Laden confession tape, if we can't say he is, or he isn't Osama? What we have here works just fine for an official version, IMHO, and it only needs to be brought into balance with alternate theories, of which there is really only one, which I would formulate as follows: There are enough credible problems in the official version to call for a new truly independent, and far more public, open and comprehensive investigation into 9/11 than we have already had in the 9/11 Commission. I do this to solve the problem that there are people who consider themselves skeptics of the official version, but do not think the towers collapsed as a result of controlled demolition (i.e. LIHOP as opposed to MAHOP). They are generally happy to join with us in our call to bring these matters to the public attention, and hopefully, more independent and open investigation. Sunlight is, after all, the best disinfectant - for political matters anyway. One note about "Loose Change" I've come across - I don't believe he mentions the flashes just before or as the planes hit the buildings are in the second edition; only the first.

BTW guys, although it is a related debate, WMD's are really a different topic.

--ThaThinker 11:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight sums it up fairly well.--DCAnderson 12:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is clearly not applicable. SkeenaR 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. --ThaThinker 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is applicable in keeping theories regarding shape-shifting extra-dimensional reptoids and other such nonsense out of the article as it is the view of a tiny fringe minority. But it is not a tiny minority that disagrees with many different aspects of the official version and therefore some of these aspects deserve at least a mention here. SkeenaR 00:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, just remember, there is probably some dude out there (and possibly on Wikipedia) who feels just as pasionately about the shapeshifting reptiles as you feel about this.--DCAnderson 01:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
David Icke is the shapshifting reptoid conspiracy guy. His Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster is #55,318 on Amazon. Thierry Meyssan's 9/11: The Big Lie is #127,857. The Science & Engineering of Materials by Askeland and Phulé is #399,707. Tom Harrison Talk 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But that's not the point. It doesn't matter who feels passionately about what. I am not trying to prove that the official version is wrong. Also, I'm not trying to offend anybody no matter what they believe. The point is that the Undue Weight clause is not applicable per the reason I cited above. SkeenaR 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So how are they not a minority?--DCAnderson 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They may or may not be a minority, but they are not a "tiny minority". Read the policy. SkeenaR 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They seem pretty tiny, especially in comparison to the supporters of the mainstream view. They just seem more vocal than anything else.--DCAnderson 02:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

They may or may not be a minority, but they are not a "tiny minority". They are a "significant minority". What you just stated above is pure opinion. Check the news, check google rankings on 9/11 related subjects, check the polls, and not just current ones. Read the policy. SkeenaR 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

All I've seen of these guys so far is:

  1. An ocassional fluff piece news article.
  2. A handfull of sites owned by a handful of people who all copy/paste the same articles from each other to deliberately skew Google hits.
  3. A deliberately misleading poll put out by one of the above mentioned sites.

I'm not convinced that this is a signifigant minority. Vocal, yes. Signifigant, no.--DCAnderson 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Over half of the population wants the investigation reopened. Is that significant? Don't give an Ameriflag 03:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I must be on the right track seeing as how you are now on the offensive with a bunch of POV and not one shred of evidence to back it up. On the other hand, I can find plenty of evidence supporting my assertions regarding the Undue Weight policy. You can go ahead and ask for it. I will give it to you. But I wonder if you will attempt another refute similar to the one above, thereby keeping us in an pointless merry-go-round. SkeenaR 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the talk pages on all the 9/11 articles pointless merry-go-rounds? But allright, show me your evidence, I've probably seen it and refuted it before on one of the merry-go-round passes.--DCAnderson 03:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN had a web poll (above) showing over 90% who doubted the official 9/11 story. A few years back, Zogby had one saying I think 49% of New Yorkers (I don't know if city or state, probably the former) thought the government was complicit in the attacks. A more recent article discusses another Zogby poll:

"According to a new Zogby poll, less than half of Americans are convinced that that the events of September 11 have been thoroughly investigated, RAW STORY has learned.

In the telephone survey of 1200 individuals, just 47% agreed that 'the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense." Almost as many, 45%, indicated they were more likely to agree "that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success.'"

Found at:

In the interest of disclosure, the Zogby polls are funded by I am not affiliated with either, nor any related formal organization, at least thus far. Although these numbers come from only one source plus a CNN web poll, I am aware of no polls by other organizations to refute it, either. Rather sizeable meetings on the subject have been staged around the country, and there are upcoming concerts in Austin on this theme. Although the television media refuse to acknowledge its existence, there is a substantial and growing minority that hold this view. I suggest that the pervasive media blackout itself should be evidence that something is wrong. I realize this is difficult news for many to hear, and that you may have nothing in your experience to relate it to. This is why I am being patient and deliberate with my request for balance in this article - to give you guys a little time to get over the denial phase that such a substantial minority exists, but is being blacked out from mainstream media. If we simply engage in edit wars, it'll be harder for us to get anything figured out. --ThaThinker 03:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. Web polls are unreliable.
  2. Both Zogby polls are deliberately misleading and put out by 9/
  3. Round-and-round we go.--DCAnderson 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You think you can wave a magic wand, and say that those polls have no evidential value? It is the only evidence we have on the subject. It is POV to leave out a substantial minority. Do you care to offer evidence to refute me, or can we just disregard you as argumentative? I have no love of disagreeing with people without evidence. I don't intend to participate in such debates. The number of people posting here in support of better balance should also qualify as evidence. Where is your basis for saying the polls are misleading? The thrust of them is pretty obvious. Ironic, isn't it, that you claim to be a Wikipedian against censorship. --ThaThinker 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are three or four CNN polls, at least two Zogby polls that you obviously don't give credibility too, but you would have to prove they are invalid(their results are more scientific than your opinion), there are some other polls which I could look up, there are scientists, military experts, government officials, computer experts, journalists, intelligence experts, many of whom are distinguished professionals in their fields with excellent credentials. There have been many mainstream news articles and televion programs regarding this, especially outside of the United States(such as Canada). Can you just admit that the minority is significant and that some of the disagreements should be presented in the article? Or you want sources on this(like you haven't seen them-and would it make a difference to you). SkeenaR 03:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(To Thinker)Wait so your argument is that because your evidence of a significant minority is scarce and not particularly reliable, we should give you guys a handicap just to be fair? And that we should turn a blind-eye to WP:NPOV#Undue weight and other policy just because a lot of single purpose editors come on here and bitch and moan? And that the onus should not be on you guys to provide evidence to prove your point, but that it is on us to provide evidence to disprove it?
Right.--DCAnderson 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What about me? I don't I get any baseless rhetoric from you? We have plenty of evidence. If it's evidence regarding the Undue Weight policy we have plenty and you know it. SkeenaR 03:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because I don't want to spend a lot of time retreading the same ground, here are the threads on other pages where that Zogby poll is discussed:

No, that's exactly what you are doing, taking us in another circle. I think the next step is to start adding material, sources and citing policy as it's being done to make sure there are no violations. I am well aware of my limits and boundaries as an editor and I hope others are as well. It looks like this will be a bumpy ride for any who take on the challenge of NPOV'ing this article. SkeenaR 03:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop reading those foolish conspiracy theory websites...they will warp your mind.--MONGO 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"No, that's exactly what you are doing, taking us in another circle."

And you guys are innocent of this? Cause the Zogby poll is a totally new argument for inclusion.--DCAnderson 04:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That was sarcasm, for the curious. I am not interested in keeping this thread going indefinitely. You tried to characterize the minority as insignificant, and I responded, not knowing of your research. New or old, its still evidence. Google on 9/11 and truth, or 9/11 and conspiracy, and you will find MILLIONS of hits, with many of the top ones being critical of the official version. This is evidence too. Nitpicking at the Zogby polls can't make them vanish completely, until we have them by other organizations. The fact that we don't should also seem suspicious to you. The news blackout, and the lack of other polls on the subject doesn't seems suspicious to you? I've given you three evidential items: pools, google hits, and posters here, and you only try to say they are not evidence. --ThaThinker 04:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

News blackout and lack of other polls? Are you sure it's a cover up or (drumroll) it just isn't significant.--DCAnderson 04:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is not evidence. Evidence of conspiracy theories belongs on the corresponding page. Evidence supporting conspiracy theories (the demolition ones, at least) has not been found. There is evidence supporting the mainstream account, there is none indicating demolition - it's that simple. Peter Grey 14:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV? Speculation?

I'm referring to claims such as "nineteen men affiliated with Al-Qaeda hijacked two commercial airliners and flew them into the World Trade Center, causing its collapse" and similar claims. It has not been proven that the "hijackers" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda (in fact some of the alleged hijackers are still alive), and whether or not the planes alone caused the collapse of the towers is likewise up for debate. Just because the government says one thing doesn't discredit anyone who says the opposite. There are several similar claims made throughout the article. NPOV demands that we do not take the patriotic point of view, and make sure it is known that the government's report on the 9/11 attacks are speculatory at best. Don't give an Ameriflag 03:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, we'll take out all the facts and add nonsense instead.--MONGO 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has asked for that. What is fact and what is nonsense seems to be disputed. What seems beyond dispute, is that a substantial minority is being censored from this page. For Alternate Theories to be added to this page, no removal of "facts" which we would not label as such, is needed. To keep them on a separate page, and remove all government version only statements from this one is the only choice that would require removing anything, unless you guys decide to remove details from the official story. --ThaThinker 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and who are you going to use as references for these "alternative theories"?--MONGO 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this already. Mainstream sources such as mainstream news items, Congressional websites and the Congressional record, and mainstream documentaries. --ThaThinker 04:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You want nonsense? Then argue that a plane can singlehandedly destroy a steel-framed building. And when people see through that shit, just blame it on "weird construction". Don't give an Ameriflag 05:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy & Balance

This article is nothing more than spin. Any amendments made adding in "verifiable" information contradicting the US government's version of events, is simply deleted.

This article is not "verifiaable information" is a one-sided piece composed of selected propaganda.

Okay...time for a little snack so you feel better.--MONGO 04:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but unlike you, I'm not against the idea of posting the government's version as a possible theory; I simply want all of the possible theories to be reported in this article. None of them necessarily as fact. I don't want one (1) of the possible theories to be written as fact and the others to be arbitrarily dismissed as conspiracy theories. The term conspiracy theory is just a blanket assertion that the government and people like you like to hide behind so you don't have to give credibility to anything we say. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The reason that 9/11 conspiracy theories are quickly dismissed is because they have been trivially refuted by numerous independent researchers, i.e. they have been demonstrated to be false. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements that are held by a significant minority. SkeenaR 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Demonstrated by whom to be false? You listen to me, there's no way a 180-story steel framed building's going down because of a plane flying into it.
Try 110 stories. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
They were designed to withstand that.
From FEMA: The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no way a Boeing 757 vaporized itself at the Pentagon. That's scientifically impossible. Kerosene simply does not get hot enough.
There were plenty of 757 remains (fuselage, wheel rim, compressor rotor, engine, door, landing gear, lettered debris, etc.) that were photographed at the site so your statement is misleading. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are there all these questions that are still unanswered? Who warned Mayor Brown not to fly on September 11?

Brown, to anyone in the plot, was obviously in no danger and so the warning was unnecessary if it was by a conspirator. Brown said it was nothing extraordinary and that's why he chose to fly! There was a worldwide Sept. 7 warning about terrorist attacks overseas, that one of Brown's security people informed him about just as routine would have it. Bottom line: the person who warned Mr. Brown had no clue that 9/11 would happen. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If a 757 hit the Pentagon, why won't the FBI release the videotapes taken from surveiilance cameras which would prove the truth? Why did the 757 that hit the Pentagon knock light poles out of the ground when other planes that have hit light poles got their wings torn apart? Why was there molten steel at ground zero when the fires didn't get hot enough to melt steel? Why was all of the debris immediately trucked off of the scene and destroyed before it could be proven that no explosives were present in the columns? If the government has nothing to hide, why don't they just tell us these things? Don't give an Ameriflag 15:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone quoted FEMA: "The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph AS IT APPROACHED AN AIRPORT; (!) the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph UPON IMPACT" - - - But this is just another sleazy presentation of the least relevant facts, because the early Boeing 707s had a CRUISE SPEED of 591 mph - THE SAME IMPACT SPEED AS THE HIGHEST VELOCITY 767! And the 767 is only 14,000 pounds heavier than the 707! And the 767s weren't FULLY-LOADED! And the WTC RESIDENT STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, Frank DeMartini, who was initially "hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson Associates to help with the repairs of the 1993 terrorist bombing at the World Trade Center" (NYT paid notices, obituaries), said, in an interview broadcast on the History Channel, January 2001:

"The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building PROBABLY COULD SUSTAIN MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. IT REALLY DOES NOTHING to the screen netting." 15:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to chill out?

I'm not the one getting upset about an "allegedly" being placed where it belongs, because there is as much evidence that the hijackers were Al-Qaeda as there is that they werne't. We're here posting facts, not propaganda. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That the hijackers were trained al Qaeda is a proven fact. Who do you think they were? -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With edit summaries like:

  • "Don't rv war here - some of the attackers are alive. How can you claim to be a Wikipedian and still want to say such things as fact?"

the answer is, yes, you need to chill.--DCAnderson 04:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The latter, yes. But the former (which was the latter chronologically)? How is that not chill? What['s wrong with saying "allegedly" anyway? Which are you more afraid of, being branded a terrorist, or a liar? Don't give an Ameriflag 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"How is that not chill?"

"How can you claim to be a Wikipedian.."

"What['s wrong with saying "allegedly" anyway?"

No significant group that says otherwise. Plus, Bin Laden admitted to it repeatedly.

"Which are you more afraid of, being branded a terrorist, or a liar?"

???--DCAnderson 04:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"No significant group that says otherwise."

Oh, we're not significant is that right? We're just fruitcake conspiracy theorists who are paranoid about little green men, is that right?

"Plus, Bin Laden admitted to it repeatedly"

It was never proven to be him. Most of the time his confessions are in the form of extremely poor video or completely audio recordings. The first video depicts a guy who doesn't even look like Bin Laden, wore a gold ring, and wrote with his right hand. He's also claimed that it wasn't him. If you think this is evidence, then maybe the fruitcake is you. Don't give an Ameriflag 04:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe bin Laden is a righty or ambidextrous and the FBI is simply mistaken! There is another video of bin Laden writing with his right hand and there are plenty of videos showing a person who is undeniably OBL wearing a gold ring! Bin Laden wasn't interviewed personally, so the Taliban could've written the denial, maybe to call into question justification for the Afghan war. Bin Laden at the time told an interviewer to turn off the tape recorder and then told him that he was responsible. Besides the person who is clearly bin Laden in the 12/13/01 video, there are other al Qaeda leaders. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9/11 numerous times. There have been 16+ explicit post-9/11 claims of responsibility for 9/11 by al-Qaeda, bin Laden, etc. following his 9/16/01 "denial":

-10/7/01 Osama bin Laden [4] -10/9/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [5] -10/14/01 Osama bin Laden [6] -10/27/01 Suleiman Abu Ghaith [7] -2/02 Osama bin Laden [8] -4/02 Ahmed Alhaznawi and other 9/11 hijackers – these martyrdom videos contradict the claim that the hijackers are still alive, their identities were stolen, etc. [9] -9/10/02 Osama bin Laden and others [10] -9/02 Ayman Al Zawahiri [11] -10/02 Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed [12] -3/03 Osama bin Laden [13] -9/21/03 Abu Muhammad al-Ablaj [14] -8/04 Abu Jandal [15] -10/30/04 Osama bin Laden [16] -9/12/05 Adam Gadahn [17] -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't some blog, so go peddle your baloney elsewhere. Get an education first so you don't appear so ignorant.--MONGO 05:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
MONGO, I think your constant and unnecessary badgering of the conspiracy theorists on this page contributes to the difficulty we seem to have keeping things civil. --rehpotsirhc █♣█Talk 05:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, so trolls that post nonsense here are to be accorded equal footing with someone that presents an intelligent and sane opinion on how to improve the article? Did you have something constructive to add?--MONGO 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll hear you out Mongo, when your not calling people trolls or flinging abbreviations at everyone. SkeenaR 06:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the shoe fits, wear it.--MONGO 07:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm attempting to use information in accordance with policy and I am open to reasonable discussion. Are you? SkeenaR 07:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not if you intend to cite POV websites that are controlled by a few contributors. Which historically have been what you seem to draw your conclusions from.--MONGO 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm not sure which conclusions your talking about unless you are referring to my comments about the Undue Weight policy. There are disagreements with the material in this article that are held by a significant minority and they they have to be presented according to policy. SkeenaR 08:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see a few folks that come here and argue the same stuff, and the same issues are demostrated. If there was any strength to your minority argument, then the conspiratorial issues would garner a lot more mainstream press and other reputable reference based sources. Just because you may believe that the events of 9/11 do not jive with the known evidence, does not mean that those that agree with you are more than an insignificant minority.--MONGO 08:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, your comments about mainstream press coverage are pure opinion. I have yet to see you legitimatley dispute any point made about the Undue Weight policy. SkeenaR 08:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so long as your junk science looniness stays out of these articles, I am content. You can ramble on all you want on the talk pages, until of course you get disruptive. Expect to find all POV pushers of nonsense blocked in due time.--MONGO 08:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. There needs to be more information in the article and I will put it there. I'm not trying to push pov, or "junk science". Please tell me why you called me a "looney". SkeenaR 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Zogby poll for was solicited by a conspiracy theorists...we have discussed this matter, ad nauseum, have we not? If not on this page, certainly on others. You are Canadian are you not...see Loonie.--MONGO 09:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Used to be that I felt like the odd-man-out here. Skee-man, don't take it so seriously, it's just effing Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 07:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Morton, but everythings cool. I could go play PS2 or something but I find this more enjoyable believe it or not. My girlfriend left me for Stephen Harper(better not tell his wife) SkeenaR 08:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

He is kinda cute. Morton devonshire 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in that Dick Cheney-as-alien-lizard-man kinda way. Yeesch! MortonsSockpuppet 17:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility lost?

What is going on here? Why the name calling, the vituperatives and other nonsense? If there are conspiracy theories and these are described in the article as such, what is the problem? ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

vituperative-"Using, containing, or marked by harshly abusive censure." SkeenaR 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Omitted Material and Political Bias

There are a substantial amount of facts and associated material, from verifiable sources, that is not covered in this article. It presents an "glossed over" version of events by omitting all the incosistancies and the implications. Not to mention isolating 9/11 attacks from the Global context over the last 40 years.

As such, it falls under the catagory of propaganda, instead of a comprehensive answer from a "global encyclopedia".

This is not a political tool.

Give some examples, but not ones that have long been discredited. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. We appreciate that. We can give you plenty. --ThaThinker 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thus far you haven't given any facts contradicting the official account. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As Thinker said "What is fact and what is nonsense seems to be disputed. What seems beyond dispute, is that a substantial minority is being censored from this page." SkeenaR 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The "substantial minority's" claims have been definitively debunked and yet they are free to engage in discussion on this talk page or contribute to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. No one has any trouble finding that page if they are interested. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The supposed 'evidence' is based on flawed (if not outright dishonest) engineering. Engineering conclusions can be challenged on their scientific merits, but they are not open to political debate. Political opinions (those in good faith, at least) should be respected, but errors of fact should not. Peter Grey 20:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether they've been debunked or not is not at issue. The Flat Earth theory is not excluded from the Earth page. This theory has more of substance to it than that one, and yet you guys keep this page POV, and exclude it. It is only the opinion of the majority that these theories have been debunked, and many of them haven't studied the subject very extensively; but that does not justify this idea not being mentioned on this page. This page is POV, and you are unwilling to allow such facts as may exist that might tend to undermine the official point of view to be mentioned on this page. I think we are at a POV impasse. I mean, on you guys' self description, you guys say how you're POV against 911 "conspriacy theoriests", and that is fine and well, but the Wikipeda requires you share "your" page with those of other viewpoints, especially when it is the main article on those events. There is substantial evidence of forewarnings suppressed by the 9/11 Commission, many former government officials and agents have come out and denounced the official version, and all those secondary explosions reported by people just before the buildings collapsed, that aren't being mentioned here, and should be. --ThaThinker 04:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

But we are people who have studied it extensively. I used to be a 9/11 conspiracist and I am ashamed to say that I got a 9/11 Truth award for "young newcomers." I held these views for over 20 months and spent hours a day researching! After more research and a look at the other side I realized that my 9/11 conspiracism was wrong and I recanted it. I stress again that items like controlled demolition/no 757 at the Pentagon/remote control planes/living hijackers/fake phone calls/Flight 93 shootdown are not facts! The issues you mention have their own pages and again they are easily accessible and not disguised or hidden or anything like that. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
From Earth:

"A 19th-century organization called the Flat Earth Society advocated the even-then discredited idea that the Earth was actually disc-shaped, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (50 meter) high wall of ice at the outer edge. It and similar organizations continued to promote this idea, based on religious beliefs and conspiracy theories, through the 1970s. Today, the subject is more frequently treated tongue-in-cheek or with mockery.

Prior to the introduction of space flight, these inaccurate beliefs were countered with deductions based on observations of the secondary effects of the Earth's shape and parallels drawn with the shape of other planets."
So it gets four sentences. One of them says how the theories are mocked.
This page:

"Since the attacks, various conspiracy theories have emerged. These include speculation that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, or that they actually planned the attacks. Some of those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives. Some also contend that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

Also gets four sentences. All of them are neutral.--DCAnderson 05:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected. It does mention it, but this idea is more subsantial than four sentences. This doesn't begin to describe the fishy aspects of the attacks. If 45% of the people in the Zogby poll believe something is fishy about the idea, the provide me another poll, or else we should at least get about 20%. This idea has much more going for it than you give it credit for: Able Danger, the Pheonix Memo, Mousoui reported on an expired visa by FBI agents in Minnisota, the FBI agents who warned David Schippers, former lead councel in Bill Clinton's impeachment being warned, the mayor of San Francisco being reportedly warned by Condi Rice, as the Chronicle says it was told on Pacifica Radio. All these things are factual, and have not been debunked, whatever the ultimate judgment of history on the matter. Can't you guys quit playing politics, and let a more balanced view emerge? Again, the Steering Committee of the Families of the 9/11 Victims published a list of questions, many of which weren't even addressed by th 9/11 Commission at all. Can't you respect their wishes? --ThaThinker 05:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Al the things you mention appear in 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is pretty generous under WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--DCAnderson 05:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

These things are included in detail in that article as per the title. In this article, things that are unverifiable, alleged or disputed must be presented as such according to policy. SkeenaR 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples?--DCAnderson 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So lets begin with things that seem factual, and go from there. --ThaThinker 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless people have some favorites, which might seem pov, I suggest working our way down the page from top to bottom. SkeenaR 05:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll check for junk like self references first. That didn't take long. SkeenaR 05:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no self references allowed as per policy. Being the big bug on policy I thought you knew that. SkeenaR 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And if some of us check for mistakes like that while others look for refrences, we will speed the process of improving this article. SkeenaR 05:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but there were three citations for that statement.--DCAnderson 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's cool DC, we can add stuff later if we need to. We should check for sources and remove garbage in the meantime. I hope your sudden removal of that other piece wasn't some kind of retaliation. I'm assuming good faith. SkeenaR 05:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I removed [18] believe me it wasn't retaliation. Somebody had added it earlier tonight, and it was bugging me.--DCAnderson 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to make this an excercise in pedanticism, but I was cited myself for a violation by providing a link exactly like what you just did in a different article. What is the difference between a self-refrence and a fixed internal link? SkeenaR 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That wasn't a citation, that was an internal link. They're what makes Wikipedia work. I don't know what incident you're talking about, but I don't see how it is relevant here.--DCAnderson 06:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy man, I just remember somebody said we can't use wikipedia as a self reference and I think they are right. If I was making a mistake in this case, that's not a problem, I just wanted some clarification on that. SkeenaR 06:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. You were right. SkeenaR 06:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


This talk page should be archived soon because it is becoming too long. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the word "censure" appears here too many times for people to see. SkeenaR 16:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

goes up. As per discussion the neutrality of this article is disputed because of some unverified facts being presented as verified and because of ommisions of verifiable material that is in contradiction with some information presented here. SkeenaR 06:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Or I'll take it down. Let's try for progress first. SkeenaR 06:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

hijackers' letter

You removed all this detail, with refs, along with my (okay, it was lengthy essaying, just striving for balance) explanation, etc. But I think it's pretty important, since this 9/11 start page has virtually nothing about the guys who actually did it. Maybe the blockquote can go in ref notes, since it's a bit long? Seems a disservice to not even mention the letter in the article. Also, there needs to be something core like this to counter all the wrong western bias about cause and effect (former troops in SA, U.S. support of Israel, etc.) that is so prevalent in the article, but that is just western wishful thinking, that if only we could learn how to appease them enough, they would stop attacking us, you know. The hijackers' letter gives better insight into what is really in their heads about flying planes into buildings, just presented as is, without commentary. So, here it is,

On September 28, 2001, the FBI held a Press Conference, during which they released an untranslated handwritten 4-page "hijackers' letter" written in Arabic and found in three separate copies at Dulles, the Pennsylvania crash site, and in Mohamed Atta's suitcase. It included Islamic prayers, instructions for a last night of life, and a practical checklist of final reminders for the mission. [1] translated: [2] The British newspaper The Observer published this translation, provided for The New York Times by Capital Communications Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm, and by Imad Musa, a translator. The writer of the letter may not be known. But clearly, it was found in multiple locations, and so the text was of importance to at least several of the hijackers, on the last day. Some notable excerpts:

..."Make an oath to die and renew your intentions..."... "Check your weapon before you leave and long before you leave. (You must make your knife sharp and must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter). " ... "All of their equipment and gates and technology will not prevent, nor harm, except by God's will. The believers do not fear such things. ..." ... "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers. God said: 'Strike above the neck, and strike at all of their extremities.' Know that the gardens of paradise are waiting for you in all their beauty, and the women of paradise are waiting, calling out, 'Come hither, friend of God.' They have dressed in their most beautiful clothing..." ... "If you slaughter, do not cause the discomfort of those you are killing, because this is one of the practices of the prophet, peace be upon him..." ... "Do not seek revenge for yourself. Strike for God's sake..." ... "Then implement the way of the prophet in taking prisoners. Take prisoners and kill them. As Almighty God said: 'No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood... " ... "How beautiful it is for one to read God's words, such as: 'And those who prefer the afterlife over this world should fight for the sake of God.' And His words: 'Do not suppose that those who are killed for the sake of God are dead; they are alive ... '." ... "Either end your life while praying, seconds before the target, or make your last words: 'There is no God but God, Muhammad is His messenger'."

...end of hijackers' letter excerpts. So, does at least some well-deserved part of this go back in? Steven Russell 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe check out Islamofascism or try adding a link to that article. SkeenaR 09:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably fit into either of these articles:

My observation: I came to this article looking for the basics: Who, What, Where, When, Why. Instead, I find myself wading through a lot of material that has to do with all sorts of extraneous concepts, alternative theories, long-term aftermaths entirely outside of Manhattan, investigations, analyses, and below, yet more argument about even further far afield things to put in here. Granted, some of it belongs, but not at the expense of burying or moving off-page the elements of Who, What, Where, When, and Why. And How.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So I produced excerpts of a letter, which was publicly released with great fanfare into the mainstream, no more than two and a half weeks later, by the U.S. government, a letter that the "Who" (19 ARAB hijackers, so where is the Template:911hijack here?) had on their persons, on the day of (the "When", the very day) the attacks (the "What", that is, 50-90% of this article should be nothing more than full expansion of the mainstream proven events themselves, such as, for instance, that the letter was on the person of at least two of the hijackers), one left in the car at the airport (the "Where", airport parking lot, on the plane, in the hotel room), and the other in the Flight 93 plane upon impact, and a third left in Atta's suitcase the night before, yet there is no room here for any of this "What" or "Where" about the letter? The "Why" is best covered on the day of the attack in the place of the attack by the attackers in the very words that they left to explain themselves, not for us as readers, but for themselves as readers explaining to themselves and justifying to themselves WHY they were flying planes into buildings. It's as close as anybody is ever going to get to the inside of their heads.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
So frankly, the suggestions that a better place for the letter is somewhere off the main page strikes me as odd. Granted, it could use some better presentation, but this is where such material belongs. Again, it was a critical element on the persons of the attackers as they attacked and it explained their reasonings. And the source is highly public, highly governmental, highly verifiable, and highly mainstream. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be above all, full of mainstream reputability, and not merely a balance-counterbalance of every side argument and obscure minority theory in the entire universe of fringe ideas. Just my observation, that this article has become much of the latter, and less of the former.Steven Russell 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

--ThaThinker 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Proposed Alternative Theories Section

Outline of Proposed Alternative Theories Section:

I. Reports of Foreknowledge
        Abel Danger - Intelligence program which had identified Mohammed Atta and probable 
            terror cell in Brooklin before 9/11 was blocked from being reported to the FBI.
        The Pheonix Memo - A document released under the Freedom of Information Act has
            AZ FBI agent writing report about Osama probable associated persons at flight 
            school, and urgently urges investigation of other flight schools as well
        Cathleen Rowley - Minneapolis FBI agent reports Moussaoui suspected as terrorist by
            flight instructor, and wanted by Al Qaeda in Paris, and is ignored.
        David Schippers - lead councel for Clinton's impeachment, says FBI agents were warning 
            impending attack, and getting ignored.  One said the date of the attack was widely 
            known within FBI
        Henry Waxman - Requested yet other foreknowledge documents from 9/11 Commission, but 
            despite his being on the Government Reform Committee, was denied
        Sibel Edmunds - Extensive article appeared in Vanity Fair about being gagged with 
            important 9/11 information.
        (Many others exist, but space prevents all being listed.)
II. Background Information
        Bin Laden at first denies responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.  The Pentagon then 
            releases a video with poor resolution in which he seems to confess, except many 
            of the things in the sub-titles are not in original Arabic.  Government sources 
            subsequently released an audio only confession by Bin Laden.
        PNAC document in 2000 suggests "a new Pearl Harbor-like event" might accelerate  
            U.S. plans in the Mideast
        Condi Rice says "we" had no idea Al-Qaeda might attack by airplanes, despite FAA and 
            other drills for just such a scenario.  She later changes this to "I" had no idea 
            they might attack by airplanes, leaving the question of who else knew of these 
            drills open.
        Link to list of serious questions about 9/11 by the Steering Committee of the Families 
            of the 9/11 Victims
III. Peculiar aspects of the attacks
        The two towers collapsed suddenly, at nearly free-fall speed, one a little under an hour,
            the other a little over an hour later.  By this time, at least one of the fires had 
            subsided enough for people to stand in the gaping hole left by the plane, awaiting 
            rescue.  When each building in its time collapsed, each collapsed straight down, 
            causing minimal damage to nearby buildings.
        Reports of secondary explosions before towers fell in local papers, and in firemen's 
        Wreckage removed quickly after underfunded investigation
        Designer of towers said buidlings were built to withstand impact of one, and could 
            probably survive six impacts of 707's
        No other structural steel buildings have ever collapsed on account of fire
        Many of supposed 9/11 attackers reported alive
        (Future expansion: the flashes of light on WTC1 and WTC2 just before the planes hit)
        Building Seven also collapses neatly later that day at 4:00PM, almost demolition style,
            killing workers still in building, reportedly on accout of fire
        Reports of a white jet and mid-air explosion, when flight 93 reportedly crashed 
            into the ground 
        Two videos of Pentagon attack fail to produce convincing evidence of a Boeing
IV. Dissenting government officials, experts and celebreties who have come forward
       Five former government officials or important appointees have denounced the official story. 
         By way of contrast, Nixon officials went public on Watergate only after intense 
         Congressional investigation.
           David Bowman -  Claims to have been Director of Advanced Space Programs 
               Development for the Air Force Space Division until 1978 under Carter and Ford 
               (and no official source has yet repudiated this claim), says concerning new 
               intereptor flight procedures issued just before 9/11 (which newly required 
               administration officials in order to OK not just shoot-downs, but any and all 
               interceptions), if they had only have done nothing, the attacks would never have 
               succeeded.  He calls actions that allowed it to happen, treason.  Calls Bush 
               a renegade president.
           Ray McGovern - Former CIA analyst, used to prepare Reagan's and then Bush Sr.'s 
               Presidential Daily Briefs, calls for Bush Jr's resignation over 9/11.
           Former FBI Director Louis Freeh - 9/11 was "an inside job"
           Morgan Reynolds - Former cheif economist at Bush Jr.'s Dept. of Labor, recenty 
               resigned, and said he thought 9/11 was an inside job
           Sgt. Eric Haney - founder of the Army's elite Delta Force unit, says "The reasons of 
               this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated."
       Leon Minetta - Places Cheney at control center of the Pentagon when plane hit, 
           contradicting Cheney's own account
       Russ Whittenberg - Former Air Force and airline pilot, says Pentagon maneuver impossible 
           for an inexperienced pilot
       Sampling of celebreties who have denounced the official account of 9/11 - Charlie Sheen, 
           Ed Asner, Sharon Stone, Ed Beagley (of St. Elsewhere), James Woods (117 major film 
           credits), and Dean Haglund (the X-Files).
The towers did not fall at free-fall speed; just watch the videos of the collapses. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if an item has been debunked, that does not justify censoring it. Things which tend to debunk it can be listed in this section as well. This should allow this article to include opinions of a significant minority who does not feel that most of these items have been debunked. Whether many of them are right or not, we feel we cannot know until a more thorough investigation is completed. --ThaThinker 20:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, lies and falsehoods should be included, and half truths should be listed in this section as well. Everything you posted is a lie or mistruth...but the best - Dean Haglund as Agent Moulder? I think David Duchovny might be upset. --Mmx1 21:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
If something is non-notable or has been debunked, it belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Everything you list can allready be found there.--DCAnderson 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Please,no. I understand your point, but if something is non-notable or has been debunked it belongs on his blog, not 9/11 conspiracy theories. That is, at least in theory, part of the encyclopedia. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
The Madrid Windsor tower endured a partial collapse when the steel melted due to fire. See this picture. The tower did not totally collapse because its structural strength due to concrete was much greater than that of WTC 1, 2, and 7. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
"Reports of explosions." Never mind the fact that the sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that many things that are there, do not belong there. For example, whether Abel Danger comes out to be true or not, ultimately, we have people that said it. It is in the Congressional Record. It's a matter of public knowledge. I don't think a definitive investigation has ever been completed, nor has it been satisfactorilly been debunked. If so, tell me where. It certainly does not belong on a page only for debunked theories, at least as yet. No lies, at least on my part anyway, but that was a mistake. My apologies to David Duchovny. These are the things that MUST be included, or this article is BAD POV. Why do you fear having lies and falsehoods here, if it is a significant point of view, and the information that debunks it is here? I was being generous. I maintain that you can't debunk that, e.g. Charlie Sheen or these other people denounced the official story, because even mainstream press says thay did. What is it issue is whether they are right, and I say, lets present the facts, and let the people decide for themselves. Why are you afraid of telling both sides of the story? --ThaThinker 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan did not certify steel for UL....he tested water quality. Robert(not david) Bowman did not direct Star Wars. He directed some little program prior to Star Wars with no direct link. Morgan Reynolds was an economist at the Bureau of Labor, not the "head". The fires at WTC were not "under control" ... practically nothing was done about the fires and I doubt the firefighters even reached it before the word came to get out. Designer of towers said they would withstand "one" 707, a smaller plane. No workers in WTC 7 when it collapsed. I could go on and on. The rest is heresay and speculation

You apparently aren't in the same reality I'm in. --Mmx1 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is good. Lets update my outline with corrected versions of these events, and get such facts as remain standing, up. I want to be disabused of any illusions. This does not entirely exempt Bowman's expertise, as I know I heard him claim to be an interceptor pilot, and he knew what the proceedures used to be, and what they were changed to. --ThaThinker 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

When Bowman was a pilot....Kennedy was President, bell-bottoms were in fashion, and a computer took up a room. He has been retired for 30 years and has not worked in the defense sphere. It's a stretch to say he knows what the current procedures are. He also has a credibility problem, as half the medals he claims to have won don't exist, and he has been caught lying about his SAME medals. --Mmx1 21:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the statements from your outline and my opinions on them: "PNAC document suggests "a new Pearl Harbor-like event might accelerate U.S. plans in the Mideast"

  • While it could be argued that PNAC benifited politically from 9/11, there is no reliable source that indicates that they had any part in causing it. Mentioning them and this memo in this article is essentially Original Research as the memo says nothing about 9/11.

"Bin Laden at first denies responsibility for the 9/11 attacks."

This is true and I see no particualr reason not to mention it. (In fact it allready is mentioned)

"a video with poor resolution in which he seems to confess, except many of the things in the sub-titles are not in original Arabic."

This however is essentially Original research.

"Link to list of serious questions about 9/11 by the Steering Committee of the Families of the 9/11 Victims"

Non-notable fringe group, mentioned in other articles as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Most of the things regarding the WTC under section III are mischarecterizations from Steven E. Jones. He is most definitely a fringe minority, and he is discussed in other articles. His theories allready do get a one sentence mention in this article.

"Reports of a white jet and mid-air explosion, when flight 93 (?) reportedly crashed into the ground"

Throw me a link to this one.

Most of the celebrities are not worth mentioning, as they are not really experts on anything.--DCAnderson 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Bowman says: "former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations". Director. The Wikipedia page on Bowman says nothing about these non-existent medals, only listing ones he received. The idea that the "new Pearl Harbor" statement refers to 9/11 is NOT original with me. The idea that the the first confession video is of dubious quality is NOT original with me. Overseas papers ran a story on how a number of the phrases the Pentagon said were there, in the subtitles, were not there. I haven't run across Stephen E. Jones, and I've seen a lot of these ideas MANY places. If I found a flake that supported the official version, should we dismiss it? I'll have to study some more to come to my own conclusion on Ryan's expertise, but we might could replace that with a better item. Eric Haney, founder of the Army's elite Delta Force unit, who says the war on terrorism is bogus would be a good substitute. At first, I thought there was a relevency problem, but then again, the War on Terror began with the 9/11 attacks. A number of the items on the "9/11 conspiracy theories" DO seem factual, whether their claims can ultimately be verified or will be refuted. If that is a page for debunked items, the best of them need representation here. Also, mention of what appear to be squibs was left of my outline. It is really presented for other 9/11 skeptics and 9/11 skeptic debunkers as a starting point for fixing this page's POV problem. The whole section need not be that long, as most items need only a sentence or two. Then, I think most 9/11 skeptics will agree, the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" page has a POV title, and should somehow be subsumed as a sub-page of Alternate Theories, and/or a new Debunked Theories and Hypotheses page. We should have mention of the cream of the crop items on this page, where they haven't been debunked. Although celebreties are not experts, we still think it is important for the public to know that many are coming forward. Can better items be found, and some of these ideas debunked? Probably. Are there better points that could be brought out, which should get precidence over some here? Probably. Yet, most of them remain viable, at the end of the day, and are being censored, against Wikipedia policy, from this page. --ThaThinker 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to the inclusion of any "alternative theories" section, as we already have a 9/11 conspiracy theories article on Wikipedia. In addition, none of the alternative theories can be verified by reputable sources (see WP:RS), nor are they verifiable (see WP:V) -- that's the reason they're over at 9/11 conspiracy theories, because it's encyclopedic to describe unverifiable conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories, but not encyclopedic to describe them as factual. In contrast, all of the information in this article can be verified through reputable, objective sources. It's not censorship, it's Wikipedia policy that drives this. Morton devonshire 00:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that they are not verifiable. They are. People have built scale model mockups of the floor sections of the WTC, to see if they can be burned by flames. Much of this stuff IS verifiable, if 9/11 terrorists here in the US if FBI agents had already been reported to superiors. Nice try. Invalid agrument for exclusion. It IS verifiable if various people denounced the official theory. --ThaThinker 01:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Who built these models? If you're talking about the Corus study (just a guess) that study was started way before 9/11, and had nothing to do with WTC.--DCAnderson 01:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ramifications of 9/11, as a proposed major split

As stated above, this article neees to get WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY back to basics, WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, and HOW. Just basic irrefutable facts, highly mainstream, highly verifiable and highly reputable. So I propose a major split: Essentially the entire bottom half of this article deals with almost extraneous ideas that spring off of the attack itself. The attack is the attack, nothing more, as the home page here for this whole thing. This should be the place where people go on Wikipedia to get the very basics, and nothing more. So my proposal for the split of all the bottom half extraneous material that is currently there: It all sticks together cohesively as "Ramifications of 9-11." Everything from cleanups, speeches, wars on terror, conspiracy theories, backstories, further agendas, world opinions, and on and on and on in a neverending series of subarticles. But just keep this basic page to the fundamental five W's, and the H. Feedback, please.Steven Russell 03:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy junk deserves almost zero attention and should be merely linked to, as I think you are suggesting. I agree that the letters and Atta info deservesa brief mention, but it appears to qualify as an article unto itself, with a link from here perhaps. Going into major detials of the letter would distract us from the focus.--MONGO 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Granted that different excerpts from the letter belong to different articles or areas. My main point is that it is a key fact of the day of the attack in the place by the persons, and yet it gets entirely obliterated here in lieu of extraneous material such as conspiracy theories. I do like the "Ramifications" as a catchall title to branch all of that other stuff off of. As I said, I come here looking for the BASIC knowledge about that day, place, persons, time, and method. I had a heck of a time even finding the list of attackers, which of all places should have been here.Steven Russell 03:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Context IS important. WWII is not just the battles, but also the causes, and a huge section on the aftermath. Some pages like the Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks should be better linked, but the current division of content is appropriate.--Mmx1 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I could see that, but not excluding the opinions of a signficiant minority to the extent that they are treated as a tiny minority on this page. It really comes off sounding one-sided. --ThaThinker 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore Evidence

I've been running an analysis of the claims made by Professor Steven Jones', Professor of Physics at BYU and former principle scientist for Muon catalysed fusion with the US Department of Energy.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University,

This paper has multiple peer-reviews and no one, as yet, has been able to come close to debunking the material, nor been able to approach it at a scientific level. It can be a difficult read, as the implications of the numerous scientific claims are not apparent to the layman or casual observer.

The bottom line is that solid scientific material exists, that suggests either an alternative scenario, or a hidden scenario under the guise of the attacks.

This must be covered for accuracy and balance.

His work isn't even published by a reliable source, so it fails WP:RS--MONGO 11:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Right. The work of Jones, who has no expertise on building collapse forensics, was published in the Marxist publication Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23. BYU civil engineers reject Jones' claims. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Debunking the alleged evidence

Of course the material has been debunked. Steven Jones raises 13 points; here are the problems with them:
1. Equally valid observation for both catastrophic failure and controlled demolition
2. WTC 7, not relevant to WTC 1 and WTC 2.
3. Same as (1).
4. Fact about unrelated circumstances.
5. Observation consistent with catastrophic failure and not controlled demolition
6. Same as (1).
7. Same as (1).
8. Same as (1).
9. Same as (5).
10. Same as (5).
11. Based on flawed assumption.
12. Objection to NIST procedure, unrelated to actual tower collapse.
13. Same as (12).

1. Equally valid observation for both catastrophic failure and controlled demolition

Nonsense. Molten metal has never been observed in any "catastrphic failure". You'd be better off denying molten metal, like DCAnderson and others.

2. WTC 7, not relevant to WTC 1 and WTC 2.

Yes, the sulfidation and very high temperatures in this reference are about WTC7. Other than incidiaries, what could explain them? Just saying this doesn't apply to WTC1 & 2 aviods the issue.

3. Same as (1).

Nonsense. Symmetrical collapse requires all vertical columns to fail at the same time, or at least for a majority of them to fail in a symmetrical pattern. Second Law of Thermodynamics excludes this from random causes, such as impact damage and fire.

4. Fact about unrelated circumstances.

Nonsense. No previous skyscapers have collapsed from fire in over 100 years of history, then 3 collapse in one day, and you find this "unrelated"? I'd say it is very related.

5. Observation consistent with catastrophic failure and not controlled demolition

Jets of smoke are observed exiting WTC7 horizontally, floor by floor, starting at about floor 42, and proceeding upwards all the way to the top floor 47, spaced about .2 seconds apart. These floors have not collapsed relative to each other, so is hard to explain absent explosives. Yet, it is perfectly consistent with controlled demolition, and resembles many of them.

6. Same as (1).

Early antenna drop indicates the core structure failed first. If not from demolition, why would the strongest part fail first?

7. Same as (1).

A litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions gives more credence to controlled demoltions, and less credence to anything else.

8. Same as (1).

Nonsense. Gravity operates vertically. It is absurd for you to suggest that the horizontal ejection of heavy steel beams for hundreds of feet supports a gravity driven explanation. Clearly this is more supportive of controlled demolition.

9. Same as (5).

Nonsense. You are suggesting that the near free-fall collapse times are supportive of catasrophic failure and NOT demolition. Come on. We observe dozens of demoltions on video. They occur at near free-fall times, for well-understood reasons. You cannot cite a single example of a catastrphic failure behaving like that, and there is ample reason to believe that it is physically impossible.

10. Same as (5).

Controlled demoltions require skill. You claim this supports catastrophic failure? Huh??

11. Based on flawed assumption.

The B&Z paper requires column temperatures to go up to 800 degrees C. There is no evidence to support fire temperatures that hot, much less column temperatures that hot. Where is the flawed assumption?

12. Objection to NIST procedure, unrelated to actual tower collapse.

NIST commissioned actual fire tests, which showed that the floors would not fail. They didn't like that, so they supposedly made a computer model, tweaked the inputs until they got a failure, then refuse to release any of this to the public. Jones' point is well taken. NIST is far from convincing.

13. Same as (12).

Repeatability is the essence of the scientific method. Releasing the visualizations of the computer model is standard. The idea is that someone else can employ your methods, and come to the same result. NIST has refused to do this, therefore going against the scienfic method, therefore Jones' point is well taken.

I would also point out that the paper makes the claim The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.... -- this is made as a statement of faith, without evidence, so the objectivity of the whole paper comes into question. Peter Grey 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Peter, this is a statement made on observation, not faith. We observe that the towers stand motionless for 56 and 102 minutes after the crashes.
TruthSeeker1234 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All these conspiracy nuts are just too much. i am a civil engineer with 30 years of experience, ranging from shopping centers to a major downtown commercial complex with 7 hirise towers. Fires can easily cause a high rise building to collapse. They are more fragile than you would like to believe. The types of collapses that occured on sept 11 have occurred many times before, for example, in Mexico city.
I wish we could make indestructable towers. If our clients had an unlimited budget, we could. But they don't. I could easily bring any steel framed structure down with gasoline and a match. You just have to know where to light the fire. The fact that on 911 fire accidentally found the right places is not surprising to me. I'm surprised the buildings stood as long as they did. Jet fuel burns so hot it is almost like a nuclear reaction.
This debate is over. The government panels have studied this to death. There is NO evidence of controlled demolition. None. You idiot moron conspiracy quacks have no business attempting to edit an article on a technical subject. Move out of the way, and let experts do it, like me. 12:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An expert within civilized society won't use vocabulary like "nuts, idiot moron, quacks" etc. Now your other possible arguments which have not been even presented here lost any viability. Thank you for supporting (unconsciously) the honest documentation of the 9/11 events. PS in a just and fair dialogue supporting community your IP address would be banned immediately and not allowed here but we know who controls and spins all political articles on Wikipedia, so you are about to stay..

Damage total

I notice the damage total is not mentioned on the article. I've read a few sources that said it was in the $20 billion range. Provided someone finds an exact, official link, I think something like that would be an important little fact for the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-qaeda comment removed

An anonymous IP added "It is important to note that the US government has supported, trained, and sold arms to al-Qaeda in the past. In fact, the US put al-Qaeda into power." As that would be a horribly a very strong and dangerous comment to make without prior discussion, especially amid controversy, I removed it back the version of the article prior. Kevin_b_er 05:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Something along those lines could go in, as long as there was a good source for it. But it wouldn't, even if we had an affadavit from the government that said so. SkeenaR 06:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The USG did not arm or train al-Qaeda. It armed and trained the Muhjahadeen, specifically to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; and the Muhjahadeen gave birth to al-Qaeda only after the Cold War ended and jihad to create a fundamentalist Islamic super state replaced jihad to evict the Russians. It may be ironic that al-Qaeda grew up to bite the hand that once fed it, and the whole affair may display a lack of foresight on the pasrt of 80's policymakers; but that hardly supports the anonymous IP's obvious implication that the US knowingly created the terorist organization. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, and boy does this talk page prove it! TexxasFinn 10:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Title is incorrectly punctuated

The title should read "September 11, 2001, attacks." The year is parenthetical. It should be set off by two commas, not just one. 06:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the whole date September 11, 2001 is an integral part of the name. Peter Grey 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

By "parenthetical," I did not mean that the year was unimportant or not "integral." The year in the American style is parenthetical in the same way that "Illinois" is parenthetical in "I have lived in Chicago, Illinois, for ten years" or the way that "our first president" is parenthetical in "George Washington, our first president, was very popular after the revolution." There's no negative connotation.

It's a common mistake to use only one comma, but it is a mistake nonetheless. It looks like you're joining two clauses with a comma but no conjunction. In other words, in the sentence "The September 11, 2001 attacks were devastating," it looks like you're trying to make an independent clause out of "2001 attacks were devastating." It doesn't make any sense. 19:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Day of the Week, etc.

I propose the following addendum: "The attacks were carried out on a Tuesday--a weekday. As such, most schools and workplaces allowed students and workers to witness the television coverage throughout the day." Also mention something about many students wishing to make telephone calls to relatives, and schools allowing this. 07:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Ninjagecko (high school student during the attacks)

Fatalities section

I do not understand why the following two sentences begin the fatality section: "One fatality was US-Israeli multi-millionaire Daniel Lewin, an influential figure in the development of the internet and a former member of an elite Israeli anti-terrorist unit. Also aboard Flight 11 the captain, John Ogonowski, is said to have been killed by terrorists before the impact."

It seems to me that the section should immediately emphasize the number of deaths. Pointing out a wealthy individual and how one particular victim was killed seems to undermine that goal; furthermore, it most likely will leave out other influential people. The safe thing could be to emphasize the number of fatalities and their location at the time of their death. Placing two people at the beginning of the section seems to lessen that emphasis. Smackme 20:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility section Declaration of War citation

His declaration of a holy war against the United States,[citation needed]

cite Osama bin Laden, “Declaration of War” issued 23AUG1996 [[19]]

There is a secondary source on in the talk page of the wikisource page. 05:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please add something along the lines of: "Despite the US government citing that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, the FBI have stated that there is no hard evidence connecting him to the attacks. The official FBI 'most wanted' site does not state that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks."

This is very important I think.

Missiles attached to the hijacked planes

Close examination of the videos (I saw it at 1 frame per second) shows quite clearly that a missile was launched from the second plane and suggests that one was launched from the first, both a split second before the actual crash. This was probably to ensure destruction. Slowing down of other footage shows an extra piece of equipment underneath US Flight 175 shortly before impact into the South Tower. This means that somehow, the terrorists had planned in advance and attached these missiles to the airplanes without detection by authorities. It is also possible that they were allowed to, but all we know for certain is that a flash occured between Flight 11 and the North Tower before it crashed and a missile was launched in a similar flash (from a pod attached to the underside of US Flight 175) into the South Tower a split second before the 2nd crash.

Boeing, the manufacturer, when questioned about the extra part on Flight 175, totally refused questions of it, simply saying that the nation's security was at stake.

This can be proven by slowing certain cameras' views of the 2nd crash down enough, and close examination of the 1st crash.

This is very relevant information, and unquestionable fact, so why not add it somewhere in the article? 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard the missile theory combined with the hijacking theory. Walk through this with me. Teams of terrorists smuggle missiles into an airport, which they then somehow attach to the bottoms of several jets, which nobody -- other flight crews, people loading baggage into the planes, people looking out the windows of the airport -- nobody notices. They also get into the planes themselves and run controls for the missiles into the cockpits so they will be able to fire them at their targets, though instead of simply hijacking the planes right there, they all leave the runway, reenter the airport, and hijack these planes from the inside. They then fly the planes to their targets where they fire missiles at them, and, to be really thorough, they crash into their targets as well.
I think you're gonna have trouble with WP:CITE on this one. Just my hunch. JDoorjam Talk 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, No, don't you get it? The terrorists didn't smuggle the missiles, it's the US Government that did it; the same government that killed JFK, Marilyn Monroe, orchestrated a fake moon landing, and created 'new coke.' Jeez, are you dense....TexxasFinn 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to Get On With Life

I am a civil engineer with decades of experience designing structures, including skyscrapers. I am sick and tired of [editors] on this page pushing conspiracy theories with no basis in reality. I will comment only on the WTC collapses, as I am an expert. Listen up.

1. Fires absolutely can cause a steel framed skyscraper to collapse. I have seen it with my own eyes. It has happened many times before. We could build them stronger, but they would be more expensive, and less spacious.

2. A collapse such as the 2 that occured on 9/11 can indeed produce molten steel. What happens when you bend a piece of wire? It gets hot. Multiply that by about 500,000 and you can understand that the tremendous mass above the failure point will have more than enough energy to melt steel. I'm surprised there wasn't more molten steel at ground zero.

3. Much has been said about the concrete turning into powder. For god's sake, this lightweight concrete we use is powder and glue, that's it. Drop a chunk of this stuff 10 feet and it will turn to powder, just like that. The concrete in the twin towers fell an average of over 500 hundred feet before it hit the ground. What do you expect would happen?

And so on.

In case any of you [editors] didn't notice, FEMA studied the collapses. That should have been enough, but just to [completely convince everyone], we went and had NIST study it some more. NIST has stated that there is NO EVIDENCE of a controlled demolition. Why would they say such a thing if it wasn't true? This is a democracy, not some third world [country]. Frankly, these fine men and women have much more important things to do than respond to nonsense. Our country is in grave danger until we stamp out terrorism world-wide. We should not spend any more time and resources studying the collapses.

If any of you have specific questions about structure, I am more than happy to answer. I am on board now, please leave the technical aspects of 9/11 related articles to those of us who are qualified to edit them.

[Warmest regards,]

EngineerEd 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This seemed to have a few issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA but I thought the points were probably valid, so I trimmed the flamebait. Here's the original posting. Is Wikipedia censored for minors? No, but in this case I'll censor it to keep people from behaving like children. JDoorjam Talk 00:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK if I add a mention in the article about how common it is for steel framed structures to collapse from fire? For some reason I can't edit the article. Is this because I'm new? I'd like to edit the collapse article too, but that seems blocked also. Maybe it's just my browser.

EngineerEd 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Due to vandalism, some articles are locked to prevent anonymous or new users from editing. It's not just you. It usually takes a few days before you're allowed. Perhaps if you state your submission here, we can add it. --Golbez 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For starters, this passage:

There has been much speculation on the "performance" of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and the relevant U.S. government agencies.

Should be changed to something like this:

The cause of the Twin Towers collapses is a well understood, common phenomenon. It is called "global progressive collapse", which has, unfortunately, been observed many times before. The studies by FEMA and NIST have confirmed this, and "debate" continues only amongst non-professionals. 04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation or two to support the statement that, "Global Progressive collapse has been observed many times before" Specific examples of steel structures collapsing due to fire "many times before" would be extremely valuable. Thanks 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to belabour the point. All that is required is a simple statement of the legitimate studies and their conclusions, and the absence of evidence of a deliberate demolition. Peter Grey 01:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be acceptable. To be fair and NPOV however, the Steven Jones article should also be given a mention. Whether or not you believe the assertions, the paper IS notable and has been widely circulated by the conspiracy theorist community. 02:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Steven Jones the not-structural-engineer from Brigham Young? I don't see why either he or his paper is relevant to a statement about experts in the field of structural engineering. "Some non-engineers like Steven Jones, however..." isn't NPOV or balance, it's just silly. JDoorjam Talk 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, Steven Jones's paper has yet to be published by a reliable third party...and only appears in conspiracy theory websites.--MONGO 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop going in circles

Steven Jones' paper is notable as a pop culture phenomenon, and can be mentioned on the appropriate article. The demolition conjecture essentially comes down to an Internet hoax in bad taste. NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. I would like to throw out the following challenge to the believers in demolition: All the alleged "evidence" is something like 'Such-and-such observation looks like a controlled demolition'. Find us one valid example of form 'Such-and-such observation looks like a controlled demolition, and it does not look like a catastrophic structural failure'. Peter Grey 04:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, don't. Respectfully, Peter (and from your comment I'm pretty confident you'll agree with me anyway), we're onto something here and I don't want to lose it into the 9/11 conspiracy theories vortex. Can we get some sources on global progressive collapse? This sounds like a concept that, with proper sourcing, could really have legs in this article and make it an extremely valuable public source of technical information about the tower collapses. If that's a valid and relevant technical concept, by all means let's source and appropriate it into this work. JDoorjam Talk 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 'Global Progressive Collapse' does sound like an impressive engineering term. I would welcome the inclusion of a well cited explanation of what it means as well as its implications. Specifically, I would be curious to learn how 'Global Progressive Collapse' explains how buildings can collapse at near free-fall velocities, in accordance with Newtonian Gravity. Steven Jones is an expert in the field of physics, and his paper specifically addresses this question. His research is well sourced with clear citations and has received wide scrutiny by the both sides of the 9/11 debate. To exclude it here, would be tantamount to censorship - it has clearly been a heated source of discussion, and is notable for that fact alone. I am looking forward to improving this section. Can anyone provide some background sources on 'Global Progressive Collapse?' 12:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Steven Jones's paper has NOT been peer reviewed, NOT been published by a reliable third party source and is NOT scientific...if you really want to learn something, read this: [20]--MONGO 12:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
None of this discussion belongs on this page. None of this suggested text belongs in this entry. As Mongo has aptly pointed out: "Steven Jones's paper has yet to be published by a reliable third party," and all of this speculation is little more than gossip, rumor-mongering, and marginal speculation. Please take this to the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. --Cberlet 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Jones' paper is not research. The paper has received scrutiny, yes, and it has failed to meet the standards for engineering analysis. (By the way, since Jones is not a structural engineer, neither are his peers.) As for how buildings can collapse at near free-fall velocities, it's a simple calculation of impact loading. If a bettr calculation finds a different velocity, that would be a legitimate criticism - an appeal to intuition is not. Peter Grey 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, see User talk:Huysman/911 conspiracism where I demonstrate fatal flaws in various 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The best source for information on progressive collapse relevant to this article is the NIST report. All you need is in there.

Steven Jones is a theoretical physicist. I think he is an excellent source for the latest musings about alternate dimensions, or time travel. As for the real world, you need to talk to an engineer. Engineers are about making things work in the real world. I have read the Jones paper, and it is just a bunch of nonsense. As I have stated before, there is nothing unusual about pools of molten metal at a disaster site.

We had a tower collapse in Houston Texas in 1992. This was the Fuji tower, 56 stories, which was about 90% complete, when a crane operator (who was on drugs) began operation before his platform was secure, the crane fell over, and triggered a total progressive collapse. I personally saw a pool of molten metal at the site when I came with the insurance investigator.

The collapses of the twin towers did not look like a controlled demolition, if you know what you are looking for. For one thing, the towers EX-ploded, whereas a controlled demolition is an IM-plosion.

EngineerEd 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply a reference or at least a date for the collapse of the Fuji Tower (are you sure that was the right name?) in Houston Texas? I can't find any information on that. Toiyabe 22:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And a reference for the molten metal just to be fair. SkeenaR 10:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is anything on the web about it, but look, I was there. The point is that progressive collapse happens. I wish it didn't, but it does. There was another one in Mexico City that was caused by a fire. True, this fire burned for about 8 hours, and was a different type of design than the twin towers. This building was desinged by the Mexicans and was essentially held up by a series of intersecting arches, getting smaller and smaller as it went up. It was called the Arcos Rincon, very beautiful and innovative. Completely collapsed on one side, and turned to dust.

The point is, this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. There are plenty of places for people to speculate about conspiracy theories. It is time to stop disgracing the honor of the people who were murdered on 911. Allowing the conspiracy nuts to have any say in this article is a disgrace, a shame. There ought to be something that the honest editors can do about it.

Can't these conspiracy theorists be stopped, or blocked, or shut down? What's more important, letting "everyone" edit these 911 aritlces, or getting it right? I think that getting the facts straight is more important. 07:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can have this article to yourself and then you can fill it with insults, tell everybody how smart you are, and use really dirty emotional propaganda. SkeenaR 10:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to stop, block or shut people out, provided they follow the rules. The only thing I know of that works is to stay calm and provide well sourced information. That information doesn't need to be online - if you gave me a reasonable date range for the "Fuji Tower" or "Arcos Rincon" collapses, I could look through the trade rags and journals for information to add to the article.
Hyperbole doesn't help either, in my humble opinion - it just gives your opponents something extraneous to grab onto and discredit without discrediting the core idea.
Finally, I'm assuming that you are User:EngineerEd, and forgot to log in. If you check the "remember me" box when you log in, you won't need to remember to do that each time. Toiyabe 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ed, you've got lots of allies here in the war against "made up things" and unsubstantiated conspiracy cruft. Let us know what you want, and we will support your edits. Cheers. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

Ed made up the stuff about the Fuji Tower and Arcos Rincon. There are no historical examples of "global progressive collapse", or molten metal from a building collapse. EngineerEd is a fake. I'll stake my reputation on it. Ed, I challenge you to provide any substantiation for anything you have said.

I think it is interesting how Morton and Toiyabe are so eager to be "allies" with an obvious fake. TruthSeeker1234 03:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not allied with anybody. I am also skeptical of EngineerEd, and was politely giving him a chance to back up his claims. I think that's clear if you read what I wrote. I almost think he's a sock-puppet or troll. Toiyabe 15:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you could be right. SkeenaR 10:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theory supporters to show evidence of an alternative. (Note that feelings, intuition and opinions of amateurs are not evidence.) Peter Grey 04:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Molten metal pouring out of the South Tower just moments before collapse is evidence Peter. So is the complete pulverization of the towers to dust. Even Credible source governor George Pataki mentioned the dust covering lower Manhattan from "river to river". A litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard and felt explosions, that's evidence too. So are the squibs. And the photgraphed flashes. And the collapse times. And the mushroom clouds. And the horizontal ejection of steel pieces for hundreds of feet. That's evidence, not feelings, intuition or opinion, Peter. TruthSeeker1234 06:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact that engineers named Ed suddenly appear and create mythical buildings that collapse in a globally progressive sort of way while magically melting metal in defiance of the known laws of physics & chemistry - all in order to discredit the idea that 3 buildings collapsed in a manner that suspiciously resembled a controlled demolition - speaks volumes about the lengths some editors are willing to go to shut down opposing viewpoints. Is this really what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? {User formerly known as Digiterata 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is about supporting article entries with verifiable information from reliable sources. Something which you and the other conspiracy theorists cannot do. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo
Morton, I am impressed with your continued commitment to supporting article entries with verifiable information from reliable sources. Perhaps you could be bold and add some verifiable sources on Ed's behalf. Any independantly verifiable source that references either Fuji Tower or Arcos Rincon in relation to global progressive collapse would be a good start. I'm confident Ed would appreciate your help as an ally in the war against "made up things". Digiterata 12:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The official story is a conspiracy theory, one with very little in the way of facts to support it. How and why do 19 Arabs board 4 planes without tickets, for example?

"Engineer Ed" has offered nothing in the way of documentation. He's a fake, I promise. I find nothing at all about either Fuji Tower or Arcos Rincon. It's BS. Ed, you on tonight? Come on. In the meantime, there are reliable mainstream sources (NY Times, FEMA) that have reported molten metal and partially evaportated metal, and very high temperatures achieved. This is interesting stuff, and ought to go in some article somewhere.

Have you heard the latest? Steven Jones has analyzed some samples of WTC slag, it's iron with high concentrations of sulfer, such as what would be produced from thermate. This is consistent with the FEMA metalurgical study which showed the "swiss cheese" appearance of the metal, the "rapid oxidation" and the sulfer content.

Meanwhile the NY Times author Glanz has changed the title of his infamous article from




Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel TruthSeeker1234 06:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No tickets? Where did you read that nonsense? Steven Jones, again, has not had his evidence published by a reputable third party...what part about this do you not understand?--MONGO 11:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN published the flight manifests from all four 9/11 flights a few days after the attacks. There are no Arab names at all. Does MONGO or anyone have any reliable source showing Arab names on any flight manifests? 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Use some critical thinking and stop repeating long-discredited claims. From CNN: "The list includes those listed as "confirmed dead" and "reported dead" by the Associated Press... Includes those whose deaths have been reported by family, employers, mortuaries, places of worship or by the airlines that listed them as aboard one of the four flights... Those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included." Boston Globe has a complete AA11 manifest at -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 20:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you explain the millions of independent journalists who have investigated this story, and who corroborate through their reporting the common account? Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

Not millions, but thousands upon thousands of paid scribes, yes. Does that really need explaining? (nice pic!) SkeenaR 10:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

All the 'evidence' cited demonstrates either a fire or a structural failure, both of which are on film and, I hope, undisputed. There is nothing that suggests demolition. Peter Grey 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, if what you are asking for is undisputable undeniable 'smoking gun' proof of controlled demolition before you are willing to allow any reference at all to the fact that some argue there to be evidence suggesting that something other than planes and fires alone caused the structural failure, then you are placing a higher standard on inclusion than Wikipedia can expect. In fact, you are placing a higher standard on inclusion than most of the official 9/11 story can withstand.
One relevant and notable fact is the observation by multiple credible sources of MOLTON METAL at the site days and even weeks after the events. Below under 'NIST at WTC' a clear, well-cited, credibly referenced article makes multiple mentions of the MOLTON METAL. I have some others if you prefer. I think it is clear that MOLTON METAL has cleared the hurdle of verifiability and it is most certainly notable since the only way to explain it within the framework of 'structural failure' would be if the buildings had collapsed in a globally progressive sort of way like those two other famous buildings: The Fuji Tower and the Archos Ricon, but we're still waiting for verifiable sources for those. I don't know if MOLTEN METAL prooves anything, but the fact remains it is both notable and verifiable and deserves to be added to the article. Digiterata 19:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to discuss molten metal, do it at the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. This article is the factual account of what happened on September 11th. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

Someone said, "It is time to stop disgracing the honor of the people who were murdered on 911." I certainly agree with this statement. SO DO SOME OF THE 911 FAMILIES:

"At first, we widows didn't want to be seen with CONSPIRACY PEOPLE. But they kept showing up. THEY CARED MORE THAN THOSE SUPPOSEDLY DOING THE INVESTIGATING. If you ask me, they're just Americans, looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right." - Lorie Van Auken, The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, New York Magazine, March 27, 2006 14:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt that quote say the exact opposite of what you are saying? The widow says the conspiracy investigators cared more than the official investigators, and says it is their right to look for the truth. I agree. Fritzz44 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Additional unusual behaviors observed for WTC2 included the correlated smoke puffs observed over large areas of the façade and over the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased DRAMATICALLY, often accompanied by external flames. These events were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurrences of smoke puffs were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place. The evidence suggests that these smoke puffs resulted from PRESSURE PULSES generated within the tower and transmitted to other locations. It is considered likely while these pressure pulses were of sufficient magnitude to affect smoke flows over multiple floors, they were much too small to affect the tower's structural components. For most of the smoke puffs, there was no visual indication of the event that generated the pressure pulse or its location. In a few cases, such as when WHEN MOLTEN METAL POURED from the tower, circumstantial evidence indicated that the puffs WERE ASSOCIATED with specific observed events. - NIST NCSTAR 1-5, WTC Investigation (p.p.36-38)

The video shot from the WTC plaza captured an INTRIGUING event at 9:37:04 a.m. A jet of air, dust, and A LARGE PIECE OF DEBRIS WAS EJECTED from a window, 77-355, on the 77th floor at AN EXTREMELY HIGH VELOCITY. Longer distance videos show that puffs of smoke and/or dust appeared simultaneously on the east face from several open windows near the center of the 78th floor and from open windows on the north side of the 79th floor. Interestingly, the smoke flow from the windows on the west sides of the 79th and 80th floors, which had decreased markedly by this time, did not increase. Within 14s of this release, a large fire either grew or became visible near the center of the east face on the 82nd floor. A long distance video shot from the south showed that fire and smoke were pushed from multiple locations on the south face at the same time the strong jet occurred on the 77th floor of the east face. -NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation (p. 346)

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be MOLTEN METAL WAS OBSERVED POURING from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a PRESSURE PULSE that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.[...]

There was another release of smoke and/or dust from near the east edge of the north face at 9:52:38 a.m. Immediately afterward, the spot near the top of window 80-255 brightened considerably. At 9:52:47 a.m. a series of three much LARGER PRESSURE PULSES, which took place over 35s, pushed smoke and/or dust from several locations on multiple floors of the north face. These locations included those described above, the two areas on the north side of the 83rd floor where fires were burning, the vicinity of the pile of debris near the center of the 79th floor, an area of newly observed fire on the 79th floor near windows 79-209 to 79-213, and the opening of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. The fire burning near the center of the 79th floor flared up noticeably. Immediately following one of the pressure pulses (at 9:52:48 a.m.) intense flames suddenly reappeared in windows 91-301 and 81-302 on the east face just to the south of the northeast corner of the 81st floor. At roughly the same time, part of the debris lodged at the northeast corner of the 81st floor fell out of the opening. Relatively small amounts of MOLTEN MATERIAL POURED from window 80-255 NEAR THE START AND THE END OF THE series of PRESSURE PULSES. Videos show that smoke was also expelled from windows near the north edges of the 79th and 80th floors of the east face during these pressure pulses. NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C p.p. 375-376 (pdf p.p. 79-89)

At 9:53:41 a.m. and 9:53:46 a.m. two pressure pulses forced additional smoke from windows on the north face. Both of these occurrences were ACCOMPANIED BY SHORT FLOWS OF MOLTEN MATERIAL from the same window, 80-255, on the 80th floor observed earlier. The largest flow occurred during the second release. Figure 9-75 shows a view of the northeast corner of WTC2 taken from a video at 9:53:51 a.m. The BRIGHT MOLTEN STREAM flowing from the top of windows 80-255 IS PROMINENT.

An image of the north face taken at 9:55:18 a.m. is shown in Figure 9-76. The image was shot 1 min 45s after the one shown in Figure 9-74. The fire distributions are very similar in the two photographs, with the exception of the fire on the 82nd floor to the right of the cold spot in Figure 9-76. As discussed above, the fire was first observed at 9:53:47 a.m. burning in windows 82-234 to 82-337. At 9:55:18 a.m. flames were visible in windows 82-231 to 82-236, and flames were coming out of windows 82-233. The bright spot at the top of window 80-255 is visible on the 80th floor, but there is no obvious molten liquid flow at this time. Unlike in the earlier photograph, fire is now visible in the adjacent window, 80-256. During the next several minutes, following the two pressure pulses around 9:53:45 a.m., numerous pressure pulses were noted that pushed smoke from open windows on the north and east faces of WTC2.

A particularly STRONG PRESSURE PULSE started at 9:56:11 a.m. It lasted nearly 10s. This particular pulse was strong enough to push flames from the tower at many locations. Following a pressure pulse at 9:56:31 a.m., the flames present on the 81st floor in the northeast corner opening and nearby flames on the north face abruptly died down. The large flame in window 81-301 on the east face also declined within 2s. All of these flames reappeared after a few seconds. At 9:57:21 a.m., shortly after another pressure pulse, the BRIGHT LIGHT reappeared at the top window, 80-255, on the 80th floor from which the FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL had been observed earlier. Almost immediately, it appeared to jump one window to the east, i.e., to window 80-256. Five seconds later a LIGHT FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL began pouring out of window 80-256. THE FLOW OF MATERIAL from this window WOULD NOW BE NEARLY CONTINUOUS UNTIL THE TOWER COLLAPSED. At 9:57:32 a.m. there was a fairly intense pressure pulse within the tower. THE FLOW RATE OF THE MOLTEN METAL INCREASED DRAMATICALLY at this time. p. 383 (pdf p. 87)

Figure 9-77 is a frame from a video that was shot at 9:57:45 a.m. It shows the falling metal as it was approaching the ground. THE LARGE AMOUNT of falling material IS EVIDENT. Most of the molten metal seems to have broken up into small "droplets," but there are a couple of large pieces falling as well. Apparently, the material flowing out of window 80-256 also included pieces of debris that had not fully melted. There was another HEAVY FLOW OF MOLTEN METAL at 9:58:35 a.m. p.384 (pdf p. 88)

Numerous visual observations suggest that IMPORTANT CHANGES, which might have had STRUCTURAL RELEVANCE, were taking place in WTC2 in the period following aircraft impact until collapse. These observations include hanging objects, some of which, based on appearance, may have been locally dislodged floor slabs that had settled down to locations below the spandrel, at several locations on the north and east faces, changes in positions of the hanging objects during the period, the occurrence of numerous PRESSURE PULSES identified by smoke and/or dust puffs generated over multiple windows and floors, the appearance of MOLTEN METAL pouring from the tops of open windows, and bowing of outer steel framework. p.412(pdf 116)

"THERMAL IMAGERY OF THE PROGRESSION OF MOLTEN STEEL HOTSPOTS from September 18 to September 25" GeoNews, October, 2001 09:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you have something you wanted to add to the article?--MONGO 11:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, MONGO, we would like to add mention of the MOLTEN METAL. You and others have repeatedly denied the existance of molten metal at WTC, and have used every excuse in the book to keep it out. MONGO, why don't you give us a promise not to remove mention of MOLTEN METALTruthSeeker1234 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why didn't you say so...the answer is no. Peace.--MONGO 19:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's see. We have FEMA, NIST, the NY Times, Structural Enginneer and various experts ALL saying there was molten metal. We have photographs and videos of molten metal. We have metalurgical reports. Yet MONGO says there was no molten metal. What exactly is your reputable source for no molten metal MONGO? Please, link us. TruthSeeker1234 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You are taking tidbids and trying to make a mountain out of them...this is typical conspiracy theory cruft nonsense tactics to try and weasel the bullshit about controlled demolition in the article. Did you not see the word it is again...NO.--MONGO 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Molton Metal was observed at Ground Zero is both Verifiable and Notable. Shall I be bold here and add it myself (supported of course by verifiable and reliable sources, or do we need MONGO's blessing? Digiterata 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I smell a revert war a coming ......
......but I sure hope we can act like adults and avoid one.
Revert war and you'll be blocked...I'll protect the page...cry me a river.--MONGO 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Digiterata, add something to the Collapse of the World Trade Center. I've got your back. MONGO and co will revert war, I'm sure. Let's just try and improve the article, make it NPOV, with verifiable reputable sources, and see how it goes. TruthSeeker1234 21:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we take a step back here. I'm willing to wait a day so we can hear the thoughts of the wider community. I believe there is sufficient independantly verifiable evidence to justify including a line or two referencing the fact that Molten Metal was observed among the debris at Ground Zero.
If you are strongly opposed to this observation being included, please take this opportunity to make your views heard - but please provide clear reasoning backed by credible references, and please No Personal Attacks.
On the other hand, if you agree that Molten Metal has met the test required for inclusion, this is the time to speak up. Which references should be included? What specific wording would you suggest? I really do want to keep this civil, but it is time for Molten Metal to go into this article.
Remember, reason will always beat ignorance, no matter what. Digiterata 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Then you have already lost.--MONGO 06:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"You are taking tidbids (REAMS OF MUTUALLY-COMPATIBLE EVIDENCE) and trying to make a mountain out of them (SEE MOUNTAIN-OF-MOLTEN-METAL THERMAL MIGRATION MAP - GeoNews, October, 2001 op.cit.)...this is typical conspiracy theory (SEE "ATTACK HELD TO BE A CONSPIRACY" - LA Times, 911)cruft nonsense tactics (see APPEAL TO RIDICULE) to try and weasel the bullshit (see POTTY-MOUTHED WEASEL) about controlled demolition in the article (see "FIVE MEN DETAINED AS SUSPECTED CONSPIRATORS", Bergen Record, Paulo Lima, 912). Did you not see the word it is again...NO.--MONGO 20:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)" (see "MONGOPEDIA RULES! WOO HOO!")

1 - Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service May 29, 2002 [...] When [Joe] O'Toole signed on for trade center duty in January, he thought it would be a 30-day assignment. But after one month, he volunteered for another. And another. And another. And another. [...] Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was DRIPPING FROM THE MOLTEN STEEL," he said. -cache

2 [...] A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, [Ron] Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, SEEING THE MOLTEN STEEL, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster," he said. "It could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano." Ground Zero was a disaster site like no other—with hazards everywhere. Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering RED HOT METAL BEAMS excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses.

3 Ironworkers' Job of Clearing Ground Zero Is Over, but the Trauma Lingers By COREY KILGANNON November 11, 2002 [...] The four men sat on a sunny sidewalk in Greenwich Village on a recent workday and ate their lunch staring at the steel skeleton of a building going up on West Third Street. One of them commented on how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris.

4 Reflections in the Wake of September 11: Visit to Ground Zero, New York City by Father Edward A. Malloy, CSC [...] Eddie and I walked down into the depths of the South Tower, Building Two, which was the first to collapse. Large front end loaders were engaged in their task. Gigantic cranes were lifting pieces of steel weighing tons, some of which were being placed on the back of semi trucks. Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that WHEN STEEL IS BROUGHT UP IT IS MOLTEN and takes two or three days to cool down.

5 RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was RED-HOT, MOLTEN, RUNNING. PBS, September 2002

6 TWO WEEKS AT GROUND ZERO By Guy Lounsbury [...] My particular part was to help maintain security in and around the perimeter of the site. [...] Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains.

7 At Ground Zero NIH'ers Respond to Tragedy in NYC By Rich McManus Photos by Van Hubbard, Susan Orsega, Rich McManus [...] Ed Pfister's Diary: [...] I spent several hours tonight, walking "the pile" and attempting to soak it all in for the last time and find a bit of closure...deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and BOILED WITH MOLTEN MATERIAL. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above.

8 Reluctant hero narrates horror of N.Y. mission September 11, 2002 [...] Interim Bryan Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho was one of those sent to "ground zero," as the World Trade Center site quickly became known. [...] Here is Donoho’s story, as told to Eagle staff writer John LeBas: [...] What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MOLTEN STEEL and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like A MASSIVE MOLTEN MESS THAT HAD BEEN FUSED TOGETHER, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A LOT of what we were walking on was JUST MOLTEN STEEL.

9 MAGIC@GROUND ZERO by Ben Robinson edited by David Groves October 17, 2001 On October 4, I was called to do an indoor street performance by the New York City police department. [...]One cop wore an ill-fitting pair of sweat pants and a Grateful Dead T shirt. His "house shoes" would have been rejected by Phyllis Diller. Turns out, after someone works at Ground Zero, their clothes are trashed, and they put on these interim clothes that are piling up in donations. The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. And, I'm working for these brave souls

10 It is 4 a.m. in New York City as four researchers from the School enter the site of the World Trade Center disaster on foot. Each is lugging from 50 to 90 pounds of air-monitoring equipment onto Ground Zero. In the dark, the tangled pile of wreckage takes on a distinctly hellish cast. "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." John Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall 2001 Magazine

11 They came to help at Ground Zero. What they experienced they can't forget By Marci McDonald [...] Lee Turner, a bewhiskered paramedic, leads a tour with a mix of pride and disdain. For six years, he helped build it, corralling old culvert pipe, rusted refrigerators, and even a wrecked school bus. For six years, he and 185 other members of a federal urban search and rescue squad known as Missouri Task Force 1 (MO-TF1) had trained on it, unpaid, waiting for the call to be deployed. [...] In the predawn darkness of September 12, barely 18 hours after MO-TF1 got the order for its first deployment, he jumped off an Army truck at the World Trade Center site and stared at a smoldering rubblescape that stretched as far as he could see. "There was nothing but acre after acre of twisted steel and this sticky white dust," he recalls. "We'd never seen anything like it." [...] Turner himself crawled through an opening and down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground. He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–MOLTEN METAL DRIPPING from a beam–but found no signs of life. usnews

12 Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed area requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are STILL RED-HOT MORE THAN 7 WEEKS AFTER the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F. (app. 1.4meg - includes photo of red-hot beam) 12:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the above references smaller because, lacking commentary, the point seems to be that there is a volume of text on the internet about molten debris at the cleanup site. So the text is still there but now people interested in the dialogue going on at this page don't have to wade through it if they want to get to actual comments. Btw, the article I linked to before also explains the amount of energy involved in the collapse of a building like the WTC, enough energy to melt steel. It's actually a really great site -- if you note the navbar on the left, the site prettymuch addresses every conspiracy angle that's come out of this tragedy, with Steven Jones getting his own page. JDoorjam Talk 14:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The webstite by Schneibster that you refer to proposes a whacky and unofficial gravity pylon driver meltdown theory that doesn't work, and another whacky rubble-foundry explanation exploiting a fantastical 13psf per-floor in combustibles - THREE TIMES NISTs OFFICIAL PER-FLOOR COMBUSSTILBE FUEL LOAD ESTIMATE! The author of the already debunked webpage refuses to acknowlege the official figure. I hope you don't suffer from the same blindsight: "From the floor plans and the combustibility data, it was estimated that the fuel load in the WTC tenant spaces was approximately 20 kg/sq m (4 lb/sq ft). Source: Futhermore, you failed to explain why the molten metal should not be included in the article HERE: instead, you produced an irrelevant distraction. 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to include Molten Metal

Text under review: The Collapse

Below is a block of text from the 9/11 Article for review. I was hoping to include a line or two referencing Molton Metal, but it may be more appropriate to re-write. Thoughts? Digiterata 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been much speculation on the performance of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the 
reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and
relevant U.S. government agencies. The design of the WTC included many basic innovations
distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since[citation needed]. Although 
the kinetic energy of the jetliner impacts and the resulting fires were unprecedented in the history
of building disasters, some engineers strongly believe skyscrapers of more traditional design (such 
as New York City's Empire State Building and Malaysia's Petronas Towers) would have fared much
better under the circumstances, perhaps standing indefinitely. If they are correct, exceptionally 
tall buildings that share the WTC's major design elements (for example, Chicago's Sears Tower and
John Hancock Center) could be considered particularly vulnerable[citation needed].
7 World Trade Center collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11. (See [[7 World Trade
Center#The Collapse|7 World Trade Center]] for more details).

Regarding, "The design of the WTC included many basic innovations distinguishing it from all previous skyscrapers and from many built since[citation needed]", could someone please explain what this means and provide a citation? I don't understand.

Regarding the last two sentences beginning with, "Although the kinetic energy.." and "If they are correct.." again we need some citations here supporting these claims. Otherwise we may need to re-write. Suggestions? Digiterata 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading this passage, it came to my attention that it might make sense to begin with the factual details of the collapse. Specifically:

9/11 Chronology of Events: WTC Complex (All times are EDT)
8:45 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
9:03 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 crashes into the south tower of the World Trade Center. 
10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. 
A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.
10:28 a.m.: The north tower of the World Trade Center collapses from the top down 
as if it were being peeled apart, releasing a tremendous cloud of debris and smoke.
4:10 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex is reported on fire.
5:20 p.m.: Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex collapses. 
The evacuated building is damaged when the twin towers across the street collapse earlier in the
day. Other nearby buildings in the area remain ablaze.

Suggested Text - Feel free to be bold and make changes or suggestions here:

Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of
the attack. The south tower (WTC 2) fell at approximately 10:05am, after burning for 58 minutes
in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03am. The north tower (WTC 1) fell
at 10:28am, after burning approximately 103 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of American
Airlines Flight 11 at 8:45am. A third building (WTC 7) also collapsed at 5:30pm, after burning for
at least 70 minutes and being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers a short distance away.
There has been much speculation on the performance of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the 
reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects, and
relevant U.S. government agencies. 

Here is a start, please speak up! Would like to know if this passage is acceptable so far? Digiterata 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to include the above text in the article under 'Collapse of the World Trade Center'

Please respond here if you would like to comment on this inclusion. Digiterata 22:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now for the meat, are there any suggestions for appropriate wording referencing Molten Metal? Feedback Please Digiterata 23:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Molten Metal: Ongoing Discussion

Per discussion above, this is a placeholder to gather the thoughts of the community of contributors and readers of the 9/11 Talk page on the subject of including reference to Molten Metal found in the debris of ground zero after the attacks of 9/11. Please Be Bold! and share your thoughts. Peace. Digiterata 00:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something in this discussion? Molten metal implies fire, not explosives -- verified, it's pretty much the nail in the coffin of the demolition hoax. Peter Grey 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing something in this discussion. MONGO, DCAnderson, TomHarrison, and others deny the existence of molten metal. Molten Metal is, however, well documented by multiple mainstream sources. If you think that Molten Metal disproves the demoltion theory, you should convince MONGO and co. of that, then they will let it in, and we'll all be happy. Or, I could save you time and point out that you are being absurd. Steel melts at around 2800 F, far above what can be produced in an office fire. Psssst, Peter, just between you and me, they're trying to keep molten metal out of the articles because it is proof of incindiaries.

But hey, Peter, if you want to join us and put molten metal in the article, for whatever reason, welcome to the pro-science camp!

TruthSeeker1234 00:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are other metals besides steel. And there are other substances besides metals which melt. The black body radiation pretty well conclusively says that whatever we saw, it wasn't hot enough to be liquid steel. Or is the new theory that a whole new group of bad guys planted incendiary bombs in the building planning to ruin, but not collapse, it by fire, and the demolition people accidentally set them off when they used their explosives, which was lucky for them because the explosives turned out not to be powerful enough to cause any structural damage? Peter Grey 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I'm sorry, but are you trying to sound nonsensical? First off, we're not trying to foist any particular theory of "who did it". We're trying to include mention of the molten metal which is observed, photographed, videotaped, and confirmed in numerous mainstream sources.

The yellow-to-white-hot stuff looks very much like liquid iron or steel, molten aluminum is silvery grey. Yellow-to-white hot is plenty hot enough to be steel or iron. If you have other ideas about what it could be, speak up.

If you are interested in the theory, it would be this: Thermate was used to cut through steel columns at various key points, then high explosives were triggered in sequence, completing the collapse. All of the available evidence is consistent with this scenario. If you have evidence which contradicts this scenario, please bring it.TruthSeeker1234 03:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Right..... So, who was bailing it out the window? Peter Grey 04:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on Peter, try harder. Such vacuous retorts embolden us. TruthSeeker1234 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused, TruthSeeker, as you say above that the molten metal was likely not molten aluminum, but the NIST report which you quote explicitly says that the molten material is most likely aluminum. How do you reconcile those things? Are you saying that the NIST report is inaccurate in its analysis of the metal? But is accurate for the purposes you've quoted? JDoorjam Talk 05:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No confusion needed. The NIST is lying. Remember, the executive branch of the U.S. Federal government is the prime suspect in the alternative theory. It's like asking John Gatti to report on the Mafia. I have stated many times that the NIST is not a reliable source for the collapse of the WTC buildings, because they admit in plain English that they did not study the collapses, only the events leading up to the collapses. FEMA is not reliable because they destroyed the freaking evidence, and are not an investigative agency anyway.

But that's me. Wikipedia is another matter. Consensus here is that NIST and FEMA are reliable sources. So I use them. Now, my conscience forces me to point out falsehoods when I see them. The molten metal cannot be aluminum, because it's the wrong color. It's like the 9/11 commission report, which says that the core of each tower was "a hollow steel shaft". It's just a lie. I don't like lies, because I am a truthseeker.TruthSeeker1234 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So, on the one hand we're not trying to foist any particular theory of "who did it" and on the other hand the executive branch of the U.S. Federal government is the prime suspect, but we can never know given that FEMA is not reliable because they destroyed the freaking evidence. And still no evidence, just people's fears. Peter Grey 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct Peter. As far as the articles go, we're just trying to get verifiable facts in, not the "whodunnit". The rest of the stuff was in response to your questions, which I answered. I have made my views known in the interest of full disclosure, and drawn a clear distinction between what I think (NIST/FEMA are liars when it suits them) and what the consensus of WP editors think (NIST/FEMA is unquestioned gospel).

Despite best efforts at destruction of all evidence, enough hard evidence survives to raise very serious doubts about the entire official story. Yet all the physical evidence is perfectly consistent with controlled demolition. Peter, can you please list one observation which is inconsistent with controlled demoltion? Thank You.TruthSeeker1234 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that any report by the Executive branch is inherentely untrustworthy? And what is your source for the aluminum thing? Finally, can you provide a page number in the 9/11 commission report that says the core of each tower is a "hollow steel shaft"? I think you may have misinterpreted a statement about the structure of the towers, and would appreciate a reference to what you read to clear that up. JDoorjam Talk 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building.The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped." [21]. See [22] for amusement.

To understand why the stuff coming out of WTC2 cannot be aluminum, you have to have your thinking hat on. Aluminum melts at about 1220 F. This is dull red-hot, but because of its reflectivity, tends to retain its silver appearance. See [23] In a container, you can heat aluminum up to orange (1725F), even yellow hot. See [24]. You would need a container to do this. If you had a pile of aluminum airplane parts and a hot enough fire, the aluminum would melt when it reached about 1220F, then it would flow away from the heat, long before it was anywhere close to yellow hot.

Aluminum is highly reflective, with low emmissivity, so in daylight it tends to retain its silver color, regardless of the color of light being emmitted.

For these reasons it is highly unlikely that the stuff coming out of the south tower is aluminum.

TruthSeeker1234 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

None of your nonsense is going into this article, so you are wasting your time. We wouldn't put it in here anyway as this article is about the attacks and less so about the collapse...there is a subarticle for the collapse you know. I would argue about your nonsense there so we can again tell you there that your nonsense isn't going in the article.--MONGO 18:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean MONGO? [User:TruthSeeker1234|TruthSeeker1234]] 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

TruthSeeker, above you requested observations that go against the controlled demolition theory. This analysis has a nice explanation of problems with the thermite theory, and goes at length about the reasons why melted aluminum does make sense. Please let me know what you think of the analysis there. JDoorjam Talk 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a blog post on why molten steel is false and molten aluminum is true; it features a Thomas Eagar quote and some analysis, ideal for those with time constraints. However, JDorrjam's external link, an excellent site, is what you need to look at if you want arguments against thermite that my brief post doesn't feature. -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 02:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's take this over to the Collapse of the World Trade CenterTruthSeeker1234 04:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

A-hahahahaha...well, I love the link provided by appropriate...but you see, the conspiracy theorists don't want to read that might upset their insensibilities. I loved especially the wood embers coming over the peak in Yosemite National Park...yes, wood embers...but no, it's in the national must be steel. I fought forest fires for some time as an employee of the National Park Service...I saw a steel vehicle metal...even parts of the engine block me, you don't need a smelter to melt steel...I've seen it. You see, these conspiracy theorist don't want to listen to reason..their minds are already made up and all they intend to do is troll here. I'm done with this trolling nonsense. I will use the powers vested in me by concensus to block disruptive editors that continue to fill this talk page up with their nonsense. I'll block them and end this charade.--MONGO 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss that "debunking" site provided by doorjam. TruthSeeker1234 06:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"but the NIST report which you quote explicitly says that the molten material is most likely aluminum." - - Correct! This is the NIST explanation for the documented pre-collapse molten explananda; that is part of the official collapse NISTory. The language in the report switches frequently and interchangeable from "possibly aluminum" to "probably aluminum" and to "the aluminum" when describing the composition of the cascade. If you prefer that relatively viscous bright-yellow radiant cascade to be described as "most likely aluminum" in the article, just do it. Make our day! 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC) addendum:

molten metals viscosity for dummies: 13:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, just as a word of advice, you really do lose a lot of credibility when you claim that NIST is composed entirely of individuals willing to lie to cover for the President of the United States' murder conspiracy, especially when you use words like "NISTory" and "explananda." It makes you sound a little kooky. I'm not sure what your point is about the language "interchangeability" in the report; it looks pretty consistent. Clearly they believe it to be aluminum, but "the most-likely-aluminum" is a sort of bulky phrase, and so having established they believe the substance to be aluminum, they just used "aluminum" instead... I'm not sure what you're saying the big deal is with that. What are your thoughts on the pooling theories offered at that site, that the floors were anything but flat and so aluminum would have a chance to pool, heat, and spill out the window? JDoorjam Talk 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I must say that you lost even the chimera of credibility, in my mind, when you attacked a strawman of your own fabrication regarding the composition of NIST, and then went on to demonstrate your ignorance of the meaning of the word "explanada." Do you have anything to say about the viscosity of molten aluminum? Do you have anything to say about the inclusion of pre and post collapse molten metal in the main article? I am not particularly interested in discussing your personal theories or anecdotes, or even NISTs official explanation of molten metal explananda (a phenomena that requires explaining): I am simply interested in having the documented evidence included, rather than supressed, ridiculed, and trivialized by unscientific goons. Read the report instead of pretending that you did. 15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Strawman of your own fabrication? Look at Truthseeker's posts. Either NIST is an authority or it's not. Which is it?
So, pray tell, what does explanada mean? I looked it up in OED, too. Nada. Perhaps you meant explanandum?. Btw, using SAT words you dug out of a dictonary doesn't make you sound smarter, it makes you sound like a tool. --Mmx1 15:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit hostile, don't you think? Thank for you the explanation of "explananda"; I haven't heard it in common usage before. I also can't find it at or a Google definition search, so I do hope you'll forgive my ignorance. I don't have any molten metal "anecdotes" to tell, though that would be quite the cocktail-party conversation to be able to fall back on. My apologies about NIST; from your tone and method of argument -- the serial insertion numerous references which you contend back up your point -- I assumed you were simply TruthSeeker, not logged in. TS has said that NIST is inherently untrustworthy, which I simply can't agree with. "Unscientific goons" implies you have a science background? If so, especially a structural engineering background, could you comment on the link I provided in regards to the compacting of the building releasing enough energy to cause extreme heat in the debris pile? (You said you weren't a fan of "personal theories" but this one isn't mine.) If not, I assume you are simply an unscientific non-goon? And do you have any thoughts about the pooling of aluminum? JDoorjam Talk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a SAT word is - my dictionary lists SAT as the past tense of SIT. You sound like a potty-mouthed, ignorant, juvenile tool, MMX. I suppose a pissing contest by juveniles about the use of words is always better than discussing the ABUNDANCE OF MOLTEN evidence. Good "work", MMX. 16:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) addendum: thank you, doorjam, for your integrity. 16:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

"and then went on to demonstrate your ignorance of the meaning of the word "explanada." " - If you're going to insult people based on their knowledge or lack thereof of obscure might help to spell the word correctly. --Mmx1 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a typo - if you look carefully, you will see that JAMMER managed to look up the correct typing that I had deployed already. I see that pissing contests about words and typos, rather than THE ABUNDANCE OF MOLTEN METAL AND ITS INCLUSION IN THE MAIN ARTICLE, is your raison d'être, MMX. I also retract my hasty "thanks" to JAMMErR who is doing a fine job as a JAMMER, trying to goad people into discussions about his personal theory of molten metal INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple. The authoritative source, NIST, says it's aluminum. Everything else is your (false) original research about viscosity and is simply uncitable and unincludable. NIST is being precise in its statements. Without actual samples, it can't say definitively that it is aluminum, but reason indicates it to be the most likely possibility.
I don't think I'll convince you of that, nor do I want to waste my breath doing so. If you think the NIST fabricates stories....there's really no point in arguing in you. What I will do is have fun at your expense.
I assumed good faith and looked up "explananda" and "explanada", online and in OED (unfortunately it's a university resource so no open link) and found NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO (do you need a definition for those, too?). I even suggested the correct spelling "explanandum" along with the note that even using the correct spelling won't help if it's so obscure the majority of people don't understand it (along with a jab at your intentions in using such haughty language). Oh, and google would have quickly ascertained what SAT meant in this context; unlike the words you made up. If you were to take such an exam in the near future, as I'm sure you will, please work on your reading comprehension and diction as well. Neither of your "typing"s of the word explanadum were correct. --Mmx1 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, it's not my theory about the metal; it's in the NIST report and is also on other "conspiracy debunking" web sites. For the record, I haven't decided whether I believe it should or should not be in the article. Just because I'm talking doesn't mean I'm advocating anything for the moment. That's why I'm asking questions about the metal, about the rubble pile, etc. I'd like to come to a consensus on the matter, and before I can help with that, I need to know where I stand on the issue. So, yes, I am trying to "goad" people into conversation. We seem to forget it sometimes, but this is the discussion page. JDoorjam Talk 16:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to pretend that aluminum has a new property of low-viscosity when molten, I don't really care - it is not "new research", but a factual and intractable property of the element - - but I don't care if you wish to pretend, I really don't. ALL I CARE is that the FACT that an ABUNDANCE of MOLTEN METAL was CASCADING FROM THE TOWER prior to collapse, and AN EVEN MORE STAGGERING QUANTITY of MOLTEN METAL WAS OBSERVED, PHOTOGRAPHED, REPORTED AND THERMALLY MAPPED at GROUND ZERO. I don't care about the explanation for it - just stop HIDING IT FROM THE PEOPLE.

And if you want to block my IP, JAMMER, for using EXACTLY THE SAME ABUSIVE POTTY-MOUTHED TERMS that are apparently KOSHER FOR MMX to deploy at its leisure, then PLEASE GO AHEAD AND EXPOSE YOUR DOUBLE-STANDARDS TO THE AUDIENCE HERE. Don't send PRIVATE BEHIND-THE-SCENES THREATS. OKAY? Just DO IT - permanently. 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I warned both of you to keep a cool head, though your warning was more stern because your rhetoric was more vitriolic. This post is over the line. Per your request, you have been blocked. JDoorjam Talk 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what about the molten steel/iron observed, reported, documented, photographed at ground zero? Please, without the personal attacks, could anyone please explain why it should not go in the article? We have multiple mainstream sources.

TruthSeeker1234 18:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NO, AND YOU SUCK! Just kiddin'.  :-) I think the concern, or at least my concern, is that you and others want to mention molten metal in the article to use as a foothold to intimate that thermite was used to bring the building down. I would object to any language along those lines. In and of itself, I think the molten metal is a fascinating detail that brings into perspective just how volatile and horrifying the situation was, and is a powerful tool in visualizing what was going on that day. So long as we leave it at molten metal, I'd be ok with it. Tentatively, I would not object to two sentences being inserted into the article, one talking about the collapse of the building, along the lines of "a molten substance was seen pouring out the window; NIST asserts the substance was 'most likely molten aluminum' which pooled in the building before pouring out the side.[3]" and a second about the rubble pile, saying something like "even weeks after the collapse of the buildings, there were numerous reports of molten metal being uncovered during cleanup of the wreckage." Or something along those lines. I'd think both would need mainstream sources, like the NIST report for the first and major newspapers or reports for the second. (WTF?!??!?!? Compromise?!?) Let me know what you think. JDoorjam Talk 19:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
JDoorjam, what you suggest might be appropriate for Collapse of the World Trade Center. I don't think that level of detail belongs in this article. I also believe that this is just a lever to eventually include speculation that Silverstein and his minions did it, with a link to a DVD you can buy for 9.99 plus shipping that explains the whole scheme. I have the same concerns about including it at Collapse of the World Trade Center, as well as issues with due weight, original research, and the lack of secondary sources who have presented this as important, but that's a discussion for a different page, and one we've had a few times already.Tom Harrison Talk 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, which as I've said is a concern I certainly share. And you do raise a good point about reliable secondary sources not presenting the metal as important. OR is pretty easily overcome, but the other issues are certainly problematic, as you suggest. This is why I don't know where I land on this. TS, can you understand where we're coming from with this concern? Trying to say this as civilly as possible, it is important to me to keep "inside job" speculation out of the article, and this seems like it could possibly be a way to wedge that content in. I'm not trying to accuse you or anyone of anything here, but again, I do hope you can understand this concern. JDoorjam Talk 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be appropriate for Collapse of the World Trade Center, but it is not a suitable level of detail for this article. Peter Grey 23:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification Required: What is the test for inclusion?

I am unclear on a couple things here. The case for Molton Metal observations at the WTC site has met the test for verifiability with multiple references from reliable sources including both NIST and FEMA as well as numerous mainstream media accounts. But Molten Metal is to be excluded primarily because it "... could possibly be used {by the lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists} as a lever to eventually include speculation that ..." {Subtext Implied by editor}

By that same reasoning, I really ought to remove my earlier factual contribution to The Collapse section of this article [[25]]. Facts can be dangerous things For example the timeline may be used in future by lunatic conspiracy theorists, or possibly even ordinary rational truthseeking Wikipedians, as a wedge to point out the fact that by all accounts, with the exception of the Fuji Tower and the Archos Ricon, no modern steel reinforced building has EVER collapsed due to fire alone certainly not after burning for little more than an hour. We are still patiently waiting for verifiable confirmation of those from EngineerEd, Morton devonshire, MONGO and the rest of their allies on those or any other buildings which might have fallen in a Global Progressive Collapse,

Tom, Peter and co, please explain exactly what the test is for inclusion here? If I understand correctly, your primary opposition to the inclusion of MOLTEN METAL is that including it might possibly lead to facts that do not support the official account of events entering the article. And your primary rationale for that opposition is that allowing even a single fact that does not support the official account of events into this article, could possibly lead to others? We can meet your tests for Original Research, Secondary Sources, and even Due Weight - but there are certain facts that do meet the test for inclusion which can never meet the test for agreeing with the official account I hope everyone on this page understands the difference and what it means for Wikipedia.

Please clarify this for me as I'm starting to believe my contributions aren't welcome here [26]. Maybe Wikipedia would be better off if we went back to this version [27] which is nice and vague and won't risk raising too many questions. Digiterata 01:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)'

It is "molten aluminum" as the definitive authority and primary citation, NIST, states. You cannot deliberately hide it under "molten metal" to redirect it to something which the report does not states, namely your molten steel hypothesis. Nevertheless, as Peter Grey points out, it is an appropriate matter for the Collapse of the World Trade Centers article, not the general article, and its placement in the latter is out of scope and suspiciously so. --Mmx1 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"Molten Metal" was used to reflect the fact that multiple eyewhitnesses observed liquid metal. If you would like to add a sentence explaining that NIST performed an analysis of the Molten Metal after the fact and determined that it was most likely aluminum, that would be fine by me. The point here is that NIST does acknowledge that there was Molten Metal observed at the WTC.
Again, can someone please clarify, Exactly what is the test for inclusion to this article? Digiterata 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you know that in addition to ALL CAPS you can use COLOR? You could even choose the color to match Truthseeker's photoshop-based spectrographic analysis. Maybe you could even whomp up an animated gif, with a rivet motif and a teeny thermite grenade that would pop and then cascade down the screen. Of course like original research, that would probably go better on a blog. Tom Harrison Talk 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Tom I kind of expected more from you than that. If you are going to exclude all reference to Molten Metal from the main article, please at least have the courtesy to answer my question and explain your reasoning. If the principles of Wikipedia stand for anything on this page, you at least owe us that. What is the test for inclusion to this article, please? Digiterata 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Undecided what purpose it serves in this would be better, if anywhere, if in the subarticle on the actual collapse. It has nothing to do with the attacks per se...I previously linked the website that discussed GPC and I had nothing to do with anything stating that other buildings had acted this way, but the link I provided earlier discussed what the content was. I see you mention that no building had ever collapsed due to fire alone...what part about wide body jets slamming into the buildings did you miss?--MONGO 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better answer? Ideally something based on Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines? [[28]] Digiterata 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Reliable sources? Due weight? Original research? Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple Digiterata. What goes in is anything that is relevant, interesting, and backed by a reputable source. What is a reputable source? Why, it's whatever TomHarrison and MONGO say it is. In this case, they say it is anything which supports the official version of events. What if there are conflicting data from reputable sources? Then we must rely on the undue weight clause. Which items are excluded under the undue weight clause? Why, it's whatever MONGO and TomHarrison say. What about NPOV? Forget NPOV. NPOV is not important here in this article. We must NOT use the neutral point of view, because that would violate the undue weight clause, and might mention unreputable sources. Just ask Tom Harrison and MONGO.

Want to test the theory? I'm game Digiterata. Put some facts in the article . I'll back you, and so will other truthseekers. Eventually MONGO and co. will block us, but I think it is important that we try. Ethics and the scientific method demand it. -TruthSeeker1234 07:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What scientific method? That's the problem with the Scholars/Truth Movement, they don't employ scientific methods in their analysis. And yes, Tom Harrison and MONGO get to decide whether things added to an article are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR -- that's what Admins are for, to render opinions based upon Wikipedia policy. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

I'm sorry to have to be an asshole, but the debate is over. You conspircay theorists, in all honesty, simply don't know what you are talking about. Morton is correct, the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth" do not emply the scientific method. Let me explain what the scientific method means. Scientific method means that qualified professionals, such as me, explain the situation to unqualified ameteurs. That is why we have journals. We explain it, you listen.

9/11 has been studied, and studied, and studied again. This was almost 5 years ago. Please, in honor of the victims, stop this madness, stop supporting the terrorists. Grow up, get a life, and allow this article to be finished. You have a page called "9/11 conspiracy theories". Go nuts there. Please stop dishonoring the dead. They deserve better. EngineerEd 03:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Welcome Back! I appreciate your educating us here on the scientific method: qualified professionals, such as you, explaining the situation to unqualified amateurs - such as us. Very enlightening. Ed, since you are back I was wondering if you could, as a qualified professional, explain to us lay persons what global progressive collapse is all about? I'm still quite confused. Perhaps the scientific method could be of assistance?
By the way Ed, you're glorious return to this page has inspired me to continue to contribute on this page. I'm pretty busy at the moment - work, move, life, etc - but promise not to give up until this article resembles something passably NPOV. As a proud Wikipedian, I wouldn't respect myself if I left this injustice uncorrected. Cheers for Ed the Engineer! Curious what would turn up if we checked for sockpuppet status? Digiterata 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

another wiki

Hey, guys why dont you go and waste this wiki: [29]. Im sure youll agree it reads like something i would write... --Striver 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


The disputed tag is being added to the article to reflect how this is one of the top controversial articles in Wikipedia. Elfguy 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. I see no point in applying the tag permanently to all controversial pages. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
There does need to be some notice on the page to refute the baldfaced assertion that the events of September 11, 2001 were of a terrorist nature. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this is simply not true. -- 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Your denial of the terrorist nature of the 9/11 attacks leaves little room for doubt that you've committed intellectual suicide. -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you can find this evidence here: 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's even a link from this page! How convenient! --Mmx1 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't even go into the inadequacies of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article - it is missing loads of important information. More to the point is that the "official story" is given top billing in this, the official article, in spite of serious doubts that the "terrorist plot" was perpetrated by the "terrorists" balmed in the article. There needs to be some prominent note at the top of this article addressing the controversy. -- 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem, there is no SERIOUS DOUBT, if the doubters were SERIOUS, then they would present SERIOUS scientific analysis, not hacked-together criticism by non-notable non-experts with degrees in Theology and expertise as Software Engineers. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo

Excluding the conspiracy theory fairy tales, which are not in good faith, there does not seem to be any genuine dispute of the content of the article. Peter Grey 23:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The official stories are conspiracy theories. Which fairy tales are you talking about? That Hani Honjour and his co-conspirators somehow boarded a jet with no tickets, overwhelmed the pilots, somehow navigated all the way from Ohio to the Pentagon, somehow entered the code to turn the transponder off, somehow avoided air defenses, somehow made the 270 degree downward spiral, (thus avoiding the easy approach where the top brass had offices), and executed the tree-top approach at full speed, somehow defeating ground effect, and crashed at ground level into the only part of the building that was mostly evacuated and heavily reinforced?

Hani Hanjour was the only one initially reported as having no ticket. Hanjour probably made the 270 degree turn because he was navigating by landmarks, as you would notice if you took a look at the final flight path. How was he supposed to know where the top brass were or that the area he hit was reinforced? The hijackers had knives and mace and had taken martial arts and weightlifting. He had the requisite skills (see also 9/11 Commission Chapter 7 note #170). Other aircraft with nonfunctioning transponders have flown over the Pentagon to the nearby Ronald Reagan International Airport, and flights go by the Pentagon daily. The last time missile batteries were used at the Pentagon prior to 9/11 was in the early 1960s. There's plenty of literature on the USAF response which is beyond the scope of this brief reply. -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 03:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Or which fairy tales?

Like a gravitational collapse somehow contains enough energy to pulverize a building into pyroclastic clouds of dust?

Or which ones? Clarify please.

TruthSeeker1234 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as an example, that the collapse of a building could be deliberately caused by some improbable heat source smuggled into a building with thousands of people that melted some unknown substance that a) is not hot enough to be steel, and b) was not located near any structural component. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
enough energy to pulverize a building into pyroclastic clouds of dust Well, obviously. But feel free to share your calculation of the potential engery of the tower and how much you think the energy shortfall is. Peter Grey 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter, controlled demolitions have occurred many time, entire companies specialize in them. To characterize this as improbable is disingenous. It is backwards. Controlled demolition has a distinct scientific advantage over any other explanation, because they have actually occured, and are well understood. All other explanations require new theories, new science.

Here are two nice papers with the some of the energy calculations

[30] and [31]TruthSeeker1234 07:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything not on Something from a more neutral party, or published in a major scientific journal or something? I'm not trying to be argumentative; I just personally don't trust as a good neutral source on these things. JDoorjam Talk 14:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to look at anyone's energy calculations about the dust clouds or whatever. Where are they? Also, just so ya know, I don't consider al Qa'ida to be a "neutral" source. They are a suspect in this whole deal. But so are top officials in the Bush administration. We don't trust government sources to be "neutral". Any scientists out there NOT on the government payroll? Not too many.TruthSeeker1234 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Secret demolition has not ocurred many times - catastrophic failure without demolition has. All other explanations require new theories, new science. Wrong - engineers all understand it fine. (Unlike and their theory that 100% of the concrete and 0% of other construction materials caused the dust cloud.) Peter Grey 23:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give me a link to a catastrophic failure which resembles 9/11 in any of the important respects - sudden onset, symmetry, collapse times, pulverization, squibs, horizontal ejection, pyroclastic flows, bright flashes, molten metal, eyewitness reports of explosions. Thanks. Here's a promise. If you can show me a natural collapse that comes anywhere close to resembling 9/11, I will stop editing all 9/11 articles forever. TruthSeeker1234 00:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Every catastrophic failure, by definition, featured sudden onset. Peter Grey 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
There wasn't any molten steel at the WTC but there was molten aluminum. In examples I've previously cited, the buildings weren't hit by planes so they didn't have that molten aluminum. Sounds of explosions have numerous explanations that are much more plausible than bombs. The sounds could be high-voltage electrical gear/transformers, steel bolts, immense concrete floors slamming onto each other, rivets, bodies landing on cars, etc. There were no demolition squibs; the fact that it is smoke & debris puffs is evident from the fact that they appear after the collapse begins and only after lots of movement and sagging; look at the collapse frame by frame and you will see that windows are breaking as a natural result of the collapse. When the towers were collapsing, they created excessive pressure on each floor and blew out objects on the floors. Again, the Twin Towers collapsed at least 63% slower than freefalls which in my book is not "near" free-fall speed. L'Ambiance wasn't hit by a jet. The collapse, even though it took place during construction, shows that when such a building can't support a given load it will undergo progressive collapse. Just remember that historically, no other buildings have been hit by 500+ mph fuel-loaded passenger jets and had their trusses' fire-proofing blown off, much less had later load-bearing steel beams sheared off and vertical load-bearing core columns severed by jets. In WTC 7 there was a 20 story gash and the bottom floor fires raged for 6 or 7 hours and had these weakened floors supporting 40+ stories, and the steel wasn't reinforced by concrete, unlike the Madrid Windsor building. No more simplistic statements that the buildings collapsed by "fire" because there were many other factors which were historical firsts. You can't expect other buildings with different designs to perform the same as the WTC towers. Firefighters and others worried that One Meridian Plaza would do a pancake collapse. McCormick Plaza shows that steel structures can collapse because of fire alone. The partial collapse of Ronan Point is another example of a progressive collapse and had engineers worry about progressive collapse. Gravitational collapse is a perfectly adequate explanation of the pulverized concrete. Keep in mind that less than 1/3 of the dust was made up of concrete, and that most of the dust particles were bigger than 60 microns, with up to a 5th exceeding 300 microns in size. Hoffman's calculations involve numerous flawed assumptions. The alleged energy deficit is removed if the relative humidity of the clouds' contents was slightly above 2%. Wind, etc. also contribute to the clouds' expansion, not simply heat. Heat was added from office contents, the jet impacts, the burning fuel, etc. How much of the concrete was turned into dust, anyway? The cores were destroyed by the grinding force of the massive collapsing buildings, and lacked diagonal bracing which would've given them lateral strength. -- Huysmantalk| contribsNonFreeImageRemoved.svg 01:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is a longwinded way of admitting that nothing in history remotely resembles what happened on 9/11, except all of the controlled demoltions, which for some strange reason are very much like what happened on 9/11.

Huysman starts out by stating there was no molten steel at the WTC, but there are photographs and multiple published reports of molten steel, as we've been though a dozen times. The stuff in the photo cannot be aluminum, because aluminum would be a runny liquid. And he goes from there.

I ask everyone now to look at this picture [32] and answer this question for me: The collapse is about half-over, and it appears that most of the material from above has been converted to dust, and has been ejected outside the footprint. At the point in time this photo was taken, where is the mass pushing down on the intact, undamaged structure?

And what is the explanation for the dust which is going upwards?

TruthSeeker1234 04:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dust gnomes, duuuuhhh. While I was trying to find a less non-sensical answer to your question, I found this delightful non-sequitur: an analysis of WTC dust. It's by a private contractor and not the government, so you know it's not just another Federal 9/11 dust analysis cover-up. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The so-called intact, undamaged structure had already received an impact loading at that point and was already failing, plus most of the material was not converted and was merely behind the dust cloud. (Remember a dust cloud is mostly air.) Peter Grey 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I put this tag up, I go away for 1 day, come back to a 3 pages hot debate about everything from the intro, the word 'terrorist', the article itself and a bunch of different issues. Wow. The tag DISPUTED stays. Elfguy 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because the same proposals get brought up time and time again and fail to reach consensus does not justify a dispute tag. --Mmx1 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the very fact that they do means that the tag is appropriate. Elfguy 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just because there are people who think Evolution is false and repeatedly insist on editing the article to reflect their views does not mean the edits will meet consensus or that the article deserves a dispute tag; in fact it's pretty clear that the "disputes" are the same old ones that have, are, and will fail to meet consensus. --Mmx1 17:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is in compliance with Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NOR, WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a free-for-all. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
As I've said before, it's not at all the same thing. Here we're dealing with actual scientific reports, things that are physically improbable, and many people having a problem with this story being presented as 'the truth' and the rest as 'insane conspiracy crackhead stuff', which is exactly the way this article is written and is very obviously being done on purpose by the 4-5 regulars here. In fact even Evolution has more space about opposing views, called 'controversy' not a demeaning term, and only some religious people have spoken against it, but most importantly no fact contraticts it, unlike here. Elfguy 17:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The defining characteristic of the "dispute" here is that a hypothetical conspiracy is frequently invoked when errors of fact are pointed out in the conspiracy theory narratives. There are no good-faith disputes with this article. Peter Grey 04:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of listening to your crap about bad faith. Go ahead and tell me my argument about undue weight was done in bad faith. SkeenaR 16:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There are a lot of different 'alternative theories'. Many have issues with them, but the very reason they exist is that there are so many issues with the official story. That alone means there is a dispute. The facts as presented in the article are said to not be accurate by various people here, organizations, various papers, videos, movies, media sources and foreign governments. That's what the tag is for. Elfguy 16:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That's why we provide space for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, along with a brief summary and link here. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -Aude (talk contribs) 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of fatalities for Flight 93 is incorrect

The table lists 45 fatalities for flight 93 (including passengers and hijackers), but the Flight 93 page puts the number at 44. One of these is incorrect.

Terrorist inflation

What's happened to this article? The last time I saw it it looked something like this [33], and the word terrorism was avoided because it's clearly a loaded term. Now we have it smattered all around the intro like some sort of propaganda campaign. I mean, honestly, "Approximately 3,000 people died in these terrorist attacks." ? You may as well say "Approximately 3,000 people died in these evil attacks by cruel-hearted, Jesus-hating Islamic boogeymen." The word is just plastered all around needlessly. I thought a long time ago people on this talk page showed significant disagreement as to its usage and decided it should only be applied by 3rd party sources, rather than by flatly defining it as terrorism. Do we lose anything by removing the word "terrorist" in the intro? Can't we just say that 3,000 people died in the attacks, or that they were coordinated attacks? I don't take issue with saying that popular media reported the acts as terrorism, but using it like we do here is POV. Sarge Baldy 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comment. The actions of those that committed the attacks on 9/11 are best descriped as other term more accurately describes the actions. It's only a loaded term to those that have some crazy notions of what right and wrong are all about.--MONGO 02:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Attacks doesn't describe the actions? Flying planes into a building doesn't describe the actions? Terrorism doesn't describe anything, it's just a very subjective adjective tacked on so people can dismiss the motivations of the attackers entirely. It's like saying "violent attacks" instead of simply "attacks", you're not really adding anything except a negative connotation. All you're adding is a POV. Sarge Baldy 02:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
ummm...have a look..see what the UN feels are proper definitions: We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism. [34]--MONGO 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Another--MONGO 02:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And by that definition the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a very obvious example of terrorism. But we don't start that article out by calling those bombings terrorist attacks. If nothing else we need to be consistent in our use of the term. (And obviously the UN is taking a particular moral stance in that line, where Wikipedia is about maintaining a NPOV.) Sarge Baldy 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Then add that nonsense POV to those articles...this one is about the events of 9/11. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are acts of terrorism?...are they acts done in peacetime? If you knew anything about the events that led to the decisions to use atomic weapons on Japan the evidence would definitely indicate that lives were spared overall...not lost...and countries fight wars to win, not lose. The UN is taking a stance to define what the term means...they are oftentimes way to the left of where the U.S. stance is.--MONGO 03:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I know very well what was going on with Japan. They were on the brink of surrender, and would have much sooner if we hadn't demanded for absolute surrender. Then we decided it was time we test our newest toys on some yellow people. As you've just shown, the UN doesn't even have a specific definition of its own. And most definitions of terrorism aren't limited to "peace time". Even if they were, Al Qaeda HAD declared war on the United States. So arguably it wasn't a time of peace, and 9/11 was no more terrorism than US military forces shelling the homes of Iraqi civilians. Sarge Baldy 03:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sure...they were grabbing every pitchfork they could long as the Emperor said war, they were going to war. The war became more horrendus the closer we got to the mainland...connect the dots. Beware of revisionist historians.--MONGO 03:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think changes to Hiroshima are in order, be bold and make them, but I think terrorist is the right word for this page. It's not neutrality to pretend that one man's terrorist is another man's freedon-fighter. You seem to suggest in your comment above that anyone who would call these people terrorists would call them Jesus-hating Muslims. Are you implying that those who disagree with you are driven by some kind of religious bias, rather than by a desire for truthful presentation? Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just concerned "terrorist" is being used as a moralistic dismissal. For instance, you could say "The violent bombing killed 33 people" or you can say "The bombing killed 33 people". Both might be correct, but the first one is working from a certain moralistic vantage point. I think the overuse of the word "terrorist" here suggests it is taking a certain moral vantage point, and that it constitutes a POV. I think that users can fill in their own moral descriptions, without us needing to provide them. I think it's our job to describe rather than inscribe subjective terminology. Sarge Baldy 03:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that "terrorist" does belong in the article, and is rightly in the first sentence; I was bold and removed it from the last sentence of the intro, however, because it was a bit redundant there and made the readability a little weird. JDoorjam Talk 03:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Terrorism is perfectly applicable and appropriate term to use here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that it is not "applicable", the problem is to have an article that has a much more neutral point of view end avoid moralistic connotations of the facts.--Pokipsy76 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with using 'terrorist' here since it may be argued that's what it was. But I'd just like to point out that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a much better written article, that does use the term State terrorism in the opposition part, and does give several pages to the supporters and similar to the opponents. You might want to learn from reading it on what makes a good, balanced article. Elfguy 18:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • In the interests of maintaining NPOV, I have removed one reference to "terrorist" attacks, and changed "terrorists" to "hijackers" where that was more appropriate. All remaining uses of the term "terror" appear to be acceptable. -- 06:56, 22 June 2006 (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? [35], [36]
There is no section about advance knowledge? Which is unbelievable to say the least… Why is there no mention of warnings, memos, put options..?[37]
There is no section about torture of the alleged hijackers and other suspects, not a word about criminal destruction of related tapes [38] 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? [4] [5]. 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)