Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40

remove this page

this article does not belong on wikipedia. it should be replaced with the most bare-boned version possible; only stating the most obvious facts (times, dates, locations) in no more than 3 paragraphs. in its present state it's disgraceful to wikipedia's users. it is highly politicized in ways that make me question much of what i've read in wikipedia's current events. it doesn't come close to the exactitude and competence of wikipedia's science related articles or the robust research in the historical articles. it is cowardly and reeks of personality. --chordophone 12:01 1/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chordophone (talkcontribs) 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Now that we're past that, any specific complaints or suggestions? --Golbez (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
outside of what i personally find so offensive about it, it is way too long for an encyclopedic entry. it needs to be shortened by over half. considering the amount of sources that come from CNN or the 9-11 Commission publication, wikipedia should simply list them as external links. the shorter this entry the less personal and political the focus is, and the less chance conspiracy-obsessed idiots and over-simplifying editors can stain this great encyclopedia. the goal should be brief and concise descriptions that only include enough information to guide further research. this page is like a book written by people who don't investigate further than television. and has anyone stopped to wonder if the 9-11 commission's report doesn't constitute the most objective source? it's been reported on in every major news source in the world that the report is heavily edited. and isn't it strange that the government's only major publication in bookstores in America is this one book? they can't publish a guide to taxes and charge 9.95 for it? what about a guide explaining the various electable positions in government? i've looked, they're certainly not on display at border's. it seems dubious that any academic take that book as gospel. if anything, in the true spirit of wikipedia, George Washington University's National Security Archives should be the main cited source of information about this historically incredible event. let's not make wikipedia a compendium of television news history. i'm not trying to be offensive, or attack anyone personally, i just think that this kind of article on something this important is pretty sad. ----chordophone 7:45 1/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chordophone (talkcontribs) 01:44-01:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is well within size guidelines for articles on subjects of this importance. In addition, CNN is a reliable source. If you have issues with our reliable sourcing guidelines, take it up on the respective talk page. If you disagree with certain sources, bring up concrete reasons why on this page, rather than general platitudes. This page is not a soapbox — please focus on specific editorial issues. --Haemo (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Disagreeing with me is no excuse for being condescending. the introductory paragraph has poor sources that don't support the claims. for example, flight 93's black box transcription from CNN in no way shows any proof that the passengers caused the plane to go down. it does seem to show proof that flight 93's hijackers were incompetent flying the plane, probably explaining the "mystery" behind why it ended up in PA instead of the white house, which according to the NSA, CIA, and many international sources, it was planning on crashing into. if you feel the need to make the claim that the passengers were responsible for causing the plane to go down, in a self-sacrificial way preventing further tragedy, then at least link it to a reference that provides proof for that claim; the source sited later in the article is the from 9-11 commission, at least that's one step closer to source information, however severe the editing it went under. i suspect most readers take the intro paragraph as the most concrete summation of the event. also in the introductory paragraph you link source 3 to a CBC article which summarizes the words of osama bin laden. this is the source that you use to provide facts for al qaeda's responsibility? many terrorist organizations claim responsibility for many terrorist attacks. this doesn't prove anything. i'm not suggesting al qaeda wasn't involved, obviously they were. however, the mastermind of the attacks is not osama bin laden or al qaeda directly, it's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terrorism experts at the FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies have repeatedly stated that al qaeda doesn't exist as an entity. it's a database for matching terrorists to financiers. to claim it's responsible for 9-11 is misleading. most of the article appears to be from sources that are too close in proximity to the event to have very reliable hindsight. this article needs to be updated. --chordophone

see 9/11 conspiracy theories for "concrete reasons why." this article should either be edited, removed or merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories. this page IS ALREADY a conspiracy theory. a conspiracy theory is any theory of people coming together and CONSPIRING to act outside certain guidelines. I have tried again and again to edit this page and have become very offended. I SUGGESTED this page be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories and my SUGGESTION was very quickly removed. UNLESS this is discussed more thoroughly, SEE WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES about SUGGESTIONS TO MERGE before REMOVING from TAGLINE. --Crass_conversationalist (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.98.232 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories which are widely unsupported in reliable sources — that page was forked off this one, and the summary section currently gives it the correct amount of weight that it deserves. You have tried again, and again, to push a fringe POV on this issue, and have been summarily reverted for good reason. Unless you have some concrete suggestions which do not violate fundamental guidelines, please refrain from using this page as a soapbox. --Haemo (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haemo, please stop using this page as a soapbox. Some of the theories discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories are very widely held. Wowest (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not using this page as a soapbox, and I resent your implication that I am. Some general statements about intentions are widely held — there has never been any poll demonstrating that any specific theory is anything other than fringe. Correctly stating the extent to which theories are held is not "soapboxing" in the slightest. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Still, the fact that the official government-endorsed theory is also a conspiracy theory, remains... And the Wikipedia article on September 11th 2001 Terrorist Attacks gets a lot of their information and facts from the government conspiract theory which, as already widely known, has full of holes and some of their theories are preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talkcontribs) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That is not widely known; it is false. Do you have any good faith suggestions for making improvements to the article or will you continue to waste our time? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
..Widely known by people who are into or are interested in the September 11th Terrorist attacks.. Yes, the average person would not be interested in the actual details and hence would not actually know what happened on that day. I have not even seen you before so please do not tell me that I am wasting your time. You are wasting your time by being irritated by my contribution to this discussion and thus felt that you had to respond to my previous entry.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talkcontribs) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Widely, and accurately, known to be false, is correct. Widely believed by some fringe groups is also correct. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage

This article needs a section about the way media covered the attacks. WW Jan 18 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.161.93.94 (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to some sources discussing that? It would be good, but you might want to look at Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It needs some love.--Haemo (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions are unethical and a disgrace to acedemics which use wikipedia

There are way to many assumptions and broad sweeping statements in this page and I want to highlight one of them.

I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I just want to be factual and academic so listen me out.

This passage "On that morning nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] " in the opening section of the article insinuates that we know for a fact with substantiated proof that Al Qeada was responsible for the attacks when in fact alot of evidence to the contrary exists. It claims 19 Terrorists took part in these attacks when it is widely known that 5 of these named hi-jackers have been in later years to be alive and well. None of their names were on the flight lists as passengers and no proof exists that they were on board at all. I also am irked with the assumtion of guilt of Al Qaeda at all in 9/11 when no proof exists that they were involved at all. There has been no court case to prove that Al Qaeda was involved and the confession videos of Bin Laden have widely been under suspicion for its authenticity. It is unacedemic of us to ignore these facts merely on the basis of serving some larger political goal. I myself am disgusted as an academic and user of Wikipedia to be subjected to the unacedemic and largely political propaganda nature of this particular article.

The line about Al Qaeda sounds like an opening line for a novel. And as already mentioned, Al Qaeda has never been proven to be behind the September 11 attacks. What is more shameful is the fact that the United States government felt that they need not prove that Al Qaeda were complicit because of the tape found conveniently in a house in Afghanistan that allegedly shows Osama bin Laden confessing to be behind the attacks even though the man alleged to be bin Laden is nothing LIKE bin Laden. The FBI even later confessed that the tape was fabricated. People, especially people writing articles regarding this subject should not assume that these "facts" are true just because the US government says that Al Qaeda is indeed behind the attacks and that therefore they are guilty of 9/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talkcontribs) 13:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence, whatsoever, in the public domain that the 19 persons alleged to have committed the mass murder of 9/11, have boarded onto the four aircraft that crashed on that day: Their names do not appear on any authenticated passenger list; there exist no boarding cards' stubs of their boarding; no person has testified to have seen them board the aircraft; no CCTV recordings exist of the boarding process (as distinct from one single CCTV from Dulles Airport purporting to show some of them pass security check - but the recording lacks date, time and camera number); and their bodily remains (DNA) have not been identified from the crash sites. To claim that these 19 persons committed the crime without any evidence that they even boarded the planes is illogical. Wikipedia should stick to verifiable facts and avoid hearsay and speculations. If someone can provide sourced evidence that the 19 individuals "boarded" the aircraft, the wikipedia is the right place to do so. Absent such evidence, no one is entitled to make such accusations against people who remain innocent of mass murder. --Sannleikur (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been no court case to prove the guilt of Al Qaeda so please do not add this to the wikipedia page. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not true that "5 of the hijackers" are well known to be alive. Multiple reliable sources both asset, and support, the claim that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, and that the terrorists, in particular were also responsible. No reliable sources support your interpretation of the events, and unless you have some specific editorial concerns, I would ask that you refrain from using this talk page to discuss the event in general. --Haemo (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Al Qeada has not been conclusively proven guilty in any court of law and an endless amount of very substantiated proof exists to prove the opposite. This topic is thus under dispute. Unless you can point us towards court documents, the name of the judge, the time of the verdict, the jury involved, the facts presented by both sides, the lawyers involved, the court transcripts and more that this organization is guilty of 9/11 then it is incorrect to post such a lie as fact. Please remove those rash assumptions from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A dispute between whom? People who know that Al-Qaeda was responsible and people who refuse to believe mountains and mountains of facts? Please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox to profess your political beliefs. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The issue of a court of law is immaterial; many historical figures responsible for crimes were never tried in court. This is not the standard of evidence Wikipedia, nay, any academic publication requires. If you believe there is evidence vindicating them, then provide reliable sources presenting it as vindication. Otherwise, there is nothing here to act on. --Haemo (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would implore you to not use Wikipedia as a soapbox aswell. It seems to me by allowing unsubstantiated claims that Al Qeada has conclusively been proven to be the sole perpetrators of 9/11 you are furthering your own political convictions. I am here only in the interest of being truthful and being academic. As long as Al Qeada has not been proven guilty in a court of law it should not be part of this article. Insinuating that academic publications do not require someone to be proven guilty in a court of law before reporting so is within it self a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an absurd standard, totally at odds with our criteria and academia in general. I am not using Wikipedia as a soapbox in the slightest — all statements in edits I make follow our guidelines and policies, and it is totally incivil of you to claim I am trying to further my "political convictions" in some way. There is no requirement that claims made by an article be verified in a court of law before inclusion — either on Wikipedia, or in academia in general. If you grab a copy of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, you can see they lay responsibility with Al Qaeda too. The claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated" — they are all directly sourced to reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica and its content has no relevance here. Here we are not only referring to the academic nature but also the truthful nature of this article. We should thus agree as we are both assuredly interested in the factual and academic integrity of this article for future use, that we cannot for a second lay guilt where it has not been proven in a court of law. For you to insinuate that it is normal practice of academic institutions to make false unsubstantiated claims and to pass opinion off as fact is an insult not only to me but the entire academic community. For the sake of maintaining the accuracy and truthfulness of this article, if you refuse to change that leading passage, please highlight in the article that the guilt of AL Qeada in 9/11 is under dispute until it has been made official that they are in fact guilty by a judge. "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" states my constitution, and for us to keep the article as is is not only a moral and academic offense but also a constitutional one. I cannot think of in any other academic publication which assumes guilt of a party without there having been a court ruling, please point me towards an article/publication where this has happened. I implore you to try to understand this simple principle, as we both merely want to see the academic integrity of this article maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Which constitution says "innocent until proven guilty"? Not the US's. And besides, this isn't a court. Corvus cornixtalk 23:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like you to refer you to this article if you do not understand this simple principle which is also called Presumption of Innocence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations - this is not a criminal trial. Corvus cornixtalk 23:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, This is an Encyclopedia a publication which is taken seriously because of its academic and factual nature. Here this article is neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 23:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We will not allow you to add any conspiracist nonsense to this article. It would be best if you would stop wasting our time. Thanks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is incivil of you to insinuate that I am propagating conspiracy theories when in fact I have not done so in any way shape or form. I am merely trying to be academic and I would wish that this article reflect an academic and truthful prospective of the events of 9/11 and it is very within the Wikipedia guidelines and policies for me to expect this. It would be of catastrophic result if this is the way in which we will approach this problem. I demand you change this article or warn users that the topic at hand is in dispute and although claimed by official entities not proven in a court of law. As simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Care and feeding. Corvus cornixtalk 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're not going to make any headway with this tact of arguing, since Wikipedia does not require the standards you have argued. Academic publications, indeed many on Al Qaeda, can and do lay statements of guilt without proof in a court of law. Wikipedia does not require this standard of evidence. If you disagree with our guidelines, you can discuss it on the relevant page; not here. --Haemo (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As final input from me on this article, I have consulted the Policies and Guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines) section and was lead to believe that within the NPOV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) it deals with this type of issue. This article considering that Al Qeada has not been officially proven guilty in a court of law is thus in violation on many of the points brought up in the Wikipedia NPOV. I leave the problem in the hands of the editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talkcontribs) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives of this page, you can see that the neutral point of view issue has been extensively discussed — indeed, it is undue weight to write the article with the implication that Al Qaeda was not responsible. -_Haemo (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia's goal is encyclopedic. Our aim is to make Wikipedia a credible, authoritative, source of reliable information for all, students, ordinary citizens and researchers. When a crime is committed and has remained, for whatever reason, unsolved, Wikipedia should approach factual allegations with extreme circumspection, particularly when a large body of evidence suggests official malfeasance, cover-up or even complicity in the crime. I would therefore urge all of you to approach all factual allegations presented by governments and the media with the necessary critical detachment. We should not include in our account on 9/11 unsourced, unattributed or unverifiable allegations. It is better for Wikipedia to state "we do not know" than to make statements which could later be rebutted. Take one example: The original passenger lists of the 9/11 flights have not been released. This means that the public has been deprived of the original source for the names of the hijackers. This does not necessarily mean that they did not board on the airplanes. It means, however that we cannot state as a proven fact that they did. We can only say: The FBI alleges/claims/believes/asserts/maintains that the following individuals boarded these planes and committed the hijacking, but has refused to release the original passenger lists. This would be a neutral way of informing the readers that our knowledge is restricted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talkcontribs) 19:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources to support your assertions, there might be something to discuss. In addition, the passenger lists have been made public — they were made published in Terry McDermott's book Perfect Soldiers, as well as in newspapers such as the Boston Globe. The government also used the original lists as evidence in Zacharias Moussaoui's trial. The assertion that the FBI has "refused to release" these lists, or the implication that there is any doubt in reliable sources as who was on those planes is fringe POV-pushing and is totally unsupported by reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The lists referred to by Haemo are not authenticated. They are bad photocopies of computer printouts that carry neither signature, date stamp or any other sign that can be used to trace to their origin. They have not been, either, accompanied by chain-of-custody reports proving that they are copies of "originals". Nor has any government authority claimed that these lists are at all copies of "originals". The lists released at the Moussaoui trial were not accompanied by any comment or explanation as to their origin. CNN has announced on September 14, 2001 the names of four people suspected to be among the hijackers. Their names were then replaced by other names. No explanation has been given as to the reason for this switch and from where the CNN got the previous names. The only source for such names could only have been either the FBI or the airlines, and ultimately the original "passenger lists". So if names were replaced on Sept. 14, the latter list of hijackers' names - which is what has been published by the FBI - cannot correspond with the original list. American Airlines whom I asked for a copy of the original passenger list of AA77, studiously evaded the request by sending me a typed listing of names without the names of the hijackers. Asked why they left out these names the Airline said laconically, that they were "edited". American Airlines failed to explain why they would not send me a copy of the original list, nor why the names of the "hijackers" were "edited". This game suggests that the Airlines have something to hide and that we cannot rely on the published "passenger lists" as authentic. This exchange of letters with American Airlines is posted on my website at http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2329&Itemid=107. Under these circumstances, I believe that it is reasonable to express doubt about the authenticity of those lists referred to by Haemo. The absence of authentified passenger lists is compounded by the absence of testimonies of people who actually saw the hijackers (and passengers) board the airplanes, the absence of boarding cards' stubs, the absence of CCTV of their boarding, and the failure of identifying their DNA from the crash sites. All in all, there exists therefore no evidence that any of the 19 "hijackers" actually boarded the planes. Theoretically, they may have boarded the aircraft even in the absence of all that evidence, but it is quite a daring proposition to claim that they did.--Sannleikur (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources have vetted the lists described. Your original research on this issue has no bearing on our discussion here, and your personal doubts as to the authenticity of the lists provided by reliable sources is not sufficient for any changes to be made to the article. Provide reliable sources supporting your interpretation, or we can't do anything. --Haemo (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

why cant we edited 9/11 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 070793power (talkcontribs) 04:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's semiprotected due to persistent vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course, by "vandalism" you mean that people keep questioning the unsubstantiated claims on this page and the complete lack of alternate views presented. QuantumG (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
They're well referenced "unsubstantiated claims" and the "alternative views" are inaccurate. We're here to write a fact based encyclopedia, not some fantasy book.--MONGO 12:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with the protection, take it up here. --Haemo (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Inaccurate? According to who? You? The alternative views are also well referenced.. that's your criteria for why the claims in this article should be unchallenged. Clearly you've picked and chosen which claims you're willing to accept as fact and which you're willing to discard.. and this is an attitude that is simply not acceptable for a person with a neutral point of view. QuantumG (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The topic seems to be semi-tabooed. After several years of edition, vandalizm, recovery, investigations, improvements and polishing, the paper still does not answer the important questions. Why immediately after the accident the President told in his speech: "Airplanes hit buildings; do not crush mislims yet"? (I exagerate a little bit). Why his talk is not reference number 1 in the article? Where are explanations about the origen of the lack of information about the accident? Aren't some topics in wiki hijacked?... dima (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place for such a discussion — BQZip01 — talk 05:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


BQZip01, you should be banned from here. Say, do you like lying to everyone? Did you mention that you are from US army? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.12.81 (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

article point of view is outdated?

Dear Friends,

I believe the view that 911 would have perpetrated by Al Qaida, without any inside complicity, is becoming more and more outdated. This view is still held by the US government (naturally) and most of the major media; on the other hand major media have also shown the opposite. In New York, close to the news-source, 42 % do not believe the government. Experts and people in high posititions claiming there is an inside job, keep lining up.

I strongly believe wikipedia should choose for caution, and stop defending a single viewpoint. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and taking a viewpoint is OR and in violation of NPOV.

proposal

To rewrite this article to a form which is neutral to the question, whether the attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaida, the insiders, or both; and to create a new 911 article, called e.g. "The mainstream opinion".

support

  • — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One example: the article makes impression that 9/11, President of the USA was absent and appeared only September 20. This is confusion. Indeed, the same day, he made the speech translated by TV. It was first official information about the attack; that reference should be first in the list. dima (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

reject

  • Reject this ridiculous attempt to add conspiracy language to the article. Facts are never "outdated." Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. Quite. Would violation Wikipedia policies if implemented. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject on behalf of Haemo, who states below he chooses not to be "pigeonholed". comment added by — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm striking this. You can't vote on behalf of someone else. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I get the point, I think. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject that neutrality is the correct standard here. The correct standard here for FACTS is that they be based on reliable, attributable and verifiable sources. The correct standard for OPINIONS is that they represent all the major groups of opinion. The current entry does not fulfil these standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talkcontribs) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Refject Superfulous request. Facts are facts - conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. Shall we rework Apollo 11, as well? Everyone knows the moon landing didn't happen. Okiefromokla questions? 22:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

neutral

comment

  • Polls are ridiculous, and this is no exception. Guidelines like neutral point of view and reliable sourcing are not negotiable, and this suggestion in its very statement, clearly seeks to disregard them. I'd also encourage you to read up on how Wikipedia uses the term original research. I think you can tell my position on this proposal without having to pigeonhole me into a little section with a summary at the top. --Haemo (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This poll in particular is exceedingly ridiculous. Anyone who voted oppose, shame on you for even giving attention to this. --Golbez (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Polls and consensus building are mutually exclusive so you can have either as a protocol but not both. I prefer consensus building even though it's much more arduous. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As usual, no new sources have been provided, and we don't write articles in response to a question. It is an article, not an essay. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

intermediate conclusion

  • I offered this poll as a first step towards consensus building. My intermediate conclusion is, there is too little to work with to start consensus building, and the wikipedia community is not yet ready for acknowledging the difference between the bare facts and the mainstream -erroneous- interpretation of those facts. I am sorry for that, but dared hardly hope otherwise. Thanks anyway folks for responding, in spite of Golbez' fanaticism. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Category

There is the "Islamic terrorism" category on this article. Can a reliable source be provided that holds "Islamic terrorism" responsible?Bless sins (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Just look at the article Islamic terrorism. This is the number 1 prime example of Islamic terrorism. Not to mention half the sources in this article mention it the connection. Or do you believe in the conspiracy theories, and as such are practicing terrorism denial? Yahel Guhan 06:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Bless Sins, thats really funny, I dont even know how to respond to that. This will be in the records. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There is one aspect of the term/category that I find bizarre. I know nothing about Islam but I've heard almost all authorities and political leaders (like President Bush) saying that Islam, as a doctrine, is diametrically opposed to acts of terrorism. If that's true, doesn't that make the term an oxymoron? And if it's an oxymoron, should it exist as an encyclopedic category? Wouldn't something like "al-Queda terrorism" be more realistic? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like the category, you can always bring it up for WP:CFD. However, since this is the most famous example of Islamic terrorism, the category should stay. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Many extremists believes that Islam justifies their terrorist acts, just as many Christians believe as well. The dichotomy between different interpretations of a religion is an academic issue, and many moderate Muslims would call Al Qaeda's interpretation of Islam incorrect. However, that does not change the underlying justification used by the terrorists. --Haemo (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As you say, some Christians have similar beliefs. I suppose I am having trouble accepting "Islamic terrorism" when I think about the prospect of a category called "Christian terrorism" which I ( I'm a Christian) would find an insulting and ridiculous concept given the teachings of Jesus Christ even though there are some fringe interpretations of Christianity which also endorse acts of terrorism. I suppose what I am saying is:
  • Just because some terrorist group uses some minority interpretation of an otherwise humane religion to justify their terrorism and uses the name of that religion, I don't think this encyclopedia needs to accept their application of the religion's name. The KKK do their terrorist acts with crosses and Christian prayers and reading from the bible; but I'd be pretty annoyed if their crap was categorized in this encyclopedia as "Christian terrorism". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not up to Wikipedia is decide what is, and is not, Islamic. Think about what you are saying; your argument is that you can tell what is the "correct" interpretation of Islam, and this is "not Islam". That's a highly contentious and controversial opinion, and one which is actively disagreed on and debated. --Haemo (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I admit I know absolutely nothing about any religion other than Christianity, but I am under the impression that the weight of academic and scholarly opinion about Islam, as with Christianity, would see terrorism justification as very much a fringe interpretation of either religion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I put it up for CFD so we'll see if I am alone in this opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is still overwhelmingly for accepting and using the term and category "Islamic terrorism". Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Using the term "Islamic terrorism" is one thing. But blaming an act on "Islamic terrorism" is another. Please provide reliable sources that suggest the 9/11 attacks are an example of "Islamic terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Once again, are there any reliable sources that attest this?Bless sins (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. There are dozens and dozens (maybe hundreds) of such sources. If you were to do any research at all, you could find a couple. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then you will have no problems in finding some for me.Bless sins (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[un-indent][1][2] It took less than a minute to find these. It would take only an incredible amount of laziness to be unable to find any sources describing the 9/11 attacks as "Islamic terror." Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. Golly, I could never have guessed before seeing these sources that 9/11 was an Islamic terrorist attack. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I was able to finally solve this political mystery. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"with American government assistance"

As it stands now, the "Responsibility" section of this article, in one clause, asserts that the U.S. government assisted Osama bin Laden in organizing MAK. False. The U.S. government dropped funds into Pakistani ISI accounts. The ISI, then in complete control of such funds, assisted Afghan mujahadeen. "Afghan Arabs" were quite the minority in Afghanistan (bin Laden's MAK, for instance, consisted of only about 100 Arabs compared to the 250,000 Afghan mujahadeen resisting the Soviets). These Arab anomalies were funded by Saudi Arabia and other Arab donors (and in bin Laden's case, his own family money) - not the Pakistani ISI and certainly not the CIA. The "Responsibility" section of this article would be more accurate if "American government" was replaced with "Saudi government". But that wouldn't be ironic enough, which is why I'm sure this folk myth was added. I think it unnecessary, however, to detail the exact nature of MAK funding in this article anyway - there are already articles on MAK, Allegations of CIA assistance to Osama bin Laden and Operation Cyclone, which give this issue the actual attention and fair presentation it deserves. 9591353082 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this article goes into perhipheral information in too much detail...it needs ot stick to the events of the day and in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, mention these finer points in summary fashion and provide links to articles where those areas are discussed in greater detail.--MONGO 04:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
MONGO, that seems reasonable to me. Would you be willing to make that change,please? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Lots of changes are needed, but hard to accomplish anything when everyone reverts everyone elses work.--MONGO 00:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
9591353082, you should include in your analysis that the head of ISI is approved by the CIA. Also you should reckon that you cannot compartmentalize issues as you attempt: they are not independent. It does not matter who funded who if they are all cooperating, does it? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suicide attacks by al-Qaeda?

The first phrase in the Article claims that the events of 9/11 consisted in "suicide attacks by al-Qaeda". What is the factual base for making this claim?

Apart from the fact that no court of justice determined the relationship between al-Qaeda and these events, the U.S. authorities have not presented any hard evidence linking al-Qaeda to 9/11. The FBI, for its part, has admitted in June 2006 to possess no "hard evidence" to link Osama bin Laden to 9/11. How can an encyclopedia makes such a sweeping claim when there exists no evidence to support it? Even the phrase itself is nonsensical because only human beings can engage in a suicide attack, not an abstraction such as al-Qaeda, which is not even clearly an organisation, but only an idea or ideology.

I therefore propose that the introductory phrase be reformulated into neutral language as follows:

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, causing the death of approximately 3,000 people.

Such a formulation would prevent endless disputes about the nature of the attack and the identity of the perpetrators. It does not insinuate anything about anyone and bears no relation to any "conspiracy theories". I am asking for endorsements.--Sannleikur (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The head of al Qaida has admitted to his involvement. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you refer to the socalled confession by Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, he did not say that the 19 people were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. No named person has witnessed his confession; no named person confirmed the identity of the confessor; the alleged detainee was apparently tortured. So the whole confession bears no relationship to the above sentence. I could myself claim authorship of 9/11. This would not prove anything about 9/11, but may perhaps say something about my character.--Sannleikur (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the videotaped confession by Usama bin Ladin. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, even if the videotaped confession were authentic (which is disputed), a person's claim to be the author of a plot (a) does not require listeners to believe him; (b) does not constitute a proof of acts that he did not personally witness. In order to constitute evidence for an encyclopedia, we must have more than the ravings of a old bastard who does not dare to be challenged in public. --Sannleikur (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is patently untrue. Multiple reliable sources have both reported his statements of responsibility, as well as supporting the view that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. If you disagree, provide reliable sources which support a different interpretation. --Haemo (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to engage in good-faith efforts for Wiki, you would agree to my proposition above because it avoids the disputed question of criminal responsibility which is extremely divisive. My proposed text above is a statement of fact that is uncontroversial that does not exclude Al Qaeda responsibility. I would be happy if we could resolve this issue by sticking to proven facts.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What you, personally, deem to be a "proven fact" is at odds with what reliable sources deem to be a proven fact. That is the essence of why your suggestions are not helpful, and why they give undue weight to your fringe viewpoint about the facts. --Haemo (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sannleikur does not need to provide a RS. It is you who need to supply these RS for the authenticity of the confession. Oops, there are no actual sources of proof, only claims they exist so don't try and pass those off on us. Professor Bruce Lawrence, who is the leading Bin Laden expert, said of the confession in an interview last year, "It's bogus" in which he also claimed informants in US intelligence had confirmed the administration know it is fake but "politically useful". A FOI request for "Documents that demonstrate the outcome of the U.S. government’s authenticity process (for the confession)....authentic, not authentic or suspected of authenticity" was submitted in late 2006 and was refused: "the material you requested... is exempt from disclosure" as such information would "interfere with enforcement proceedings". Long after it had been "authenticated" by the administration saying it was, the FBI still publicly stated it "has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11" so are you saying no one shared the tape with them? Bin Laden may have done it, but OR is not a RS no matter how much you push it. The ball is in your court Haemo. Wayne (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Numerous reliable sources have reported the clip, and the translation, as accurate. There is no dissension among reliable sources that this clip (and the translation) is anything but accurate, and no one has provided a source to the contrary. We have provided sources which support the interpretation that the videotape is accurate, and report on it as a truthful fact. --Haemo (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
bin Laden has also once claimed he was innocent of the attack, because "muslim law forbids the killing of women and children". I am not saying I believe this claim of his, but it would be illogical to simply believe one claim and disbelieve the other. We can only conclude that Osama's utterings are unreliable, even when they are cited by reliable sources. We can write he apperently admitted to the attack in this or that video; we cannot say he is guilty. If Albert Einstein says: "God does not play dice", we do not write that Quantummechanics is rubbish, do we? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nineteen terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda?

The second phrase in the Entry in its entirety reads so:

"On that morning nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners."

This phrase includes two unsubstantiated allegations that cannot be posted on Wikipedia under existing rules: (a) nineteen terrorists...hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners", and (b) that these nineteen people were "affiliated with al-Qaeda.

The first allegation must be qualified because there exists no evidence in the public domain that the nineteen individuals designated by the FBI as the suspected hijackers actually boarded the four commercial airliners they were supposed to hijack. As long as no such evidence exists, the claim must be qualified as an allegation or belief, not a statement of fact.

The second allegation is supported by a media report according to which Osama bin Laden "claims responsibility for 9/11". Leaving aside the question about the authenticity of the recording, even if his claims were genuine, it would not constitute a logical proof that the nineteen persons were "affiliated" to al-Qaeda. There is no logical relation between the two, only a supposition, a guess. Secondly, it has not been established among academics whether there is at all an formal organization named al Qaeda in which individuals can become "members" or be "affiliated" to. Thirdly, even the US authorities have not claimed that all the 19 suspects were "affiliated" to al Qaeda. Finally, even if the US authorities were to claim that information gathered in closed interrogations prove this claim, such evidence would not be admissible for an encyclopedia.

This phrase should be entirely deleted because it lacks factual backing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannleikur (talkcontribs) 20:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. Do you have any good-faith suggestions for improvements to the article? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Good-faith efforts would require a total revision of the Article because it is based almost entirely on unsubstantiated assumptions and allegations. The allegation that 19 Muslims hijacked four planes is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that they boarded those planes. But there exists no evidence that they did, not even positive identification of their bodily remains. So, absent such evidence, allegations based on the unproved first allegation are simply fantasy. Yes, I am aware of the phone calls, but again we have not, in most cases, direct testimonies of those who received the calls, only second-hand or third-hand reports from people who said what they have been told by family members who received calls. We do not know, either from where the calls were made, because the FBI refuses to reveal this evidence. There are so many bits of data that the FBI has refused to disclose that any factual description of the events will remain at best guesswork and at worst an exercise in deception. We could go phrase by phrase, but I think that such an approach is futile because if even the most basic facts are in question, the entire account must be questioned. --Sannleikur (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire, Even as early as 2002 9 of the remains were found. RxS (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require forensic evidence to include a statement in an article, that would be silly. We report what is reported in reliable secondary sources and for this article there are numerous reliable secondary sources. If you want things changed, I would suggest you provide some sources. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The article cited by Mr.Z-man includes the following information: "Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination...Without reference samples from the hijackers' personal effects or from their immediate families to compare with the recovered DNA, the remains could not be matched to individuals." In plain English the remains of the alleged hijackers were not positively identified. This is what I initially said and has been confirmed in the cited article. If this were the only lack of evidence about the presence of the "hijackers" in the planes, one could perhaps give the benefice of doubt to the US authorities. However, no one has testified to have seen the passengers (and hijackers) board the aircraft. There are no CCTV of the boarding process. No boarding card stubs have been produced and the 9/11 Commission fails to mention any boarding cards, even in its detailed Staff reports. And finally, no authentified passenger lists have been produced. The absence of such crucial and primary incriminating evidence is in the very least suspicious. The statement There exists no evidence proving the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackers, must be therefore regarded as true according ordinary standards of logic. --Sannleikur (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your standards of evidence go beyond anything Wikipedia requires. Multiple reliable sources disagree with your interpretation and your legalistic arguments hold no weight here. Unless you have some suggestions for how to improve the article based on our guidelines, there's nothing to discuss here. The correct statement is that There exists no evidence which would prove to Sannleikur the boarding of the 19 individuals designated as the hijackersmany reliable sources disagree with your opinion and have been published as such. --Haemo (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The link was mine...how about photos? The point is that there are plenty of reliable sources that support the phrasing in the article. We're not here to debate the issues however but to talk about content. And it's clear that the content of the article is support by WP:RS and other applicable policies. RxS (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just consulted WP:RS and did not find anything that supports the above allegation. On the contrary, much in the 9/11 Article is based on statements by government officials, often unnamed. These are not reliable sources for Wikipedia.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia, we must engage in good faith efforts in improving the quality of the Articles we are working on. The quality of an Article is dependent on the reliability of facts. It is not a "fact" that the 19 people designated by the FBI boarded the four planes on 9/11. It is an unsubstantiated government allegation. No one of you has produced a reference to a reliable evidence. You are just relying on some arbitrary consensus, not on real evidence. But perhaps you don't consider your contribution as part of a scientific work, but part of a political agenda. If this is the case, I would understand your resistance to any logical reasoning. I have proposed changes to the Article which would reflect the tenuous nature of these allegations, for example by qualifying nouns and verbs with "alleged" or "According to X". I am willing to concede to such a compromise because I believe that the Wikipedia deserves a continuous improvement. How about you?.--Sannleikur (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, another, another.--MONGO 23:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We seem not to live on the same planet. Governments' pronouncements do not necessarily represent factual evidence and cannot be relied upon. Governments often lie. We are now asked to rely on musings by Osama bin Laden on a dubious video tape, announcements by the Saudi Government (the very epitome of virtue and truth) and pronouncements by various unnamed officials of the Bush regime, as the base for formulating an encyclopedia article. I repeat: Where is the "hard evidence" that the 19 people actually boarded the planes that they allegedly hijacked? Where are the people who were there on the ground and could provide testimony? Why has no one come forward to provide a testimony? Why has no one seen the boarding cards stubs? Why is the FBI hiding evidence and refusing to play various recordings of telephone calls? Why is the FBI incapable of positively identifying the bodies of the hijackers? How can anyone of you rely on government's secret evidence for an encyclopedia? I cannot fathom such credulity.--Sannleikur (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we are being asked to rely on many, many statements by reliable sources that these facts are true. Evidence has been produced which these sources deem conclusive and sufficient to ascertain the veracity of the statements made — you disagree. Fair enough — you are perfectly free to believe whatever you wish, and no one is going to try and change your mind. That is not what this page is to be used for. However, Wikipedia relies on citing reliable sources for its interpretations of what is, and is not, true — Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, nor does it act as such. Instead, in matters of truth, we rest the burden with reliable sources to determine the veracity of statements made. This article follows this policy to the letter — your arguments do not, and that is why they are (and have been in the past) soundly rejected as a basis for changing this article (or any other). --Haemo (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources do not include government propaganda and secretly obtained evidence by intelligence services, even if such information is disseminated by the press. The items I have been referring to are all sourced to the government. There is no independent source for the information regarding the boarding of the alleged hijackers onto the planes. You are most welcome to believe what the Government is saying. It's your private right (or perhaps duty). Wikipedia does not weigh facts by pounds of newspaper print but by their reliability, credibility and verifiability. --Sannleikur (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to establish what you are claiming? If its in a reputable newspaper it is fact checked and edited. That is a reliable source on Wikipedia Mr.Z-man 00:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
News sources, papers, and books, have reported these as facts, not merely disseminated government press releases. The reliable sources we have cited attest to this. Do you have any sources for your interpretation? --Haemo (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Statements by US government sources are judged on their merits, like every other source. They are not automatically false any more than they are automatically true. In this case, there is no other reasonable hypothesis that fits the evidence. Peter Grey (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not bear the burden of providing any sources. It is those who are making unsubstantiated assertions who should do do, those who find it agreeable to their conscience to accuse 19 innocent people of mass murder, people who no one has proved to have committed the crime. Probably you are American because you take a cue from your government who has killed thousands of Afghans in response to 9/11, people who are entirely innocent of the crime of 9/11. When I say that there exists no evidence that the 19 individuals named by the FBI as the hijackers had boarded the airplanes, this is a statement of fact, not an interpretation of anything. Not a single source has actually claimed that these 19 individuals actually boarded the planes. The reason is that no one has seen them board the planes. That's why no "reliable source" actually says so. What media have done is to infer this fact from government declarations and secret evidence but inference is not a factual finding. You repeatdly cite reliable sources for the fact that they boarded the planes but you fail to cite a single one. Or is it, according to your opinion, sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia that a factoid was reported by corporate-owned media to make it true? And if the aim of Wikipedia is not the truth, then I would urge that each factual statement be clearly attributed to the particular corporate-parrot by "According to" and by referring to the source of the allegation. The present Article fails to do so and purports to set down facts that are mostly government-produced spin.--Sannleikur (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely required to provide reliable sources for interpretations of facts — the claims made in this article are not "unsubstantiated"; they are sourced to reliable sources, as our guidelines require. Whether or not the media is "corporate owned" has nothing to do with anything here — they are still reliable sources. Your "statements of fact" are your point of view — to paraphrase a famous essay, "you percieve your biases as neutral, and your assumptions as factual". Provide reliable sources for your interpretation, or nothing will come of this. --Haemo (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stick to facts Haemo and don't make blanket assumptions to put a good faith editor down. I just finished reading reading the report of the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" and Sannleikur is partially right. There is no proof that all the hijackers boarded. It is assumed they did. The only ones confirmed are at least one who sat in a jump seat and several who used ramp passes and pilot credentials to board instead of buying tickets. The only proof of the number of hijackers are the calls from the planes as no one saw them board. I'm not saying to do what Sannleikur asks but argue with facts instead of rhetoric. If you are going to say the RS support you without providing any in reply to his concerns you may as well not reply at all. Wayne (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I provided multiple reliable sources which state the terrorists were on the plane, complete with flight lists that placed them on them. The response has been that "they're faked" and the mainstream media is lying to us when they authenticated them. I'm not basing my stance on "rhetoric" — I'm basing it on reported facts. People who disagree with what has been reported have little else to go on save claims that the proof provided does not meet their standards — at no point in this discussion has anyone, ever, provided a reliable source as to this interpretation. That tells me a lot about what's going on here. --Haemo (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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