Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 15

Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at:

Naming of 7WTC

The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters. 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc. If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do. In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center." Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --Golbez 04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.

If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.

But MEMRI? Come on, people.

-- 18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. WhisperToMe 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at [1]. HTH, KeithTyler

If You Were President on 9/11?

Something I wonder about is how other, ordinary Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11? Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit. But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11. My response would have been Biblical in proportions. It would have been the stuff of legends. Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now. Some nations would probably only be a memory. And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions. That's how mad I was on September 11th. It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position. You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes. What would you have done?

JesseG 02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. WhisperToMe 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. DJ Clayworth 15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric Article Pieces

I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.


Earlier revelations
... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S. & the majority of the U.N. at this time.

...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq & the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners.

Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US & it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US & Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act. Duemellon

I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". WhisperToMe 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --Duemellon 12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV. I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment. Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. Yitzhak 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emotional & perspective response

I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event & perspectives at the time.

I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.

Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.

Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.

A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).

I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.

I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? Miss Puffskein 04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article's last paragraph


The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.

I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion & perspective on the events & their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --Duemellon 12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) Quadell (talk) 12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --Duemellon 14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - Tεxτurε 18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning something) while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis were Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the "The Israelis done it!" variety. Quadell (talk) 19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
There is that September 11 rumours and misinformation page that would have some of the conspiracy theories that you have referred to. Arno 06:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the link to

Their onsite Editorial policy and disclaimer says enough, if you ask me:

"We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best. - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur. - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion. - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."

It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe 17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with WhisperToMe, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)

For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And please sign comments with four tildes! WhisperToMe 23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. Quadell (talk) 02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some OverGeneralization

This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.

While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim.
--KeithTyler 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). Rmhermen 04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)


WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --Golbez 06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... WhisperToMe 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nope, I didn't -

Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. WhisperToMe 23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --Golbez 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. Quadell (talk) 16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

  • But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not -

august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures

What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for the august 6th briefing can be found here. Bontenbal 08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!

Learning from the September 11 Attacks By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001 With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.

President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).

President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."

But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.

In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.

In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.

But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.

Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)

--- Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. WhisperToMe 21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War

User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. WhisperToMe 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period. Therefore its an important piece of information which puts the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--Xed 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. WhisperToMe 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Loweeel 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The war was going on at the same time--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. WhisperToMe 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds nothing to the article. - Tεxτurε 22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. WhisperToMe 22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- Cyrius| 23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --Cantus 23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into every entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another... Wetman 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added him to the RFC >.< WhisperToMe 23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)