Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about September 11 attacks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

International response

In the international response section, do domestic US civil liberty group's objections need to be raised? If they were international groups I would understand, but bringing up the ACLU in a so-called "international" section does not make sense...

Collapse of World Trade Center: Building Collapse Times

Hi all, I've finally decided to Be Bold and include estimates of the three WTC building collapse times. I've held off on adding these estimates until now because I had difficulty finding a credible source which we could all agree upon. Well, I've just come accross a link here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm that lists WTC 1 collapse as 9 seconds and WTC 2 as 11 seconds (both are listed as estimates) While this link doesn't include an estimate for WTC 7, I have seen multiple references to a number of 6.6 seconds. Since I don't have a credible reference for WTC 7, I have left it as an ambiguous 'under 7 seconds'...

Please feel free to clean up the grammar. I admit this section is awkwardly worded. My apologies, I simply wanted to add the facts as soon as possible.

Anyone have a credible source for WTC 7 building collapse time? Oh, and please don't revert this good faith, credibly sourced, factual reference - at least not without explaining your actions on this talk page. Digiterata 22:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I deeply appreciate this addition, the consensus on collapse time for building 7 is 6.5 seconds. Here is just one related document. -- Lovelight 23:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you complain about deleting sourced material: where is your explanation of your removing[1] the information on the Deutsche Bank Building? Weregerbil 10:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to gather the thoughts of the community here. Mmx appears to be claiming that NIST is an unreliable source. Please clarify if that is what you are saying Mmx. And please stop reverting without making any attempt to communicate on this Talk page. I wish to maintain the assumption of good faith, but having had my clearly cited edits repeatedly reverted without any attempt to communicate your rationale, is causing me to question this assumption.

Again, please explain what I have done to deserve these reverts? I have cited relevant facts (WTC Building Collapse times) that document a notable event. I have not added any hint of conspiracy theory foolishness. I have cited only clearly credible sources (National Institute of Standards and Testing). Mmx if NIST is an unreliable citation as you have noted on your rationale for reverting, we may have to make some much more fundamental changes to this article. Digiterata 18:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

NIST states:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

NOT that the building collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. They further state that

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

--Mmx1 19:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, provide a reference which supports your claim. Collapse times are not disputed, I'm reverting this to Digiterata version. -- Lovelight 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You still get to keep that sentence "after burning for at least 70 minutes and being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers a short distance away", which is disputable as any. -- Lovelight 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

NIST also mentions that "seismic spikes continued for approximately 15 seconds" for each building, and "the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2", and "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation". [2] --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 02:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just one quick excerpt from National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud." Reference: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/911commission/report/report.htm. -- Lovelight 03:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

{uninterested third party} Remember 3RR, people. --DarthBinky 03:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn’t aware of this rule at all, it does make sense... -- Lovelight 03:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an exercise.

If Person A adds something to an article...
... and Person B reverts it...
And Person A readds it...
... and Person C reverts it...
And Person A readds it...
... and Person D reverts it...
What on earth makes Person A think that he represents consensus? "Go to the talk page to find consensus" doesn't work if you're apparently the only one pushing that entry, Lovelight, so stop pretending. --Golbez 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just lovely, so I would have to sit and watch how you keep reverting known and undisputed data without any explanation whatsoever? How come that I'm the only one pushing that entry, when I didn’t even initiate this talk. And would you please be so kind to explain why is there so much resistance to presenting valid data? It's time for whole lot of you to quit this senseless attack's on people who carry different opinion. Anyway, I took some time to exercise and track activities and talks of persons B, C, D. Your point is not valid as none of you acts independently; your stars don’t interest me… Finally, I'm tired of your insults, this is third time that you trying to present me as something I'm not. If you have any personal remarks take them to our user pages and you'll get appropriate answer. Persons b, c, d have same sort of consensus as US president have on war in Iraq… such dishonor for Wikipedia, honestly. -- Lovelight 03:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) The seismic data is more reliable and precise than any other evidence, so 25 s (give or take depending on which building) is the only possibility. 'Opinions', other than professional opinions of structural engineers, are irrelevant. (2) That level of detail belongs on Collapse of the World Trade Center (that's the whole point of that article). Peter Grey 04:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) is heavily dependent on what we know about those "professional opinions" of those independent structural engineers, right? (2) You may have some doubts about it, but everything what is really important for this article is in exile from it… -- Lovelight 04:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that "collapse time" is such a simple matter that it can be reliably and definitely represented by one number? Or is it a more complex issue, requiring more than the two words "nine seconds" to give the reader an honest explanation? Should we try to give the reader a number as small as possible so that they'll think "oh my dog, the evil government must have sucked all air from the towers; a vacuum inside the buildings is the only way to explain such a quick collapse" (or whatever the hell the conspiracy theorists mean when they say "rate of free fall in vacuum"). Weregerbil 09:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This was not my issue, I said how I support addition and that's all on that topic for now. At the moment, I'll rather spend some time to gather data about editors, just to show what I have learned about inner works behind this page in last month. To neglect the fact that there is no clear evidence of plane which stroke Pentagon, to ignore building 7, to keep references that are proven to be biased or inaccurate? Sorry gentleman, it won't go, there was a visit on my talk page by the man who was apparently cast out from Wikipedia because of hardliners here, I find that visit illuminating. What's happening on users talk pages clearly shows why is this particular article in such poor state. This will be next topic of discussion. Lunch time here, see you later alligators… -- Lovelight 10:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing 911

If you choose to dig deep into the history of this talk page, or if you just check recent additions you will see what you already know. We are working on burning, disturbing.., one would say Itchy and Scratchy issue here. More important, and without any exaggerations whatsoever, we are talking about one of the most important events in history of mankind. What happened on 911 (9/11) changed one's life deeply and profoundly wherever one may be. We live in the age of fear & terror which is (proven to be) suitable for only one thing… unnecessary death, violence, hate and destruction. We have witnessed unjust, absolutely false war which is directly linked to this horrible act. We are witnessing how our freedom is turning into slavery (literary), and the sheer fact that we had warnings which stated how editing and discussing of this article is "not allowed" by US Government is good example as any. If this affair caused violation of Geneva conventions, if this event served as foundation of Patriot Act and (il)legal wiretapping, if this event leads to such terms as "islamo-nazi fascism", then we have to be absolutely clear on what and why happened. Now, instead of intended attacks on Mongo, his superiors and his little drugz (I'll rather say, Mongo, I honestly carry no grudge, I knocked, and you locked the door, I knocked again and you pulled your cutting knife, to make things better, when I asked why did you cut me, you shared a insult… so to say… after all you did change that picture there, thank you for your modesty…), I just won't to make one thing clear. I have no hidden agenda; I have no reason (except philanthropy perhaps) whatsoever to keep any side in this discussion. You have to understand that, I simply won't be considered a "CT lunatic", and I'll even restrain to call some of you that in spite the fact that you are persistently breaking the law's of physics. I won't everyone in this world, conscious or in diapers to understand where we stand. US congress is under attack by that very Emperor from Star Wars, they resist rebelliously, but I won't risk such situation in which Skywalker will see that Death Star for the first time and say: "My God look at the size of that thing." I'm not asking anyone to lie, I'm not asking for the anarchy; I'm not asking for pulling out of Iraq tomorrow, I'm not asking for opium fields in Afghanistan. I'm not asking you to share your knowledge about needs for global economy, freefall or any such nonsense. I'm asking you to step forward and do what decent people do. There are such huge faults in this article, such indifference to present and present facts… simply unbearable. Related articles, such as one called conspiracy theories… are even poorer, one would allege disastrous. There are undisputable fact's (to some new, to some very old), I wont these facts to be recognized and implemented. There was a particular section here called foreknowledge, if you would please return to that point and discuss how, why and with what measurement our foreknowledge should be added to article. I sincerely hope that mentioning put options, inside trading, all around warnings, well timed war games, time-lines, and other undisputed facts won't do any harm to the article. It will make it far better…

PS. I know this is a bit blahbish…. However, this issue needs some perspective and this sort of intellectual gibberish is forced upon me… This was Act 1, you can see my initial thoughts (and my massage to any unbiased administrators) in chapter 9. -- Lovelight 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"The size of that thing" What thing? your ego? Thank you for the manifesto, how about getting back on point? --Mmx1 18:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, I stated clearly it is intellectual gibberish, how can I be more honest then that!:)))… -- Lovelight 18:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

All the links on talk pages have rel="nofollow"; I'm just sayin.' Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is all this nonsense about? "Mongo, his superiors and his little drugz"...? Not sure where that is supposed to be taking us, but it does nothing to help us make the article better.--MONGO 19:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies Mongo, it was Clockwork orange, you know, Alex and his little droogs… in Slavic lingoes drug stands for friend. Funny as it sound… Nothing beyond that, honestly… -- Lovelight 00:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

this sort of intellectual gibberish is forced upon me No-one is forcing you to say things like war which is directly linked to this horrible act or I'm not asking you to share your knowledge. None of your alleged concerns can be addressed by vandalizing an encyclopedia. Why pursue conspiracy theory fantasy rather than legitimate questions? There is no shortage of evidence suggesting negligence, obstruction, or shameless exploitation of that tragedy for political gain, but these are not the subject matter of this article. Peter Grey 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Peter and thank you all for keeping this little escapade… I'll put it this way… When we talked about that "foreknowledge" you asked very sound question, if I may recall it, you wondered would such thing make article better. You never finished that sentence… My questions are contemporary, therefore I have to ask about war which is directly linked to this horrible act…. Hope, you understand why such tings are so closely related to the article… -- Lovelight 00:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove this when read.

why such t[h]ings are so closely related to the article The link provided says the opposite. Peter Grey 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Provided link states: "The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation." President Bush also said how Saddam supports al-Qaeda while senate report states clearly how "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support…" Acknowledgment of this would be very short sentence in "The War on Terrorism" section. Of course there is that other article, but I'm talking about very small addition indeed… this information can be verified elsewhere… senate report is available here -- Lovelight 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you alleging is connected with this article? Peter Grey 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant? I'm not alleging anything; it is well known fact that US president used 911 attacks to justify "military intervention" in Iraq. Why such important variable wouldn’t be added to section "The War on Terrorism"? Should we all pretend we never heard something which we heard over and over again? That particular paragraph is misleading… For example what should reader think about this sentence: "The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of Afghanistan's oppressive Taliban regime, by a U.S.-led coalition." Say, where is that 1st operation then, you know, big one? This is very strange occurrence in any article, to state one thing while other is left to implausibly hang in air. Point is, time after time, US administration tried to link war in Iraq with war on terrorism (which leads us straight here to events of 9/11). Like that WMD talk (which is not related to discussion here), this is now proven to be a "missing link". If we are interested in facts only, then where is the problem? If anyone is uncertain about importance of such addition, please remember timeline of "liberation" in Iraq and rhetoric's which were used… I see no reason whatsoever to blindly walk over such foul play… -- Lovelight 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course in interest of chronology (and understanding), it would be best if that foreknowledge would be discussed before we start arguing about such side effects as this one (IMHO). If one would be willing to take an objective and critical perspective from very beginning to this day, one would very quickly learn how persistent and consistent lies can be. What you call conspiracy, I would call reasonable and necessary questions about event which forged our actuality. Now, I probably wouldn’t be so pesky about it, but the lack of hard evidence is preposterous… someone actually took all that rubble and burn it in China before any decent investigation, not to mention we are missing whole plane(s) here, literary… -- Lovelight 13:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is too expansive to discuss in this article. This article is about the events that happened on one day, a short discussion of who did it and why. Going off on a tangent about events that happened weeks or months later is not relevent to this article. Maybe it belongs in another article such as the Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.--MONGO 13:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a "server" (router or intersection if you wish), even little, least expensive variable would reflect in any related page. These would be very small additions (few sentences), and we have correctly, appropriately named sections here. Other ways we need to remove such paragraphs as one about long-term effects or "The War of Terrorism". What is the point in presenting them if they illustrate things in ways described above (that mentioning of second biggest operation without addressing first one, being just one of examples)? And if you were referring to that proposed foreknowledge addition, then I would have to say how related actions happened in weeks and days before, or on 9/11. I've illustrated and referenced some of these already, but I'm more then willing to do it all over again. Agreed, on fact that this should be "a short discussion of who did it and why", but these things are far from clear. There is surly need to acknowledge and consider clearly, notably and/or heavily disputed issues. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence, not conspiracy theory. If, example only, damage done to Pentagon is inconsistent with facts stated in article, then such inconsistency need's to be noted and properly referenced. -- Lovelight 14:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of Afghanistan's oppressive Taliban regime, as Lovelight points out, is incorrect. (Why didn't you say so in the beginning?) But it makes no sense to this article to refer to the Iraq War on the basis that it's not connected. Maybe the best place for Bush's conjectures is with all the other conspiracy theory rubbish. Peter Grey 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Conjectures? Is all out lying some sort of new age disease? Peter you are in direct collusion with your president. If something is well documented, then it is well documented. If you force me, I will continue to illustrate this over and over, again and again. There is also one particular video feed you should all see… you can find it here, bottom right clip called "Karen's story"… Half of this article will end up as the other conspiracy theory rubbish… -- Lovelight 23:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

sceptic

I am a reader, not an active user of wikipedia. I will make this short and brief: How can you write that they where terrorist attacks? and that Al-Qaida was behind? when so many facts points in other directions? and no metion of the possible governmental involment?except from under the heading of "conspiracy theroies".? or the fact that it is highly possible that explosives where used to bring the towers down?or the fact that they where buildt to withstand an airliner of the size that crashed? or the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by anything?and the way they collapsed was that of a controlled demolition. ypu have chosen to buy into the official US goernment version of the incidents, instead of giving more weight to indepenant and by far more reliable sources. I feel sick to my stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.196.183 (talk • contribs)

Take a pepto. The buildings were designed to withstand such impacts, but not such impacts with the addition of jet fuel. It is the jet fuel that incinerated the buildings, not the impact. Please talk to a credible engineer or architect with at least 5 years experience before you start typing jibberish. Also, some of the buildings were destroyed by explosives for safety reasons as a matter of public record. The two towers were not among them. Majestic Lizard 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The attacks fit definitions of terrorist attacks (political, not military objectives). There is evidence implicating Al Qaeda, and no credible evidence for other suspects. No evidence of deliberate government involvment (negligence is a different issue). No evidence of explosives and use of explosives is highly improbable. 1 WTC and 2 WTC were designed to withstand an impact of a smaller airliner with a much lower velocity, and withstanding an impact means remaining standing long enough for evacuation, which largely was the case. 7 WTC was hit by debris from 1 WTC (and damaged rather severely, based on the photographs). The collapse in fact did not resemble a controlled demolition (remember 1 WTC took out 7 WTC hundreds of metres away). Many sources contribute to the article; US government sources are given weight based on their reliability. Other sources are rejected on their merits (or lack thereof). You might want to consider the possibility that conspiracy theories are rejected simply because they're wrong (or at least wholly unproven). Peter Grey 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact (& logic) it is exactly as you say, but other way around. Let me illustrate how irrationally you act. Here is a short film which refutes everything you just said and we have zillions of feeds that show consistency (remarkable "resemblance" if you must) with controlled demolition. So, if you would please restrain from such (I'm not sure you are aware of it) outrageous statements which go so far as to make people sick to the stomach? We can start to throw links about this issue at each other whenever you feel up for it… but this out of the touch with reality approach won't work anymore. Where there is a lack of evidence, lack of evidence should be pointed, where there is doubt, doubt should be noted… After all, that decent reader said clearly where are the flaws… this page needs to be free, you are scaring (and bullying) good mannered and well intended editors here. This is not hegemony, my friend; this is Wikipedia, free encyclopedia of humanity for humanity. -- Lovelight 16:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen some of these conspiracy videos and as articulate as the arguments sometimes are, they operate on the layman's ignorance of the principles of modern architecture. Again, it was the jet fuel which incinerated the buildings, not the impact of the planes alone. Had there been no fuel in the jets the buildings would have withstood the impact. Again, talk to some architects and civil engineers (real ones). I'm sure they will shed light on many of your misconceptions concerning this incident. Majestic Lizard 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here but I've read the last three archived pages of discussion and all these points have been discussed over and over again. --PTR 17:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, guess we are all a bit tired of that hula hoopin', we talked enough, let's start walking… and it is a bit uncomfortable to see this discussion as game of ping-pong between me and Peter. Guidelines here are very simple, so please, parachute in... -- Lovelight 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you get along within Reality when your basic hold on cause-and-effect is so destroyed (or maybe it was absent from the start)? Thousands of points of physical evidence pile up on the side of an Al Qaeda planned and executed operation and, to top it off with such finality, Al Qaeda itself admits to it! It's as if Lovelight (who hates Bush) is walking along and finds his hair on fire. He sees a tall guy with an Arab head-dressing running around a corner, throwing away a Bic lighter. Far in the other direction he sees a guy who looks like he must have an American accent talking on a cell phone. Lovelight's conclusion: Bush is on the other end of that call and his confederate obviously lit up his hair with a 50-meter-long matchstick. This is the level we are talking on. JDG 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, you are absolutely right, I have access to unbiased and unfiltered information, which shifts my perspective far from such which is presented here. It's like this particular clip which you currently have to download, since, at the moment, it is mysteriously missing from Google video index or US media (regular occurrence, actually). And I honestly, don't hate Bush (like the name implies I'm more of a peace & love person), never said how Al Qaeda didn't do it, didn't started that issue about collapse times, never tried to vandalize article or to throw an edit without discussion… Heh, all in all, I didn't do much here, but listen to your insults, and your arguments without arguments. All I want is my little reference…… I'm not even pissed at you're little exploit, it is obvious that you have misread discussion here, and it is not your fault if you are so well misinformed as you obviously are… Politically speaking this whole thing is far beyond damage control anyway:) -- Lovelight 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

All in all you keep banning and censoring stuff, because there are no argument left. If you would listen, you would probably hear and understand the need for other perspectives… -- Lovelight 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no rejection of alternate perspectives, simply rejection of evidence that is inconclusive, faulty or outright fraudulent. What could possibly make someone believe that an amateur video clip based on bad simplifications and low-quality photographic material would be more reliable than studies using first-hand evidence and a substantial body of experienced professionals? Peter Grey 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Could we possibly avoid all this things which were only supported from my side, not insist upon in any other way except in means and needs of discussion… and if we would focus on those other things (namely foreknowledge and missing 911-al quieda-Iraq connection) then we would be focused on undisputed, well documented facts. Now, I understand and support summary style of this particular page, and in that exact understanding I see no need for discussion about how, and why, and blah, blah is 911 related to invasion on Iraq (all those things that should or are discussed in interlinked articles). There is this particular fact, a small, factual sentence about the reality where US administration repeatedly connected events of 9/11 with (al-queida harboring) Iraq, thus justifying invasion. Now, why would such outrageous, deeply effective (Almost 90% (of US troops) in Iraq think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks lie with such disturbing side effects stay neglected?" – as that already provided link illustrated) lie be ignored? What exactly are we discussing here? Political correctness? I'm not proposing an essay here; I'm talking about one simple, true sentence… Does one really need to illustrate irrationality of keeping a blind eye on such deceptions which cause nothing but unnecessary death and destruction? Concerning this particular issue, it seems we have a consensus against truth here… which just shows, in what a deep, deep… bush, this page is:)... -- Lovelight 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject is not neglected, it has its own article. Why do you want to mention something that you yourself agree is unrelated to this article? Peter Grey 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite opposite;), I'm saying that such particular sentence should be right here in "Domestic Response" or "War on terrorism" pieces, think it is fairly important, if not to US, then for the World… Iraq is conveniently missing from article, while 9/11 conveniently justified invasion of Iraq? How can one expect we can agree on missing planes, when such closely related link refuses to be linked to article? Is there an article called "Iraq-9/11 connection"? -- Lovelight 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, the subject has its own article. Right here: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. (And there aren't any planes missing.) Peter Grey 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, there are no missing planes from your perspective… Mine is different, I tried, and tried to find that particular birdie (just to keep my sanity in place), but there is none… perhaps you can show one to me? But please, don't throw those puny videos we all seen… Anyway, we can talk about all that collapsing and plane hunting later, fact is, 911 was used to justify invasion of Iraq. Why is this fact neglected here? I'm not talking about Saddam and al quieda, it is about 911 and invasion of Iraq, that first big operation which is missing in this article, as it never existed… This is not 1984, you cannot construct your own history… Say, why you keep pointing in that other direction? This is not a second hand issue here; this has nothing to do with that other article… this is serious stuff that you choose to ignore for no reason whatsoever. Unless, of course you are under Patriot Act, so you have to be careful what you think, write and speak… Have you seen my remark in biased section? Lovelight 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: "missing plane" - that was debunked a while back: [3]. The vid you linked is even mentioned.--DarthBinky 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That link is silly and self refuting, as pictures provided there showed so clearly (IMHO of course)… you can Google on that subject if you wish, at this point of time "Pentagon issue" won't be addressed by me… For starters I would like to finish something and note the fact how invasion of Iraq was justified with the missing link to 9/11 events… Just facts. Lovelight 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now you're showing your bias. A site that actually gives references is "silly and self-refuting", but Michael Moore-style spin video clips (ie pushing an agenda and rarely giving references or contexts) are credible? Give me a break. --DarthBinky 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Instead of sophistic rhetorics that site should show a picture of the plane which is still missing no matter what they say… (IMHO of course;)… you can Google on that subject if you wish, at this point of time "Pentagon issue" won't be addressed by me… For starters I would like to finish something and note the fact how invasion of Iraq was justified with the missing link to 9/11 events… References are already provided … objections? Lovelight 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is the second message I post on this supposely "free" talk page since the first one has been deleted for some obscure reason. It regards the conspiracy theory. Just go and have a look on the following web site: www.reopen911.org

See 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Peter Grey 23:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

An enormous oversight (SAR operations, search dogs)

It is an enormous oversight that there isn't a single mention of the FEMA-coordinated search-and-rescue operations involving over 350 specially trained dogs and handlers. This was the largest deployment of search-and-rescue teams in U.S. history (presumably in the world), and I believe it deserves a mention.

Important/useful links:

Picture Gallery: The World Trade Center's Heroic Rescue Dogs - Photos of 9/11 dogs in action

FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency - 9/11 Info page - The definitive source

National Search Dog Foundation - more info

Each of these links will provide a wealth of information regarding the subject. 72.78.222.99 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Lyn T. 2006.09.19

Oh, so refreshing… Yes, let's bring the search dogs in. -- Lovelight 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it enormous, but I think a mention would be a good addition to the articleKBecks 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe not "enormous" but definitely significant and, as Lovelight said, refreshing. Not everything has to be bleak about 9/11 :) I just submitted a minor edit to the "Rescue, recovery, and compensation" section. Hope it gets approved. Thanks for the feedback, folks. 72.78.222.99 11:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Lyn T.

Attacks Section

The beginning of this section and the title of the timeline page both are misleadingly worded.

Main article: September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for the day of the attacks

It seems to be saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks the timeline for the day of the attacks. Could this be reworded to read September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks?

Can the text be reworded to include the airports the planes departed from instead of East Coast airports?

--PTR 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I know you are all trying to decide what is important content (and you should be praised for all your hard work) but some focus should go on how the article is written. Some of the sentences are not encylopedic and others are out of place. Examples:

No one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived.[9] This could be inserted into the following paragraph as ...including 246 on the four planes (no one on board, etc.)...

The fatalities were in the thousands, with 2,973 people killed, including 246 on the four planes, 2,602 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.[10]Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority police officers.[11] An additional 24 people remain listed as missing in the attack on the World Trade Center to this day.[12]

The first sentence should be rewritten as - There were 2,973 fatalities...

The last sentence as - An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.[12] --PTR 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, such clean up can start as soon article is unlocked? Anything is better than this press restart to continue status quo… Right? -- Lovelight 20:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I know the article is locked and I wouldn't dare make an edit if it weren't. It just seems (from reading the discussions) that people are more interested in getting their own content in rather than focusing first on having what is there be a tight, readable article. Then argue... --PTR 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, guess you are right, people are more interested in providing appropriate content, and therefore I'm not sure if tying things up would be the best course (in terms of needless entropy that is)… Article is in very poor state (IMHO), look's like a scarecrow to be honest… However, anyone should feel free to work on improvements, whether we talk about substance or structure. Little mishaps do bother me, and as you I also pointed one of these "technical flaws" that needs to be better formulated and/or rewritten. If you have will or time to focus on such issues please do so. There is no need for article to be locked if we act decently and in civilized manner…Well, if you are so fresh, then welcome, feel encouraged to implement changes (after discussion of course). Not sure if it's in the guidelines but it probably applies: Audaces fortunat juvat timidos que repellit (Fortune favors the bold and scorns the timid)… -- Lovelight 22:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PTR - welcome to Wikipedia. All the suggestions you have are very sound and reasonable. I don't think people would object to them at all. A small group of editors ( e.g., Lovelight) keep trying to insert material that goes against consensus. Tom harrison, Mmx1, MONGO, Peter Grey, Weregerbil, JDG, Golbez, and myself (and others) object. We have subarticles that deal in more depth with specific topics relating to 9/11, such as the collapse of the WTC. Specifics such as collapse times need to go in the subarticle, with appropriate explanations and nuances about how many seconds it took for the first pieces to hit the ground, seismic readings, video evidence (that shows the collapse still going on after 12 or more seconds, with parts of the WTC core columns yet to collapse). The main article can't cover all facets of the 9/11 attacks in that level of detail, but rather needs to tell things using summary style, with details in the subarticles. Anyway, the edits you would like to make all sound good, and indeed would help make the article more readable. I will go ahead and unprotect the article, so people can make the edits. (w/ respect of consensus on WTC collapse times) --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 23:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo Aude, you put it as well as one could expect it… if you read my comments, then you know that I have no intention in barging in and inflate things out of proportion, I asked for very small improvements. And to be honest, I never heard your standing point. For example, would you care to explain why (small) sentence which would describe "missing link" between 911 and Invasion in Iraq would be inappropriate? It is well referenced, well known and undisputed fact. Such variable doesn't imply any vanguard; it is as simple and true as this quote: "US president has again and again tried to connect the war in Iraq, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation." Anyway, I told you what I think of such consensus as one you carry here (and there is an interesting insight about some editors you mentioned on my talk page…), you know as well as I, that there were lot's of questions here in recent weeks, while there was very little, or to be exact, there were no straight answers at all. If you feel worried about the lack of opposition, stop scaring it away. You tried to do that to me; unfortunate as it may sound, there is no way I'll back out of this. -- Lovelight 00:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Throwing names at me like that, you just reminded me how our fine colleague Weregerbil spoke of terrorism so strangely that it sounded exactly like this: "Al Qaeda guys are planning terrorism right now and will strike some time in the future. Whatchagonnadooabootit?" Whatchagonnadooabootit... What a stirring rhetoric and interesting question from fellow wiki editor… Whatever, Aude, please be so kind and address my little plea with some sort of answer? Any reason will do… is that sentence to expansive? Would it be more suitable if it is not connected to such burning issue like this one? Is it false…? Anything goes… -- Lovelight 01:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aude, for the welcome. I tried to leave a thank you on your talk page but your "Leave a new message" link went to a page that said "protected". I made the smaller edits I'd mentioned above but didn't change the line: Main article: September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for the day of the attacks since it's a title on another article.

I am familiar with the controversies surrounding this article (I did read page 16 through 21 of the discussions :)) and am only interested in cosmetic editing.

Hi Lovelight and sorry, I'm in the consensus camp. --PTR 01:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've noticed how you sound a bit Grey:), from the start there… is it PTR as Peter? -- Lovelight 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. It's an acronym not a name. :) --PTR 01:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Damage Section/Combine Fatalities paragraphs

Since there is a Fatalities section and the fatalities are listed in the introduction would there be a problem with removing this para from the Attacks section and combining into the Fatalities section. The paragraph (and the one below it) breaks up the flow of the section and is repeated information.

There were 2,973 fatalities: 246 on the four planes (no one on board any of the hijacked aircraft survived[9]), 2,602 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.[10]Among the fatalities were 343 New York City Fire Department firefighters, 23 New York City Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority police officers.[11] An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.[12]

The following paragraph also breaks up the flow of the section and could be moved to a section called Damages beneath the Fatalities section. An explanation or citation for the second to last para (Communications equipment...) would be helpful and the one sentence hanging at the end regarding the Pentagon seems an afterthought. A Damages section would be a simple summary of damages with links to the appropriate pages for additional information.

In addition to the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, five other buildings at the World Trade Center site, including 7 World Trade Center and the Marriott Hotel, two New York City Subway stations, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church were destroyed or badly damaged. In total, in Manhattan, 25 buildings were damaged and all seven buildings of the World Trade Center Complex had to be razed. Later, an eighth building, the Deutsche Bank Building across Liberty Street from the World Trade Center complex had to be condemned as well, due to the uninhabitable, toxic conditions inside the office tower (it is, as of September 2006, waiting to be deconstructed). Communications equipment such as broadcast radio, television and two-way radio antenna towers were damaged beyond repair. In Arlington County, a portion of the Pentagon was severely damaged by fire and one section of the building collapsed.[13]

Let me know if anyone would mind these changes. --PTR 13:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes sounds good. Though, one sugggestion to add:

Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall, at 30 West Broadway, was heavily damaged in the attacks, and is slated to be deconstructed and rebuilt. [4]

(PS. I've fixed the "leave a new message" link on my talk page. It linked back to my former username/talk page which is now abandoned.) --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good going there PTR;), glad to see some movement and improvement… -- Lovelight 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How about that "The War on Terrorism" subsection? That mentioning of second big operation without addressing first one? It was discussed already, and think how Peter noticed the flaw… would you care to rectify that part? In any manner that you wish… -- Lovelight 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the paras and added the Damages section. --PTR 16:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an acquaintance who told me just last week, he lost his grandparents to suffication 5 blocks from WTC on 9/11 in that dust cloud, their windows were open. This was a revelation to me. I wonder what the actual numbers are to this type of death and why the official #'s are accident sites specific. Beyond that these numbers may accrue over the years with the toxic cleanup atmosphere that is just now coming out, but, will not be 100% confirmable to WTC. (Greg0658 03:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

article bias

there are two theories of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. only one is shown in this article. the other state's that the attacks where ordered by bush so that he could invade Iraq and have an excuse to pass the patriot act. we need to put in this article "there are to theories of what happened on 9/11" then list this article as one, and the Iraq theory as the other. since none of us where there when the attacks where planned we won't know for sure until history has played out. i suggest that until that time we list both.

A separate article is used for 9/11 conspiracy theories. Such discussion is taken there. KyuuA4 04:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In light of recent events and discussions I would also have to agree with above assertion how current form of article is partial, influenced and biased… Lovelight 23:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Got any sources/references for this "theory"? --DarthBinky 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How about some reasonable doubt? Lovelight 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable doubt is one thing, hysterical doubt is another. Peter Grey 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical? As person said we won't know for sure until history has played out… so let's get back to what we know, and link that missing link? Dispute?:) Lovelight 22:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That video provides even less "facts" than the other link. The only thing of note from it is the Phoenix FBI memo thing at the beginning (which I intend to look into)- the rest seems to be just useless spin and silly cartoons. --DarthBinky 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a copy of that FBI flyer... in the context in which it's used, I don't see anything particularly nefarious about it. The "defenders of the constitution" thing is in reference to right wing "militias" who claim to be "defenders" of the constitution. I'm no Shrub apologist, but this is much ado about nothing, methinks- not to mention irrelevant to the Sept 11 attack article. --DarthBinky 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon, seems we misunderstood each other, I was not referring to this section here, I was referring to that talk we have above, about 911-al quieda-Iraq link… you can look it up if you wish, last few comments in Editing 911 and "skeptic" sections above… these clips were intended for amusement only, you know since you wrote how there are no references for that other theory, while the whole Internet is one big reference/source of such nature:)… & BTW I like this old/new addition below… Lovelight 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The anon mentioned that there is a theory that Bush ordered the attacks to happen- and you, apparently in his defense, post links to sites irrelevant to that theory; now you claim they were for "amusement only". If they're just for "amusement" (I didn't find either to be particularly amusing), then don't post them. Stay on topic, please. --DarthBinky 23:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

As I said, apologies, I've noticed the error as soon as I posted… there are certain documents such as this one which provide some light on this matter, but such things were already presented to be ignored by Mongo and others… there is also that video of Norman Mineta testimony, and so on… if you ask me, such things would be referenced in this article long, long time ago… Lovelight 23:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

253 total edits and counting,[5] of which 21 to the encyclopedia we are in theory working on.[6] Do you really want to help write an encyclopedia? Or do you want to spread the truth? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tom, don’t know what are you trying to imply there? For example, when I worked on that Starforce article, all I really did was discussing with the people on talk-page why was that article dangerously false (there was another Mongo there!;). And if I recall it correctly all editing happened by itself… today Starforce is treated as any "oppressing and consumer rights violating" technology should… so I guess there are all sort's of ways in which one can contribute (for example, I know a person who had very few edits, but he is a writer and he promoted Wikipedia heavily). So, in spite poor state of this particular article I have only good things in mind, when it comes to our Wikiworld… Lovelight 01:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Accountability of U.S. government officials

I added short section as follows: - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "failed miserably in its duty" to alert the military of possibly hijacked aircraft (New York Times, August 13, 2006). Also, for more than two years after September 11, NORAD and the (FAA) provided false information about the response to the 9/11 hijackings in testimony and media appearances to the 9/11 Commission (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). NORAD and the FAA officials stated that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that fighter jets had been scrambled to intercept planes in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington, D.C. For example, Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the 9/11 Commission determined that the airliner was not even hijacked until 12 minutes later. According to later testimony, the military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania. - The Commission was forced to use subpoenas to obtain the cooperation of the NORAD and FAA to release evidence such as audiotapes (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). - NORAD and the FAA's reluctance to release the tapes, e-mails and other evidence, along with their erroneous public statements, led some of the 9/11 Commission's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on September 11. "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on September 11, said in a recent interview (Washington Post, August 2, 2006). No U.S. government official has been held accountable for their failures on 9/11 or for the subsequent false information they gave about the events of 9/11.

Mongo, why did you delete? Please refrain from deleting without at least attempting to provide an explanation for your actions. I find actions like that dismissive and high-handed in violation of WP's consensus-oriented approach. --JustFacts 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Morton, why did you delete: However, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not list 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him ((http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm). Please read link. Please refrain from using language bordering on vulgarity. Instead, you may wish to engage in civilized debate in accordance with WP rules. I will give you a chance to respond before restoring contribution.--JustFacts 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Although the proposed material is hopelessly in violation of NPOV, accountability is an element of the overall story, although I would suggest the summary article might not be the most suitable place for it. (And the FBI, as previously discussed, is obligated to follow rules of police procedure.) Peter Grey 23:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, what are you saying?

bin Laden cannot be tried for the Kenya bombing, because this allegation has been on a FBI poster before he has had a fair trial?
the police cannot name wanted criminals and say why they want them?

I don't get it. I think bombing Afghanistan was a hint that the FBI suspected bin Laden? Wouldn't bombing Afghanistan to find him influence any Jury in his future trial?  Xiutwel (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is the explanation was provided earlier - look it up. Peter Grey 12:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

By "hopelessly in violation of NPOV" you mean what exactly? That it is critical of some government officials? I am suggesting the start of a section on accountability. If you have other sources on this you can add them for "balance." I do not see where in the article the info I added (or anything like it) is reflected. As an aside, can we agree that it is very impolite to remove fully sourced contributions without a decent explanation (you were not the one, I know)? With respect to the FBI procedures, what rules of procedure would make my contribution irrelevant? Please point to the discussion, if applicable. --JustFacts 14:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For one, failed miserably is intentionally subjective. See WP:NPOV. Peter Grey 16:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, "failed miserably" is the conclusion reached by the NYT based on the record of incompetence on 9/11. We could take out "miserably" and list the failings if necessary. But taking out the whole section? That's supposed to be NPOV, to remove the whole section? It shows POV to remove any criticism. By the way, is "hopelessly in violation" NPOV?--JustFacts 17:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the FBI poster, I am assuming you're referring to this discusion: [[7]]. The "explanation" of why the FBI poster for OBL does not list 9/11 is that OBL has not been charged with that crime. But that explanation begs the larger question quite relevant to the 9/11 article. How could the US gov't have sufficient evidence for charges for, say, the USS Cole bombing, but insufficient evidence against Osama for 9/11? How could the gov't be sure enough about Osama's connection with 9/11 to proclaim it publicly and attack and invade a sovereign country (Afghanistan), yet have insufficient evidence for filing criminal charges? Either they have sufficient evidence, in which case why not file charges as they have with his other bombings, or they do not, in which case invading Afghanistan and declaring a global War on Terrorism was factually baseless. As far as our article is concerned, since the article has a whole section on Osama in the responsibility section, the facts of the lacuna on the FBI wanted release and the lack of criminal charges are quite important, I would think. --JustFacts 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way. The removed section, though it contains some dates and the names of some newspapers, it is not exactly well-cited. No doubt there were a great deal of security screwups in the leadup to 9/11 and there was a lot of ass-covering and intentional and unintentional misinformation afterwards, but it is not reasonable to take these happenings and spin them into a theory that the U.S. government orchestrated 9/11 (which, forgive me, appears to be your ultimate purpose). Anyway, provide credible citations that the rest of us can verify (I don't happen to have a copy of the August 2 Washington Post handy, and anyone who did would be leery of going through the whole thing to try to figure out what article you were talking about) and then some of these things could go in the article.

(FYI: To "beg the question" is to presuppose the answer to a question.) --Mr. Billion 18:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Billion, here is a link you requested: [[8]] . I will ignore your guess as to my "ultimate purpose" as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand and is inappropriate in this forum. Please see my comment to Golbez about mind reading. For all you know I believe NASA faked the manned lunar landings. --JustFacts 20:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If no one else has any further objections I will repost section on "Accountability" (see text above) to the article. I note that the editor who deleted my contribution with no explanation has so far not stated his objection in response to my query. I find that discurteous.--JustFacts 03:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The question of accountability and lack thereof are important and should contribute to the article. Nonetheless, the problems of WP:NPOV and in particular WP:NPOV#Undue_weight remain unresolved, and singling out the FAA and NORAD would be misleading. Peter Grey 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, since we agree that accountability is an important issue, we should create the section. In terms of singling out NORAM and FAA, we have to start building the section somehow. It might as well be with the lead US agencies in charge on the day of 9/11. I heartily agree that other agencies and possibly specific officials with those agencies should also be covered. But we should not hold up the accountability section if we are off to a good start simply because it is not yet comprehensive. There is only so much I can do at one time. Conversely, if I spent the next few weeks finding sources and proposed on this page a full blown section on accountability, it would be even more difficult to reach concensus on adding it because there would be quibling on various details. Any section on accountability will be susceptible POV charges. How do you discuss accountability without doling out some potential blame. IF we water it down we could also err on the other side of POV (POV: the US agencies acted reasonably well or at least with no flaws worthy of mention)--the current problem with the article. --JustFacts 17:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure that "accountability" is necessarily needed as a new section. It is probably enough to state breifly how air traffic is handled and who/what was tracking the specific flights that day. How they were tracked and who was in charge of judging the threat. The wikipedia should definitely avoid doling out "accountability" rather discuss the facts, chain of command, who made what calls regarding threats, what proposals were made, what hijacking protocols are, etc. Accountability lends itself to POV problems. The article can even state what experts suggest should or could have been done and should definitely cite the 9/11 report and what it concluded were problems with the events of that day leading up to the acts of terrorism themselves. Wikipedia is not really the place to "hold people/organizations accountable" and that idea should be avoided. But, wikipedia should definitely discuss the facts of the day and specific instances that have been reported to be poorly handled and why. If it remains factual and avoids the less credible claims of what happened that day I think a section like this would do just fine (and of course it will be hashed over by editors for a while). !@#Rtrev 19:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read (or re-read) my proposed contribution on accountability near the top of this section and tell me whether your comments are still valid. I think we are in agreement. My proposed contribution makes statements about federal shortcomings (and misrepresentations after the fact) based on reliable major news accounts.--JustFacts 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your original statements sound too much like a listing of every criticism from major news sources. I don't think that is neccessary or appropriate. Instead, it should be exactly who was in charge of what aspects of that day, what are the official protocols for a hijacking, and how were those adhered to or not adhered to. Was anyone involved in the actual air control and tracking that day critical of events? What were the official suggestions for change in the 9/11 report. Major media can carp all they want because hindsight is always 20/20. The wikipedia shouldn't assist in doling out blame no matter what major news source wants to dole it out. Unless their was legal negligence or official blame, firings etc. then I don't think it is appropriate to list evry complaint from national TV, print, and internet news. !@#Rtrev 16:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're proposing a more ambitious analysis than what I had in mind and may come close the original research problem. The 9/11 Commission typically avoided holding agencies let alone individuals accountable by analyzing what they should have dome compared to what they did do. By the way, I don't think the media have typically not been critical of specific US agencies. In response to another point you raise, my contribution draws from one or two articles and is therefore not susceptible to the charge that I am cherry picking all the worst characterizations. Again, my contribution focuses on some of the key criticisms of the lead agencies. That I think is the way to begin building this section of the article.--JustFacts 23:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So you're not proposing an accountablility section but a criticism of government response section? This section would just list news agencies/articals critical of the government response? Would this be response to the attacks or response to the 9/11 Commission? This just seems like it would have to be a laundry list of links and the article is pretty long as it is. --PTR 01:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not just articles critical of gov't, wherever did you get that idea? I have no problem starting a separate article on the subject if you think this one is already too long. Would you pitch in to such an article on accountability? --JustFacts 16:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were wanting a section on criticisms of government agencies (I should have been more clear) because what you added originally:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) "failed miserably in its duty" to alert the military of possibly hijacked aircraft (New York Times, August 13, 2006). Also, for more than two years after September 11, NORAD and the (FAA) provided false information about the response to the 9/11 hijackings in testimony and media appearances to the 9/11 Commission (Washington Post, August 2, 2006)...

Begins with a New York Times editorial and Washington Post article both critical of government agency response to the attacks and to the 9/11 Commission. These articles make no mention of accountablility so I supposed you actually wanted government agency response criticism.

I'm not sure an article on accountability is possible since the only people who have been held accountable are the hijackers and ZM. Others have been pointed out as being accountable; al-Q and OBL but that is adequately covered in this article and others already existing. --PTR 16:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In view of the many notable sources criticizing various aspects of gov't agency performance before, on and after 9/11, the article as it is now has a major flaw: the reader gets no sense of this. The section I proposed has several examples of such criticisms. Does no one beside me have a problem with this? The reader of the 9/11 article is given the impression that there is no criticism of gov't agencies or flaw in response on 9/11 or thereafter worthy of comment. PTR, you cite the examples I provide from RS then dismiss any possibility of accountability? I acknowledge that gov't agencies/individuals have not been held accountable for negligence etc.--in fact this fact should be mentioned, but that should not stop us from citing criticisms. In terms of POV, we should also cite sources extolling gov't response where available (e.g. NYC firefighters who dutifully went to their deaths by the hundreds--we would need sources of course). --JustFacts 20:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do dismiss the possiblity of an accountability section or article if, as you yourself said, gov't agencies/individuals have not been held accountable. I also did mention above that it sounded as if you wanted a criticism of government response section which I don't have a problem with and could possibly go under the Government Response section but the article is getting quite long and contains a lot more detail than just the facts of the attacks.

I believe there is an article on the Aftermath of the September 11 Attacks which might be better suited for a full section on criticism of the response with a paragraph here but I'm new here and do not speak for the editors who have worked on this article for more than just a few weeks. --PTR 23:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism/accountability. Makes no difference to me. I thought "accountability" would be less POV since "criticism" will be immediately attacked here as focusing on "bad news" (actions not taken that should have been as standard operating procedure, etc.) I agree that the article is already quite long. Aftermath article would not be suitable, since many of the criticisms are about events before and on 9/11. Short paragraph here with link to a separate article on the subject would be best, I think. If anyone is interested in starting to write this let me know as I have never started a new article myself: "Criticism of gov't agencies for 9/11 related actions and omissions" How is that?--JustFacts 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Muckraker reports

Hi Tom, you reverted two edits which both stem from the Muckraker Report. I do not see your point yet. I revert and reformulate, for starters. Could you please, on this talk page, elaborate on your view concerning: ...

inuendo

...

reliable source

...

continued

...so that we can al work together on this article, in stead of "fight" ? Thank you! — Xiutwel (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources are discussed elsewhere. I think most people understand innuendo; if not, the better way to make it clear will be by demonstration, rather than by explication on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What fact exactly do you feel you need a reliable source for? Could you not use the {{fact}} template, to make sure a reliable source is provided, in stead of reverting?
I have a grasp of the term Innuendo. What I would like you to specify is: what you think is "suggested" and why such "suggestion" would be inappropriate. So, please demonstrate rather than explain. / Xiutwel (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"no thanks" FBI poster dispute

. Despite this fact, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not specifically mention 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him <ref>''"other terrorist attacks"'' http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm </ref>

(cur) (last) 10:36, 22 September 2006 Golbez (Talk | contribs) (no thanks. the only point of these edits is to push the pov.)
(cur) (last) 10:19, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // reformulation ; SEE Talk page PLEASE)
(cur) (last) 01:36, 22 September 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rv - not a reliable source; rm innuendo)
(cur) (last) 00:54, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // ref // Morton please be more precise in your comments)
(cur) (last) 00:26, 22 September 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (revert to version without unsubstantiated bullcrap)
(cur) (last) 00:25, 22 September 2006 JustFacts (Talk | contribs) (/* FBI "wanted")
(cur) (last) 00:22, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - Muckraker)

Golbez, I'm sorry you feel this way. Similarly, one could argue that the only point to remove this neutral, unbiased, information, is to push the government POV. The dispute flag goes up. If anyone would like to point me to previous discussion / consensus, please provide a date (from your own edit history?) or link to the talk page, because I don't see it.

What a waste of our energy this is, wikipedia !!! Should we not have a broad discussion on how to allow for several 'POV' facts simulataniously in order to make all 911 articles NPOV?

e.g.: Wikipedia_talk:911 POV disputes

— Xiutwel (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite this fact is incorrect, since it is not in contradiction to the previously discussed rules for the most wanted list. Aside from questions of fact, I would suggest as a matter of style that the relevant section is already too long and is not improved by adding a critique of the wording of a fugitive notice. Peter Grey 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the previous section. Let's continue the FB poster discussion here. Tom, please explain why on the question of what is contained in the FBI "wanted" poster the FBI's website showing the "wanted" poster is "not a relialbe source" and is "innuendo." Golbez, you seem to possess a degree of mind reading skill in identifying the intent of the editor making an edit. You then seem to take the position that you can decide that such an intention is inapproriate based on some unidentified set of criteria. The final step seems to be to decide that you have been empowered to remove any contributions, no matter how relevant, compliant with WP rules, and fully sourced, because it is incompatible with the intention you decided existed which you decided was inappropriate. --JustFacts 20:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The fugitive notice is being misrepresented to create unsubstantiated doubts as to the identity of the parties responsible for the attacks. "Mind reading skill" is not necessary when the intentions, even assuming good faith, are so transparent. Peter Grey 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The only point of this edit is to attempt to insinuate that the government doesn't think Osama did it. False. The 10 Most Wanted list requires someone be indicted, and the Justice Department has not yet, for whatever reason. My mindreading is skillful - you are subtly trying to express a POV not entirely supported by the facts. I can indeed decide, because five years of precedent has told us that such implied stuff isn't allowed here. --Golbez 21:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the reason for not indicting Bin Laden may be how the Bush administration views terrorism and 9/11 (acts of war), versus the Clinton administration which handled terrorism as more of a law enforcement and criminal matter. Also, consider the Moussaoui and other cases, where significant amounts of evidence were derived from intelligence sources, such as al Qaeda detainees. To file a criminal indictment, requires disclosing intelligence information and perhaps sources/methods. With the ongoing "War on Terrorism", the administration probably doesn't want to do that. Nonetheless, this document from the U.K. government outlines evidence that makes them confident that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. They also note "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources." To ignore all these reasons why Bin Laden hasn't formally been indicted and simply insinuate that the government doesn't think Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is disingenuous. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Golbez 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The only point of this edit," Golbez, is to inform the reader of the facts. The US claims OBL is behind 9/11. The US has not indicted OBL and his FBI poster does not list 9/11. If you can cite sources to disprove or cast doubt on the foregoing, let me know. Until then, these facts should not be suppressed. My POV, Golbez, and what I am trying to express are of no concern of yours, and frankly, I am not that interesting. As long I am contributing factual, fully sourced info that is relevant and sheds light on the state of facts, and is compliant with WP rules, you and others are not empowerd to remove it because of any agenda you have for the article, or because you want to cultivate a certain view in the readers. Please cite the precedent. In any case, it cannot overrule WP rules. Aude, we can speculate about the reason the US has not indicted and we can cite evidence for OBL's guilt. It is quite irrelevant to the factual assertion I added. BWT, if you were to try to add much of your thoughtful reasoning it would probably constitute OR (unless you cited sources that set forth this reasoning explicitly). --JustFacts 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Peter, please state the "misrepresentation." My contribution in no way "critiqued" the FBI notice. With respect to the last sentence of Aude's comment, the sentence I proposed never implied that the US doesn't think OBL did it. It simply asserts the state of the FBI notice.--JustFacts 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you yourself are asserting it fails relevance? Anyway, the mention would clearly fail WP:NPOV since, even on this talk page, it has caused confusion about the role of the list in law enforcement and the role of law enforcement in the overall response to the attacks, so the result (whether or not intentional) would be to make the situation less clear to the reader. However, there probably is a suitable sub-article that could stand to have more detail about how the response to the attacks fits with the criminal justice system. Peter Grey 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, you don't think the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL is relevant to the 9/11 article? I do and I think most reasonable WP editors would agree. I agree that a sub-article should explore these issues further. I pledge to help on that if you will work on it. --JustFacts 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it does seek him. The FBI seeks him. He cannot, however, be on the 10 most wanted list because he has not been indicted. Lack of indictment does not mean they seek him. So... --Golbez 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL (which they do) is not the proposed edit under discussion. Peter Grey 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

...the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL...

As has been noted, they do officially seek OBL. There's no 'whether or not' about it. The thing that helps fuel conspiracy theories is that the Wanted poster doesn't mention 9/11. That doesn't mean the FBI doesn't acknowledge that Osama bin Laden is the leader of the organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks and that he authorized and aided those attacks. It isn't just the nefarious U.S. shadow government that puts forth this story, it's also every other country in the world.
Maintaining the facade that all you're doing is just innocently "adding important factual information" isn't fooling anybody. Your history of edits indicates a design to promote a 9/11 conspiracy theory. This "JustFacts" account was created solely for the purpose of propagating suggestions that 9/11 was some kind of government hoax. Please don't insult everybody else with pretense.
Insinuating the moonbat hypothesis that the U.S. government was complicit in or responsible for 9/11 (and apparently that it destroyed WTC 1, 2, and 7 with explosives, and secretly hit the Pentagon with a missile instead of a plane) rather than just was incompetent and lethargic in antiterrorism efforts is a waste of yours and everybody else's time. There are many more productive (or at least less harmful) things to do with the Internet. --Mr. Billion 04:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my remark was not explicit enough: the fact of whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL FOR THE CRIME OF 9/11 is relevant to the 9/11 article. Given the context, I thought the words FOR THE CRIME OF 9/11 were understood. Golbez, I don't see how the FBI's 10 most wanted is relavant to this discussion. We are discussing OBL's FBI poster as it relates to 9/11. Hi Billion, I appreciate you taking such an interest in me and my views. If you would like to become friends I could tell you over tea what I think about the price of tea in China and you could tell me your views. In this forum however, as I tried to point out with the moon landing ideas (which I think you misunderstood--please do not attribute far fetched ideas to me) my personal views are quite irrelevant. WP rules prohibit ad hominem attacks. But not only are they against the WP rules (and fallacious), they are irrelevant. Again, one could be a convicted felon (Billion, please don't try to infer from this that I am) and believe that Elvis is alive (no Billion, that is not a "confession"), but each edit needs to considered on its own merits. In addition, since you seem so concerned about me, please dig a bit deeper and you'll find many edits quite unrelated to 9/11. --JustFacts 15:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with JustFacts that the missing 911-link on the FBI poster would not suggest anything. It might suggest the FBI is not convinced that OBL is involved. It might be that there is just some bureaucratic reason for it. But I would like to see that SOURCED. (see below) — Xiutwel (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. We are in agreement, I believe.--JustFacts 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK.  Xiutwel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

continued dispute

I am sorry to notice that Aude has removed the dispute flag without acknowledging this clearly. I hope this was a sloppy mistake, not intent.

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=77295791&oldid=77195278#Responsibility

So we seem to agree that:

OBL was not indicted for 911^{[citation needed]}
OBL was indeed indicted for e.g. the Kenya bombing^{[citation needed]}
people can only be announced wanted AFTER being indicted^{[citation needed]}
we can bomb a country back to the stone-age in the process of looking for a suspect, before indicting them (no source needed, self-evident)

Until we get Reliable Sources for the above three facts, the dispute flag has to stay up, I'm afraid... — Xiutwel (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus? When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority? Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters? Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement. The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction. Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, there is no consensus on the inclusion of this information into the article, only on the above three statements. However, I am not so convinced that all the explanations for the absence of 911 on the OBL FBI poster are totally correct. So I would like some sources, before I too agree that this information would be irrelevant to the article.

So please just answer the three simple questions: what are the sources? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hijacker Demands

I wanted to add to the Attack section overview the line, "The hijackers made no monetary or political demands." but didn't want to start a firestorm. Does anyone object?--PTR 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems harmless, but because of the timeline, by the time the lack of demands became noteworthy, the hijackers were already dead. Peter Grey 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems like something people might ask years in the future when it's not so fresh.--PTR 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The only way I think it's notable is that these hijackings were unlike anything in the past. At the time, airline pilots/crews had certain procedures to use in hijacking situations -- cooperate with the hijackers. And NORAD, the FAA, and other government agencies had certain procedures, which turned out to be totally inadequate for this new, unprecidented situation. Maybe something to that effect, with appropriate references should be added? Might be tricky to find the right NPOV wording, though. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I'll see what I can find. If I can't get anything NPOV I won't put the line in.--PTR 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Air Travel Exemptions

Hi there, hope everyone had a great weekend… Lockup again? Well, hope I'm here long enough because I really won't to add that little 911-Iraq variable (it will come up in more then one section, so I'll give it a bit more thought, since that addition should be brief and to the point…) Say, where are we at this point in time? Denial? Opposition? Acceptance… Anyway, I would also like to see 9/11 In Plane Site in "see also" division… Not to mention Loose Change? Why is such notable film not presented here? This move is seen by at least ten million viewers worldwide, and it should be in plain sight. Is there some reason why this two movies shouldn’t be added? And in regards to that unprecedented and colossal ineptitude Aude mentioned, yes, we could take a look at whereabouts of US military on that day. There should also (IMHO of course) be notes about Bush Saudi ties, those planes which flew when no one flew… and so on… -- Lovelight 11:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Saudi plane thing was refuted. It is false. --Golbez 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it? Really? Honestly?:) -- Lovelight 12:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [links to copyvio sites deleted]

Were three links to the exact same article necessary? Also, waitaminute, what's the story here? The article says they flew on September 13. The airspace was at least partly open by then. --Golbez 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That question is answered in provided article and elsewhere and there are other sources. But this discussion should come a little later, it has something to do with the fact that US government has refused to release recordings of communications from any of the hijacked 9/11 planes (missing is what is all about, information of unclaimed put options is available but kept, footage of whatever hit pentagon is available, but kept, and so on)…I'm not sure if you noticed, so I'll emphasize what was important in those links: "I'm over it," he said in a telephone interview. "The White House, the FAA and the FBI all said the flight didn't happen. Those are three agencies that are way over my head, and that's why I'm done talking about it." Of course, such quote doesn’t mean that I'm over it… or that I'll give a wrinkled nickel for those US agencies… I would still prefer complete rewriting of this article, but if there is need to do things little, by little, it's OK with me… Those unasked question will be and should be asked… Perhaps tomorrow, perhaps after November… -- Lovelight 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

First, this article represents an enormous contribution of labour by a great many people, so the fact that one person might prefer complete rewriting of this article seems less than compelling. Second, a google search returning 954,000 hits is not a "source". Third, not every unanswered question is necessarily relevant to this article. Pick one and justify its inclusion. Propose an edit and provide supporting evidence, otherwise there is little hope of a rational dialogue. (I would suggest one of the sub-articles would be the appropriate place for details about air space restrictions and exceptions.) Peter Grey 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. Lovelight, please select one fact that you think is not addressed in the article and provide a cite. Stop bombarding us with multiple issues mentioned in passing and lots of links. Once we resolve that one issue through discussion, you can then move to the next one. I am trying to be positive. --JustFacts 22:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! It is so hard to watch this article with all the unsubstantiated and non-academic links to questions that may or may not have any relevance to an article that is clearly the work of many interested individuals. Rtrev 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(rv poor faith insertion of tag to allude to content unsupported by consensus)

please explain "poor faith"? — Xiutwel (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is inserted as a link to the talk page where you present your implications which have been clearly rejected by consensus. Dispute tags are not to be used as a run-around against consensus.--Mmx1 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For clarity, I copy from your talk page: — Xiutwel (talk)

What, am I blind? Several editors have explained to you why a negative leading to OR conclusions of your own is not appropriate. --Mmx1 18:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is getting stranger and stranger.

First, the dispute flag is removed without even mentioning it, and when I put it back, you accuse me of bad faith.
Second, there seems to be a misunderstanding. It is not so that when several editors give their side of the dispute, the dispute is resolved. You can read above the questions which I feel have not been adressed at all.
Third, I do not understand exactly what you mean by: why a negative leading to OR conclusions of your own is not appropriate. Could it be you are referring to "No Original Research"? Please explain!
Fourth: I agree dispute tags are not a for a run-around against consensus. I would never put a dispute flag up before trying to resolve the issue.

— Xiutwel (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, I apologize for not referring to the talk page when replacing the dispute flag. You may have missed my statements there, since they were not at the bottom of the talk page. — Xiutwel (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read it all. Your insistence on this original research that if someone was not indicted, then they are not culpable, is laughable. Where is Aidid's indictment? Or Hitler's? --Mmx1 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim that someone who is not indicted, is not culpable. I just want to know why bin Laden is indicted for one attack, and not for the other.^{[citation needed]} Is this a problem to answer? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The article, nor the talk page is not the Wikipedia:Reference_desk for answering your curiosities. Take your questions elsewhere. If you yourself cannot answer these questions, you are way out of line in inserting them into the article. --Mmx1 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

proof what you claim

I have no intent of putting these questions into the article. Just the fact that the info is not on the poster, and anyone who thinks this is logical, should source that belief.

Do you agree with this?

Me, and several other wikipedians, feel that it is proper to include the information on the FBI poster into the article.
This is contested, this information would be irrelevant, because there is nothing strange about 911 not being on the OBL-wanted poster
we have provided adequate sources for the fact that the poster does not explicitly mention 911
should you then not be obliged to give sources for your claims, if you want to convince me not to include this bit of information, which complies with wikipedia standards?
This is not about satisfying MY curiosity, this is about substantiating YOUR claims.

I propose you give it some thought, if you cannot give arguments I will put the dispute flag back up tomorrow, making sure it refers to the right section this time - sorry! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Xiutwel, I agree with you. I don't see why we cannot include the fact that FBI does not seek OBL for the crime of 9/11 or the fact that OBL has noot been indicted for 9/11. I have not received a decent answer from anyone why my contribution with respect to the first fact (fully sourced to FBI web page) was deleted.--JustFacts 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

summary FBI poster dispute flag

I am going to put the dispute flag back up (I've seen no response to my queries). To summarize:

OBL is on the FBI website, wanted for terrorism, stating explicitly: for e.g. the Kenya bombing but not for 911
at first glance, this might suggest he is not deemed connected to 911
according to the Muckraker report, the FBI stated they have insufficient evidence to support such a claim
many wikipedians claim that
1. the Muckraker report cannot be a reliable source
2. 911 is not on the poster, simply because of burocratic issues. OBL "has not been indicted for 911" yet.
This could be true. However, it could also be a total fantasy, grasping at straws. Who knows?
So I asked and asked again for substantiation of these claims regarding common burocratic procedure.
No reply was given, nor a link to a previous discussion on the talk page where these issues would have been addressed. (I can find none myself)
In conclusion:
1. if it is only logical that 911 is still not mentioned on the FBI poster/site, then this fact would not be very important (we could nonetheless include it, with explanation, to help our readers understand the issue when they might come across it elsewhere, outside wikipedia)
2. if the above claims re burocratic procedures are mere speculation, we are left with the facts. It is a reliable fact that 911 is not on the FBI website. It is sourced. It is not original research, because this was not found out by wikipedians but by the Muckraker report. It is interesting, because it could be an anomaly to the official story. So, why not include it?

This is all I can see and say about it. I hope we can come to a decision, so we can resolve this and remove the dispute flag.— Xiutwel (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents.

With respect to the first sentence: it is a known fact that the US government stated this explicitly, over and over again. Whether all entities within the government believe it, is something else. The FBI matter needs resolving, and until it is resolved, this wording is not acceptable. I would at least replace determined with stated, but I think we should include something on the FBI website also. Suggestions on how to go about this are welcome! — Xiutwel (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As for the second sentence, see at: #OBL admitted. — Xiutwel (talk)

what is the dispute?

I don't understand what presented fact you are disputing. That the United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks? That seems pretty well supported, to say the least. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I know they say they believe OBL 'did it'. But, do they mean what they say? How can we be sure? I think the wording should change, AND the info about the missing FBI indictment should be included into the article. Since both have been repeatedly reverted, this forms a dispute. My solution for the dispute would be: replace with stated and add a footnote, explaining that the FBI fails to mention 911 on the list of crimes of OBL. If we can agree, great! If not, are there any other solutions?  Xiutwel (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The logical conclusion to that kind of thinking is that we are all brains in vats but don't know it. If you want to imply that, "Oh sure the feds say they think he did it, but they don't really believe he did it; or do they? or is that just what they would have us believe?" then you need to find reliable sources who say that, and really believe it when they say it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've got a point there. Even if OBL did it, the word determined suggests that no one in the US government was involved. And that's exactly what we do not have consensus about. When we also leave out the FBI-poster issue, which strikes me as odd, the article becomes rather imbalanced/POV.  Xiutwel (talk)

I must conclude that no-one seems able or willing to give reliable sources for the theories I questioned above. Absent such sources, I must assume the whole indictment-is-necessary theory might be a total fantasy, and the Muckraker report may after all be right in its claim that (part of) the FBI deems the evidence inconclusive. So please, fill me in!  Xiutwel (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Please respond.  Xiutwel (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You're demanding we provide sources to support your assertion. The absense of an indictment can be for many reasons. You claim it's because he's not implicated. The FBI and other U.S. sources clearly disagree. You're attempting to derive some sort of conclusion from the fact that he is not indicted that simply doesn't hold up. --Mmx1 02:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You have still not identified what is under "dispute", only alluded to some minor points that could, in theory, be more thoroughly sourced, but in any case are mere technicalities regarding an event that is clearly beyond the scope of ordinary criminal justice. Bin Laden is a most wanted fugitive - there is no "beyond most wanted" category, and thus no constructive purpose to an additional indictment. Now, if bin Laden were apprehended and subjected to an extradition process, certain legal procedures might become important, but to date that is not the case. The claim no one in the US government was involved ('involved' meaning, presumably, as co-conspirators) does represent a consensus unless evidence to the contrary is produced. Peter Grey 03:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

- Discussion due to longevity to be continued on: -
- Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/FBI poster controversy -

— Xiutwel (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

9/11-Iraq Link

Point taken, I would like to resolve that missing (first big operation) issue in War on terrorism, however is seems how this will reflect in both, Responsibility and/or Public/Domestic response sections. Which makes all handling a bit tricky.., here is a quick draft with some of possible scenarios. Fact is: "US administration repeatedly connected events of 911 with Saddam Hussein and Iraq." This can be added to existing text in this manner:

Domestic response: The Bush Administration also invoked 9/11 as the reason for invasion of Iraq and initiation of secret National Security Agency operation, to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant.

This would then reflect in War on Terrorism section, which is linked to equally named, equally disputed and unclear article (unfortunately, one can hardly find time to look at the talk page there…). It can certainly be added to existing material here, as in example below...

War on terrorism: In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that they had "changed the world forever." The Bush administration declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq. The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of Afghanistan's Taliban government, by a U.S.-led coalition. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic extremist terrorism…

This fact can also stand as simple sentence in Public response or other mentioned sections... this is first draft, please help, suggest, share your links and opinions... Thanks.

Few citations, missing links, prewar and post 9/11 rhetoric's:

Some video streams:

If more citations are needed, I'll provide… -- Lovelight 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

re: Iraq link

Dear Lovelight, I change your heading from a level 1 to a level 2 heading.

Could you please fill me in, which part of the text in the article you would like replaced or amended, it is not quite clear to me? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be The_War_on_Terrorism which, as pointed out, does need some clarifying. The "War on Terrorism" is only in part in response to September 11th, and while there are more appropriate articles for political questions, the article should either 1) consider only actions in response to the attacks (e.g. regime change with respect to the Taliban is the largest operation) or 2) distinguish actions related to the attacks from unrelated actions. Peter Grey 19:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Peter, I would incline to number 2. But in practice, can this be done? Is Iraq 911 related or not? The Government once claimed that Saddam was connected, but in the end all that remains is the WMD which now have been proven to be hot air. So, it would more be a matter of classifying HOW things are connected, than IF. My two cents. — Xiutwel (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  - There is whole wealth of references out there (this is now historical fact, as those WMD's), and hopefully we have no obligation to do anything else but state facts. The addition to text is now in bold. Once again, I would be more then grateful to hear your impressions and suggestions. imho , the reasons should be explained elsewhere (in related articles), while we should try to be brief and to the point here. Feel free to improve the wording, but please leave the meaning... -- Lovelight 23:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the following:

"Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq." - added by Lovelight [9]

While there may be a "whole wealth of references out there", none were provided here. Also, I think the wording needs work. As for mentioning Iraq in the "Domestic response" section, it doesn't fit there. Iraq isn't part of domestic reponse. --Aude (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For now? Perhaps you are waiting for further developments? This particular discussion is going for some time, it is common knowledge and proper citations (references) were given above, click 'em… These two should be more then enough: 9/11-Iraq fact's and claims;In quotes: Iraq-al-Qaeda links; followed with this reference: Postwar findings about Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorism and how they compare to prewar assessments, Select Committee on Intelligence, September 8, 2006… Already asked you for help with the wording… keep in mind how this is historical fact…it should have been in article long, long time ago and I don't share your opinion how Iraq wasn’t part of domestic response, but please, do share your suggestions; I would like this to be resolved ASAP…Thank you… Lovelight 00:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
There are many developments directly related to the attacks that are noteworthy and, for this article, a brief summary would be in order, but the catch is that many events were also influenced by other considerations (including misinformation). Part of this comes down to deciding how far to stray from the actual hijackings. I would suggest that pubic acceptance for [the] 2003 invasion of Iraq is moving quite far from the subject of this article. "Public acceptance" is (regrettably) not a notable factor in US policy, and the official rationale for the invasion was WMD's, ~~not terrorism~~. Peter Grey 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Double-checking, the legislation delegating the authority for invasion did require Bush justify action as a response to terrorism in general and September 11th in particular. That still leaves the question whether a fraudulent link counts as a link or a non-link.) Peter Grey 01:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Those newly released documents prove your (misinformation) statement, however if you took a look at provided references, you could have noticed we are talking about well rounded, various sources which were picked to show various perspectives (there is indeed a whole wealth of data on this issue, feel free to Google). As a matter of fact, everything you mentioned is being addressed in provided links. References clearly show how war in Iraq wouldn’t happen on account of WMD's, and that 9/11 was turning point in justifying invasion. Furthermore, US president used same rhetoric's very recently and this (his/hopefully not yours) out of reality approach isn’t good for anybody. Let me put it this way… we all have our histories, my is as good as anyone's, but I won't deny it… anyway, I can easily change perspective to see how disturbing this can be to US citizens, perhaps you could switch perspective as well? It would allow you to see things as they really are… we have this grotesque lies which led to unjust and by far the bloodiest war in 21st century. That is very disturbing for any citizen of the world. Victims of 9/11 don’t deserve that, we don't deserve that, and Iraqis definitely don’t deserve it… We are all well aware of "tactics" used in that war, we are all aware of Rumsfeld's doctrine, and by now it should be clear to anyone how all that warmongering rhetoric's has nothing to do with so-called "freedom agenda". At last, let me address that misinformation by stating how we are not spin doctors here. Regardless of what we think, this is non negotiable historical fact… there is nothing to dispute there… As for your final remark, you answered the question yourself, and the answer is fraud. Hopefully, you understand how disturbing it is for me to illustrate obvious importance of this fact. Brief summary would be in order indeed, please suggest wording and/or sections where we should address this, there is no other article in which we can do that… Thanks. Lovelight 02:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I recognize and agree with your point about public acceptance… still it should be noted how full weight of connection is more then unfortunate... Lovelight 05:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is contradictory: as previously pointed out, underlining the fact that there is no direct connection between Sept. 11th and the 2003 invasion of Iraq defeats the notion of referencing the subject in this article. And the "bloodiest war in [the] 21st century" is moving way off topic. Peter Grey 03:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well if there would be no Iraq, there would be no Darfur, if we wouldn’t spank monkey around one place we could spank monkeys in other... so to say. As expected, yet again you showed your bias and will to neglect serious facts, this sort of action leads nowhere; therefore one is forced to call 911 as emergency number. As for contradictions I'll show more of them after weekend (have good one, everyone). And I won't that false flag about reasons for dispute to be removed immediately, there is no vandalism here but from your side, the lack of accuracy and outrageous bias of this article is obvious and appropriate warning should be clearly stated at the entrance point. Lovelight 12:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

THIS article is about the events on 9/11/2001, not other events. The article is long enough and we are not going to go into a long winded analysis of the Iraq war and Saddam links to any terrorists organizations in this article...how many times do people need to be told this?...there are other articles that address these issues...Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and 2003 invasion of Iraq are the places to take this conversation. Contiued rantings about this subject should be removed as they are completely unproductive to improving THIS article.--MONGO 12:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo, I appreciate articles you mentioned deeply (for their accuracy, that is); however, (as stated before) there is nothing to wind about here, and I'm suggesting clear, accurate and small addition… of course I understand your reasoning (perspective) and there is no rush. As you seen in my last reply I won't pursue this matter further, but regardless of this particular issue article is inaccurate and biased and proper warning should be added… imho of course. Lovelight 12:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I seriously suggest that the type of things you wish to have here are actually better placed in those articles. We try to stay focused when we have long articles and this one simply doesn't have much more space available, especially to dwelve into peripheral areas.--MONGO 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Osama video tape

The article claims that a video tape of Osama was released in May 2006. I don't believe this is true at all -- elsewhere Wikipedia indicates that an audio tape was released consistent with what this article claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.82.207 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 September 2006

I will mark this in the text. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The video tape with the supposed Osama is not enough evidence, it doen't even link him and events together, even if it is him in the video tape, which they haven't proven, it is still not enough to convict him.

OBL admitted

I think we should use some caution when stating that OBL would have admitted to 911, since this relies largly on video evidence which may have been tempered with. So it's ok for me to say it, as long as there is some caution in the wording.

Truth is the first victim in any war

— Xiutwel (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2006

I agree with Xiutwell. --JustFacts 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist nomenclature

Allegedly, Reuters has decided not ever to use the word terrorist when describing events, in order to remain NPOV. An idea for wikipedia? — Xiutwel (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a bigger issue than this article alone, you will have to discuss it on a policy page. --Golbez 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if a suicide bomber blew up their main offices if that would be enough for Reuters to stop being so ridiculous.--MONGO 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO, let's see how Reuters reacts to a story titled "Most Beloved Matyr of Allah (Praise be Upon Him) departs for Paradise (and 72 virgin girls) by destroying the heathen offices of the Crusader agency Reuters." Cerebral Warrior 08:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They never explicitly say "9/11 was the act of terrorists" but boy oh boy do they like to dance around it, as in this example. They say the "risk of terrorism" has not gone down, they imply that al Qaeda is a terrorist organization right before referencing the "suicide hijackings" of 9/11, and they quote other people who refer to terrorists in airplanes. No, they never exactly come out and say that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, but the implications are extremely strong. This isn't an act of neutrality; it seems more like a game of Taboo. JDoorj a m Talk 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this page is still run by a mob of Americans who won't ccept a true NPOV. The opening paragraph describes the attackers as terrorist and in an impressive feat of post-mortem mind reading states that they predominantly targetted civilians (instead of, say, military and economic structures?). I have tried to reason with them but its obviously too soon for any of them to be objective about this. Damburger 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A "mob of Americans"...certainly sounds like a bigoted remark we can do without. I suppose the WTC was a military target? Interesting. With as many as 20,000 people working in each of the WTC towers on a busy day, what better target in the U.S. would a terrorist have picked to both kill civilians and to attack the finacial infrastructure? Nevermind.--MONGO 10:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that in this case the "'mob of Americans'" might have a point. This issue is a little larger than this article alone. The term terrorist has a functional and working meaning that clearly applies to the situation on 9/11 (especially with the responsible group stating explicitly that they wanted to plunge America into a state of fear and terror). Whether it should be abandoned more broadly is beyond the scope of this article and this discussion. Until some kind of concensus is reached it should remain. !@#Rtrev 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Attack Section Revert

I made a change to this section which was reverted. Perhaps I shouldn't have cut as much of the paragraph as I did but I think some of the changes should stay. I changed the paragraph:

In the fourth aircraft, black box recordings revealed that—after discovering on their phones that planes had been deliberately crashed into buildings—crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers, who then rocked the plane in a failed attempt to subdue the passengers. According to 9-1-1 tapes, one of the passengers, Todd Beamer, had asked for the operator to pray with him before the passengers attempted to retake the aircraft. After praying, he simply said, "Let's roll." (The 9/11 Commission stated that Beamer later said "Roll it," most likely referring to a drink cart being used as a battering ram. This was, however, a separate incident, which took place after he had hung up on the operator. It is evidenced by cockpit recorders) The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC). Based on the transcript of Flight 93's flight recorder, there is evidence that this crash was intentionally caused by the hijackers, by rolling the plane into an upside down position. The transcript appears to imply that the leader gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers. There is a dispute about the exact timing of the crash as the seismic record indicates that the impact occurred at 10:06 a.m. The 9/11 Panel reported that captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the United States Capitol, which was given the code name "the Faculty of Law."

To read:

On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers after learning through phone calls that similiarly hijacked planes had been crashed into buildings that morning. According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers. Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC). The 9/11 Panel reported that captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the United States Capitol, which was given the code name "the Faculty of Law."

Since what happened on Flight 93 is fully described on the United Airlines Flight 93 page.

MONGO, I couldn't discuss this on your talk page, but what information did you object to having removed? --PTR 20:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the original edit.--MONGO 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So the following wouldn't be an improvement then (I'm not being snarky - just asking):

''On United Airlines Flight 93, black box recordings revealed that—after discovering on their phones that similiarly hijacked planes had been deliberately crashed into buildings that morning—crew and passengers attempted to seize control of the plane from the hijackers. According to 9-1-1 tapes, one of the passengers, Todd Beamer, had asked for the operator to pray with him before the passengers attempted to retake the aircraft. After praying, he simply said, "Let's roll." (The 9/11 Commission stated that Beamer later said "Roll it," most likely referring to a drink cart being used as a battering ram. This was, as evidenced by cockpit recorders, a separate incident taking place after he had hung up on the operator.) The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near Shanksville in Stonycreek Township, Somerset County, Pennsylvania, at 10:03:11 a.m. local time (14:03:11 UTC). Based on the transcript of Flight 93's flight recorder, there is evidence that this crash was intentionally caused by the hijackers, by rolling the plane into an upside down position. The transcript appears to imply that the leader gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers. There is a dispute about the exact timing of the crash as the seismic record indicates that the impact occurred at 10:06 a.m. The 9/11 Panel reported that captured al-Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed said that Flight 93's target was the United States Capitol, which was given the code name "the Faculty of Law." --PTR 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there PTR, it's good to be in that consensus camp, right? Lovelight 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of link title

The link title "Evil succubus;" is unacceptable under WP:BLP as it gives the appearance of making a negative improperly sourced comment about a living person. Simple reinstatement of the title may result in your being blocked. If you wish to keep the title, it should be fully substantiated and acceptable as such to third party scrutiny. Tyrenius 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Peter Grey 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Req for Consensus

I request consensus for the addition of sourced and verified material to the Conspiracy Theories section Namely, that sources stated [10] [11] [12] [13] that the conspiracy theories were distracting from unreleased information discrediting the administration. This information has been found. It helps verify earlier sources statements that speculation into conspiracy theories distracted attention away from embarassing material (but it shouldn't be taken to mean that the administration engineered these theories).

SmokingGun: CIA Presidential Daily Briefing August 6, 2001: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Washington Post 2006: CIA Briefed Rice July 2001 - Not explored in 9/11 Commission.

WTC7 - not explored in 9/11 commission either!!!

While it descredits for two people, it also gives large credit to the CIA [NSA] for trying to brief them on it.

Neutralaccounting 00:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Two cents.Info you would like to incorporate into the article probably justifies inclusion, but not in the Conspiracy Theories section. Rice et al didn't conspire to ignore early warnings. Moriori 00:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, not Rice had a conspiracy. More like embarassing failure in leadership. Only that, no more when it comes to Rice.

My perspective is that conspiracy theories distracted attention from this and other embarassing moments.

In a more comedic perspective it's not 'let's put on our stupid hats and swear oaths in triplicate to conspire to do so' but more like 'thank the Maker that they are still speculating about conspiracy theories looking for our reptilian overlords from Venus who did it! our silly embarassing moments beforehand won't be revealed for quite some time'.

Neutralaccounting 01:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No thanks.--MONGO 06:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, we need new section in this article on the criticisms of US gov't agencies/officials, which would include info on the briefing of Rice you mention, the FBI field office warnings (Coleen Riley, etc.), the allegations of FAA/NORAD mistakes on 9/11, the failure of NY fire dep't communication systems mentioned by the 9/11 Commiss report, etc. etc. We should really have a small section in this article with a link to a separate article on the subject. What does everyone think?--JustFacts 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Official story

Would you please add to the very top that "this is the official story"?

In that way conspiracy theory and non conspiracy theory people would both be happy.

Given the incredible "coincidences" and luck 19 cave people clearly had you owe it to the world.

--[avid reader] 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic version., not an "official" story. Wikipedia relies on many sources. Peter Grey 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the official story, its the true story. The truth is that Islamofascists crashed those planes into the very symbols of the free world, thereby killing thousands of innocent people. Any conspiracy theorist who claims otherwise in my humble (possibly erroneous) opinion, needs to be packed off either to Gitmo, or to a mental asylum. Cerebral Warrior 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

--Cireh 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC) I am agreed. In this article must be two topics: conspiracy and non conspiracy.

Peter cannot says "Islamofascists" is the true, because I don't believe him :D as many other will don't. Solution: two theorist... Because anybody can says conspiracy is the true and "Islamofascists" is the theory.

A narrative supported by evidence and speculation based on paranoia are not equal "theories".

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not in any way the very symbols of the free world. Peter Grey 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't an "Official Report tagline" on Attack on Pearl Harbor, or Project Apollo, or United Nations. Why should there be one here? 75.33.140.40 05:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Additions to this article.

Please Note : I used to be an Engineer in the Navy & I worked for airline security, as a Checkpoint Supervisor, Explosives detection specialist & Screener Training Instructor.

1 ) I can absolutely confirm that, in the wreckage of UA flt. # 93 @ Shanksville, the NTSB found a disposable BIC lighter that had been illegally altered w/ a fold - out stiletto - style knife blade. I saw the FAA alert memo, w/ included Xerox'd photo of the knife.

2 ) Both towers in N. Y. were weakened by blunt - force trauma to their structural columns & support beams. The main failure, causing their collapse was what is called Tertiary Creep Fracture, of the beamwork @ the damaged floors; exascerbated by the burning high - temp. Jet fuel & the weight of the floors above the impact points.

Admittedly, the following will likely be considered conspiracy theories but, I believe these points answer many questions & should be researched.

3 ) It's very likely that UA flt. # 93 WAS shot - down. The U.S. Secret Service has USAF F - 16 "Ready - Alert" Fighters detached to them & stationed @ Andrews AFB, Maryland. They would NOT be under military control ! Their being sortied would have been classified & probably not known to the 9/11 Commission. When the flights Cockpit Voice Recorder was recovered from Shanksville, right after the incident, it was then stated that their conversations could not be clearly made out. Suddenly, 3 years later, they could be !?

4 ) Pakistan's Inter - Services Intelligence ( ISI ) Group has long been suspected of ties to Al - Q'aeda, Kashmiri Insurgent Groups ( That tried to destroy the Indian Parliament a few months after 9/11. ) & the CIA. The CIA's ties go back to covert assistance of the Afghan Mujaheddin resistance, during the 1980's Soviet / Afghan War. Osama Bin - Laden was helping to supply weapons & Intel. to the resistance, through Pakistan - w/ the help of the ISI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.62.74.137

Interesting if true, but cannot be allowed under the rule barring original research. --Golbez 06:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take on point #3.

the number of air bases where fighter planes are kept on alert has dwindled sharply in recent years, one of the generals who runs the system told Newsday. And on Sept. 11, they no longer included any bases close to two obvious terrorist targets - Washington, D.C., and New York City. So the military had to use planes from air bases considerable distances away from the two cities. The fighters dispatched to New York came from Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, Mass., 153 miles from the World Trade Center. - Newsday, 9/23/2001 - article available here

The fighter jets launched toward Washington took off not from Andrews Air Force Base, 15 miles from the capital, but from Langley Air Force Base near Hampton, Va., 130 miles from Washington. When Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., those fighters were still 105 miles from the scene. - Newsday, 9/23/2001 - [14]

Despite Andrews Air Force Base's proximity to the capital, fighter jets don't "sit alert" there the way they do at Langley, ready to take to the air in 15 minutes. Until Sept. 11, one defense official said, they didn't have to - fighters at Langley would have plenty of time to intercept any enemy aircraft coming from outside the United States. On Sept. 11, the Langley jets still were 105 miles away when the Pentagon was struck. - Newsday, 9/23/2001 - [15]

At Andrews, the fighters weren't armed and on alert. [16] The "ready alert f-16s at Andrews Air Force Base" is something that has been implemented since 9/11. Wasn't the case on 9/11, that there were ready alert f-16s at Andrews.

Anyway, Golbez is correct. Wikipedia needs to cite sources, only include verifiable information, and bars original research. --Aude (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The 911 Flights That Never Flew

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

References to the 911 plane crashes, which appear in Wikipedia article [17], have American Airlines flight 11 hitting the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46 AM, and American Airlines flight 77 hitting the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. According to flight departure statistics available from the US government's Bureau of Transportation Statistics website [18], there are no records of American Airlines flights 11 or 77 leaving their scheduled origin airports on the day of the WTC or Pentagon attacks. The statistics do show that American Airlines flight 11 was listed as a regularly scheduled flight departing from Boston's Logan Airport, with a scheduled local(Eastern)departure time of 7:45 AM. The statistics also show that American Airlines flight 77 was a regularly scheduled flight departing from Washington DC's Dulles Airport, with a scheduled local departure time of 8:10 AM. Data is shown for flight 11 and flight 77 for the two days prior to September 11, 2001, but for September 11 no data is available for either of these flights. American Airlines is required by Federal regulations, as stated in 14 CFR, Chapter II, Section 234.4, to report 21 data factors for all flights, both scheduled and unscheduled. These statistical factors are fully defined in a online viewable, and downloadable pdf format document, from the Bureau of Transportation at [19], and Section 234.4 is viewable on page 2 of that document. Public viewing of flight Detailed Statistics for Departures is limited to 12 of the 21 mandated statistical fields, and includes the following data: Carrier code (AA in this case), date of scheduled flight, flight number (shown as 0011 and 0077 for flights 11 and 77 respectively), tail number (this is shown because any plane owned by the airline can be assigned to the flight on a particular day. The statistics show, for example, that on September 9, 2001, flight 11 was assigned to a plane having tail number N315AA, but that the same flight was assigned to a plane with tail number N321AA on September 10, 2001), destination airport, scheduled departure time, actual departure time (this is when the plane leaves the departure gate, after being loaded), scheduled elapsed time in minutes, actual elapsed time in minutes (this would be the total elapsed time from gate departure to gate arrival at the destination airport), departure delay in minutes, wheels-off time (the time at which the departing plane leaves the runway and becomes fully airborne), and taxi-out time (the time required for the airplane to move from the daparting gate to a take-off ready position on the runway. Any scheduled flight that actually departs an airport will have all of these 12 data statistics displayed for public viewing as required by the aforementioned Federal regulations. Bureau of Statistics employees are able to view the 9 additional data fields not available to the public, and these include information about cancelled or delayed departures and reasons for such cancellations or delays. The key data fields of interest, in this topic, are the "actual departure time" (gate departure), and the "wheels-off time." Both of these fields read "00.00" for American Airlines flights 11 and 77 on September 11, 2001, which appears to indicate that neither flight departed the boarding gate, and neither became airborne on that day. Furthermore, the tail number for each of these flights is listed as "unknown." It is logical to conclude, therefore, that no plane was assigned to either flight. The fact that a plane crashes does not nullify the requirement for reporting of Departure Statistics. Indeed, both United Airlines flights 175 [20] and 93 [21], which are also said to have crashed on September 11, 2001, do have Departure Statistics reported. If American Airlines flights 11 and 77 did in fact fly on September 11, 2001, this raises the question as to why American Airlines is exempted from reporting flights that crash before reaching their scheduled destination. Regarding this question, it should be noted that Departure Statistics are also not available for American Airlines flight 587 [22], which crashed in Queens, New York on November 12, 2001, shortly after takeoff. Rickoff (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(random un-indenting for readability)

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