Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 44

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Motive?

Seems the motive of Bin Ladan changes half way through the Article. First it is stated that he planned the attacks because of the US support of Israel. Later, it mentions the reason as Religious but doesn't touch upon the Israel part at all. The religious part was cleary not the main motivator for the attacks at the time, and was added to gain more support than those just concerned with the Israel/Palistine issue. I think this should be mentioned in the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.223.155 (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold if you want to correct inconsistencies. Lihaas (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The most commonly used name for this is 9/11

Even in the UK, where our dates are written the other way around, I think most people will know this as 9/11. It's the most commonly used term, which is what decides the name of a wikipedia article. Other terms become redirects. So, how did this article about 9/11 avoid being titled 9/11 ? No-one is going to put "september 11 2001 attacks" into the search bar, they're going to put 9/11. Feel free to post to my talk page instead of here if this is a complete noob question where this talk page is concerned.:) Sticky Parkin 12:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is going to bite your head off for asking a reasonable question in good faith (I hope!). I would not object to the article being moved to 9/11 attacks, although I am not 100% sure about the best punctuation to use (9-11?) - so let's see what other editors have to say. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Archive 3 is solely dedicated to this discussion. People felt '9/11' was too informal so they changed the title to a more "appropriate" 'September 11, 2001 attacks'. I have no issue changing it to 9/11, but I think we'd need to do things as formally as possible using straw polls and have a broad discussion. -- Veggy (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Ice Cold Beer (talk)
Yup, too informal. By the way, Stick Parkin, if a reader searches for 9/11, then they are redirected to this article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We have articles titled 9/11 Commission and 9/11 Commission Report because that is the common names for those things, which everyone uses, even though more formal names exist. "September 11, 2001 attacks" (with however many commas) is not the formal name of anything, and it's not the common name for the event. Jonathunder (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Change it back to September 11, 2001 attacks, This is the more 'encyclopedic' way of saying it. 'September 11 attacks' isn't. SamB135 (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not about what the "encyclopedic way" is. WP:NAME clearly states: "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." That means using an accepted, broadly used term. Adding '2001' is awkward. -- Veggy (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes but in nearly every major event written here on Wikipedia has the year it occurred in the title, and this is like the major of major events. --SamB135 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. -- Veggy (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a judgement call as to how explicit the title needs to be, but I don't think it's worth re-opening the debate. Peter Grey (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well so do I, actually. --SamB135 (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. You proved absolutely nothing except that titles range broadly across Wikipedia and, as such, do not need years added. -- Veggy (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. No seriously, If I had known that my vote would have been met by such resistance, I would never have put it up. Congratulations, the article stays September 11 attacks. -- I guess I was wrong. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User deleting wiki-links, without using talk?

I didn't realize this was allowed, but oh well. Someone wants to delete a wiki-link saying its unrelated, or something. It's not clear what exactly. But that is why we have talk. I would like to see some sort of explanation before people delete my good-faith edits. I mean, I have yet to see even a proper edit summary on the subject. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was deleted because the advanced-knowledge thing is seen as a subarticle to 9/11 conspiracy theories. -- Veggy (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I am the user in question, and I don't see anything wrong with my actions. I provided a solid reason for my actions in the edit summary.[1] Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong either. The edit summary of Ice Cold Beer is quite solid. AdjustShift (talk) 03:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Using references to determine improved lead sentence.

Currently, there is a discussion on the use of a comma in the lead sentence.

I have found a reference to back up my suggestion that the current lead sentence is flawed and must be replaced. The lead currently read "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States." while the new consensus version removed by the page protecting administrator was "The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States."

The use of the word attack to define attacks is wrong per this reference, http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/622/01/

Since there is a reliable sourced reference, the lead sentence must go. Let's open the floor to suggestions. Presumptive (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

1. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide missions by al-Qaeda in the Eastern United States."

  • Closely follows consensus version with a correction to avoid defining attacks by the word attack.

2. The September 11, 2001, attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were four simultaneous al-Qaeda suicide missions involving hijacker commercial airliners used against high profile targets in the Eastern United States.

Did you really need to make a new section to repeat exactly what I said weeks ago about the comma. Really... -- Veggy (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to repeat what I've written previously on this subject. "We are not saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of attacks on September 11, 2001, which would be using the subject to define itself. We are saying that the September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of coordinated suicide attacks... We are describing the type of attacks that occurred on that date, which is acceptable." Please stop, Presumptive. Many people have told you that there is nothing wrong with the first sentence. This is becoming disruptive. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Your use of the word disruptive is similar to the Red Scare of the 1950's where anyone you didn't like was called a Communist. Falsely calling someone disruptive is disruptive. I read a very good reference on writing style and I propose improvement. Note that I am not proposing conspiracy theories or denying that it (WTC) exists. Nobody should oppose improvement in prose. My suggestions are merely prose improvement with NO political changes. Presumptive (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
'Disruptive' is accurate. See WP:POINT. Peter Grey (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Denying the World Trade Center ever existed? That'd be a first. Way to go with that ad hominem about being falsely accused. Adds NOTHING to why the lead sentence needs to be changed. Appeal to pathos much? "Nobody should oppose improvement in prose" <-- Logical fallacy; no said they were, we just oppose your so-called "improvements". -- Veggy (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • People identify the event by using the date. That turns the date into a pseudo proper name. Unfortunately, that puts various rules of style into conflict, and thus any permutation is going to be a compromise (without even getting into the fact that the English Wikipedia covers several variations on language, style, etc.). The existing formula works well enough. Peter Grey (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Certainly, English is not so flawed as to have no solution to satisfy all rules of style. If we think hard enough, we CAN come up with a lead sentence that doesn't violate rules of style. Presumptive (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We've all thought hard and feel the current one (with the comma after the date) is the best. -- Veggy (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I note that the administrator who changed the lead sentence didn't actually write what Presumptive wrote. They actually wrote "The {{pagename}} (often referred to as 9/11)..." which makes an interesting argument: The lead sentence should begin by defining the article subject, which is the title of the article. If the comma should be introduced for grammatical reasons, then, why not introduce it into the title of the article, and let the template take care of the lead sentence? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 05:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The title should have proper grammar. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
There's more than one correct formula - that's been the whole point. Peter Grey (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note on templates. Templates in patterns in general have a use, but not everything can or should follow a pattern. A template is often useful, but they shouldn't be used when they are not useful. It is fine to have the title without the comma, and the first line with the comma.
Also, on templates, I often see this page linked the following way, eventhough it's poor grammar:

September 11, 2001 attacks

If it's used in a sentence, it should be linked the following way:

September 11, 2001, attacks

Patterns are there to help you, but not everything fits a pattern, or should be forced into one. —Slipgrid (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, every American style manual I've consulted, including the Chicago Manual of Style, Section 6.46, states that the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format is parenthetical and should therefore be set off by commas (e.g., September 11, 2001, attacks). I won't belabor the point. If the consensus is to keep the title of this page punctuated as it is now, I'll live with it. However, Peter Gray insists that "various rules of style" are implicated here and that there is "more than one correct formula" (i.e., that "September 11, 2001 attacks" is equally correct). I'm genuinely curious if there is any authority for that proposition. Does anyone have any kind of authoritative style guide that advocates NOT setting off the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy format with two commas? Thanks Lowell33 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just move the damn article to include the comma and be done with it? -- Veggy (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind calling the article September 11 attacks but that's just me :-) Perhaps a straw poll / discussion? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While younger, U.S. editors will undoubtedly associate that title with 9/11, as is, older, international editors may connect it to the 1973 Chilean coup d'état; although it redirects to 9/11 as is. -- Veggy (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I would absolutely support September 11 attacks.Lowell33 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The current title is fine. I see no reason to change it now.--MONGO 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose this article be renamed. The current title isn't specific enough towards what the article is about as it could refer to any random attack that took place on 09/11/2001.

I suggest something along the lines of "The Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001".

Yey or Ney?

81.151.140.33 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm supposed to comment on the content, not the contributor, I'll censor my snide comments and just ask the anonymous user to read WP:TITLE. -- Veggy (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I'm not as au fait with Wikipedia policy as you are. Obviously, you have missed the article, 'Assume Good Faith'. I suggest you read through a little more thoroughly in future. Have a great day! 81.151.140.33 (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean assume good faith. Have a great day yourself. -- Veggy (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A title is not a sentence & is not subject to the same rules of style. The year is not parenthetical to the title--JimWae (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would titles be subject to different rules of grammar than any other text? Is there any rationale for that? Also, "parenthetical" in this context does not mean unimportant or irrelevant. It is parenthetical in the same way that Illinois is parenthetical in the phrase "Chicago, Illinois, is a large city."Lowell33 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, where'd you arrive at that conclusion? -- Veggy (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One obvious difference: titles do not need periods at the end. They are not sentences. I am not saying titles never get any punctuation, just that they differ from sentences, and that what might be parenthetical in a sentence, need not be so in a phrase --JimWae (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Btw, here is an example by a learned editor that does not add the extra comma even to the SENTENCE: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/s1941_is.htm --JimWae (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) and another: http://www.gwu.edu/~icdrm/publications/nsf911/attacks.html --JimWae (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Search for "the January 1, 1863" and "the July 4, 1776" and we will find only a few instances that add the extra comma. We would not even be having this discussion if european format were used, as in "the 1 January 1863" and "the 4 July 1776" (or ISO 1863-01-01 and 1776-07-04 ... and modified ISO: 1863-JAN-01 and 1776-JUL-04). Grammar rules follow the customs of learned writers. Style guides differ from grammar rules - they are guides, not dictates (unless otherwise stated for in-house uniformity, and may still alow for reasonable exceptions)--JimWae (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Finding examples that don't include the comma doesn't in any way negate the rule. Like finding someone who says 2+2=5 is a reason not to come to the conclusion that it equals four. Read. -- Veggy (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not "finding someone", this is finding a predominant usage among learned writers --JimWae (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I imagine I'm typing to chimps on the other end of Wikipedia. That's the only possible reason I give myself for why a user completely ignores the fact that stylistic guidelines set by the Chicago Manual of Style, among many sources—reputable guides to the English language, are so quickly tossed aside when so-called "learned" writers neglect some of these rules. If "learned" writers began omitting commas and writing run-on sentences with spllign mistaikes then I suppose these users would be more than happy to include these errors in their writing. Unfortunately for these users, Wikipedia follows its own guidelines which incidentally suggest the aforementioned stylistic guides.
Here, if that was too long for you:
-- Veggy (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is "the few" who add the extra comma. Is that clear enough for YOU, without insult? --JimWae (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, because two authors form the bulk of contemporary English literature. And even if they did, tell me again how that supersedes stylistic guidelines—I don't believe you've addressed that glaring hole in your argument. Remember, if the majority believe lazer beams from outer space toppled the Twin Towers, it doesn't make it so. -- Veggy (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you do the search? Perhaps you should remember that style guides do not dictate what the "rules" should be; the rules follow what the majority of learned writers do. The Chicago Manual of Style also particularly notes that the use of the extra comma when the date is used as an adjective is awkward. ( http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch05/ch05_sec079.html ) It recommends avoiding that construction, and while removing the year would avoid that problem, objections have been raised to doing that (due to concerns that it might be confused with attacks on September 11th in other places and/or other years past or future). The title with an extra comma would be even more awkward than the sentence with one. Renaming the article to "September 11 attacks" would be less awkward than "September 11, 2001, attacks", and the slight risk of ambiguity is preferable & more easily resolved than such awkwardness would be. I cannot believe so much energy is being devoted to this when the majority of learned writers do not observe the rule as presented in the style guide. One function of Style Guides is to help writers reduce awkward constructions, and I have to wonder how long it might be before this awkward consistency gives way to recognition of an exception for dates used as adjectives, when the construction is entrenched in the language. Meanwhile, style guides are guides, not rulebooks. However, if consensus is that, despite awkwardness, we MUST follow the style guide on this, avoiding the construction (by removing the year) is preferable. I think the consensus, however, has been that it is OK without the extra comma. --JimWae (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--Tarage (talk) 08:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't work for me. Regardless, you've failed to make your case that, as written, the comma doesn't belong. Instead, you've begun railing straw man-like about the article title itself. If you want to change it, go for it. If not, put the comma in. The Manual does think the current wording is awkward. Only JimWae would think two authors form the "majority of learned writers". I think you should read a little more. Oh, and like the User:Presumptive debacle, one user doesn't determine consensus. Nor is JimWae an authority on the modern English language by far. -- Veggy (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in making this a personal battle? Stick to the issues. I still see no evidence you have done the searches. To use the article link, I had to start a 30-day free trial. The argument that the year is parenthetical is NOT presented in the Chicago MoS - no rationale is given at all (other than an implied consistency). The year is neither parenthetical nor appositive - else it would be so in other date-styles. The comma after the year appears to be a generalization from other sentence structures where the comma after the year has a function. In this case, however, it is similar to writing "The old, yellow, dog ran across the dry, brown, plain". The extra comma breaks the forward-looking adjective apart from the noun it modifies (this the Chicago MoS does so acknowledge - Btw, those sections say NOTHING about the current "wording", but rather restrict the remarks to the punctuation). While disagreements with the Chicago MoS certainly cannot be settled here, absent "rules" from other MoS, and with apparent consensus that both the sentence & the title are OK without the extra comma, it is time to bring this discussion to a close. --JimWae (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people have to play their little games, I suppose. Here is where editors agreed to the fact that a comma was necessary after the date. The year is parenthetical. If you want more evidence, see this, this, this, and this. Now by all means lecture me about how I didn't do my research. If we changed the format in any way (to 'Sept. 11', to '11 Sep. 01', to '9/11/01') it wouldn't be an issue, but you're arguing that the guidelines in place can be tossed aside because two authors neglect to follow them. I'm not sure where you developed the messianic view that PhDs are infallible, but clearly this isn't so. Commas are still used, according to this, even when the date is an adjective. (Though this is delving deep into the usage guidelines). It think our discussion has made it abundantly clear that a new title is desperately needed to avoid confusion. Also, I've never called 9/11 the 'September 11, 2001, attacks' in common usage. '9/11', while appropriate, is a little too informal. Here's what I get:
  • "September 11, 2001" - For reference (1,200,000 hits)[2]
  • "September 11, 2001, attacks" - Current with comma (435,000 hits)[3]
  • "September 11, 2001, attack" - (78,500 hits)[4]
  • "September 11" - Only for reference (40,600,000 hits)[5]
  • "September 11 attacks" - (1,260,000 hits)[6]
  • "September 11 attack" - (155,000 hits)[7]
  • "September 11th attacks" - (224,000 hits)[8]
  • "September 11th attack" - (66,200 hits)[9]
  • "9/11" - (194,000,000 hits)[10]
  • "9/11 attacks" - (2,090,000 hits)[11]
  • "9/11 attack" - (418,000 hits)[12]
  • "11 September 2001" - (342,000 hits)[13]
  • "11 September 2001 attacks" - (78,000 hits)[14]
  • "11 September 2001 attack" - (1,800 hits)[15]
Let's get behind one and move it already. -- Veggy (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for linking to that discussion, VegitaU. I cited several more style guides there. Anyway, we reached a consensus that in the American dd/mm/yyyy form the year is parenthetical and should be set off by commas (unless the year is followed by some other punctuation). The later part of the discussion addresses the problems implicated by that rule with regards to autoformatted dates. BUT, keep in mind that those concerns do not apply here because it is an article title, not an autoformatted date. I vote for September 11 attacks.Lowell33 (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

V:You misread my posts, make personal attacks, make yourself a personal authority (see "I've never..." in your post above), & then accuse me of "playing games"??? Btw, Google does not distinguish "September 11, 2001, attacks" from "September 11, 2001 attacks". You seem to be using the punctuation argument primarily as a strategy to change the name of the article. Btw2, your source admits to some uncertainty on this issue. The appositive/parethetical argument is one regarding meaning - not style. If it were a meaning distinction, it should hold in other date-formats (which it does not). The only reason I am even taking notice of you, is your repeated personal challenges. Do you think this is the only way anyone will notice you? Stop the personal attacks now.--JimWae (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy: Don't insinuate ulterior motives from my writing. It would be hypocritical of me to use the wrong punctuation. Again, you use logical fallacies in your failed argument that "if it works in one, it should work in all". I'm trying to move past it; (you may have noticed some suggestions I made above). I think popular support is leaning toward September 11 attacks. -- Veggy (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't resist using the diminutive, could you? (I am glad to say we are unlikely to ever meet in person.) You have not yet fully demonstrated it is "wrong", and you have again misread my argument. Instead, "if it works in one, it should work in all" appears to be your argument for ALWAYS including the comma after the year. If the year is parenthetical, it does not matter what format is used. "Parenthetical" is NOT the proper rationale for this "rule" (it appears to be more an over-generalization than to serve any useful function when the year is an adjective). I oppose adding the comma to the title. However, compromise may again be in order to bring this tedious discussion to an end. I reiterate my preference for changing the title to "September 11 attacks" over adding an awkward comma --JimWae (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least we agree 'September 11 attacks' would be better. -- Veggy (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thought it was worth pointing out that Britannica uses "September 11 attacks."Lowell33 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if forced to choose between those two. I have a different explanation of why the comma gets put after the year if there is already one in the date (and inherently includes a rationale why not to do it when the date is an adjective) - but I wll save it for someone who is trying to elevate the discussion instead of pushing people's noses into ugly smells to decide which is least bad, while repeatedly berating them --JimWae (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've been pretty polite here, and I am genuinely curious, so I'll ask: What is your rationale for punctuating the American dd/mm/yyyy format differently depending on whether the date is serving as a noun or an adjective? And, has that rationale been adopted by any style guide or other authority? ThanksLowell33 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any style guide that would explain the comma placement after MM/DD/YY (please note) as I would. Indeed, the Chicago style guide gives NO rationale at all. The other source admits to uncertainty & gives the faulty parenthetical explanation. So, my rationale would likely be subject to claims of WP:OR. Still interested?--JimWae (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm interested. Maybe you could also explain why the year is not parenthetical in the American mm/dd/yyyy format. The "other source" I cited, by the way, was Strunk & White, probably the most authoritative English usage guide. Doesn't mean it's necessarily right, just saying it's not exactly an unsupported assertion on my part.Lowell33 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting for: September 11, 2001 attacks. Why did you change it to 'September 11 attacks'! Don't you usually have the year in it aswell, with most major events? Change it back. It was fine the way it was. --SamB135 (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is over. It's been changed. Obviously it wasn't "fine" as, if you actually read the discussion on this page, there was disagreement of the correct formatting and common name. -- Veggy (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
A fucking comma? --SamB135 (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Common usage. -- Veggy (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The ever-tightening micro-scrutinizer

Are we seriously arguing about a single comma, when this article is rife with other issues? This article still uses references from sources who do not have access to the data needed to assess the factuality or non-factuality of the assertions of fact for which there is not reliable evidence nor consensus. And the comma or lack of a comma in the lead neither improves nor harms the article to the degree that including unfounded assertions of fact does. Excuse my grammar, it's late. User:Pedant (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Examples? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Grammar matters; I don't get where you imagine it doesn't. And like Ice said, mind giving some examples? Your contributions related to 9/11 seem to be incessant whining on the talk page without substance. -- Veggy (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
It is patently ridiculous that an argument has erupted over a comma. Does it really make any difference? Will anybody think any less of anyone for including or excluding the comma? Do you all have better things to be spending your time on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.140.33 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to September 11 attacks. There is a fair, if not overwhelming, consensus for the move and it is well in keeping with WP:UCN. I have discounted three of the four discernible opposes which offer no rationale whatsoever, policy/guideline based or otherwise, in support of keeping the article at the current name, nor do they address the naming convention basis for the request. I have also considered discussion higher on this page (in which at least one other user supported the move who did not comment below). As a side result, this also solves the "comma issue".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on page title and comma

I'm not a grammar expert, but would be content with either "September 11 attacks" which seems more common usage or "September 11, 2001, attacks" which I may need the comma. With the possibility of a page move, I think there should be a request for comment to get opinions of people uninvolved here. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Well, Lowell, JimWae, Sheffield, and I all have no problem with this choice. With you that makes five of us. -- Veggy (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not totally sure what my opinion is. I think it's worth getting outside opinions, especially from the people involved with the style guidelines. I know that User:Tony1 has commented before, but his opinion or others would be good. --Aude (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, September 11 attacks is the best solution.Lowell33 (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. I want this listed as an RFC for both history and style. I don't know if it can be listed twice, but I'm trying. --Aude (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good for everyone to weigh in once here, so this section doesn't get out of hand. The discussion can continue in a different section. --Aude (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Everyone knows how to format dates - that's not what the discussion is about. This is an instance of a date that is also a proper name and also a encyclopedia article title. Peter Grey (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware Wikipedia required a mandatory frequency of edits to remain a part of a debate. I suppose I'll have to pad my usual responses with fluff? My sarcasm aside, it isn't only my time being wasted, but the article's as well. We could and should be working towards Featured Article status, not arguing about commas. --Tarage (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The article wouldn't make FA status if it doesn't have the best name. Deamon138 (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Shorter is better, and there is no ambiguity. 11:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • MOS comment: If "2001" is kept in the title, "September 11, 2001 attacks" is the standard WP style; the comma is used to separate the numbers, not to bracket "2001" as some kind of parenthetical. I offer no opinion on whether it should be "September 11, 2001 attacks" or ""September 11 attacks" other that to observe that (as far as I know) the latter is not ambiguous (yet). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd have a preference for September 11 attacks as that's probably the most common usage. But I'm not sure it's worth all the time being spent on it, especially the comma business. RxS (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though American usage does not seem to mandate a second comma, and I don't flinch when I see its lack in running prose even if it looks rather strange, I find the current title of this article quite bizarre. I always have, actually. A second comma would look as strange, however, in this context; this, coupled with the absence of any need for disambiguation (there is only one series of attacks that's taken place on 11 September), make September 11 attacks the only solution I can agree with. Waltham, The Duke of 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the current title. Grammatically, it's fine - there's no need for a comma after 2001 - and it seems slightly more formal to include the year, as we do for articles on many other major events. While it's pretty obvious what 'September 11 attacks' refers to, strictly speaking that title is ambiguous - there have been other attacks on that date in history, see September 11. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on precision in article titles, therefore, the current title is best. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I did see the date article before commenting above; there have been individual attacks on September 11, but not series of attacks like the one that took place in 2001. The article's title is plural. I acknowledge that September 11, 2001 attacks might be a little more formal, but I maintain that there is no disambiguation issue, and that a four-word article title split in half by a comma isn't exactly my idea of good style. Waltham, The Duke of 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

As a matter of American idiom, "the September 11, 2001, attacks" probably needs the second comma. But I don't see why we need that form in the article title - or, in that expression, elsewhere. "The attacks.... on September 11, 2001." will do fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP does not use American idiom when it comes to number handling and punctuation, but rather what works best for WP. The standard WP style would be "September 11, 2001 attacks", as noted above.
Do you have any support for the proposition that "September 11, 2001 attacks" is "the standard WP style"? I've cited the Chicago Manual of Style and several other style guides stating that the year in the American mm/dd/yyyy is parenthetical and should be set off by commas. You would be the first editor to cite any authority to the contrary. Lowell33 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Use of "the" is discouraged. I think this was called "attacks of Sep 11, 2001" and that is a valid suggestion. The big debate on this subject was held here. -- Veggy (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I support a rename to September 11 attacks. That is the most common name (besides 9/11 which we obviously can't use). I believe the exact naming convention this article should follow is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), where it lists terrorist attacks as those that come under it's jurisdiction. There it says:

"If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name. Otherwise, create a name using these guidelines. In most cases, the title of the article should contain at least the following two descriptors: Where the incident happened, and What happened."

So since we have a common name (September 11 attacks) then there is no need to disambiguate with the 2001 part, or even with a US part (it happened in a few differing locations), thus making the discussion about commas mute! I also note that September 11 attacks is a redirect to the current location anyway. All that would be needed is a redirect in the other direction instead.

I think that particular naming convention needs updating though: it has as an example "Attacks of September 11, 2001" i.e. where the current article used to be. We should rename to the above suggestion and then change that example. Deamon138 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither the poll nor WP:NCE discussed this question of date format; we need merely update it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of the word terrorist

9/11 Attacks - We can't use the word 'Terrorist' as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 81.151.140.33 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Didn't read the FAQ, did you, genius? -- Veggy (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
You can't use the word terrorist in a prejorative sense, but you can, and must, use it in a descriptive sense, if that is what you are describing.
Note: This section of the talk page isn't about the use of the word "terrorist". Please use other sections of the talk page. --Aude (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I added a new section heading. --Aude (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Please sign your posts, whoever you are. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I've now signed my post. Apologies, I intended this to be added to the name change vote.81.151.140.33 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

is it really POV to explain causation versus collapse theories?

I guess I've never heard that one before. User:Jc-S0CO seems to think so, but it sounds a bit "out there" and I have yet to see any explanations by that user here, so I was wondering if someone else can explain those actions instead... Please notice that the first two sentences are totally about "causation," and the last one is totally about"the collapse." So basically regardless of who thinks who is POV, its just crappy english on another level, to not put a transition there... and please don't delete wikilinks without good reason dude, again we have a collapse wikilink but no causation wikilink unless you can find it in your gorgeous heart to not "r-v" my good faith edits again... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume you're Fancy Cat. I would advise you to log in to prevent any accusations of sockpuppetry. Also, taking a look at your contribs, I notice this fine specimen of inflammatory language. Whatever problem you have with the way things are written, remember that you need reliable sources to back them up. Also, Wikipedia isn't out to prove anything. We're not an engineering publication. -- Veggy (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the question of which editor this is, the first sentence (as written by the cat) does not imply any question of whodunnit, which in turn, is not the same as who knew. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for suggesting this but

it would seem that all this nonsense about commas is a device to bury discussion questioning this article's neutrality. The article states without citation that this was

a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda.

There has not been any ruling by a formal criminal investigation, so according to international law and our constitutional principles, this is at best

a series of coordinated suicide attacks allegedly carried out by al-Qaeda.

Actually the Senate can declare war on whoever it wants, for whatever reason, and whenever it pleases. And if the Senate wants to declare war at the drop of a hat then the Senate can declare war at the drop of a hat. There are no guidelines in the Constitution for declaring war. And neither are there Constitutional guidelines for international relations instructing the president or Congress exactly what to do, when to do it, and where to do it. So if Congress and the president says Al-Qaeda did it then Al-Qaeda did it, if you disagree then take it to the voting booth and shut up.98.165.6.225 (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

--APDEF (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And it would seem to me we've had this discussion dozens of times before. There's was a huge investigation–you may have heard of it—the 9/11 Commission. That, alongside convicted al-Qaeda members and confessions by al-Qaeda leaders all cataloged by reliable sources give us the ability to write thus. Please review the index of archived discussions before you bring up another issue. Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission meeting with the President was closed-doors and no transcript was allowed. How can we use this as reliable evidence?Bukkit surch partee (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many issues and facts which are classified. We can't do anything about that. The fact is the 9/11 Commission provides a detailed analysis of the attacks themselves. There, of course, is Criticism of the 9/11 Commission and you're free to contribute to that article, but despite these shortcomings, the report still provides one of the best accounts of the attacks. -- Veggy (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission report is anything but detailed. It completely fails to even mention WTC 7, and it doesn't say ANYTHING about what happened after the towers began to collapse. This is crucial, because video evidence, among other post-collapse data, very strongly suggests that the 9/11 commission's explanation of why the buildings collapsed completely defies the laws of physics. I'll consider contributing to the criticism of the 9/11 commission maybe sometime this weekend when I have time. Bukkit surch partee (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no point arguing with people who made this article. This is one of the most biased wikipedia pieces I've ever seen. There's a reason why university professors or lecturers always stress the importance of NOT citing anything from Wikipedia. Of course they're going to refer their sources from the 9/11 Commission Report, that's why the article exactly describes the official conspiracy theory! So please, don't waste time (for people who wish to argue even more), go out and do something else.Si lapu lapu (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu
Everything you're saying is original research. No reputable source supports your claim that any laws of physics were defied on 9/11. NIST came out with their final report on 7 WTC and this has been included in the section on collapse. -- Veggy (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Veggy, its not original research, its common sense. Just because the goverment led investigation group says that there's nothing wrong with way the WTC collapsed, it doesn't mean that we all should be blind to the images we have been shown, especially those that shows how nicely and cleanly cut of the steal bars at the ground of the bulding is. --Nabo0o (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if you're so sure about this 'common sense', back it up with reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't cite 'common sense'. Especially since your 'common sense' is quite different than my 'common sense' that says there is nothing wrong with the way WTC collapsed. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's requirement for RS, take it up in the appropriate area. --Tarage (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE as to why this stuff isn't necessary to this article, even if you do find a source. Deamon138 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
As the great Einstein once said, "Your Laws of Physics suck!" :P Deamon138 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It is correct that the 9/11 Commission had flaws and questions of accountability were deliberately obstructed, but the 9/11 Commission Report is nonetheless a valuable and reliable source, even if not ideal in an absolute sense, and it is merely one of many reliable sources that are in agreement. And if anything can "cleanly cut" steel, I'm sure it's 500000 t of accelerating skyscraper. Peter Grey (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, wouldn't that crush it? Under great enough force, does steel tear, shatter, or extrude? Here is an image of broken steel. Notice that there are no clean cuts, but rather it is jagged and twisted. Here is another that suggests that it shatters. This one shows that it tears (by the rivet) and breaks (the end), and that it bends near where it breaks. Where is the image of a clean cut? Dscotese (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"So if Congress and the president says Al-Qaeda did it then Al-Qaeda did it" - That is some pretty scary nationalism right. Just because a small group of people decreed it so, it does not mean it is true. Perhaps it makes it true for all intents and purposes within the US legal/political system, but it certainly doesn't make it the truth. Also, you should remember that wikipedia is not written from a US perspecive, and therefore whatever the US political system has said is entirely irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Department of Redundancy Department

In the first paragraph, the final sentence "There are no known survivors from any of the flights." is repeating this, earlier in the same paragraph, "...killing everyone on board....". 72.155.18.185 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The "killing everyone on board" part refers only to the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. The other part refers ALL the planes that were crashed that day. Deamon138 (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories paragraph

Veggy and I have been working on the last sentence in this paragraph because it is a non-sequitur to the topic fo conspiracy theories about the attack. In order to make the sentence flow in the paragraph, it seems that the theories about the collapse of the towers need to be highlighted. I suggest that the sentence be removed since we don't want to address the specific theories in this article. Dscotese (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been working on anything with you. StrageLove and I have been trying to revert all your poor edits and try to convince you to discuss hear instead of forcing your way through. -- Veggy (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure you have. Look at the edit history. You pointed out the use of passive voice, so I fixed it. Why do you say my edits are poor? Dscotese (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I can not speak for your previous edits, but I can for the ones just reverted by Tom. I must admit, I was a minute late, or I would have undone them myself. Dscotese, it might be worth your while to look into the Five Pillars and the Manual of Style. In your most recent edits, especially in the insertion of the Controled Demolition wikilink, you allowed them to have Undue Weight in the article, something we try to avoid. In the future, it would be better to talk about your edits here and then, if you feel you have some sort of consensus with the rest of us, make them. Otherwise you are more often than not going to make edits against the strong consensus we have, and push a few buttons along the way. Only trying to help. --Tarage (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since undue weight might be a decent argument, I'm removing the last sentence altogether because it doesn't really follow the rest of the paragraph anyway. As it stands now, the sentence makes no sense unless the reader is aware of one or more competing conspiracy theories about how the Towers collapsed. To make sense, the conspiracy theory the community of civil engineers effectively refutes should be introduced first. Dscotese (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted your edit because I do see your point, it's removal is not required. Perhaps pose a different wording? And please, before you make edits like this, talk about them here. We try to avoid gut reaction edits as much as possible. Or maybe that's just me... --Tarage (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I thought that if the wording I used ("An example of this is the controlled demolition theory, but the community...") could be improved, other editors would improve it. Can't you do that? It's the best wording I could come up with. Also, as long as the basic meaning is the same and it's relatively objective, why worry about the wording? Tom might not like something about the wording, so I will hit his talk page. Anyway, I'll wait a while for you to make an edit with better wording. How long should I wait? Dscotese (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I guess you aren't quite understanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not in any way baring you from editing, I'm saying you should propose your edit here. I'm still slightly confused as to what edit you would like to make. How about posting the sentence/paragraph you want here, and we can go about reaching consensus by sugesting changes. That work? --Tarage (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
When you wrote "I can not speak for your previous edits, but I can for the ones just reverted by Tom." I assumed you were talking about the section of the following text which I have made bold to call it out. What edit were you talking about?

Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks.[1] An example of this is the controlled demolition theory, but the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.[2] Dscotese (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you word it without using 'an example of this is X'? I'll post a version I think sounds better soon. Sorry, I've been very busy lately. --Tarage (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I can, but it isn't as well worded. Why? If you don't have better wording in mind now, you may as well put mine in there and when you have what you think is better wording, we can change it. Does that sound good? Dscotese (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It's only been a day. Slow down, and let other editors have a chance to come in and look at it. Haste makes waste. Here is my proposed wording.

Various conspiracy theories have emerged subsequent to the attacks suggesting that individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of the terrorist organization al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks.[3] However, the community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of hijacked jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.[4]

This isn't perfect, but I would like to shy away from giving undue weight to any one theory. --Tarage (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The edit you proposed doesn't seem to fix the stated problem: The last sentence makes no sense unless the reader is aware of one or more competing conspiracy theories about how the Towers collapsed. You've also left some of my questions unanswered, and your answers might help us find the best solution. Here is a list for you to work from:
  • How does "However," fix this?
  • What edit were you talking about when you wrote "I can not speak for your previous edits, but I can for the ones just reverted by Tom."?
  • Why do you want to avoid "An example of this is..."?
  • If undue weight should be used to keep an example of the "various conspiracy theories" out of the "Conspiracy Theories" paragraph, then shouldn't it also keep out the fact that a group of experts reject that conspiracy theory?
  • Do you think the controlled demolition theory is the most prominent one?
  • What conspiracy theories are the most prominent?

Dscotese (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I didn't say "However" completly fixed it. It was just a start.
  • I was refering to this one and the two following: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks&oldid=235020417
  • Because I feel that giving an example gives undue weight to that single example.
  • No, because this isn't the Conspiracy Theories article. It is the mainstream and accepted view.
  • I don't think I have enough information to say which is more prominent. Hence why I don't want to single one out.
  • Same answer as above.
--Tarage (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • When you wrote "I have reverted your edit because I do see your point, it's removal is not required," do you remember what the point was that you saw?
  • In your opinion, what is the problem that we're trying to solve by finding wording better than mine, or do you no longer see a problem?
  • What is the point of the last sentence in the Conspiracy Theories section?
Dscotese (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is trying to treat the conspiracy theories as a single unified phenomenon. Because there are several unrelated theories, one has to either mention a representative sample or mention none. Controlled demolition is probably the most sensational conjecture, but it's also a lunatic fringe theory which has been disproven, whereas suggestions such as cover-up of negligence are supported, albeit weakly, by circumstantial evidence. Peter Grey (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Peter, thanks for helping out. In your opinion, what is the point of the last sentence in the Conspiracy Theories section? What sense do you think the reader can make of it as a conclusion to the "Conspiracy Theories" paragraph? It seems to me to insinuate that the conspiracy theories are all about how the towers fell rather than the attacks themselves, but the beginning of the paragraph only mentions "attacks". Because I am aware of the controlled demolition theory, it makes sense to me, but that context is not presented.Dscotese (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a non sequitur; it needs context to say it refers to one particular example of a conspiracy theory. Civil engineers as a profession obviously do not have an opinion on Bush obstructing investigation into his own incompetence. Peter Grey (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have made an edit to solve this problem by introducing the particular example, but Tom and Tarage both felt that edit should be reverted, though Tarage has hinted that it may be a good ides to edit so as to introduce that last sentence.
Once that edit was reverted, I made another edit to remove the non-sequitur, but Tarage reverted that one too. Which solution do you think is better? Dscotese (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that while I am against the introduction of a specific example, if the consensus among editors is for the inclusion of said example, I will not stand in the way. I just feel that we have enough people with a strong enough grasp of the English language that we can avoid it. However, it doesn't look like many are interested either way... --Tarage (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the controlled demolition hypothesis, how does the community of civil engineers' acceptance of the mainstream account relate to conspiracy theories? Dscotese (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
There are some that believe missiles were used. Heck, there are probably some people who think UFOs did it. The point is, while CD is a large group, they are by no means the only group, and I don't think they warrant special mention. --Tarage (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so how is this then:

If you have sources for the other theories, that would be great. This addition will take care of the non-sequitur without undue weight. Dscotese (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't particularly like this, I don't think I have the clout to revert it. I'll let someone more experienced than I handle it. This way, we might also get more people involved in the debate. It seems to have stagnated... --Tarage (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The US Government's Official Story is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory"

Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour & 20 minutes. Three concrete and steel buildings are disintegrated and melted, crumbling straight down into the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed in perfect symmetrical collapses "due to fire" for the first time in the history of modern architecture, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian laws of physics.

Current use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as a denigrating pejorative label for those who question established ideas is discussed here http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm:

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."


You, and newdemocracyworld.org are absolutely wrong, the term "Conspiracy theory" either means that literally, nor is it even rarely used for that effect :

conspiracy theory means exactly what it says, and no one uses it to say "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation.".. for that effect someone would say "conspiracy nut", george bush once said "internetters" also for that effect.

and since no real evidence has been found that alquade are actually behind it.. although unorthodox and maby unlikely, it is 100% perfectly legit to state the the official explanation from the us is infact a conspiracy theory.

--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 09:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, MrEguy. I agree. Neurolanis (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling Tom Harrison

Here I have attempted to get Tom involved in this discussion, but he has not joined, and instead simply reproduced the non-sequitur discussed above. What is the best way to handle this kind of negligence? Should I just post to his talk page again? I'm afraid he might just be ignoring me now. Dscotese (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't think he is ignoring you, I think he is busy. That would be the best way to get a hold of him. --Tarage (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the material about "controlled demolition" because it gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory, and because it goes against WP:SSsummary style. The talk page archives have several extended discussions about the conspiracy theories and this article, and I am not willing to spend time recapitulating them yet again. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Tom, if you have a better fix, change it. Don't re-introduce the non-sequitur again. You may also want to establish consensus for your fix, as you see how much trouble we've been having finding something that works. Dscotese (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside: buttons

By the way, what do you mean by "push a few buttons along the way"? Do you mean that some people have a strong emotional interest in preventing the article from changing? Dscotese (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Change? No, as you have seen, we just changed the article's title. The article is currently in a state of flux as we attempt to achieve FA status. However, caution needs to be taken as well. By making rash edits, you slow down the process of reaching consensus, and cause our more seasoned editors to, perhaps unfairly, lump you in with some of our previous 'malcontents'. I think you only want what is best for this article, this is why I am trying to help. Less haste, more discussion, and you'll do fine. --Tarage (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.[157]

-I am truly grateful to the writer of this sentence. It is very important that the people of the world believe this. Excellent work, and well placed. You have my respect. God Bless America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.252.179 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Pentagon

I would appreciate a sentence written to the effect of the Pentagon being attacked on the sixtieth anniversary of its groundbreaking.GuamIsGood (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That information seems rather trivial to me. I don't think it belongs in the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that that tidbit would lend some context, as well as interesting prose to the article. Anyone else, Buehler...Buehler?GuamIsGood (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Feels like trivia to me. Not worth adding to a serious article. --Tarage (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It is a piece of trivia unless there is evidence that the attackers picked the date for the attacks based on the date of the groundbreaking. Jons63 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Bias and Serious POV issues regarding this page

Attackers and their Motivation

"The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[64][65][66]"

Link number 65 makes absolutely no reference to the mission statement, which is actually contained within link 66 in full, however is not contained in link 64. Link 65 technically has no relevance whatsoever because it's discussing security failures that lead to 9/11 within the FBI and intelligence sharing, and doesn't even reference motivations of the attackers, much less their stated reasons.

This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]

If I were an outsider doing a research paper (which I am by the way), and I were using wikipedia as a source (which I'm not, and for good reason), I should be under the impression that Al Qaedas primary motivation for 9/11 would be to simply kill Americans for the hell of it. However, that is entirely inconsistant with both the mission statement and Bin Ladens letter to America, which make it clear his motivations for attack are undeniably within 3 general categories:

1) Presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia and Middle East 2) Support for Israel 3) Support for "corrupt" governments in the Middle East

This information is contained in full in link 66 and 67. However it's interesting note how the author of the wikipedia article seems to stress the (harder to find) Islamist message while ignoring the main points (political motivations). Bin Laden makes it quite clear in an [16]unmistakeable Q and A format:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

Under "motivations" I think it would be more appropriate to stress the political motivations since they are more prominent and these are the stated reasons of the attackers themselves. It seems the original author was writing using his own political motivations and biases in an attempt to persuade the reader, and it's very dishonest to say the least.

--Bronsonkaahui (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy. Did you even read the following paragraphs; one of which states that:
In a second fatwā issued in 1998, bin Laden outlined his objections to American foreign policy towards Israel, as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.[70]
Or another below that says,
Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke explains in his book, Against All Enemies, that U.S. foreign policy decisions including "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets" contributed to al-Qaeda's motives.[109] Others, such as Jason Burke, foreign correspondent for The Observer, focus on a more political aspect to the motive, stating that "bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity [...] but his agenda is a basically political one."[110]
No, apparently, you did not. If anything, all you've pointed out is faulty summary-style regarding the subsections on motivations. And I'm betting we'll never hear a reply from you despite your inflammatory and grossly inaccurate and offensive title. -- Veggy (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[64][65][66]"This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and concludes that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere."[64] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."[67]

This statement is clearly POV, as it is suggesting that the "overall objective" of Al Qaeda is to "attack us for our freedoms" and what not. Why is it relevent to say how the statement begins without pointing out the more pertinent information, such as the (self-stated) main reasons for the attacks? To the outside reader it suggests bias, perhaps it should be re-worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronsonkaahui (talk • contribs) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the entire article does it say "attack us for our freedoms". Stop pulling straw men arguments out of thin air—you're insulting the editors who've worked here. If you feel there's a better way the section lead can include the references to Israeli support, by all means add them, or propose them here if you feel they might stir controversy. But don't ever make things up and pretend that'll fly. And sign your posts. -- Veggy (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
In more or less words it does in fact imply that. The article is misleading, because it opens only with trivial and less important facts while ignoring primary "main" facts, such as the fact that Osama Bin Ladens stated reason for 9/11 was as retaliation for our aggression or "imperialism" in the Middle East. The paragraph is POV and should be re-worded or removed completely. And I can't edit the main page for some reason.

--24.211.75.194 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda responding to US military and economic provocations has always been tricky to express in entirely NPOV terms, and undoubtedly there is some room for discussion and improvement. The "freedoms" nonsense, however, is entirely an American neo-con invention, and was explicitly refuted by bin Laden. Peter Grey (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And just an asside, you can't edit the main page because it is currently protected from anonymous editors. If you wish to contribute further, I sugest that you create an account. And even then, please talk about your edits here and reach a consensus before making major changes like the one you are sugesting, lest you end up banned from editing these articles all together. --Tarage (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The religious motive, the fact that Americans are non-Muslim, is the first thing mentioned in Bin Laden's fatwa. "Jihad" (holy war) appears both in the fatwa and is a buzzword the group uses constantly. They wanted to "slay the pagans," like the Koran says. I certainly don't think this issue it is "trivial" to Al Qaeda. But there are also two listed grievances in the fatwa: No 1: The U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has withdrawn from Saudi since then, but I don't recall Bin Laden issuing a 'thank you.' The No. 2 listed grievance is the U.N. sanctions against Iraq. These have been lifted. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"The No. 2 listed grievance is the U.N. sanctions against Iraq.".. seems out of date. One would think that Bin Laden would now have a new list of grievances, you wouldn't think that moving forces from Saudia Arabia to Iraq would deserve an apology, would you ?And wouldnt the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and repeat attacks on his Taliban(etc) minders disallow apologies.. 202.92.40.8 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Helicopter Rescue

I recall a version of "why a helicopter rescue was not attempted" was because of the wind (the pilot did not think he could land safely) I can/will try to dig it up unless someone does not want me to (see footnote 39 of the contemporary article). I will check the archives before I attempt a search to see if the issue has been addressed. Regards Johndoeemail (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this too. Walking up stairs to rescue people is inefficient. You wonder if city firemen have any other alternatives to carrying hose to fight fires also. I was wondering if there had been any plans to use baskets like they use on cranes to move construction workers.--Ericg33 (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If this article is the flagship, the rest of the fleet should follow...

...with the renaming. This is not the page for it, but it is relevant, and since the responsible project's talk page does not show much traffic, I thought I'd post a notice here. Perhaps a group request for move should open; I am not sure. I have started a discussion here. Waltham, The Duke of 14:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixing the wikilinks is the sort of task that a bot would be good at. That's one thing to be done. I would be willing to move the pages that are named similarly to this one. --Aude (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the links are a major problem (we are not supposed to edit pages just to redirect links anyway, with the exception of navigation templates). The moves are a lot of work, however. See the link; I have started the discussion in the WikiProject's talk page. Waltham, The Duke of 15:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
As long as you fix all double redirects, the links are no big deal. After I moved the article and its subpages, I manually fixed all the double redirects created—over 100 I think. I've never seen an article with close to this many, but it makes sense given the context. A bot will take care of this in time if you don't bother, but it should be done immediately for a subject like this.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much all the articles have been done. I have made a CFD to rename the categories as well here. Deamon138 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Airliner responsibility for easy hijacking

Can anyone add something about their total lack of training for situations like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Which situation is "this"? The hijackers didn't identify themselves as suicide bombers, and at the time policy was to co-operate in cases of hijacking. Peter Grey (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the hijackers were on the FAA's watchlist and were flagged at security, according to the 9/11 commission. But the FAA was so worried they'd be accused of "ethnic profiling" that they didn't even search them with any greater scrutiny than other passengers. Five watchlisted people on the same flight -- and no one thought to inform the pilot. Kauffner (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm torn here. On one hand, I am no fan of the airline industry and understand the point made by Kauffner. On the other hand, I don't think they seriously could have imagined an event like September 11th. --Tarage (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of the terrorists were searched with greater scrutiny. The problem, at least at the last point they could have been stopped, was that none of them really violated any rules. Knives were not forbidden on flights and mean looks and broken English were not and are not reasons in and of themselves to deny passage to someone. Show me some evidence, Kauffner, that the FAA was "afraid" to do something about these guys. Once again, you are ill-informed. The major responsibility lay far beyond the airline companies. -- Veggy (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Any proposals for changes to the article will be more successful if they are based on reliable sources. Kauffner has mentioned the 9/11 commission report... so far so good. Does it say the FAA were worried about ethnic profiling, or is that original research? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The formal name of the FAA's watchlist is the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS). You can read all about it in the 9/11 commission's "The Aviation Security System and the 9/11 Attacks - Staff Statement No. 3". The short version is that in those days, the FAA was just worried about bombs in the checked-in luggage. So if a name came up on the system, they waited for that passenger to board before loading his luggage on the plane. That's it -- no additional scrutiny for carry-on items. The checked-in luggage wasn't even searched or X-rayed. OK, no one expected hijackings and that's understandable. But the FAA did know about the 1995 Bojinka plot, which involved smuggling liquid bombs onto the aircraft as carry on.Kauffner (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hate crimes

September 11 attacks#Hate crimes says "hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people, particularly Sikhs, because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims in the United States." This section focues too much on Sikhs and doesn't say much about other studies. AdjustShift (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a study by Ball State University.[17] AdjustShift (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


Another poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An independent U.S.-based group called World Public Opinion.org asked 16,000 people in 17 countries who they thought was responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Majorities in only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks, a finding that surprised World Public Opinion.org's director, Steven Kull.

...

Kull says an average of 15 percent say the U.S. government plotted the attacks.

'In Turkey, 36 percent have this view, Turkey, one of our allies. Palestinian territories, 27 percent have this view. In Mexico, 30 percent have this view, and perhaps most surprising of all, in Germany, 23 percent have the view that the United States was behind the 9/11 attacks.'

...

"It is striking that even among our allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm

Given this data, based an international poll of 16,000 people, this article is POV.

The allegation that "al-Qaida" has responsible for 911 is dispute by a significant number of people:

- Only nine of the 17 countries believed that al-Qaida was behind the attacks.

- Even among US allies, the numbers that say al-Qaida was behind 9/11 do not get above two-thirds, and barely become a majority.

MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So? --Tarage (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So, the 9/11 article is POV, it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules: WP:NPOV. The blanket unqualified assertion in the article that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11 needs to be changed to reflect the fact that a significant fraction of the world population have other points of view. Moreover, this data should be included in the article itself. MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the post of MichiganMilitia is helpful. The allegation that al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11 is not disputed by sane people. AdjustShift (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see how your POV about the "sanity" of questioning the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 here does anything but make my point about this article being in violation of: WP:NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we can view this sort of poll as an intelligence test. Kauffner (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
So, you are suggesting that the populations of Kenya & Nigeria are more intelligent than those of Britain, France & Germany? No, I am sorry, the data is a NPOV test for this Wikipedia article and it clearly shows failure: WP:NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep! Osama has publicly acknowledged al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks. There is no dispute. AdjustShift (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but what OBL is purported to have said has no bearing on the fact this article violated Wikipedia's NPOV rules: WP:NPOV. MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Here is the source of the data and description of the polling methodology: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb=

Approximately 43% of Britain, 37% of France, 35% of Germany... on average 54% of the 16,000 people polled in 17 countries do not believe that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11. Significant populations believe that the US government or Israel carried out 9/11. MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

File:WPO 911 Sep08 graph.jpg

While the minority belief that the US government was responsible for the attacks is notable (and has been noted) as a social phenomenon, we cannot usurp reliably sourced information on the basis of popular opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy; its content is not dictated by the whims of the masses, but by what is supported by notable and reliable sources. Simply put, we cannot write 25% of this article from an "I don't know" perspective. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this is an NPOV issue: WP:NPOV. This article is POV, it only presents one point of view and makes no attempt to even acknowledge the fact that millions of intelligent, educated people do not believe the US government's story about "al-Qaeda". I purpose that we add a small section which incorporates this reliably sourced poll data. Certainly you can have no objection to that minor request? MichiganMilitia (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. But this poll alone does not justify and will not prompt rewriting the entire article to give undue weight to fringe theories. In any case, a new section devoted to this alone would be completely unjustified, but a brief note could probably be added to the end of the International Reactions section.  »S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Lets talk about this "brief note" then. I would like to cite this poll in the article and the following text:
"The majority of people surveyed globally do not believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. In particular, some 23% of Germans, 36% of Turks and 30% of Mexicans believe that the US government carried out 9/11."
If more space is available, perhaps something could be said about the fact that large sections of the Middle East believe that Israel was involved in 9/11 as well. MichiganMilitia (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
That's overlooking the important fact that 25% of international respondents had no answer, as opposed to only 15% who thought the US government was responsible. Giving the more prominent focus to the latter can be construed as using selected parts of the survey to make a point, which is itself POV. Keep in mind that if a reader cares to read more, they can follow the link to the source. Try to think of a sentence or two which summarizes the findings of the article, and keep undue weight in mind. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 08:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting the 25% category, these people answered they "did not know" who carried out 9/11. This means they are not convinced that "al-Qaeda" did it, so it is proper to say:
"The majority of people surveyed globally do not believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11."
As indicated by objective summaries, that is the major result of the survey. WorldPublicOpinion titled its press release "No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11": http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb= VoiceOfAmerica, which is itself part of the US government, titled its article: "Global Poll Shows Doubt About al-Qaida Role in 9/11 Attacks": http://voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm Perhaps we could follow VoiceOfAmerica's lead and use with the word "doubt" instead of "do not believe":
"The majority of people surveyed globally doubt that al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11."
Now, regarding assertion that this is a POV: yes, of course, that is the whole point here. We want to add another POV to try to balance the article. The status quo POV is the US story about "al-Qaeda". Clearly, the appropriate counter-balance is to add the POV that the US itself committed 9/11. Given that Germany, Tukery & Mexico are all US allies, who should at least hold an otherwise favorable opinion of the US, this statement concisely adds the unrepresented POV which is desired:
"Some 23% of Germans, 36% of Turks and 30% of Mexicans believe that the US government carried out 9/11."
These were unexpected results highlighted in both the WorldPublicOpinion press release: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/535.php?nid=&id=&pnt=535&lb= and the VoiceOfAmerica article: http://voanews.com/english/2008-09-10-voa59.cfm Please note that the VoiceOfAmerica article summarize the relevant statistics with the following text:
An average of 46 percent of the people polled in each country blames al-Qaida for the attacks. If not al-Qaida, then who? Kull says an average of 15 percent say the U.S. government plotted the attacks.
"In Turkey, 36 percent have this view, Turkey, one of our allies. Palestinian territories, 27 percent have this view. In Mexico, 30 percent have this view, and perhaps most surprising of all, in Germany, 23 percent have the view that the United States was behind the 9/11 attacks."
So, I believe this text concisely and accurately summarizes the poll results:
"The majority of people surveyed globally doubt that al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11. In particular, some 23% of Germans, 36% of Turks and 30% of Mexicans believe that the US government carried out 9/11." MichiganMilitia (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
We report what reliable sources report, and reliable sources don't report any controversy among experts working in their field, mainstream media etc. "Millions" of intelligent, educated people whose opinions are not informed by any expertise are not reliable sources. RxS (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Surely you are not disputing that "World Public Opinion" is a reliable source: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/about.php?nid=&id= MichiganMilitia (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


File:Fin91108.jpg

This is the latest 9/11 poll in Finland.
- "al-Qaeda": 44%
- US government: 37%
- Israel: 5%
- Don't know: 13%
http://www.uusisuomi.fi/kysely/kenen-uskot-olleen-syyskuun-11-paivan-wtc-iskujen-taustalla


So again, we see a majority of a population, in this case 56% doubts that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for 9/11.

This number of 56% is almost exactly the same as the figure of 54% produced by the GlobalPublicOpinions MichiganMilitia (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think the lead article is the place for it, the substantial misinformation and doubt in the face of credible evidence is certainly a noteworthy phenomenon. The problem with polls of this sort, though, is that September 11th is a complex event, and 'responsibility' can be interpreted rather broadly. For example, if al Qaeda (which does not exactly have a formal chain of responsibility) carried out the attacks in retribution for US interventions in the Middle East, then there is a sense in which the US is 'responsible'. As an aside, there seems to be a pattern that the more vaguely worded the questions (link was unavailable as of 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)), the more sensational the poll results. Peter Grey (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I do not see how your statements address the overt POV problem with the article: WP:NPOV MichiganMilitia (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is WP:NPOV. If large numbers of people in the world are ignorant, that's unfortunate, but it's not Wikipedia's problem. There would be a place for better explaining the exact relationship between the hijackers and al Qaeda, if such information could be obtained, but a poll of unknown methodology is not helpful. Peter Grey (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The WorldPublicOpinion methodology is published here: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep08/WPO_911_Sep08_quaire.pdf. Note only does irrefutably demonstrate the this article is POV, the POV of this article is the minority view of that poll. MichiganMilitia (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Heise.jpg

This is the latest 9/11 poll in Germany by the Heise media house.
- bin Laden & "al-Qaeda": 12%
- US government: 58%
- Saudis: 1%
- Other: 2%
- It doesn't mattter...: 17%
- Who cares, it's past: 1%
- Don't know, anything is possible: 9%
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/umfrage/ergebnis.shtml MichiganMilitia (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
These polls have no bearing on the attacks themselves. Factual evidence is not democratic. If 99% of the world believed the world was flat, it would still be round. -- Veggy (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The polls clearly indicate that this article is POV, it violates Wikipedia rules: WP:NPOV 209.29.44.199 MichiganMilitia (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Are we still talking about this poll? Look MichiganMilitia, you are new here, so I'll cut you some slack. Please go read the archives for this talk page. You will see that many, if not ALL if the points you are bringing up have been addressed already. Please stop parroting old arguments simply because you think the article is NPOV. We have fought long and hard for consensus, and it would be unwise of you to barge in here and try to usurp it because of one poll. Understand? --Tarage (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The WorldPublicOpinion poll is new data, published on 9/10.08. It is comprehensive, reliably sourced, proves the article is POV, it violates Wikipedia rules: WP:NPOV 209.29.44.199 MichiganMilitia (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, this information should be added to the article. The article does not cite any neutral source for its assertion that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. As there is no neutral source on the matter, more than one POV should be described. No editor has alleged that this specific poll is an unreliable source, so its information is not a fringe theory and including its findings is not undue weight. Oneismany (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this information should be added to the article. The article does cite neutral sources for its assertion that al-Qaeda was behind the attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Two issues are being mixed here, let's try to keep them seperate:
(1) The WorldPublicOpinion.org poll indisputably proves the this article violate Wikipedia rules: WP:NPOV
(2) The article's results themselves are important facts that should be added to the article: MichiganMilitia (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see argumentum ad populum. Half of people in the U.S. believe in UFOs, but they're still WP:FRINGE. Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verse 9.11 of the Quran

'For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allahand lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace.' I read this from somewhere but I cant confirm it without an actual Quran, could this be any of knowledge value to the article or other smiliars? -Johndoe789 (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is false and has been debunked on Snopes. Either way, anyone with a Quran would confirm this for themselves. -- Veggy (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, VegitaU is right! AdjustShift (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Update reference

Reference 75 is no longer valid for this article and nowhere on the UK Gov website can I find that article

We updated it with a link to the Internet Archive's copy of the page. --Aude (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Accurate number of deaths?

What is the accurate number of deaths? the article says "Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead." 2,974 and 24 equals 2,998, but then the summary thing on the upper right of the page says 2,999. And under "casualties" it has 2,975(which would equal 2,999 if 2,975+24). The September 11(article with lists of events/births/deaths) has 2,974(doesnt mention the 24 missing). Does anyone know the accurate number of deaths(including or excluding the missing) and the correct reference for that number? If so, could you make the edit to show that correct number, on this page as well as the September 11 "day page". Issmortor (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

One death later on was officially attributed to exposure and health effects from being at Ground Zero. So, it increased the total by one from 2,998 to 2,999. --Aude (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I added some details to the article, referencing an article in the New York Times. [18] --Aude (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are the hi-jackers left out of the list of deaths caused? From an encyclopedic perspective, this doesn't seem to make sense, as they certainly were casualties of the attack. Additionally, from a human perspective, it seems quite cold to exclude these few from the final death count, this loss of life was no less tragic (perhaps even more so?) than any of the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.181.129 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree on that. As long as someone died, someone died. Ohh and, happy 9/11 everyone (= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njuuton (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
A dead person is a dead person. Someone who died in an event is a victim of that event, even if they caused said event, no matter if they were "good guys" or "bad guys". I'd be bold and correct it, but I'll wait for someone with more experience on the English WP and this article to do it. Pmbarros (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


I would also agree.but i think that under victims the number should exclude the hi-jackers but death is death and a death count should include everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.81.55 (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Information That Should Be Added

Maybe I haven't read right but not all the times for the planes striking or the towers collapsing are included in the article. They can be found on my blog here:

http://www.davidjmoore.com/2008/09/11/911-seventh-anniversary/

If someone could update the article that would be great. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't deal with blogs. Sorry. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I simply asked you to take the information from it and put it in the article. What's that got to do with dealing with blogs? The article is missing information and if your clever enough you can verify what I have written anywhere on the net! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, we don't have time to be 'clever enough to verify' what you said. The general rule of thumb is not to cite blogs. If you are attempting to add something, why not post the sources here instead? --Tarage (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty shocked I have to cite a stated time, it's a well known fact - can't believe it wasn't already in the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/the_four_hijacks/flight_11.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs on citation. You should not be surprised by this. --Tarage (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing the information as being added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... you're information has been lost in a sea of drama. I suggest doing the edit yourself. At the very least, if it gets reverted, it will draw attention here. My apologies for all of this. I should have assumed good faith. --Tarage (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't do it because it is semi locked? Or am i being stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I put times in, with information from the NTSB reports which uses radar data for all the flights, along with flight data recorder data for Flight 93 and Flight 77. --Aude (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, not seeing the times. I am looking at the attacks section and specifically paragraph 4. There are no times of aircraft impact there.
See the first paragraph of the "Attacks" section. Possibly, you may need to clear your browser cache. --Aude (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is it true that certain footage of the actual attacks may not be shown because it looks to spectacular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Other editors may know the answer. AdjustShift (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, any media footage that good would have ended up in the medias hands and aired well before the gov managed to put a censor on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

i need to know more about 9/11 for my science prodject can yall tell me exactly wut happened on 9/11 and wut are they doing about the memorrial and how many poeples lives were lost .the whole school walked a mile for their memorial but i want to know what the united states does for their memorial —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.134 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is really isn't the place for those types of questions. But try the reference desk WP:RD, there are people there that can help you. I'd suggest starting out by reading this article and related pages. That should get you going. RxS (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminder - what a talk page is for

Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. RxS (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Section CIA preparation and tracking

The section CIA preparation and tracking seems off-topic for this page. It might go better in Al-Qaeda. Tom Harrison Talk 18:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs there either. Maybe deserves mention in the Central Intelligence Agency article. --Aude (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems all too relevant. It 'is' dealt with in more detail on the Central Intelligence Agency page, but it needs a mention here too. Frank Freeman (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Three different editors have removed this section, but Frank Freeman keeps putting it back:

Trying to shoehorn this in against consensus risks destabilizing the article, and the edit summary impugning the motives of the rest of us doesn't help either. Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It might be suitable for mentioning in the CIA article, but it's too much detail and doesn't really fit here. Furthermore, I see that User:Frank Freeman keeps adding geocities links here and in edits on other pages. Those are absolutely not acceptable. --Aude (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The Geocities links contain links to valid, respectable sources, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop removing them. Clearly, you have not bothered to read further. Frank Freeman (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The Geocities link in the 9/11 article is additional to the other, "respectable" links, so don't use it as an excuse here. Frank Freeman (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
He just did it again. I undid it. --Tarage (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Investigation of al Qaeda in general does not belong in this article; if the CIA was tracking down leads specific to these attacks, that would probably merit mentioning. Peter Grey (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
This (short) subsection is not an "investigation", but a clarification. (Incidentally, the CIA (in the shape of Counterterrorist Center chief Cofer Black and his assistant "Rich B" were expecting an imminent attack on US interests in 2001 -- perhaps in the US itself -- and that deserves a mention too.) Frank Freeman (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for arbitration enforcement here.

Facts omitted from the article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Here's a reminder of the facts which are omitted from the article>

9/11 Commission report is rejected (by the members of Commission and by world wide public)[19]

War on Terror is rejected (the numerous warmongering and fearmongering lies made by US administration are recognised within the mainstream)[20]

People around the world demand new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks (documentary Zero went public in many European countries, as well as in Russia, yesterday, now we have more than 30 million people who are questioning attacks). [21],[22]

When will the article recognise the facts stated above? Mass driver (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here we go...
...for the ten-thousandth time.
9/11 Commission report is rejected
That link doesn't say it was "rejected". It is an editorial delineating complaints against the overall conclusions and incomplete nature, leaving "plot holes", or open questions, that have not, according to this author, been answered. Of course, he does not list any of those questions, leaving the entire piece as lacking as the 9/11 Commission Report is to him.
War on Terror is rejected
Besides not having anything to do with the 9/11 attacks themselves, this piece talks about mistakes and false statements made by the Bush administration in leading up to the Iraq War.
People around the world demand new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks (documentary Zero went public in many European countries, as well as in Russia, yesterday, now we have more than 30 million people who are questioning attacks).
Nothing you've said is asserted anywhere in that article. Some documentary furthering a particular agenda does not substitute for facts.
When will the article recognise the facts stated above?
Whenever you make a particular factual statement backed by reliable sources, it will. -- Veggy (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
'Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that they were lied to by the NORAD and Defense Department's officials, the Commission was denied of the evidence and 'set up to fail'. [23],[24],[25],[26]
We have a War on terror section and those 'innocent' mistakes and lies belong there.
Polls and the call for independent investigation are clearly referenced above. Mass driver (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit request was removed because this page is not fully protected.76.95.124.146 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Please expand 9/11 Commission section as seen below.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) was formed in late 2002 to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the attacks, including preparedness for, and the immediate response to, the attacks. On July 22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission issued the 9/11 Commission Report. The commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism.[161][162] Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated that they were lied to by the NORAD and Defense Department's officials, the Commission was denied of the evidence and 'set up to fail'.[27],[28],[29],[30]

Thanks. Mass driver (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

All that goes under criticism. -- Veggy (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, in this case you're actually suggesting an omission, please remember 'notability guidelines do not directly limit article content'. Mass driver (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if anyone has particular issue with proposed edit, please address it in next four days. Mass driver (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll address right now. If I were suggesting an omission, I wouldn't be suggesting a venue on Wikipedia to include it. Please remember 'some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).'. -- Veggy (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the 'redirecting directives'; we have zillions of those in history here, that's why this section is called 'facts omitted from the article'. I'll take this with good faith, do you have any other objection for the inclusion of the proposed sentence or not? As stated above 'notability guidelines do not directly limit article content', the fact that Commission 'was setup to fail' is more than significant for this particular article. Mass driver (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid a handful of articles are not enough to tip the scale when there are piles and piles of such on the other side. Please read the archives and make sure the arguments you are making here have not already been made and rejected before. We have a low tolerance for redundant arguments here. --Tarage (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New York Election

Does nobody find it important to mention the election that occurred the day of 9/11. Worker turnout was massively lower than normal. I don't know where, but it should be able to be incorporated somehow.
Blindman shady 05:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have not heard this, but if you can find a reliable source or two, and can provide an argument for inclusion, we could talk about it. --Tarage (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The NYC mayorality primary election was postponed as a result of the attacks http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20040721.html --JimWae (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well... I don't know what to say. It doesn't seem important enough, but maybe if you inserted a sentence into the Aftermath section with that citation, it'd work. --Tarage (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that important. It is not important to add every minor details. AdjustShift (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
if knowledge exists and that knowledge isn't here, then I don't see a reason for it not to be added, so long as it's added in a manner that doesn't eclipse the main point. It's amazing how often minor details turn out not to be minor after all is said and done.71.81.78.66 (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It may not seem so important now, but on the day in question, it was one of the more significant of the immediate responses and it was one of the few things that the media covered besides the attacks themselves and the air travel diversions. Peter Grey (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On the survey, above

I'd just like to remind peple that "Don't know>" is better interpreted as ignorance, not doubt. Put people on the spot, with no guidance, and they'll say the stupidest things, blurt out the answer to the wrong question ("Who was attacked in the..."), or forget the most basic facts. The September 11 attacks just aren't that important to someone in the Ukraine, as compared to people who have strong ties to the U.S. - it's not unnatural for them to be confused or forgetful of the details when put on the spot.

Who conducted the 1995 Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for example?

In short, the poll may successfully show ignorance, but it should not be added to the article for any of the conspiracy-mongering purposes suggested, not even to claim that there's doubt in an argumentum ad populum, and a false one at that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mohamed Atta

Mohamed Atta was the tactical leader of 9/11. Our Wikipedia article doesn't mention much about him. AdjustShift (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right, there should be a mention of him. Jojhutton (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added a brief summary about hijacker selection, arrival in the U.S., training, and planning. This article needs to be a summary so it can't be more detailed than that. --Aude (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. AdjustShift (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

There is a contradiction in the first few paragraphs of this article, and I marked it as such. The sentence in the body text reads: "2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing or presumed dead." 2974 + 24 = 2998. However, the infobox on the side states that 2999 people were killed in the attacks. Which is correct? --Quintin3265 (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See above Talk:September_11_attacks#Accurate_number_of_deaths.3F --Aude (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep! 2999 is the correct number! AdjustShift (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thought the other mention said 2975... it looked to me like one person had just included the missing in their number - though in that paragraph they list the missing as well, so that would total 3023 - I expect there'd be some fuzziness on this, but if there's no exact quantity known, an exact quantity shouldn't be given.71.81.78.66 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Casualty List

This must have been proposed and rejected at some point by someone, but I cannot find it. Why is there no article entitled "List of September 11 attacks victims"? I realize that the vast majority of the victims are not notable and therefore do not get personal articles, but what about a simple list?--MrFishGo Fish 23:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A list goes beyond what the purpose of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not a memorial applies. Also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which was decided in 2005. More recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 11th, 2001 victims list which pertained to something a newbie posted. --Aude (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy 'Theories' Statement Problem

In the 'conspiracy' section it states "The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream theory that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers." I don't find its references very helpful in establishing that supposed fact, and in searching for any those sites only seem to reference each other, or Wikipedia’s own statement. At the very least I think it should be mentioned that there is a growing number of architects and engineers disproving the official story, along with hundreds of senior military officials, intelligence agents, firemen and witnesses of the explosions that brought the towers down. Check out: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

(This is the THIRD time that I've re-posted this comment in the past week. If someone has a problem with my comment, then say so and don't remove it without at least giving me an explanation.) Neurolanis (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it necessary to remove the comments, but your "argument" has been considered and rejected a number of times. I see no reason to reconsider it unless you have new evidence from a credible source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
patriotsquestion911 isn't a reliable source (see WP:RS)...there ain't reliable sources that back up the claim that there are hundreds of senior military officials, intelligence agents, firemen and witnesses of the explosions that brought the towers down. You also are going to have a tough time claiming that a growing number of architects and engineers have disproved the official story...RxS (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The last rejection I can find is at Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 41#Conspiracy Theories Section around April 26. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is to laugh. I've forgotten that Wikipedia's "credible sources" are mainstream propaganda sites. I keep forgetting that Wikipedia is totally left-side of the brain, trapped in the box, helpless to the world. Sorry, my bad.

But really though ... the statement I commented about has NO BASIS, so taking that alone, how could it not be removed? Could anyone explain that to me, honestly? Neurolanis (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's right in the abstract: there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone. Peter Grey (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Still, although the structural engineering issues surrounging the collapse are understood reasonably well and not in dispute, the sentence does not fit well in the narrative. It is trying to refute one specific family of conspiracy theories without describing the theory, and therefore the statement does not have enough context. Perhaps it should be worded as just a simple example of a disproven conspiracy theory, such as: For example, there are conspiracy theories based on the conjecture that additional sabotage was necessary for the collapse of the Twin Towers, even though the community of civil engineers generally accepts that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the structures to fail. Peter Grey (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you living in a cave somewhere? Get real! There is so much strong evidence which PROVES that 9-11 was an inside job that I honestly wouldn't know where to start! The Pancake Theory is LAUGHABLE. REAL scientists (independent, cutting-edge) know better. Hell, any little boy scout should know that a roaring flame at a campfire site cannot melt a cheap steel pan. Anyone with half a brain should know that if a structure collapses at freefall speed that there was NOTHING there to deter its fall! Anyone should know that if various witnesses of different walks of life, including experienced firemen, run out of a building crying that they heard explosions going off in the lower sections of the tower before the tower collapsed, and at least one "underground" explosion, that explosives were used! Anyone with any brain cells at all should be able to deduct that if a plane was so completely pulverized that no bodies could be distinguished from the wreckage, wreckage which was spread out over a large radius, that finding a paper ID card would not be possible. A plane that breaks open a side of the Pentagon and yet leaves behind only a few small fragments of material, and a later-released and wrongly-dated video of a flying object heading into the Pentagon which is clearly NOT a large passenger plane as they claim can be laughed at by anyone with half-decent vision or a pair of specs. Planes supposedly flown by men whose flying talents were laughed at by their instructors, who left Currans and ID cards everywhere, and a written admission of guilt, who left their hotel just in time to make the flight, who dropped by a Burger King on the way, and several of whom are still alive! Bin Laden held responsible despite the fact that his family were always close friends businesswise with the Bush family, and whose family was secretly flown out of the USA on the very day of the strikes! Basic COMMON SENSE should tell you beyond any doubting that the official story is a load of hogwash! If you believe any different you are either in on the scam, are in admiration of it, or are otherwise a complete and utter moron. Neurolanis (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no reliable source has published any such proof, so we can't change the article, so you're wasting your time posting here (because this page is for discussing improvements to this article, not general discussion). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's never a waste of time to speak the truth and attempt to explain evidence to those who will not listen. I have tried posting facts on the 9-11 Conspiracy several times and have always found the same things: 1. Even if I use sites for references which are commonly used on that page or on many, many others, they are called "not credible". 2. Video evidence, which is of vast importance to topics such as this are not considered credible (even though they are used on less controversial subjects without problem.) 3. When you're talking about this degree of criminality, mainstream news sites such as CNN or Fox News are not helpful as they will ignore, lie about or only vaguely mention important facts indicating the political/corporate criminality (they are politically-guided and corporate-owned companies, after all.) Their reporters are newsreaders; who pass on what facts appear on the surface and what certain political figureheads say (which is no better than common gossip), rather than investigating and reporting on the ‘hows and whys’ behind the surface of things (real journalism.) However, these real journalistic websites are called "Not credible" by Wikipedia. Intelligence, wisdom, cutting-edge science, full historic detail and many public understandings are thus ignored, and we are left with mainstream fast food.

Despite the opinions of Sheffield Steel, I hope that others will consider what I have said. I would like the quoted statement above to be removed or reworded, on the grounds that I have given. Thanks. Neurolanis (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Neurolanis the reason why nobody would listen to you is that your theories are laughable and just like what Sheffield Steel said, no proof available. Even if we could provide a 'perfect proof' that Al Qaida did it, you and your left wing ilk will just brand it as a "manufactured propaganda". And really, those sources of yours, have you even tried questioning them instead of just accepting them at face value. If you think one side can twist the truth, so can the other side...so your accusation that the 9/11 tragedy was a government "inside job" doesn't stand.

Actually, I'll be nice and give you tip for others to listen: Try to add that E.T. and pals from outer space helped the government in hatching the plot. Hey...you would get a million listeners right there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macalatus (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Okay, let's get back to improving Wikipedia, remembering WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Neurolanis has not made a sufficient case for changing the article. Steel weakened; no-one claims it melted. Collapse speed was not inconsistent with structural failure. The sound of explosion does not prove actual explosions. Etc. Many smart professionals are in agreement. New evidence would be one thing, but there's a reason that it's illegal for amateurs to design buildings. Intuition, perpetuation of hoaxes and misinterpretation of facts are not helpful. Peter Grey (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. All I am hearing from Neurolanis is 'I am right, the web pages I find are right, and the numerous reliable sources provided by those who disagree with me are obviously lying.' I deleted his comments before, and I would have done it again had people not responded. This is a pointless argument with someone who is here simply to push propaganda. Request for archive and requesting that an outside moderator give Neurolanis the boilerplate Arbcom warning. --Tarage (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wilco Done. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Neurolanis on the subject and will provide a credible source for my story. Peter Greyland states that the steel weakened and no-one claims it melted. It did melt, there were pools of molten steel registered under the debris of the towers that were several hundreds of degrees higher than the highest burning temperature of kerosine and clear signs that the structural steel had been melted away. http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/molten_steel.jpg http://bradleyinfotainment.com/_images/thermite.jpg This together with other facts surrounding the collapse, such as the presence of sulfur in the molten steel chunks and the existence of "the meteorite", a block of concrete molten together with steel and other materials, cannot deny that thermite (or rather the sulfur-enriched demolition variant thermate) was used in the collapse. This statement was made by Dr. Steven Earl Jones, a renowned physicist that I believe need no further introduction for people with interests in this subject. He also founded Scholars of 9/11 Truth, which was joined by numerous scholars that support his theory. Often his suggestion of controlled-demolition was criticised. His university of Brigham Young stated that peer technical research of the subject would surely debunk his story, though none of this has been done. This, in my opinion, is mainly because of how Dr. Jones was thrown on the streets by his university, while casting aside the deal they made about keeping his papers publicated. 9/11's real story seems to be taboo, however in my opinion a site like Wikipedia should lend an equal ear to all sides of the story, especially those with a scientific foundation, so I ask you all to give the so called "conspiracy theories" a little more credit and recognision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronoDensetsu (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC) — ChronoDensetsu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is NOT a source, and this is NOT a forum. Requesting archive again. Archive this now so we can move on and prevent more of this mess... --Tarage (talk) 10:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Small Grammar Error

I've noticed a small grammar error under the "Osama Bin Laden" sub-section of this page, in the last paragraph. A line reads, "...al-Qaeda's involvement in the attacks on the U.S, and admitted..." There should be a period (.) after the "S" in U.S. It should read, "...attacks on the U.S., and admitted..."

I don't mean to sound picky, just noticed it and thought it would look better if corrected. Neurolanis (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. In future, you can just go ahead and make non-controversial edits. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't realize that it was only semi-locked. Neurolanis (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

POV proof?

This video got released with extensive research proving that the view of this article is biased, this is enough proof to say that it is POV?

Why not then just mention the things mentioned on the video?

Btw: I have nothing to do with the video, I found it randomly around and came here to check if it was already mentioned, seemly it is not.

Video: http://www.911rippleeffect.com/

More info: http://www.takebackwashington.com/re.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.98.52 (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of those websites meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The first site is selling a DVD, and the second (also selling the same DVD) is self-published. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, they don't meet WP:RS. AdjustShift (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-Neutrality?

Seems the things stated in this article are deemed "fact" when, say, Loose Change (film) or Zeitgeist (film) is deemed a "Theory". This, in my opinion, goes against Wikipedia:Neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappedgiants (talk • contribs)

That's your opinion, but WP:CONSENSUS seems to be otherwise. WP:CONSENSUS cannot override Wikipedia:Neutrality, but it can interpret it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Next time read the talk page archives before spewing this filth. --Tarage (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Cmmmmm

I think someone should revert Cmmmm's revision of "Islamist Terrorists" to "Islamic Terrorists." The middle-eastern hijackers (if there were any) were either about spreading Islam or creating more Islamic states, but were not terrorists because they were born in a particular religion. Cmmmmm seems to believe that the Mormon religion (Smithism?) is the only true faith, and he seems to disparage all others. I'll leave that decision to someone else, though.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamist Wowest (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Stillwell, Cinnamon (2006-04-19). "The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
  2. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3). American Society of Civil Engineers: pp. 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved 2008-05-20. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Stillwell, Cinnamon (2006-04-19). "The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2008-05-19.
  4. ^ Bazant, Zdenek P. (2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 133 (3). American Society of Civil Engineers: pp. 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308). Retrieved 2008-05-20. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_44&oldid=1142445391"