September 11 attacks/Archive 28

{{Automatic archive navigator}}

Untitled

"'Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11"' x Sdedeo (Sdedeo/advice tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

According to which policy? Is this page not just for 'discussion' or 'Talk' as the title suggests? Mach Seventy07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a place to discuss the article. Not to discuss the topic. --Golbez10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sdedeo TALK Guidelines (See TALKHow_to_use_article_talk_pages). There it clearly states that 'Talk pages are not for general conversation', so keep it to a minimum, there must be 1000s of forums for general conversation relating to this topic, plus overtime if this happened to all articles, surely the servers would collapse. Oliverdavison Oliver Davison 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For a wiki where discussing the "topic" of the September 11 attacks would be appropriate, I would suggest In Memoriam: September 11, 2001. — Ti89TProgrammer01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ungrammatic title

The entry title ought to be “September 11, 2001"',"' attacks” if the date format is going to be Mmmm DD, YYYY. However, beyond making this note, I am not going to try to wrestle with anyone over this issue. —SlamDiego13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously discussed. This is the same style Wikipedia uses for 7 July 2005 London bombings etc. Peter Grey22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely false. “DD Mmmm YYYY” ≠ “Mmmm DD, YYYY”. In the latter case, the year is "offset" by a comma. A title “11 September 2001 attacks” would be grammatic, and “September 11, 2001, attacks” would be grammatic, but “September 11, 2001 attacks” is not. (Now, I need to work on my resolve to let this go.) —SlamDiego06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is "Ungrammatic" even a word? Travb05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh. Just let it go. The "issue" here basically boils down to a difference in the way Americans write (and, to some extent, "say") dates. A far more idiosyncratic "American" title would, in fact, be September 11th attack or 9/11 attack(s) or even 9/11 terrorist attack(s). For the record, "ungrammatic" is not, in fact, a word. "Grammatically incorrect", perhaps, yes..."antigrammatical", still, albeit "unused", is correct. "Ungrammatic" is, unequivocably, "not" a word. In light of that simple fact, this is probably a good place, if there were "ever" a good place to point this out, I think that perhaps a far more important focus for committed WP editors should be proper grammar within articles, rather than whether article titles reflect a single editor's particular ideas about the proper use of punctuation. x TomeTShilo12 r 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, “ungrammatical” is certainly a word, and can be found in such authorities as "The American Heritage Dictionary". (I am appalled at how often WIkipedia editors make pronouncements without checking references.) This corresponds to one of the definitions of “grammatical”, namely

"'2."' Conforming to the rules of grammar.

Nor is the primary issue here one of British versus American dating conventions. In both England and America the two conventions that the section creator proposed are correct, and the absence of the comma in the form used in the article title is incorrect. And the proper way to settle the matter is not to "sneer" at the challenge; nor is it to talk through one's hat!

The "proper" way to settle with issue with such references as the (very "American") "Chicago Manual of Style", which in 6.46 plainly states

(Underscore mine.) —SlamDiego22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We all know this is an article title, not a full sentence, right? Peter Grey23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We all noticed that the "Manual of Style" didn't draw exceptions for titles, titles-about-Tuesdays, amp;c, right? —SlamDiego23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Slam Diego is absolutely right that the title should be punctuated either "September 11, 2001, attacks" or "11 September 2001 attacks." Someone usually raises this point every six months or so on this discussion page. (See Archive 19, item 18; Archive 20, item 3.) In those prior discussions, I've cited the 9/11 Commission Report and the New York Times, both of which use "September 11, 2001, attacks." No one has ever responded with any authority supporting the way the title is currently punctuated. I don't know why some editors here simply refuse to admit that it's incorrect.75.3.91.4016:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the easiest way to correct the title (as I suggested in Archive 20, item 3) would be to change it to "September 11 attacks." No one is going to confuse these attacks with the Septemeber 11 attacks of some other year.75.3.118.14615:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

More complaining about the title

There is one major difference between the title of this article and " 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Ask someone anywhere in the world what happened on July 7 2005 and I would wager most people outside the UK would not know. Ask anyone what happened on Sept 11 2001 and far more people would know. --Golbez09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible to make this page perma-protected ?

Is it possible to "vote" on one version of this article and make it perma-protected? I know this is against everything that wikipedia stands for, but this article has been the center of argument for years, there is 26 pages of archived material (Granted, users on this talk page archive quite frequently). These years long arguements have had a ripple effect across wikipedia.

anyway, just a suggestion. Personally, I have never got involved in these really high-profile pages such as Iraq War and 9/11. It seems like a waste of time to be edit warring over one page indefinetly...Travb00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See STABLE. Never got very far. 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... thanks again Thatcher131. Travb05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's "Stub-Class". It's "perma-protected" (STABLE?) "stub" and I'm not sure why would you ask for something we already have. This is rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. I'd suggest we stick that "pov" tag and turn this into the "Start-Class" article. Lovelight18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kamikaze?

I believe I read somewhere that the terrorists were inspired by the Kamikaze attacks during World War 2, but I can't verify this anywhere.. Has anyone else ever read that?

Yes actually the elite controllers of the CIA and the Federal Reserve saw 9/11 as a Kamikaze attack they either went for the gusto or their monopoly control would crumble. So they orchestrated the events of the day. They had to cover their tracks in case they were caught this is why they conducted numerous drills on the morning of 9/11. These drills mirrored exactly what the terrorists supposedly carried out. The chance of a drill being conducted at the exact time as the exact same incident is implausible. It happens time and again the Russians use drills to cover themselves in case they are caught. If someone catches them before it's over, they can say oh, we were conducting a drill. My friends were murdered by a criminal elite within my own government. I want the truth to come out God Bless everyone who seeks the truth in all its forms. The official conspiracy theory of 19 highjackers using box cutters to take over 4 planes and hit 75% of their targets is the theory that offends me not the 9/11 truth movement which seeks to understand and find out what really happened.

Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that. However, I "have" heard that kamikaze attacks were essentially the "invention" of suicide bombing. I don't think it needs to be mentioned, though. PullToOpen PT 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide attacks were no longer a novelty in 2001. Peter Grey22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

This article covers the event very well, but I have put it on hold for now with a few suggestions on improving it further before passing it as a GA.

All wikilinks should be checked for redirects, that should be really easy to fix.

"According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder,one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." Rolling the plane should be clarified with a definition or wikilink for readers unfamiliar with the term.

Add a comma to the number of fatalities in the World Trade Center (in the fatalities section) to keep it uniform with the other numbers.

"Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds." This statement should be fixed up, this seems POV about stereotypes of hijackers/terrorists.

"Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a Fatwa signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by many as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts." Are seen by many who?

"In response to this speech ("Bush's claim that we hate freedom"), Bin Laden remarked in 2004, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."" Remove extra space between citation right after this statement.

"Blood donations also saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11." Where did they surge at? Within New York City, around the country/world?

Possibly expand the Civilian aircraft grounding section or move the statement to another section.

Remove extra space for citation in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Potential health effects section and move the see also link to the end of the section.

Sources should be added to these statements:

"Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77."

"As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed."

"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, including one on Flight 175. Additionally, Marsh lost 38 consultants. Approximately 400 rescue workers, most of them of the FDNY, died when the towers collapsed."

"According to the Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)."

The damage section also needs sources, covert the link into an inline citation.

"27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks, only 19 participated."

"When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."

"The winning design of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition was Reflecting Absence created by Michael Arad. It is expected to open in 2009."

This is a very well-written article that just needs a few modifications. Although some of my suggestions are very minor (I'm sure you'll enjoy fixing those ones), I'll wait to pass the article when the other ones are fixed. There are many sources available for these events and I'm sure it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find some for the statements above. So, for right now I'll put the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams202005:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=106796245oldid=105876090 the changes I just made don't alter the above observations by increasing the flawcount for the article. x TomeTShilo12 r 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is US territory, there is no consensus, just enforcement.., no wonder people are steering away from it… and about this good article nomination, at this http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosion+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do point in time? Lovelight15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...shocking... x ElviTShilo12 s 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted what looked like vadalism on Nehrams2020's message.--Deathhatefear19:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What went wrong?

I'm sure this question has been raised before, and it's no doubt been lost in arguments over conspiracy theories, but isn't there a section missing on the security, intelligence and defence establishment failures related to 9/11? There are bit about it in the sub-article on responsibility, but it seems to me that this article so far has left out even the 9/11 Commission's slap on the wrist for the intelligence community. What sorts of barriers to introducing that sort of section do people here see? I.e., we need a section about "what went wrong" inside the US, which made 9/11 possible.--Thomas Basboll15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had a page on intelligence failures, but I can't find it now. We might begin by assembling somewhere a list of pages with material on the subject. There may be something already that is just not linked in. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont see any barriers either, I think as Tom see's it, its just a matter of an editor creating a nciely written and sourced paragraph to introduce into this article. Sourcing being the most important issue I believe. Tom, since you replied first, do you have any particular issue against including material regarding the failures of the intelligence community in relation to 9/11? Any thoughts you would like to share or items you would like to see appear in it? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't agree with the whole "intelligence failure" meme. I work in the defense industry, and while I certainly see a fair share of ineptitude, I think it's highly implausible that every facet of government intelligence "stood down" that day. I think that there was far too much money to be made (at least half a trillion US$) from 9/11 to simply believe that we "overlooked" the years of planning, "missed" the months and weeks of preparation, or "failed" to prevent the acts of a group that had been under either our control or watchful eye for almost 20 years. I'm not even mentioning the fact that our trillion-dollar "defense" system also failed from end to end as well. I'm fairly busy right now, but I think a well-sourced article on this subject will be good for this article--not just for this area, but also for the "conspiracy" area, which has been decimated by the apparently overwhelming zeal to lump the "thermite demolition" and "Pentagon cruise missile" crowd in with the "why did Bush delay the creation of and then refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" worriers.99th Percentile02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

We might already have a page that is just not well-linked to other articles. I would say the way to begin is to put together an inventory of articles that include information on the topic. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I am currently rewriting and source a section for another article, but will jump on creating a section on this article right afterwards. Do not think we need to make such an inventory however, you already searched and were unable to find anything, I am sure as an admin you have more tools to locate pages at your disposal then I do. So I will see if I can write something up and source it accordingly then plop it in. Considering the subject does anyone have a reccomendation where I should put it when done, or Thomas if he writes it up? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no special admin search tool. The way to begin is to find out what we have already. Once we have an ennumeration of internal links that talk about the idea, we will better know what we need to summarize and link to from here. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I think you were mistaken, I didnt say there was a special admin search tool, I just stated you would be able to search things I could not, like deleted articles etc. I tried some basic searches much like you above and came up blank. As I stated, I will start on something, if you find an article let me know and I can incorporate its ideas and sources. Thanks. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. My idea now is to add a section about "vulnerabilities". I want to give the reader a sense of how difficult it must have been to carry out the attacks and/or how lucky the terrorists were. Basically: (1) they did not get caught in the planning/training stages (though Able Danger seems almost to have caught them), (2) they got past airport security (not too suprising given the very little weaponry to make them suspicious), (3) they successfully hijacked four planes (and there is no solid evidence of any unsuccessful cells), (4) their planes were not intercepted (due either to following standard operating procedures, failure to follow them, or distractions by war games), (5) they managed to hit three of their targets, and (6) the worst possible thing, namely, total collapse, happened to two of them (with the no doubt completely unexpected bonus of building 7 thrown in). So there were intelligence failures, security failures, air traffic control failures, air defence failures, and even engineering (or at least building) failures that all seemed to max out on 9/11. This is important because much of the post-9/11 reaction of course had to do with tightening these areas up (everything from improved airport security to new building codes). If anyone has a good idea for a heading, I'm all ears.--Thomas Basboll20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just keeping to the vulnerabilities would keep things simply I believe, adding in engineering failures, if any were present, would require moving and shifting within the article. However a section on vulnerabilities seems important as you stated, much went into fixing these failures, the Patriot Act, new airport security regulations, the orange green blue security codes, not sure about fixes from air traffic controller standpoint however. If you need any help at all let me know. I have written and sourced a few smaller articles and would be glad to help in any way I can. Luckily there has been so many RS sources on the topic that it will not be hard to create an entirely verifiable section. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good points. The lack of proper dealing with those failures, like at least acknowledging them officially, is another reason for the emergence of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having those vulnerabilities described in this article would definitely take out some tension from it. This is just a side argument to the obvious one, that most factors that had led to the attacks should be described here. SalvNaut22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA

It appears that there have been no changes to the suggestions listed above so at this time I am going to fail the article. The article is very well written and covers it in detail, however, it does need more sources to pass. Please fix the above suggestions before nominating again. --Nehrams202001:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers

This needs a definite source. To my knowledge it is merely a popular myth/presumption. While there have been reports (from family members talking on cell phones) and ambiguous indications from the black box recording, there is yet to be any definitive proof that the passengers on this flight attempted a takeover of the plane, or to what extent such an attempt had on the ultimate fate of the plane. The speed with which this myth propagated is what makes it problematic -- it served to instill patriotism and courage in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when details were still extremely sketchy, and people simply accepted it as fact. Even assuming this was what happened, important questions like "did the passengers onboard approve of this course of action, or was it instigated primarily by a handful of glory-seekers?" have never been asked in the popular press. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs. For now, I'm going to remove this line from the article, though if anyone feels strongly enough to add it back (and I suspect at least one person will be) then I'll leave it alone and you can continue the discussion here. VanishingUser21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs." Yet you already characterize it as a 'myth' so you seem to have a pretty good idea what happened. --Golbez02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks

"ok", I believe that http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6338551.stm this external link should go in, please read through it (carefully) and address your concerns. You see, while I'm well aware that we have "the other" article I'd weigh that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong. I'd also say that the failure of 911 Commission should be pointed (and not directed) out (of) here. Share your thoughts, if you will… Lovelight09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong" The link is "'entirely"' about conspiracy theories - they don't "naturally belong" in the article with "conspiracy theories" in the title? Anyway, the whole point about conspiracy theories is that they go beyond and/or contradict historical fact, so "key events" are not important even to the conspiracy theorists. Peter Grey14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Core vs. peripheral events

Most of this article is about the effects of 9/11, not the events themselves. That problem should perhaps be fixed by establishing some more subarticles, or moving more material into the existing ones. In any case, as far as I can tell, based in part on the anniversary coverage last year, one of the important consequences of 9/11 has been to bring together a number of projects at the far left and far right of the political spectrum and, it seems, to strengthen these projects immensely. To not notice the effects of 9/11 on the internal resistance to the US government (i.e., American dissidence) is a bit myopic. Many on the more established left (and to a lesser extent right) are deeply concerned about what 9/11 has done to the prospect of long-term social change, i.e., its effect on the overall concentration of power. They have "also" noted "conspiracy theories" as one of the problems that it has led to, since these theories (they argue) hold out too little hope for the mainstream political process. As Time magazine put, "this is mainstream political phenomenon." That, in itself is a remarkable effect of 9/11: it has caused (as some have argued) a rebirth of the "paranoid style". Now, paranoia is of course no guarantee that they're not after you. But it doesn't really matter what the "reality" about 9/11 is. Conspiracy theories are part of political reality. Or so, in any case, is how the argument for giving them more space here should go. (No political project has ever depended on being right, or even realistically possible, in order to be considered notable.)--Thomas Basboll15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating topics, but as pointed out, the article is already insufficiently focused on the actual attacks. Very little, if any, of the political reality is "'solely"' in consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"'I agree"' with Thomas. Peter your dismissal is predictably vague - as always… Perhaps all of the regulars, to name a few… Aude, Peter, PTR, Mongo, Morton, Tom Harrison… should take a leave from this article; they have imposed their opinions long enough. Let's find another set of editors to work on this. How about that? Lovelight18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea that "political reality" is an oxymoron! You're right that the first order of business might be to refocus the article on "what happened", without interpretation. Of course, the moment "what happened" comes to include "islamic extremists" the can of worm opens. "Islamic extremists" are only as "real" as "political reality". Even "terrorism" is a politically loaded term. So I don't think we can keep the article clear of politics. Once introduced, there must be balance.--Thomas Basboll18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I found your comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A9%2F11_conspiracy_theoriesdiff=107531581oldid=107528814 here kind of striking. It seems to suggest you plan to add material trying to legitimize conspiracy theories to articles like this one. I would not support that. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And I find your remarkably striking. Legitimize the conspiracy theories? What is that Tom? Does that mean that they are illegal to begin with? Lovelight19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not illegal, just stupid. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom you shouldn’t call people stupid, not on the open ground anyway… I thought it's Morton's job to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Morton_devonshire/conspiracy_theory ridicule, a bit disappointed with your hasty edits Tom, as with Aude's, you should exclude yourselves from all this, honestly. Lovelight19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The people aren't stupid, just the theories. Neither are you stupid; you pretend to misunderstand so you can pretend to take offense and complain of my behavior. That's a waste of everyone's time. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying anything, you decided to show your own bias… I'm ok with such behavior… however, "imo" folks who have memorial boxes on their pages about 911 events, folks who were there that very day might be emotional about all this, which is a state where you cannot keep a cool head you cannot be objective about things, right? As for your edits, again, it's a bit like that Regebro fellow, who stated that he has no issues with conspiracy theories, while writing how the people who are pondering upon em are nothing but "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase(s)"… but, never mind, I do agree, this is a waste of time… Lovelight19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not our fault that you are uneducated. The hope is that this article, by only giving due weight to nonsense (ie, minimal coverage), that we can try and provide folks like yourself with an education. I wonder where you are from...it seems the loudest voices on this page that are attempting to continue to increase the coverage of conspiracy theories happen to not be from the U.S. When persons come here and continue to POV push things that they can't prove, it becomes disruption...don't be disruptive.--MONGO22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm from Mars, and you are way out of line… Lovelight23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I plan to add verifiable, informative and relevant materials to this article regardless of whether it strengthens or weakens the case for any particular theory of what happened on 9/11. I don't think the question of whether any particular fact "legitimizes" any particular theory should be used to assess its value for the article. The question is only whether or not it improves the reader's understanding of the events. The comment Tom refers to was about perfectly good facts that, so far, can only be learned (on Wikipedia) by reading articles about "conspiracy theories".--Thomas Basboll21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As you mention at the top of this...Far left and far right...in other words, if you don't like George Bush or the more recent political decisions made by the current administration or have an anti-American bias, then you're more likely to believe the conspiracy theories. Thanks.--MONGO22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if you are American patriot willing to blindly go over lie after lie after lie… hmm… then you have some serious problem:). Anyway, I'd hope we are all mature enough, enough to work with facts and leave our allegiances (and biases) at home… or in the pub… Lovelight22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If your bias is keeping you from being able to understand facts and work collectively to create a fact based encyclopedia, then your purpose here must be one of disruption. Sometimes I wonder when intelligent persons like yourself edit here knowingly adding what has no basis in fact...it has all the appearance of disruption, not the fundamental priciple of Wikipedia which is a collaborative effort to build a fact based encyclopedia.--MONGO22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you doing that? We know each other for some time now; remember how u resisted that contribution to the War on terror section? If someone has issues with facts, if someone is inviting politics into all this, if someone is disrupting… it certainly isn't me. Lovelight23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That sort of depends on the conspiracy theory. If it's the "Bush did it" theory then, yes, I guess you'd in a trivial sense find it easier to swallow if you didn't like Bush. (Some, however, stopped liking him only after they became CTists.) But the anti-American label doesn't stick here very often, I think. As far as I can tell, the CTs are doing very well in the hands of "true Patriots" and the perpetrators are often referred to as "traitors". Many people who believe 9/11 CTs think there is "something terribly wrong with the country they love", etc.--Thomas Basboll22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the facts are that Democrats are more likely to believe the CT issues. Sheen, Asner, and all the other persons who are known that have spoken that the CT stuff is true are all well known liberals.--MONGO22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"'You might want to read this, MONGO. http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28070 Conservatives for 9/11 Truth"' Education is a "'good"' thing, no? - Fairness And Accuracy For All FAAFA 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "more likely"...simple English 101.--MONGO04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether there is a distinct left or right bias in the conspiracy community is, I take it, an empirical one. Mongo, you might want to offer a source for you claim of "more likely" so that the effects of 9/11 can be located as precisely as possible on the political spectrum. My sense is that CTs live mostly to the left "and" right of center. I don't have any reason to think either direction is stronger. If you have a source that says "30-25-20-25" (green, democrat, republican, libertarian) or something then your "most likely" is true, but a bit trivial. Simple Statistics 101.--Thomas Basboll10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of liberals like David Corn, Christopher Hitchens, and recently George Monbiot have condemned these conspiracy theories. Matt Taibbi in "Rolling Stone" wrote that """I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."" http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies Conspiracism was for a long time the province of the far right. Now some on the left, afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome maybe, have fallen into the same epistemic swamp. Something similar could be said about the new antisemitism. The responsible adults on the left know how this stuff plays with most people, and are keen to distance themselves from it. Liberals per se are no more prone to conspiracism than conservatives, but it should not be a huge surprise that opponents of President Bush are more likely to cast him as the villan in their conspiracy theories. Or maybe that's just what they want me to think. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read of the various polls, people who are more likely to believe conspiracy theories are:

People who use the Internet as the main source of their news, especially "alternative" news sources and not mainstream news sources.

Young adults

People with lesser amounts of education (e.g. only high school)

That's not to stereotype those demographic groups. It's likely that large portions or majorities of these groups do not buy into the conspiracy theories. Regardless, I think this main article is long enough, and such details like this need to in the subarticle. --AudeVivere Aude 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Generalizing is a bad thing. On the same side of the fence there are people with uncommonly high IQ taking for example http://journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf David L. Griscom. --SalvNaut21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll

In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally:

Text of survey question: "81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

(And that's not even getting into the sampling bias.) Peter Grey18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Excess details about conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article. That said, the poll found that 53% believe members of the Bush Administration are "'mostly telling the truth"' but hiding something. That does not jive with "84% of US citizens are questioning mainstream account of the attacks." --AudeVivere Aude 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469 ref -- Lovelight18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which excess details Aude? There aren’t any… Lovelight18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." —The preceding ) 18:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

In other words, he didn't know that the attacks were coming, unless of course someone has trouble understanding plain English.--MONGO22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Haven't noticed this one, Mongo, stay on topic… we are talking about the "'public poll where 81% of people don't believe one word of that sentence."' Lovelight22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I searched for "84" in the source and did not find it relating to 9/11. Bush's approval rating was 84% the week of 9/11 was the only hit of 84 related to 9/11. This is too primary of a source anyway. A notable statistician would need to make the claim, not someone synthesizing a value from raw poll numbers. --Tbeatty21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

84? Its 81... do search again… Lovelight21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

R u searching? http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html These things are www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm not so hard to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720/ find… Lovelight21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to reread the edit I reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=prevoldid=108915472. It claimed 84%. I would expect that number to be in the source that was used to make the claim "84%". Since it wasn't in the source, it must have been completely made up. Tbeatty00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I stated bellow, my apologies, I was www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm mislead myself. Lovelight00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

People's opinions on a poll are no more notable than the poll itself...and that is all we can go on. Nothing about a poll either proves or disproves the facts of the case.--MONGO22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not sure why you've pointed that out, since this is about recognition of public opinion, not about acknowledgment of the facts. It's a bit like control demolition hypothesis, it doesn’t serve as a proof, it serves as hypothesis… Lovelight22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Precisely for the reasons I did. Who cares that there is a poll? The poll does nothing except state an opinion. I haven't seen a poll recently about the number of folks who believe in UFO's...but I bet the number is high, yet there is zero proof that UFO's exist.--MONGO22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the poll? Everybody, ask your governments, they breathe and act by public opinions, or at least they should… Well Mongo, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you cannot dismiss opinions of millions because "you" don’t care… Lovelight22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well Lovelight, the opinion is noted but inadmissable since it doesn't do anything to enhance this article. Precisely, most people believe in UFO's, yet there isn't any proof of them. Thanks.--MONGO22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, quit with the UFO's, its boring tactic to say the least. Stay on the topic, if you can, to parry on this I'll simply add that there is not a single proof that this… this "official" take on events is true. Not a single one Mongo. That's the main reason that we have http://killtown.911review.org/htb2.html these lengthy games ( disputes too). Lovelight22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The poll question, in fact, offers very little supporting any particular conclusion. The results simply say 81% of respondents (not the population at large) believe that someone close to Little George has not admitted to how much they knew before the attacks, for any reason. I can't imagine what the other 19% were thinking, this is documented fact in the case of Condoleeza Rice. Peter Grey22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've already gave you a reference, the question is clear: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" Lovelight22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. I read the statement that 81% are “questioning mainstream account of the attacks” and was very surprised that the figure was that high. But when I went to the cited source and read all the 9/11 related questions, I saw nothing that was related to the statement – the closest question being that most think (myself included) that the Bush admin. was/is “hiding something.” I would hope that they don’t tell up 100% of everything they know… if for no other reason than security, but that does not make this group doubt the mainstream account of what happened; it's a stretch and jump to get to the sentence in the article. The 81% statement is bogus and should be either left out of the article or reworded to reflect what the poll question really says.Leon723:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that it was extremely poor wording, I did carry it from http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosion+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do another article and that was a mistake. Nevertheless you've seen the other polls and the numbers are equally surprising everywhere, I'd say it's notable enough to be recognized in the article. Lovelight23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, since I've never seen you here, I'd deeply appreciate if you choose to do it. Lovelight00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Well? I don't know that it "'is"' notable. As I stated, it's no surprise that our government official know stuff that they don't want to pass on; that's the nature of the jobs that they hold. In fact, it is naive to think that they "should" tell us everything. However, having said that, there has to be a fine line as to what the public should demand to know. I would guess that your 81% statement on the number that doubt the mainstream account of what happened is closer to 20%. Leon700:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have those references above and it's obvious that the 's are much, much higher, but those won't meat RS… hmm, that will leave us with zogby polls and similes. Think it's about third of population, but I haven’t checked that in a while… Lovelight00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006 Or half? It would make sense, since we live in this unhealthy dichotomy… Lovelight00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So, are we going to recognize the public opinions or not? Peter? Aude? Tbeatty? Anyone... Lovelight00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you are ready… Lovelight01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support it if you'd be willing to use the 3 terms used in the source instead of polarizing the results in your favor. --Wildnox18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, be kind and assume good faith, here, have my third apology, along with further explanation and clear disclaimer… I don't have a need to state anything but the facts. The fact is… I've implement those edits hastily and without decent check of www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm the source. I'm aware how it may look, and I was so disturbed by my own action that I've choose to block myself willingly for 48 hours, so that I would learn the lesson. Anyway, thank you for your understanding as well as for recognition of the informative nature of such addition. Lovelight05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Section

The September 3rd, 2006 edition of Time Magazine, a major news publication in the United States, reported that "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves."

Owing to this high number, what justification do this page's contributors have for limiting the Conspiracy Theories section to one small paragraph? Mach Seventy07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I thought we had a sizable article on conspiracy theories. --Golbez10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification, I'll look this up and implement it in the article, you could do it too… Lovelight16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to doing it, but I don't think what I'd write would make everyone happy. And Golbez, yes we have a conspiracy theories page- but the lead in on the main page ought to be proportionate to the importance of the sub-page - whether you like it or not, the conspiracy theories are always going to play a big role in everything surrounding 9/11 Mach Seventy17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna happen. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it will, yes it will… if it doesn’t happen 911 will happen again no one would like that, right? Anyway, its good to see some fresh opinions here… yes it is. Lovelight18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support adding this.(either this or the one above if Lovelight is willing to use the source's actual language and distinctions) The conspiracy section is small, it doesn't need to be huge or anything, but a mention of some public opinion would be helpful in my opinion. --Wildnox18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We have two articles: (1) this one, for the facts; and (2) the other one, for all of the "theories". That arrangement has wide consensus. Any attempt to change that will be met with stiff opposition. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I fully support keeping the theories and all that stuff in that other article(s). I just happen to think that mentioning one of the two aforementioned public opinion polls could be informative. --Wildnox19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to discuss the polls on the conspiracy theories subarticle. The scripps poll seems to be most on point and specific about conspiracy theories. For comparison purposes and perspective, they also ask respondents about other things like if the federal government is withholding evidence of extraterrestrial life. The Scripps poll also gives a breakdown of which demographic groups (e.g. young adults, lesser educated, etc.) who are more likely to agree with conspiracy theories. All this details are suitable for the subarticle. --AudeVivere Aude 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you painting pictures Aude? People draw their own details… as for writing, anyone can do it… Lovelight19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The general population are not experts. The Zogby poll found that 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building -- 7 World Trade Center collapsed. I don't think so much weight needs to be given to these polls. Discussing the details in the subarticle is sufficient. --AudeVivere Aude 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of expertise it is a matter of opinion. It's informative, as well as notable. Not to say that it's ultra-minor addition. Lovelight20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

...and about WTC7, don't you think it's time to "educate" the public? Lovelight20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

New to this discussion. There's already a conspiracy theory article. Polls like this can be parked, there. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why we have to continuously revisit this issue, take a look at this citation which Lovelight graciously posted here earlier: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/re911/wikipedia/index.html This page, where it provides instructions on how to insert 9/11 CT propaganda into Wikipedia articles. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This reference, which Morton threw in just so that the muddy waters would be muddier, was taken from my talkpage… I'd encourage anyone who has any doubts to look at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lovelight3RR original context. Lovelight05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to initiate a vote on the expansion on the main page of the Conspiracy Theories section to a second paragraph to make mention of public opinion. 24.88.76.17221:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For:

Mach Seventy

16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot prove that the 9/11 attacks did not involve a conspiracy, then how can you let the theory that it was a terrorist attack be written as fact?

Exactly. There is not a shard of physical evidence that points to Al-Qaida as a suspect. This is "Jack The Ripper" all over again. —The preceding ) 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Might I add that there was no mention of Al-Qaida as an organization until the early 2001 trial fo the 1993 WTC bombers !?! And sorry for not signing the comment above --El magnifico23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"'Dear contributors"',

as new to Wikipedia and with special interst in 911, I looked up these pages. I see 911 has been a conflict here -understandable. I've spent many hours digging into the 911-stuff, and yes, that led me to belive in the concpiracy theories about it..

As I view the main page of Wikipedia 911, these perspectives on the 911-events seems marginalized and suppressed. So to me, the main page seems unballanced and biased, and maybe shows me the limitations of Wikipedia.

Yet I must say I'm very impresed by Wikipedia and what you contributors have made together!!

--Geir Solerød Geir 17:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Foreknowledge (take #247)

Yes Morton I agree, this one is about the facts and facts say that certain amount of people are skeptical of official take on events. I'm not sure why would facts be met with such stiff opposition, but I do understand your efforts and your POV. Well since we're examining the facts, how about a fine factual section on that foreknowledge? Regardless of perspectives recent BBC's documentary (my condolences to fine journalism, but have courage, after all, the minority is to blame…) did illustrate that there was a sheer failure to act. This failure should be recognized not only here, but on all related pages… such as of Dr. Rice's, signor Rumsfeld's, Monsieur Cheney's und der Herr Bush's of course… How about such facts? Those have nothing to do with conspiracy. Since yesterday, I'd also say that building 7 deserves a bit more room. It's been neglected for a while, and at least we'll have something to do while we wait for final report. No conspiracy there, just recognition of a very peculiar fall. I'm sure they'll explain it, eventually… Lovelight19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Background section (draft)

While the September 11 attacks were in the first instance an act of external aggression on US targets, their deeper motivation and remarkable success cannot be attributed to the acts and intentions of the hijackers alone. The events of that day must be understood on the background of a series of systemic failures of both a social and technical nature, which include the military establishment, the intelligence communityhttp://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf, the law-enforcement community, and the civil aviation industry.

US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target.

The events of September 11, 2001 revealed that the United States was much more vulnerable to terrorism than had been imagined. Despite awareness of the threat, terrorist cells that would eventually carry out the attacks were able to live and even train for their mission in the US, without being thwarted by intelligence or law-enforcement agencies. The background for this failure seems to have been poor communication between agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA.

Airport security and air defence in the US also seemed ill prepared to prevent the events of that day. Four hijackings we able to occur and proceed unhindered toward their targets. In both cases, authorities had apparently expected a different sort of enemy. Hijackers were expected to take hostages and make demands, not use the airplanes to inflict immediate damage; enemies from the air were expected to come from outside US airspace.

Finally, three of the biggest skyscrapers in the world proved to be unable to survive the attacks, even though the possibility of aircraft collisions had been considered in their design, as had the need to survive hurricanes and earthquakes.

Comments on draft

The above section has been reverted twice now by Aude. First he said it was "not ready"; then he said: "unreferenced, editorial (not encyclopedic) tone, no consensus". Okay. Have at it. What parts are written in an editorializing tone? Can they not be fixed by replacing a few words? The account presented here can be sourced 90% (I'm guessing) to the official 9/11 commission report, and the rest can be found in some of the mainstream, booklength treatments of the events. It's common knowledge, relevant, well written (if I may so), and completely encyclopedic. Moreover, it establishes a frame of failures on that day that guides a reading of the rest of the article.--Thomas Basboll23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicely written, but it's entirely opinion, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's the opinion of every expert that's looked at this topic. Is it "my" opinion that US foreign policy is not well received in the middle east? Is it my opinion that this has been a motive for terrorism against the US?--Thomas Basboll23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a section on the background of the attacks. An article on 9/11 that doesn't do anything (and this article doesn't do anything) to answer the question "How could this have happened?" is not good enough. This article needs to help the reader put 9/11 in perspective.--Thomas Basboll00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "attacks" section needs to be first, as it is now, and then go into discussion of motives, responsibility, and why the attacks happened. Such background should discuss Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. We already have a section on motives, which discusses their view of U.S. foreign policy, as well as responsibility. There is also an article on airport security which can be improved, and maybe something can be added to the 9/11 Commission Report section. --AudeVivere Aude 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You may http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=Background_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks view logs for the deleted page to find out who deleted it and why. --AudeVivere Aude 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a whole article over at Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good place to work from. There is also an article on planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks. I have tried separating the motives section from "responsibility" and added links to both the background history and planning articles. I think a one paragraph summary of those could fit under the "Background history" heading. Thoughts? --AudeVivere Aude 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Following on my last edit, I moved things back closer to where they where with "responsibility" and "motives" under the same heading, while still linking to the "background history" and "planning" articles. This seems to be a more logical way to organize the article. --AudeVivere Aude 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read through Thomas's draft repeatedly and have no issues with it, this article is very small in size as it is (especially so with regards to the gravity of the events), so these constant redirections are not good way to go. Properly referenced and cited with some minor rewording draft would certainly (and notably) improve the article. That said, Aude has repeatedly shared this puzzling (not ready) explanation? Since I've seen it (experienced it) before, think we are all entitled to some decent answers. Aude who decides when are we ready, and what exactly are we waiting for? Finally, I'm certain that fair amount of people are watching developments here, so let me remind you folks, this is not a Big Brother, chip in, have your say. Lovelight05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Basbolls draft above is horribly POV and completely unacceptable. The U.S. and many western nations have faced terrorism since 1950's Algeria. The U.S. has been ungoing attacks off and on for almost as long as that, escalating in 1983 and again in the 90's, and the attacks have become more widespread. The draft Basboll proposes is way off focus for this article, which needs to concentrate on the events of one day, with only minor mentions of planning and after effects, which are already covered in other articles as mentioned in the dialogue above.--MONGO07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how these details are at odds with the statement I propose: "US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target." My way of putting has the virtue of being centred on the topic of the article, but otherwise I think we're saying the same thing here.--Thomas Basboll08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever to discuss the U.S. policies in the Middle East in this article. This article is about what happened on 9/11 and much of the rest of the issues of why, who, and whatnot deserve a breif mention and a link to other articles that already examine these issues you just mentioned. If they aren't adequately addressed in those articles, then create one. Lets stay focused on the day.--MONGO08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on draft (continued)

I can see this is going to be a long process. As I understand it, the standardly accepted account includes an understanding of how US authorities failed to prevent the attacks (failed in the sense that the buildings also "failed", i.e., not necessarily with any suggestion that they "should have" behaved differently--though that question must of course be noted). Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for; it is in the Encyclpaedia Britannica article on Pearl Harbor:

"The extent of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the U.S. military provoked considerable criticism. Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, the Navy and Army commanders on Oahu, were relieved of duty, and official investigations were begun at once. Some historians and others went so far as to accuse President Roosevelt of having invited the attack (or at least done nothing to stop it) in order to bring the United States into the war against the Axis." (Enc. Britannica)

Reading this article about 9/11, however, one gets no sense that anything "went wrong" on 9/11 other than whatever went wrong in the minds of the terrorists. (As if the decisive factor was the "motive".) This article therefore does not really help the reader to understand a very important historical event, i.e., it does not present a even a cursory overview of the factors that contributed to the catastrophic consequences of the hijackers' actions. It simply summarizes the actions and the consequences. It doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the event. It occurs to me that Wikipedia is here running into one of its intrinsic limits. Perhaps an event like 9/11 simply can't be understood by collective effort. But let's work on it for few weeks and see what we can come up with.--Thomas Basboll07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The fault of the attacks is with the terrorists. What you're suggesting indicates you want to split the blame. I think I have stated repeatedly that the U.S. knew for some time prior to the 9/11 attacks that there were targets in the U.S....they did try and blow up one tower in 1993 afterall, but nothing that came to happen on 9/11 was sufficiently known by intel to be able to prevent it from happening. Besides, I think you must still miss the point...this article is about the events of one day and what you seem to want to expand on is very peripheral to that specific focus.--MONGO07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article (as it stands) is also about the consequences of those events. Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed. But (like I just suggested above) that would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor. A nation's defences are entrusted with defending a nation (truism but true). Such defences can therefore fail. When they do, historical events occur. Accounts of those events should include the failure of defence systems to prevent them. The alternative is ignorance, which isn't really one of the goals of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

""Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed""...who else is to blame? Again, you are getting off focus of where the article should be focusing on...the events of 9/11. "That would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor? I see...so their rape of Nanking and our efforts to demonstrate to them that we disapproved of their invasions and genocide by trying to isolate the Japanese economically makes the U.S. responsible for them attacking Pearl Harbor? If you want to expand on where the u.S. intel failed, then I suggest one of the other articles linked above.--MONGO08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here they are again...Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.--MONGO08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, we need to expand this article so it would make sense, we need this background as we need to mention those war games, explain the failure of commission and so on… in other words we'll need to make it more encyclopedic… lots of work. Lovelight08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

None of that belongs in this article...there are other articles that these issues are already examined in.--MONGO08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Mongo, all this can be done with just a few sentences, people can then examine further… with interest. And please, do unlock this page, these monologues are a bit boring… Lovelight08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "The Rape of Nanking". I'm not going to discuss who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in world history, Mongo. That won't get us anywhere. The point is that if any country is successfully attacked by a well known enemy (as in the cases of Pearl Harbor and 9/11) then leaders of the nation's defences will be held in part accountable by the people or their representatives (as happened in the case of Pearl Harbor) or at least by historians (as has happened in the case of 9/11). Not for the attack, of course, but for its relative success. The US was surprisingly vulnerable in all sorts of ways to this particular sort of action. This article gives us little sense of how difficult and/or easy it was for the hijackers to pull it off. Yes, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to spread the blame for the damage the attacks caused around a little. In so doing I'm following a pretty mainstream approach to history. This was a complex event.--Thomas Basboll10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there is a middleground to be reached partially, and then possibly expanded later. While MONGO does not own the article and therefore cannot tell anyone what its scope is, for now we can possibly work in that scope. The war games that took place on 9/11 are events that took place on that day, failures of the control towers to respond properly as well as the military to respond fast enough are also items that can be included and examined in a section, as they happened on that day. Later other options can be looked at such as a RfC or Arbcom hearing regarding expanding the article to cover everything about 9/11 instead of just the day. So what do people think about limiting the section proposed to just failures that happened in that day, flight controllers, military readiness/wargames, local authorities radio systems etc. Part of me finds it odd that anyone can say blame should not be spread around since people have been fired since and an entire institution removed was created. Apparently even the administration feels something was lacking. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The "draft" is vague and one-sided, and would only serve to dilute the focus of this article. Still, there probably is a case for mentioning the role of complacency and/or negligence, but the undue weight rule should limit that to a quick summary of a specialized sub-article. Peter Grey12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean about one-sided (though I would argue that it is simply pulling in the article back towards a more balanced view). Perhaps a paragraph about the background conditions that fostered these especially effective terrorists would help here. The only problem with that is that their operation seems suprisingly crude. Their flight training was elementary (just enough to get the job done, it would seem) and they overpowered the flight crew by sheer force and using simple weapons. While this may sound polemical, I think I'm arguing that as the article stands it gives undue weight to the actions of the terrorists, which were almost magically successful when we consider the results. Once the background of complacency and negligence, as you put it, along with some larger systemic problems (especially in the area of inter-agency cooperation), and perhaps the wargames at the time (exacerbating the "fog of war"), are taken into account, however, the effectiveness of the attacks begin to be comprehensible. It should be the task of the article to help the reader understand the attacks.--Thomas Basboll13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is going to be a challenge to inject "the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong," and it is something I do not support. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking that a bit out of context. In "this" context it just means making use of whatever close readings of the official record there are and to make use of the information that this yields in an appropriate manner.--Thomas Basboll14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a job for an investigative journalist, with an independent editor providing oversight. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone like Erich von Däniken would be interested in such matters.--MONGO15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The keys of the succes of the terrorists were two :

-In USA there was not any control in the airports and you can go into the plane with everything you want. In the rest of the world since the 1970s the control was much exhaustive.

-The procedure in case of hijaking that was given to the pilots by the air companies was to not resist and to follow the instructions of the hijakers to protect the plane and the passengers.

Apart from that, the fact that these planes were so easy to pilot helped a lot.

The governement ignored some warnings that seen from now look clear but in the middle of all the inteligence noise were not so easy to see. Even if the governement agencies would have ringed the alarm, it is very doubtful that the air companies would had allowed the kind of control in the airports that was necesary to stop the terrorists. In Europe was the same in the 1970s : until some planes were destroyed in Beirut in a famous hijaking, the aiports do not spent the money for security.

It was a very easy operation once you have the suicidal guys prepared. The enormity of the results must not mislead about how operationally easy was. The mistake was to not force the security in aiports in the 1970s when all the countries in the world did after 1973 wave of hijakings by PLO. To say that "the terrorist were able to live in USA" is absurd since the majority were innocent before 9/11 and they live as such.

The draft goes too far away IMO about how many things should have been done since only doing what all the airports in the world were doing would have been enough. The fact that many people supports Al-Qaeda around the world does not helped the attacks since the same 20 guys alone would have been able of doing the same thing. The hostility vs. USA in Middle East is a problem for the deployement of USA foreign policy in the area but is not in itself a "sine qua non" for 9/11. Terrorist organisations do not need people support to live as the countryside guerrillas do.--Igor2115:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucky # 7 (take #973)

There are two notable "'hypothesis"' about the fall of building 7. Neither is currently provable. I'd like to hear some opinions, "imo" we should recognize both "'hypothesis"', for I see no reason to implement NIST and neglect the other one.

Anyway, this sentence:

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires.1011 Numerous adjacent buildings to the complex also had substantial damage and fires and had to be demolished."

Won't suffice. It is written as (or at least it implies) some sort of proof. NIST clearly stated that it's a "'working hypothesis"', not a proof of any kind. Let's be factually accurate about these things. Or is that too much to ask (in one day)? Lovelight06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any reaosn to remove what should be common knowledge.--MONGO07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to remove anything, we need to add the other hypothesis and reformulate the wording so it wouldn’t be misleading - as it is now. Lovelight07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. --Golbez08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes we do. Lovelight08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No we don't. --Golbez08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) .od ew seY

I'm open for suggestions since if I'm about to reformulate it, it will say something like: "The building fell in manner which is consistent with controlled demolition hypothesis."; however some may prefer to state that "the collapse of WTC 7 is still to be (un)explained." or something along those lines (I'm "ok" with most options as long as they imply word hypothesis). Anyway, current state of that sentence simply won't suffice; it cannot be more misleading and inaccurate than it is, there is a much better conclusion in the investigationcollapse of the towers section, we should be consistent… Peter, I'm certain you are aware of the flaw. Care to fix it? Lovelight14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Except you're simply wrong. The "fell down because broken towers hit it" notion is far more powerful than the idea that it fell down because of controlled demolition. We don't give random hypotheses equal footing. --Golbez17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is nonnegotiable, I gave you folks open hands, I don't care how you fix it, but fix it. Again, this particular sentence is not acceptable, it implies way too much without offering anything in return. I've told you how I would put it, if you need to pull it differently, do so, but do it soon. Lovelight20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For once, you're absolutely right - it "is" non-negotiable. :) --Golbez20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"ok", then I'll fix it as I see fit, and if you interfere we'll have the silliest ArbCom ever. :) Lovelight20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. The sentence as written is factual and doesn't assert any kind of 'proof'. The superficial ressemblance to (uncontrolled) demolition only indicates that the point of failure was near ground level, where, surprise, it was struck by debris from 1 WTC. We can state that the exact deatils of failure are not as well understood as in the case of 1 WTC and 2 WTC, but then NPOV requires also pointing out that there is no evidence supporting any other explanation. Peter Grey21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that gold-seeking river dwarves did not undermine the foundation of WTC Building 7 with their junior pickaxes. If Lovelight's hypothesis goes into the article, I feel we should mention the dwarves possible contribution as well. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir are you aware that the dwarf lobby will have your head --Golbez21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much look forward to it. --Golbez21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you boys having fun? Peter, you are well aware of the flaw in the sentence, it validates something which is not factually accurate. Again, I don't care how you choose to do it, as far as I'm concerned leave them both, or remove them both (hypothesis, that is). But at its current state the sentence won't suffice it’s nothing but a "'false claim"' and "'we cannot have false claims in our encyclopedia."' Lovelight21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You constantly avoid specifics so as to obstruct counter-argument. You haven't even named the two alleged "notable hypotheses" you want people to discuss. I believe you do not have any good faith objection and are merely attempting to engage in vandalism. Prove me wrong: what, exactly, is false? Peter Grey22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't play milli vanilli on me; I'm certainly not talking about dwarfs. I'll add the airplane to the sentence… as if "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which wasn't hit by an airplane collapsed… into oblivion. "ok"? Lovelight22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I object to x Lovelight's summary dismissal of the devious river-dwarf hypothesis regarding building 7's demise. It has never been disproven that river dwarves did not accidentally fell building 7 during an ill-fated dig for precious gold bullion. The theory should be given the same amount of space as Lovelight's. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite to a reputable source which supports the controlled demolition notion, then we have something to discuss. But I think you can't, so the whole discussion is moot. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oddworld's Abe it's not my theory, and we don't have a theory… we have different hypotheses, if you can cite your dwarf hypothesis, cite it. Morton, just reformulate the sentence so it would reflect the fact that we are talking about "'NIST's hypothesis"', we cannot have this sort of construct. Again, if I'll be forced into edit warring I'll use the term "control demolition", it doesn't have to be that way, however, if we are to remain NPOV and if we are to stick to the facts, this structure is no good, it implies that building fell due to debris and disel fuel and such unverified claim has no room here. I'm interested, what exactly is the cause of this resistance? Would you like to discuss the freedom agenda? The fall? Domino effect? What would you like to discuss? Think-tankit if you must, discuss how unsustainable it all is, ponder upon why it may reoccur in the future. I don't care, this has nothing to do with perspectives, it's about the factual accuracy and known facts. We are not going to have another 911, ever. So fix that sentence, don't mention anything for all I care, but don't say that building fell "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires." Because that isn't verifiable, or true. Lovelight00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the reputable sources say. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the reputable (or is it disputable?) source clearly states: "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." Lovelight01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're speaking as if NIST is the only reputable source discussing the issue -- it isn't. There are literally tens of thousands of articles in the mainstream media that have discussed this issue -- not one of them support a notion of controlled demolition. Please understand that Wikipedia's purpose is not to ferret-out the truth -- that's the job of journalism and scientists. Our job is to summarize what other "'reputable"' sources say about a subject. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about existing reference, if you wish to add alternative, please, do so. Lovelight02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only are none of these theories currently provable, they will never be provable. So we're left with evidence and the opinion of experts working in their field. At the moment the great preponderance of expert opinion lays (roughly) around what the NIST is likely to find and consider CD not even wrong. To give them equal footing, or to even mention CD in this context seems unencyclopedic (POV) and not NPOV. Rx StrangeLove RxS 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

They will certainly be provable… at some point in time… The fact is, if we won't NPOV then we have to say it as it is. That is, we have no valid explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, we have hypotheses… If we are about to mention NIST's working hypothesis in such assembly as the one we are discussing, then we are liars. This needs to be addressed, decently, in the spirit of Wikipedia and all that. There is nothing beyond the factual accuracy; there is no need to impose opinions. I'm not pushing for CD, it's already referenced in the article, I'm saying that the sentence is misleading… all the way to hell… and I'm a bit tired of repeating all this, since the flaw in the flow is painfully clear. Lovelight02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're "tired of repeating" yourself, how about "'identifying"' the problem, rather than just whining about it. Or is being factual what you are ultimately unhappy about? "we have no valid explanation for the collapse of WTC 7" In fact, we have a valid and complete theory as to the cause of structural failure. We had it before the building even collapsed - professional firefighters concluded the structure was at risk and abandoned the building. Now, that doesn't by itself demonstrate that other possibilities are untrue, and people are free, nay, encouraged, to contemplate other explanations and seek other evidence. But so far no-one has come up with any evidence of either demolition or dwarf excavation. Peter Grey03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Or remarkable structural failure due the fires and debris. Lovelight03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*And you better show me this "'theory"' you speak of. I'd be interested to see… Lovelight03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*"btw", since there were no firefighters in the building, what did Silverstein pull? Lovelight03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove references from reputable sources, thanks...Rx StrangeLove RxS 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, so Peter, where is this theory of yours? Those reputable sources have nothing to do with our statement about mechanics of collapse. I'm still expecting for this to be fixed, with full respect to the actual facts and NPOV. Lovelight12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are the one challenging consensus - identify what specifically is inaccurate or concede you don't have a real objection. And what exactly is "our statement about mechanics of collapse" - mechanics is not a subject you've demonstrated much understanding of. Peter Grey12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I don't appreciate your tone, I've been holding my temper for a while, while you are whining and beating around the scrub. Just take a look at the very beginning of the discussion and read it thoroughly; things should be clear, if not, you've got some unrelated issues you need to deal with. I'm not the one who is claiming to have valid (provable) theory about the collapse of WTC7, you are. Either you prove me you are right, and that building fell "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires." Either state what you're reputable source is actually stating, and that is: "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." Anyway, quit with the insults, from my perspective you're ignorance with the regards of mechanics of the collapse is unbearable, but this is not the point of the discussion, you brought it up yesterday, claiming that you have some sort of "'theory"', while there is none. To make things clear, one more slap from you, and I'll slap back, honestly. Lovelight13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to do more research before you start making more ridiculous allegations here and wasting everyones time. The NIST report is due sometime in Spring 2007 and we'll need to wait for that to be released to absolutely confirm what happened. Until then, to quote from a NIST presentation,

"The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

"An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

"Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up tothe east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

"Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest

Thats what they said in 2004. They confirmed to Popular Mechanics,

""The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

"NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

"According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1 Debunking The 9/11 Myths. Nice article. You should read it.

So is that technical enough for you? Or do you want proof about Mr.Froman's dwarf theory as well?--snowolfd4 "'snowolf"'"'D4"'( "'talk"' / "'@"' ) 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know all that, only thing in which I'm interested is "'working hypothesis"' part, thanks for your effort, though. Lovelight15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is all this nonsense just that Lovelight doesn't understand the difference between a professional working hypothesis and an unfounded speculative folk hypothesis? Peter Grey16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because of the fact that we cannot use either hypothesis without noting that we are talking about hypothesis, not about the proof, as Snowolf just implied. Lovelight16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can insist that these two theorys be treated on an equal basis...one is accepted (whether officially offered at this time or not) by reputable sources and experts working in their field. The other is not accepted by reputable sources and experts working in their field. That's the only thing we need to know about all this. Rx StrangeLove RxS 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm not insisting on anything, I'm not pushing the other hypothesis, I'm saying that the disputed sentence is deliberately misleading and it needs to be changed… Lovelight16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate hypothesis, in the context of the NIST investigation, means things like the failure started in the south-east corner versus started in the south-west corner. "Deliberately misleading" is trying to suggest the basic outline is still in doubt. Peter Grey16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*Of course that it is in doubt, it’s a hypothesis, all these alternatives need to be tested (as in future), we cannot use preliminary hypothesis to explain the collapse as we did here. It's not factually accurate. I've said it before, I don’t care how you choose to fix it, either recognize that we are talking about the hypothesis, either remove that sentence, either add alternative CD theory, but don't keep insisting that buildings fell after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires. There is no proof for such claim. Here is a http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf progress report; I suggest you read the final page (L.3.6.). Lovelight16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suspicious of Peter Grey's anti-science stance. A working hypothesis by NIST must not be presented as fact, but as a working hypothesis. Just as creationism should be presented as a working hypothesis by creationists. 83.208.3.5921:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Frak

&quot;Background History&quot; Section and A Recommendation

I highly disapprove of this section, reorganized by AudeVivere. The timing closely coincides with my movement of 'Conspiracy Theories' to the reactions section. These theories need not be correct-but they are assignments of responsibility and belong in that section. Putting Conspiracy Theories in the 'reaction' section seems only to dismiss theories that have some meat to them. And i'm not sure how 'responsibility' goes into 'background history' anyway. A poor edit.

I've thought lately, perhaps it would be a good idea to settle the conspiracy theories mention on the main page with, or course, the brief mention, but also a section detailing the contradictions, flaws, and irregularities in the official account "without" mention of the theories claiming to account for them. I'm sure that nobody who's contributed to this article, which is and should be more than a bare-bones account of the events and background, hasn't come across some of the contradictions in the official story (WTC7, Pentagon damage anomalies, etc.) Instead of claiming "Bush did it!" or "mini-nukes" on the main page, why can't we mention these? The official story isn't perfect, and so the wikipdia article which follows the official story closely if not to-a-T needs to make mention of it. MachSeventy03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this "official story" that you keep talking about? Seems to me that you are trying very hard to marginalize the facts here, when this is one of the most-reported-upon stories of this century. The 9/11 Commission Report does exist, but it's hardly the last word on the subject. There are literally tens of thousands of mainstream accounts of what happened that day, and none of them support the so-called "alternative theories", except to make light of their frailty. The common account of September 11th, on the other hand, is backed by the consensus of thousands of objective journalistic reports -- reports that we can rely upon here in fashioning this encyclopedia. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, the official account covered in this article is the official account I'm referring to. And no, there are accounts which differ from this view. These include those from firemen inside the building who reported explosions, individuals who report strange security conditions in the towers in the days prior to the incident, individuals who cite interference by authorities on the ground outside the Pentagon. Look around for them, they're there. Do you really believe everything you read? Mach Seventy04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should also mention that the perpetrators of this event have never actually been convicted, or proven guilty. Obviously, evidence and motives have been presented to make this theory appear possible, but the claim is mere heresy. Until there is no dispute, this article should not portend this theory of 19 highjackers commandeering four commercial aircraft into the most protected airspace in America, with no response to FAA communication, and executing complex maneuvers that these men, according to flight instructors, could not do. Once we understand what did not happen, then every other scenario must be deemed as possible. Ipso facto, if we do not know who actually carried out this atrocity, then every other scenario is in the realm of possibilities, and should be investigated in a balanced manner, giving equal light to every angle.

Nongrata99

22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "investigate" anything. We're a tertiary source, relying on trustworthy secondary sources. Yours is an odd use of the word "heresy," which means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position." This would mean that any theories "but" the dominant theory, that 19 hijackers (no g, one h) commandeered four airplanes, etc., etc, is heresy. Wikipedia operates off of reliable sources and verifiability, and the dominant theory has plenty of sources that satisfy these requirements. The vast majority of alternate theories do not. Prettymuch all of them, actually. So, no, we're not going to give them equal footing. "'JDoorjam"' 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this page to be riddled with weasel words, to such a degree that I refuse to cite them in the face of their grotesque ambiguity. If this simple reality is unrecognizable to the intelligent and enlightened group of wikipedia architects then I am right to feel the intense sickness and sadness I feel for the fate of our species. Shame on us for allowing this darkness. Shame on us for our intense cowardice. -Bill Switzer- 02-24-07 03:12

So noted. --Golbez11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Question moved to Reference Desk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous

-Rx StrangeLove RxS 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope

some day the truth comes to light

Woefully misguided are those that trust Bush's government.

Remember kids; relatives of deceased loved ones are more inclined to be vocal.

The only place ostensibly containing info from relatives of 9/11 passengers is the 9/11 memorial page with every victim.

Someone should ask that guy where he got the pics from and if we could speak to those people. —The preceding 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

1 March reverts

I'm really curious now: what is the disagreement all about? Peter Grey19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted since it moves the items around in the TOC and puts CTs under Responsibility instead of Reactions. I don't think it belongs under Responsibility and I think if this is going to be moved we should have a chance to discuss it. --PTR20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been engaging into what has become an edit war from some time on this. I am not amused by the quick willingness of some fellow editors to ask for talk page consensus on how we should reorganize this article when a reorganization that added a strange "Background History" section, which included in that section accounts of the actual day of the attacks (thereby being nonsensical), attracted no such calls for a consensus. The edits I have made reflect the belief that the "Conspiracy Theories" are best thought of as assessments of responsibility coupled with alternative accounts of the events before, during, and after the attacks. Placing "Conspiracy Theories" in the "Reaction" section is nonsensical, seeing as the official accounts are not included under the umbrella term "Reactions." Moreover, I'm sure that fellow editors are aware of the effect of placing the Conspiracy Theories section and link in the reactions section: it treats such Conspiracy Theories as simple, predictable, organic reactions to be expected in the wake of a catastrophic event. It does not treat the theories, which have weight and adduce evidence the official account cannot explain, as epistemically equal, but in effect demeans them. I am open to the view that Conspiracy Theories be given its own main section in the 9/11 article, and be expanded on the main page to perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the anomalies, theories, and criticism of the theories if need be. MachSeventy22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are obviously reactions, since they are expressions of paranoia. There is an argument that the 9/11 Commission is also a reaction, particularly since it worked under limitations which appeared politically motivated. I didn't see any logic in the other rearrangements. Peter Grey22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

...That's exactly the point I just made. They both fall under reactions. So either we include both under the heading or find a more suitable place for them. The 9/11 Commission got its own section - why not the conspiracy theories? And yes, conspiracy theories can be expressions of paranoia, but it isn't exactly like 9/11 conspiracy theories are so unfounded as to be judged only as reactions. If we had termed them "Alternative Theories" would your first reaction have been to dismiss them as paranoia? Mach Seventy22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are predictable reactions to catastrophic events, and there are numerous citations to academic literature saying so. They are not epistemically equal, they are epistemically flawed. In any case, I oppose any expanded presentation of them in this article. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense about conspiracy theory folklore aside, anything in response to the attacks could qualify as a reaction; maybe there is some value in clarifying where "Reactions" fits into the story. Peter Grey23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, how do I initiate a vote on this? I'm trying to have the Conspiracy Theories section moved to Responsibility. Mach Seventy17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are reactions; they are not good faith inquiries into issues of responsibility. Peter Grey22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That has precisely nothing to do with the vote on this topic. Mach Seventy16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist motivations

The conspiracy theories are nothing but an attempt to make a buck off the deaths of thousands of people. Anyone trying to make these profiteers lunacy more notable is probably being paid by them to do so. 9/11/2001 conspiracy theories=make a fast buck. There is nothing reactionary about them, only evil profiteering.--Beguiled11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? And who are these individuals profiting? Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries, for instance, weren't made by studios but by independent filmmakers who mostly drew together secondary video footage. And do you actually know what reactionary means? 24.88.76.17214:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For many of the promoters, I think listing with 'Opportunists' is appropriate. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What a bizarre claim! I guess you are one of those lying government shills. Anyoen can download Terrorstorm, Loose Change, and many other 9/11 related videos questioning the OFFICIAL LIES abotu 9/11 for FREE. Not charge! Get it! Which means NO PROFIT. If anyone is making a buck from 9/11 it's the shills being paid to lie in defence of the official story on sites like this one.

—The preceding 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

An opportunist is not necessarily pursuing money. Some just want the attention, or get some sick joy from spreading misinformation and wasting everyone's time. Peter Grey02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Opportunists... what are they taking advantage of to further interests of their own? It isn't possible that proponents of conspiracy theories just want the truth and haven't been satisfied by the commonplace viewpoint? —The preceding 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Fascinating questions, but are they relevant to this article? Whether money, sensationalism, or good faith pursuit of truth, conspiracy theories are still wrong. Peter Grey16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's intelligent. Where did you go to school? —The preceding 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

So childish you are. Do you really think that something like this could have happened without the foreknowledge of Mossad - for example ? Wake up people, Osama Bin Laden is still working for the CIA - like he officially did for 12 years.--El magnifico22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

More sheer stupity I see here by the conspiracy theory make a buck people. Mossad knew this was going to happen? Osama was a CIA operative...hahahahaha.--Beguiled13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and try to put that, but..your point? The fact that there may be some opportunistic supporters of, for example, the demolitions theory, is irrelevant in addressing the legitimacy of the argument itself. You cannot automatically dismiss an argument's validity by use of a red herring.

67.70.20.194

20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Related Books

An ideal related book--on topic and fulfilling Wikipedia's content criteria-- is The New York Times' "A Nation Challenged: A Visual History of 9/11 and its Aftermath." It contains many searing definitive photos and concise narrative. Also it is based on that paper's Pulitzer Prise winning coverage. One of the glories of Wikipedia is its linkages and extensions. This general article needs more of these. —Preceding )

excessive archiving

This page was mention here: Wikipedia_talk:How_to_archive_a_talk_pageExcessive_archiving Why is this page archived so much? Anyone else have any theories? Travb15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

*I think it's mainly the quantity of talk, which is a result of the polarized nature of the talk. Sometimes the archiving leads to arguments being repeated, leading to long speeches, then more archiving, etc. Peter Grey17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hijackers

At this point this seems like such a stupid question,but there seems to be little in this article about it.Does anyone know exactly "'how"' the commercial airliners where hijacked by the terrorists?even on this article and even on the timeline section it simply states that they took over the plane,but how did they manage to smuggle weapons on board a plane? —The preceding 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

"'Osama bin lauden listed as perpetrator"'

According to the FBI site USAMA BIN LADEN (their spelling) is not wanted for 9/11 as stated on their site. Therefore I state that the information stated in this article that Osama, as listed as a perp for this crime is not accurate.

Nowhere does it state that Osama is wanted for 9/11, that is an assumption without facts nor evidence. It is based on supposition, no fact. IT does say that he is wanted for other attacks throughout the world. If the FBI had the information stating that this person was wanted they would have posted an update, therefore I submit that the official record on wikipedia stating that osama bin lauden planned and perpatrated is not correct until the FBI can provide proof as well as the other gov't services of the United States.

I submit, that anyone that can provide proof that this man was responsible for this with absolute proof, and proof stated by the FBI, who is stating this man is wanted and offering a reward. IF the FBI were to have proof and know the facts that this person was wanted by the FBI then they would have posted such information on their website. They have not. All I say is proof is needed.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm fbi website—Preceding unsigned comment added by Panacheweb • contribs)

Thanks...we can click the link above so no reason to copy and paste their info again. Osama is wanted mainly for the Embassy Bombings since that makes it easier to try him in International Court. The evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks is in the article.--MONGO07:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so the evidence is in the article... but there is not enough evidence to even try to convict him in the court... Possibly some wouldn't ever like September 11 trial to begin. There would be soo many problems with explaining how things happened exactly... and there is no Osama. SalvNaut09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no Osama? What the heck is this guy thinking?--Beguiled13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is the word 'terrorist' used in the lead-in section?

This word is used twice in the lead-in section - as an adjective to describe the attacks and as a noun to denote the hijackers. Terrorism is a loosely defined concept - the word 'terrorist' is used when you think a violent act is unjustified. We cannot have a neutral Wikipedia article that says that the 9/11 attacks were unjustified. I think they were and you think they were but that is just our point of view. It really sticks out when I see this article. Why can't the article say who called the attacks terrorist rather than taking a non-neutral stance. Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks very strange to me. 84.235.249.19415:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed something if you think that people not belonging to any army from a legitimate country who kill more than 2000 people are not terrorists. Wikipedia must be neutral but from the standpoint of the mainstream of the human kind and respecting the meaning of words. If this guys had been uniformed people from a country's army, it would have been a war crime. Since they were just civilians, what they did was terrorism.--Igor2116:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Check out the talk page archives at the top of this page for a lot of discussion on this subject. While some people inevitably disagree, an overwhelming number of sources calls it terrorism. Wikipedia works by sources. I have a sinking feeling this is one of those discussions that needs to happen every two weeks... Weregerbil16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at the archives. So if most sources say something then that makes it neutral and Wikipedia can say it as a fact - is that how it works? 84.235.249.19416:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What change do you want to make to the article? Tom harrison Tom Harrison 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what it says now:

""The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist1 suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States on September 11, 2001. The victims were predominantly civilians.""

""On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists2 affiliated with al-Qaeda3 hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners""

I think it should say something like:

""The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic militants using hijacked planes on September 11, 2001. The victims were predominantly civilians.""

""On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers affiliated with al-Qaeda gained control of four commercial passenger jet airliners. The attacks were denounced by mainstream media and governments worldwide as terrorist acts. Subsequent to the attacks, the Bush administration declared a war on terror.""

comments? 84.235.249.19417:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was for 'terrorist', and it's not clear how 'militant' would be different. Peter Grey03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"'Militants"' is simply vague and not neutral, not accurate, nor verifiable. If you want to re-open the "terrorism" debate, please read the archive. Patsw patsw 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have read all the archived debate and I can see that there was a majority of editors, if not a consensus, in favour of describing the event as 'terrorist' and the attackers as 'terrorists' in the narrative voice of the article. I disagree with the majority view but I am going to accept the majority opinion. I have read plenty of newspaper article in the Arabic press that do not view the attacks as terrorist. Do these sources count? I'm not sure the presence of differing opinions in published sources is even relevant here. Even if all sources agree that a certain actress is beautiful, Wikipedia would not describe her as such in an article - rather it would attribute that subjective judgement to the best sources. So as terrorism is a relative subjective word, it just shouldn't be used without attribution, regardless of how many sources concur. 84.235.249.19413:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As this is an English language encylopedia, English language sources are going to take precedence. As for Arabic press not calling the attacks terrorist, I have little doubt that the http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB_11_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1_2001 Arabic version of the article gives more weight to Arab press sources. Remember, after hearing of the attacks there were people dancing in the streets in several countries. One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero, so there will be divergence in the encylopedias that service those cultures. It is just the nature of human group think. --StuffOfInterest13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The refs in the http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB_11_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1_2001 Arabic version are in English: prisonplanet.com, propagandamatrix.com, Cordite, conspiracy blogs, molten steel, the works... With sources like that it's no wonder there are people who are surprised by the English article. Weregerbil14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The Google translator is blocked for me here, but it may be interesting to look through http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Far.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D8%25A3%25D8%25AD%25D8%25AF%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AB_11_%25D8%25B3%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AA%25D9%2585%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B1_2001langpair=ar%7Cenhl=enie=UTF8 a translation of the Arabic article to see what it says about the attacks. --StuffOfInterest14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know Google did Arabic. The article is much better than the refs made me fear! It is sort of this article and the conspiracy theory article rolled into one, but still quite nice if the reader has some ability to tell reality and the theories apart. Weregerbil15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory section is the only part of the article that has inline references. The intro of the Arabic article provides a timeline of events, war on terrorism, and Osama claiming responsibility for the attacks. The second paragraph of the WTC section says "the two planes that crashed into the the WTC did/may not have had windows, the bottom of one of the planes had a bulge, making some believe they were missiles." - that is a more extreme theory that was popularized by 911: In Plane Site and has solidly been debunked. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=2 The third paragraph of the WTC section talks about whether plane impact combined with fires could have caused the collapse with some skeptism and cites Leslie Robertson who agrees with the explanation from NIST. Fourth paragraph talks about "molten metal" http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html The fourth paragraph talks about the collapse appearing like an explosion. http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html The fifth paragraph talks about how steel loses strength when heated. Fifth and sixth paragraphs talk more about the fires and collapse. The next section is about the Pentagon, which questions whether American Airlines Flight 77 really crashed there? This has been widely debunked, with numerous witnesses seeing the airplane, debris found on the Pentagon lawn, DNA recovered of all passengers on the plane, etc. http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html The last section is devoted to conspiracy theories, with references to PrisonPlanet and other sites. And that's it for the article. --Aude15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope I'm reading you wrong here, Aude. Are you saying that the sections of the article outside of conspiracy theories talks about planes with no windows, molten metal, and flight 77 not really crashing? If so, the article is even worse than I feared. --StuffOfInterest17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the material was added http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB_11_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1_2001diff=345224oldid=323392 by User:Tarawneh who has an account here and on arwiki. An anon. came along after this user and tagged the article. On January 21, a user came along in two possibly test edits http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB_11_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1_2001diff=501773oldid=493966 http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AB_11_%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%A8%D8%B1_2001diff=nextoldid=501773 and removed the tag. I just tagged the article again, but really don't have the ability to edit the article and fix the problems. As an aside, the article in Italian has problems too, with a whole paragraph in the "responsibility" section talking about Osama not wanted by the FBI, because of his top ten most wanted poster, and since debunked BBC reports of hijackers still alive. I may attempt to fix that. --Aude18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not concede the point you raise namely that application of the word "terrorist" is "per se" subjective. Part of the debate, for which you have accepted the outcome, was that "terrorist" is a real word in English conveying a meaning without ambiguity, and the application of that word to the September 11, 2001 attacks is supported by the facts, verifiable, and sourced. It is beyond subjective opinion. StuffOfInterest, that there was dancing in the streets when news of the attacks reached the Muslim media is not a refutation that the attackers were not terrorists, it rather is an affirmation that the attacks were successful. Patsw patsw 13:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is a real English word - that is not disputed. Beautiful and unjust are also real English words but they are non-neutral. Calling an event terrorist means you think the violence was unwarranted or unjustified or illegitimate. All of these concepts are subjective and unprovable - they change between countries, ethnic groups, legal systems, moral systems and so on. The article gains nothing by using the word terrorist in its narrative. It is now an editorial. It makes Wikipedia look like a joke when one of its most prominent articles reads like it was written by a government PR department. 84.235.249.19415:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The characterization of the attacks as terrorist in nature was the determined by the government in the jurisdiction where they took place after a lengthy investigation. What appears to me to be a "joke" is to dispute that, and substitute that conclusion with an equivocation that an unidentified ""some"" believe the attacks were warranted, justified, and legitimate. Patsw patsw 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The header to this article is an embarassment to wikipedia so long as the word 'terrorist' is used in that way. The reason its stuck there was not because of a real consensus amongst wikipedia editors in general, but because of a handful of editors camping this article and shouting down reasonable objections.

Elsewhere in wikipedia, the word terrorist is used more carefully. Here, a small clique of editors has seen fit to push the pro-US line. We are not looking at a real majority here, merely a vocal minority. Damburger09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So, to call 9/11 a terrorist attack is a "pro US" view... huh. I think someone is betraying his anti-US view. --Golbez10:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That isnt what I said, don't misquote me just to push your agenda Damburger13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Write the UN...it was universally decreed by them to be a terrorist act.http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/SC7143.doc.htm.--MONGO14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And that was the UNs POV, whats your point? Damburger09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

**New** section!: &quot;Effects in popular media&quot;

Hello, I would like to present to you this new section about effects in popular media (sub-section of "Long-term effects"). Please include more examples in the "examples" section if you can find any. Note: For the 2 examples I already put there, I copied some text directly out of the articles linked to about those examples (but not where I put "citation needed" templates).

Enjoy! --Wykypydya00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The "effect" seems to be a hightened sensitivity to terrorist violence. Certainly a valid point, although cataloguing all the examples might be excessive. Combining Effects in popular media and Effects on morale into, say, "Effects on popular culture" might be a good fit. Peter Grey02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Effects on popular culture is a good topic, but details I think are suitable for the subarticle - September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture and not the main article. As such, I have moved the paragraph to the subarticle and provided a link in the main article to it. In the main article, a one or two sentence summary of the subarticle (per SUMMARY) would be okay. Effects on morale seems subjective, but possibly okay if sourced properly. It could probably be mentioned in the popular culture subarticle. --Aude16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity in BBC on-scene reporting

Here's something for that brand new "refreshing" section…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell

here are some initial reactions to it:

http://www.petitiononline.com/wtc7bbc/petition.html No more Stonewalling from the BBC re WTC 7 petition. Lovelight02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was confusion and misinformation on the scene of a major disaster? You don't say! Why are you still here? --Golbez02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you mumbling about? We are here to resolve all that confusion and misinformation you speak off, of course. Lovelight02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What's to resolve? They overheard that 7 collapsed, then reported it. But it was incorrect. 7 had not collapsed yet, but it was being emptied because they anticipated one. Which happened. The misinformation ended 20 minutes later.

After the bus crash in Atlanta last week, one news source gave a death count one higher than the number that had actually died - and another person died some days later. Was this a conspiracy worth investigating? Did they have foreknowledge of this person's death? No, it was misinformation in the height of a major incident. Not on purpose - but because shit gets confused in something like that. --Golbez03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity? What is there to doubt? Those folks reported collapse of a steel frame building before it happened; they did it very accurately, clairvoyantly, as if they had some sort of preliminary NIST report. It is obvious from the "initial reaction" that the "cock-upped" response given by the BBC is not acceptable. The only question is who? Who was the source of that information? Lovelight03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone online told me the World Trade Center had collapsed before it did, should I investigate them? --Golbez03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This place is really falling apart, we are talking about the BBC here. Do you copy? Can you understand that? Listen, I'll go and stretch my fingers elsewhere for a while, let me know when you make a decision with regards to that "plot". Lovelight03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So when the BBC gets a story wrong, it's a conspiracy, but when some schmo online gets it wrong, it's irrelevant. Where is the border? Should we investigate whenever the Washington Post is incorrect in the heat of the moment? The Washington Times? The National Enquirer? C'mon, man, inquiring minds want to know. --Golbez10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was the third steel frame building to collapse that day. Considering the other two had already fallen, it wasn't very strange to anticipate the collapse of WTC 7 especially if it was being evacuated due to catastrophic damage. There were a lot of people who anticipated that Flight 93 was going to be crashed into a building before it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The fact that planes hadn't been used before that day played no bearing on that. And the lack of NTSB report also played no part. There is nothing strange in predicting that WTC7 would collapse nor would it be surprsing if there were erroneous reports about its early demise. --Tbeatty04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"we are talking about the BBC here" Wrong, the BBC has its own article. "What is there to doubt?" That's certainly my question here. A reporter, at the time "'not allowed access to the site"', with even telephone communications compromised, reported a building had already collapsed when actually the collapse, "'which was anticipated"', had not yet occurred. Peter Grey04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who anticipated the collapse? Steel framed buildings don't collapse in symmetrical fashion and with freefall speed, not even if they are stricken by an airplane. BBC provided way to (in)accurate information, way to early… and Flight 93 didn't crash in Pennsylvania, there is no wreckage there… Lovelight04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For something not to fall at the free fall speed requires resistance to the collapse. With the amount of mass, there is nothing that would prevent it from falling at free fall speed. There is also no lateral force to make it fall non-symmetrically. Once the support strucutre failed, it could do nothing but fall straight down at the rate gravity dictates. This is the finding of NIST and all the engineering reports. there is no controversy about those facts. --Tbeatty06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Who anticipated the collapse?" Emergency response personnel who are trained to anticipate the possibility. "Steel framed buildings don't collapse in symmetrical fashion and with freefall speed" And why not, exactly? Can you calculate the second moment of area of the floor plan and demonstrate a way that a building with that geometry was "'not"' going to fall straight down? Do you know the exact acceleration of the top floor, and is it noticeably different your precise calculation of the failure of the structure under impact loading? If you believe these myths, at least say so clearly so we don't have to go through another 20kb of talk page before we can figure out if you have a point or not. Peter Grey04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What myths? The myth that building 7 freefell due to debris and fire? Please explain? Lovelight04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't use article talk pages for soapboxing. Soapboxing can be removed from talk pages, so please focus on the article Lovelight, thanks. Rx StrangeLove RxS 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not here to "improve" the article...he's here to POV push conspiracy theories.--MONGO06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I know. Being blunt is not my strong suit, he swept in and started putting hoax tags on the article page. I think he's making downpayments on one of those new fangled community bans they're offering these days. Looking at his edits tonight (and warnings, since removed) it's something we might raise up the flagpole if it keeps up. Rx StrangeLove RxS 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup...--MONGO07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You folks can take that http://www.conspiracyinpractice.com/ conspiracy of yours go into oblivion with it, I'm out of here… this is not a free encyclopedia, this is a place which "'deliberately"' spreads lies, the place that only few may edit, the place where brute and uncivil minority of MONGO's is suppressing and oppressing the whole wide world of free minded editors. Good morning good luck. Lovelight10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What lies might those be? That airplanes were hijacked and crashed and buildings collasped as a result, killing thousands of people?--MONGO10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, except that last part.. State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable. Lovelight19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, hence the invasion of Afghanistan to try and neutralize the Taliban, who were/are sheltering OBL.--MONGO20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that contains verfiable facts. It is not the blog of "free minded editors." Free minded editors can use their own time and resources for their own free minded ideas. The internet is a big place and I am sure there is lots of space for free-mindedness but Wikipedia is not the forum for it. If you would like to contribute using neutral, verifiable facts then Wikipedia will welcome it. --Tbeatty20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As you've just seen in that little "live experiment", you (I'd say we, but it would be a lie) don't care about facts, at all. Prove me wrong. Well, no decent "academic" will reference all this... all this… pardon me for being a bit upset… "crap", anyway. Lovelight21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So I'll use common sense and your facts without stipulating a cause. On 9/11, a steel framed building collapsed at near free fall speeds. After that, another steal frame building collapsed at near free fall speeds. So why do you now postulate that it is some sort of whacked out inside conspiracy that a news organization may have reported early that a third steel frame building collapsed? Everyone there saw two other buildings fall. Anticipating a third is not that strong a leap of imagination. Considering that there were false reports of additional planes enroute, this is not that bad. I also recall hearing reports of upwards of 10,000 people dying that day. They were wrong too. --Tbeatty04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's left before, maybe this time he'll actually keep his word. --Golbez03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to picture

Can I suggest linking to the following picture discussed in the following blog - http://www.lommers.org/2007/02/17/911-ground-zero-high-resolution-picture/

I have provided the blog link as opposed to the direct link since anyone who takes a look should read the blog - the picture is VERY large and therefore should not be downloaded if you're on dialup. —The preceding ) 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Conspiracy Theories: Reactions Section or Responsibility Section?

This is meant to end once and for all the edit war over Conspiracy Theories and its rightful place in this article. I have contended that the Conspiracy Theories section is best placed under "Responsibilities," while others have disagreed. The following restates or crystallizes my case.

Firstly, the various conspiracy theories (or alternative theories) relating to 9/11 indisputably include assessments of responsibility - taking into account a number of anomalies related to that day's events,

the theories reject the more popular account of 9/11, roughly equal to the account detailed in the remainder of the Responsibility section, and instead implicate individuals and groups in the United States government, the corporate world, and other parties in the murders of thousands. These theories are supported by claims based on physics, behavior of officials, nontransparency, and motive, not to mention marginalized first-hand accounts and primary sources.

Secondly, alternative accounts falling under the heading '9/11 Conspiracy Theories' are popularly believed: as mentioned, a Scripps/Howard poll found that 36% of the American public believes it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. This makes the assessment of responsibility significant.

Thirdly, the current placement of Conspiracy Theories under Reactions deprives these theories of epistemic equality. Terming the alternative theories "Reactions" puts them on equal ground with true reactions such as fear, disgust, anger, and jubilation. This implies that the theories are without reason or lack coherence; instead, they are organic human reactions to important events to be expected. This is wholly inappropriate for a developing, reasoned explanation of what happened.

Finally, I would like to voice my disgust at fellow editors who have reverted my edits, which were supported with an apparently unnoticed vote on this talk page, citing as justification "not an improvement" and the like. These were not reasoned reversions: they were the work of weasely editors who would rather resist change than debate it. I found it laughable that I was served with a warning over edit warring when one individual rejected my continued, supported edits with superficial cause.

Those FOR moving Conspiracy Theories to the Responsibility Section

Mach Seventy

23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Corinne Tabb(69.129.105.5815:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

Those AGAINST moving Conspiracy Theories to the Responsibility Section

Peter Grey23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Since conspiracy theories have nothing to do with responsibility. In fact, the misinformation and paranoid fantasies they are based on impede discussion of legitimate questions.

PTR14:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Conspiracy theories came about as a reaction to the events.

Uh-huh....precisely.--MONGO16:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously. Arkon16:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As PTR said.--Dcooper19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are one form of reactions to such events. --Aude20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what x Peter Grey thinks. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They are conspiracy theories, not to be taken seriously as an arguement for who is responsable for 9-11.--Sefringle01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"'Ditto"' what Peter said. Better yet, just eliminate the section entirely. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 01:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No "'Nutball and/or Opportunist Exploitation"' subsection precludes any moves. Isn't it about $300 a plate to attend one of these seminars now? --Tbeatty04:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what Tbeatty said as the conspiracy theories are all about making a buck anyway.--Beguiled21:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

There is already consensus on this. The proposed move has no merit at all, which is why the suggestion was summarily dismissed when the first 'vote' was taken. Peter Grey23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

*Summarily? No... there were two reversions, that doesn't qualify as consensus by anybody's book. And why exactly are you afraid of this vote? x Mach Seventy 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) This would be the vote I'm voluntarily participating in? Peter Grey 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is ashaming and worrying that a couple of guys armed only with a bunch of ilogical and irrealistic theories can stop the discussion of what really happened for years. Internet has become the paradise of conspirationists and is really tough to stop them from destroying wikipedia articles with their tricks and their epistemological inanity. Conspirationist theories are a reaction -and more precisely an irrational reaction. Are worthwhile to be studied as an illustration of the dificulty for modern societies to self governing because the combination of spin doctors from governements plus opportunist best-sellers of delirant theories makes dificult for common people to know real truth. In this case of international terrorism these theories are specially dangerous because is a very complicated issue and it would be dificult to understand it even without the noise of spin doctors and opportunist liers.--Igor2110:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's sad that everyone on BOTH sides of the spectrum is making this discussion out to be a mockery. This isn't a forum, it's just for discussion of the mechanics of the article. I do think that the Conspiracy theories of this particular event are an important part of the history of this event, and it may be possible someday that they will have their own article. I just can't think that ANYONE can believe 100% a resource that they believe either way. For an article, however, you need to take the written facts. There can NOT be original material in here, so until 'original material' is accepted as a reference of some sort, it has to stand the way it is. WiiAlbanyGirl05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

*"This isn't a forum, it's just for discussion of the mechanics of the article." Correct.

*"...it may be possible someday that they will have their own article" 9/11 conspiracy theories. Peter Grey12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

&quot;Conspiracy Theories&quot; is not an adequate name

First, I see no point in voting on whether a part of an article should be here or there. It needs to be figured out. So please, bring your arguments on the table. Thank you.

Second, I suggest to rename the whole section. "Conspiracy theories" in my view is not an adequate name. It implies that there is some kind of conspiracy when US officials (or others) are involved in the planning and acting out of the attacks while there would be no conspiracy if none is involved. This is wrong. Check out conspiracy.

As alternative names of the section I suggest "non-official explanations" or "Explanations contradicting official account".

Third, in the end, the task will be to weed out the interpretations and present the facts. As an example: if there was no plane crashed into the Pentagon, we will not figure that out by editing plane or missile back and forth and putting the different accounts up and down different sections (reactions/responsibility). We will figure it out by editing out anything that can not cite credible sources. If some source is being criticized, mention the criticism. We can only get more detail that way. In the end the big picture will evolve out of the many many small pieces.

--Kjell.kuehne05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" is the term used to describe these kinds of theories. Check out Conspiracy theory.--Dcooper12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "conspirationist theories" is a very good name since to believe in them you need to be in a certain framework of mind that includes to accept that is feasible to create a conspiration that involves at least FBI, CIA, NSA, and NSC staff and keep it secret for several years. A theory which bears such surprising premise is really a special thing and must be included in a kind of theories. It is true that the name is eufemistic since the real one would be "completely unbelievable conspirations theories" or shorter : "unbelievable theories".

And regarding the suggested method to make the truth arise (i.e. accumulate millions of contradictory cites contradicting each other) I must clearly state that never in the history of human knowledge such a thing has been suggested. Truth arises as intersubjective consensus reached amongst honest thinkers that discuss in a common framework of mind. The thing becomes even more imposible when some of the thinkers insist in cherrypicking the cites with the intentional goal of reaching the conclusions they have selected as truth from the begining.--Igor2113:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The term conspiracy theory is often interpreted as pejorative term and implies to many people incorrectness or outrageusness in the theory. Many people, when told something is a conspiracy theory, will automatically dismiss it and refuse to give it any attention. Yet, something being labeled a conspiracy theory obviously does not necessarily mean it is untrue. By calling something a conspiracy theory, are we not implying to many people that it is untrue, and thus it is showing a POV? Kevin77v 08:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)kevin77v

The implication is that the "theory" lacks supporting evidence and relies on implausible assumptions, which is correct. Peter Grey12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

""Theory"" is correctly used as Peter just pointed out. ""Conspiracy"" is correct usage because it depends the wide and coordinated numbers of people from many areas and occupations that would be required to plan the attacks, perform the the attacks, plant false evidence to give credibility to the "official account" and thereafter maintain "perfect" silence for over 5 years on all of it. This is implausible. Patsw patsw 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So you are using your point of view that such an attack is implausible because of the supposed massive numbers of complicit people required? There are many people that dispute that point. For example, as in the military, there are many missions and sub-missions, and each group of people in each mission only know the details of their mission. Even after the mission they may not have known that they were helping in something evil. Everyone is on a need-to-know basis. As for there being "perfect silence", there are many prominent people questioning the offical story and demanding a new investigation. They immediately get shunned, rediculed, lose thier jobs, and the majority of the press gives them no attention. This fact automatically reduces the amount of whistleblowers. I'm not going to go into the details of how this point is often disputed. The point is that regardless of who is right on this issue, your argument is a point of view, as is my argument. Neither should be taken as fact on Wikipedia. Kevin77v 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add Link GA|zh in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request editor familiar with the 9/11 articles add this info

Hi, I'm very unfamiliar with the 9/11 hierarchy of articles, and think that http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/1034993 this should be included somewhere. But I am currently busy and haven't the spare time to work out the relevant place. If someone wore familiar with the articles could add it, i would be very grateful. Thanks, 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

timed explosions heard by witnesses at the scene

I recently watched a news clip showing on site first responders yelling to each other to get out of the area due to the fact that the building just next to the towers which I forget the name of but that was 47 stories high, was about to be "brought down" for safety reasons because it had sustained too much damage to be stable. Right after the warning to clear the area, in the background you can hear explosions going off rapidly, that were set by someone somehow. An engineer was interviewed about the clip and said that only experts could have set those timing devices and had the build implode that evenly and quickly. He said it was a professional job of controled demolition and would have taken at least 30 or """more""" men about at least half hour or """more""" under good conditions to set up. Or as Golbez brings out it would take a lot longer- so why did it have all the indicators of this being a set up? See this link: http://www.wtc7.net/ No planes hit that building yet it collapsed. Buildings with steel structures are built to hold up to a lot and remain standing. Also I just watched another clip that showed the engineers analysis of what happened with the towers and it showed how they came virtually straight down like a professional demo job .It could have been set up long before all this happened if it was an insurance scam on the buildings. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665The insurance companies should look into this. Can someone check into this and write an article? Well maybe I did not remember each thing the news clip said exactly and I can not spell but what about the witnesses accounts of hearing timed explosions and the audio of first responders calling for everyone to get out of the area because the building was about to be brought down? PS I just watched loose change and I am convinced it was all an inside job. It was all for money and power http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501q=loose+change+recut this is free to the public and should be watched by any citizen with an honest heart who wants to understand what happened. (69.129.105.5815:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)) 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Corinne Tabb

—The preceding 04:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

30 or more men a half hour to set up? I'm sure professional demolition companies will be shocked to learn that they have a competitor who can wire a building for demolition far faster than has ever been accomplished in history. Also, none of the towers fell 'virtually straight down', and the building wasn't 'brought down for safety reasons'. The name of the building you're thinking of is Seven World Trade Center. --Golbez05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(To show how preposterous such a question is - 30 men 30 minutes for 47 floors means they had every person spend a half hour lugging explosives up to about two floors each and professionally install them. Or, 30 men spent less than a minute doing the same in each floor. Each proposal, and every one in between them, is impossible.) --Golbez05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you've edited to try to make it work better, but that just makes your argument worth even less - three weeks is "a half hour or more", so that just means it's impossible to prove your argument wrong. I will believe the controlled demolition hypothesis if and only if you can show me when and how 280 stories of office tower were wired for controlled demolition - a process that usually takes weeks for 20 stories. So, show me opportunity and method, and we're in business. Til then, I have my planes with 19 arabs, and you have an empty hypothesis. At least my theory has physical evidence. --Golbez03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As for witness accounts - if I hear three booms about 2 seconds apart, that doesn't mean they are timed. People heard booms, prove they were timed. Secondly, 'brought down' or 'come down'? They told people to clear the area because they thought Seven was in imminent danger of collapse - which it did. Show me this audio. --Golbez03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I really can't tell you what to believe, unfortunately. Perhaps the best thing to do is to watch http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561q=loose+change "Screw Loose Change", which is an annotated version of Loose Change - that way you kind of get both sides all at once. Though it will have an obvious bias against the conspiracy theorists, but I have to say that this video is what finally convinced me that there was no massive government or Silverstein conspiracy. The problem with this all is that the only real opinion you can have is the one you find yourself, based on fact from others. I can only try to help with those facts and dispel other things at theories and hypotheses. All I can say is that, in the heat of the moment, a lot of people might hear or say things that are incorrect, and become only apparent after the fact. Perhaps you should try to find these recordings, and if you cannot, perhaps it is your own memories that are cloudy. Either way, none of this can go into the article without a proper citation. --Golbez00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Watching such movies like "Loose Change" or "Screw" version of the former will not get you any closer to the truth. Reading books is a bit better. But the best thing to do is to look into reports of reliable people, see what they propose, what kind of problems do they point out etc. I recommend http://nistreview.org nistreview.org. Reading there I've tracked this very interesting info from the front line of computer modeling of WTC disasterhttp://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=285Z=181sid=269. After reading it one can see that simulations of fire made by FEMA were completely off reality ("heat source 1500° C" ?), in opposition to a modeling of the plane hit, which apparently was done pretty well. What about NIST simulations? Many have objections to them. Whatever happened, neither FEMA, nor NIST researched and described it properly. SalvNaut01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You mention it being an insurance scam. Considering Silverstein got somewhere around $5 billion from this, and it cost him $6 billion to build a new tower... if it was a scam then he really screwed it, didn't he? Also, you have to wonder when the explosives were place. You don't wire 280 floors of office tower without the office workers noticing. --Golbez02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Motive is the weakest part of the conspiracy theories. What could possibly justify so much effort, secrecy, money, and risk just to demolish a building that was already damaged beyond repair? Peter Grey02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sept 11th Pentagon Insider Interview - Requesting a Link

Per Wiki page instructions, I am opening a discussion point to add a link to an interview that I conducted with a Department of Defense employee present (within sight) of the attack on the Pentagon on September 11th.

As my 501c3 non-profit foundation (American Antigravity) is partially supported by Google Ads, I would prefer NOT to hotlink to the audio-file directly, but instead to a descriptor page for the file, at the following URL:

http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/584/1/

Feel free to listen to the interview that I've conducted - it was off-the-cuff and unexpected when it happened, and thus is a little less structured than many of my others. However, I feel this is an important part of the history of September 11th, and thus is worth a link on the Sept 11th Wiki page.

Please note that the interview subject recounts his personal experience of the 911 attacks. This interview promotes the mainstream (non-conspiracy-theory) view of the attacks, and in no way disagrees with or undermines the accepted view of how or why these attacks occurred. It is not promoting a specific political or ideological agenda, merely providing context for understanding this tragedy from the viewpoint of one particular witness.

My interview subject had a number of colleagues who were inside the Pentagon for a briefing and were killed when the aircraft hit the building, and describes them briefly to memorialize their sacrifice.

Thank you;

Tim Ventura

tventura6@comcast.net

CIA IG Internal Review

Additional US Gov't Reports

The article makes no reference in the gov't response section to other US reports and investigatins. I added:

- The Inspector General of the CIA conducted an internal review of the CIA's performance prior to 9/11, and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism, including failing to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and failing to share information on the two men with the FBI. (American Conservative, April 1, 2005, http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html last visited 2007/3/29.)

Golbez saw fit to remove this whole entry with the note "can't you link to the report directly?". I agree that there could be a link to the IG report. But I consider it unhelpful and disrespectful to remove a fully cited contribution merely because an additional citation could have been added. If Golbez wishes to contribute to the article, (s)he can add the additional cite or ask that it be added. Removing anotherwise good entry is not a constructive step. Since Golbez has not made any objection to content, I am restoring.

Finally, the Congressional investigations should also be referenced here. I leave that to others.--NYCJosh22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection issue

Why can't I edit the article? Babalooo06:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article is Semi-protected. That means anonymous users and users with accounts less than four days old cannot edit the article. It is semi-protected to prevent vandalism that would otherwise have taken place.

As you created your account today, you will either have to wait for four days before you can edit this (and other semi-protected) articles, or you can propose the change here on the talk page and have someone else make it for you. --snowolfd4 "'snowolf"'"'D4"'( "'talk"' / "'@"' ) 06:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How long will the article be Semi-protected? Is this a forever thing? Is there any discussion of going back to normal status at some point, or is this article simply too controversial to ever be stable? What would it take to return this to unprotected status? 74.106.131.22907:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that it's too controversial, it's just so big and easy a target. Idiots and kids will always want to make their mark here, I'm think semi-protection will be permanent. --Golbez08:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You know if you your going to put a semi-protection on an article it would be frickin' nice if you put the notice on the page so people who don't understand that the page is perma-protected or semi-protected don't think it's something wrong on their end, As of right now there is no notice on the page so will someone get off their asses and fix this. 141.150.103.9914:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the small padlock on the top right of the article notifies editors that it is semi-protected. On articles such as this, which are obvious targets of vandals and will remain semi-protected for a long time, the padlock is preferred as it is less obtrusive that the normal template. --snowolfd4 "'snowolf"'"'D4"'( "'talk"' / "'@"' ) 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why nothing about the dancing Israelis?

The dancing Israelis incident that was reported by a number of mainstream media outlets, but funnily never mentioned again seems to paint a clear picture of who was responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks. For those in need of a refresher this is what happened. On the day of the 9/11/2001 attacks 5 Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen and filmed in New Jersey dancing in the streets and congratulating one another and were also reported by residents to the police as jumping for joy while filming themselves in front of the towers after the initial impact. They were also reported to be driving a white, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' written on it and police were told to stop any white van if it was located. Police did stop the van and when they apprehended them they told the police "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". The NYPD then found in their van maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4700 cash stuffed in a sock and foreign passports. Bombsniffing dogs were also brought to the van and reacted as if they smelt explosives. The FBI also ceased and developed their photos, one of which showed one of the suspects holding up a flicked lighter in front of the buildings. Two former CIA officers confirmed that the moving van company 'Urban Moving Systems' was a front for Mossad and said that moving vans are commonly used for intelligence operations, they also said these Israelis were detained for only 71 days before being quietly let go and said "There was no question but that the order to close down the investigation came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this was basically going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11."

Can someone explain to me why there's no mention of any of this?

Phazon - 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems to me to be nothing but anti-Semitic propaganda. Show me some sources. --Tarage08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That was actually in the article for a very long time though much shortened and having the reply to it from the Israeli government. I have no idea why it is not in it now although i may be confused and it is in another article. x Tarage is pulling your leg, he knows very well it is supported by RS. BTW they were not dressed as Arabs and were not jumping with joy (the witness who reported them said highfiving and no one else saw them there). Only one of them was Mossad and it also doesn't imply who was responsible. At worst it implies inappropriate behaviour. WLRoss Wayne 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I was not pulling anyone's leg, and from what you pointed out, stating that they were 'Dancing Israelis' and that they were vital to this article IS propaganda, and I won't have it. --Tarage11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, doesn't need to be on the main article. ""'Hut 8.5""' 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would LOVE to know who deleted the entire section regarding "The Dancing Isralelis". I would love to know the why too. So it's fair to report the joy of Palestinians and at the same time remove any reference to the "The Dancing Isralelis"? It's perfect clear why Wikipedia won't ever be a trustworthy source of reference on its own. Ever! Scrobblix19:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Go choke on your nonsense. --Tarage11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for speaking for x Tarage. As he is a frequent editor on this page I mistakenly assumed he would be more familiar with the subject. Thanks RRR_User:Hut 8.5_RRR Hut 8.5, I knew I had seen it somewhere and it is proof that it has not been censored. It does suggest possible advance knowledge so is appropriate there but does not need to be mentioned in every 911 article. Specifically it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debateIsrael here. WLRoss Wayne 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)