September 11 attacks/Archive 45

{{aan}}

Proposal to erase &quot;See also&quot; section

I believe that the "See also" section is unnecessary and it should be erased from the article. Our article is already big and

Sept11

has links to other 9/11-related articles. Thoughts? AdjustShift14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at what's in the "see also" section. Some of these links are already included in the body of the article. Per LAYOUT, these links shouldn't be repeated in the see also section. What's left is a hodgepodge, and I don't think it contributes to article quality. So, I'm okay with removing the section. --Aude05:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it adds no significant redirects to the article, and has caused more controversy in its time than it is worth. ») 07:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've erased the "See also" section. AdjustShift09:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I want the see also section back. I think it is relevant. I was looking for it and couldn't find it. I wanted to read more. —Preceding 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See the templates at the bottom of the article - they contain many links to related topics. ») 23:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Size

Recent edits have bloated this article by 50% to almost 150Kmdash;a tad large for my taste. -- "'VegitaU Veggy"' (""""") 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's far too much detail about the trials. The material would go better in one of the sub articles, or on a new page. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Create a subarticle if you consider it necessary but do not just revert!

Olegwiki

14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would rather advise editors to review the contributions carefully for clarity and verifiability from reliable sources. If everything looks good, we might think about Trials of the planners of the September 11 attacks or some such thing. -- "'VegitaU Veggy"' (""""") 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the level of detail is far excessive for this article. Per summary style, it belongs in a subarticle. --Aude14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think length means bad things. Yes, it might be a bit wordy, but we also don't want to add another example of an article on an actual event being dwarfed by something more pop culture... --Tarage07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

&quot;coordinated by Al Qaeda&quot;

This is said in this article as if it were obvious. Is it really the case though? Where is the evidence?

That a good number of intelligence services agree on this throughout the world doesn't imply it's true. —Preceding 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

We've gone through this before. Many times. "If" you can provide a "'reliable source"' which says otherwise, we should include that in the article. Otherwise, "coordinated by al Qaeda" belongs. — Arthur Rubin01:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Any one of the sources cited in documentary "Loose Change" for starters. The impartiality of this article is completely lopsided, but with the number of "moderators" who refuse to acknowledge differing views, it is a pointless case to protest. 9/11 has been lidded. —Preceding ) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please go read the talk page archives. I believe every single 'source' cited in that snuff film has either been rejected or determined to have been taken out of context. And no, we will not cite that film either. --Tarage03:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Airport security on 11 September 2001

The article fails to mention how it was possible for the highjackers to have slipped past airport security on the morning of 11 September- and at four different airports. The article also needs to address the matter of the terrorists' arrivals into the USA and how they obtained the neccessary visas. Why is only one airline pilot's name referred to in the article. The pilots of all four highjacked planes should be cited.--Jeanne boleyn jeanne 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stella Rimington

Olegwiki seems to think that it is irrelevant that the former head of MI5 thinks that the US response was overreacting, and counterproductive. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/18/stella-rimington-9-11-mi5

I would like to rerquest mediation of the multiple deletions of this reference. Pustelnik00:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Olegwiki isn't the only one. Take it to the the proper article. It doesn't belong here. --Tarage09:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The right page is probably Reactions to the September 11 attacks. There's a "reactions" section in this article but its both brief and short-term and only includes major international views. Comments by a former MI5 head are interesting but probably better placed in the article dedicated entirely to the issue instead of here. Euryalus08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Supports A New 9/11 Investigation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPDbmQmV6O8 Sarah Palin Supports A New 9/11 Investigation, I'm not sure why, though? I've heard that very same thing was sought in parliaments of Canada and Japan.

Hope that fine editors here can provide some background.

do tell, does this article state that 9/11 Commission report failed to mention collapse of WTC 7, ups. Universalsuffrage00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I found www.infowarscom/?p=5600

Unreliable fringe source

this site explaining some more info about it also. ndash; RyanCross "'Ryan"'Cross 00:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Are such sites acceptable? It's appears extremely biased and it's all caught up in those crazy conspiracy theories, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html a bit like BBC I'd say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaEGhiHhZ1Y Here's an capture of the discussion in Japan Parliament, I like the part where he freefalls the 9/11 Commission report the best. Universalsuffrage00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, and here is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6DK_jTVcA Canadian MP Libby Davies as she reads 9/11 petition in Parliament, say, this article hasn’t been updated in a while? Universalsuffrage00:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

heh...we're not updating Palin remarks that are easily misconstrued to support some silly conspiracy theory website baloney. Its also not our fault that one Japanese and one Canadian are calling for a new investigation based on comments they are making to their own legislative bodies.--MONGO01:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Mongo, 'not our fault'? I'm not sure what you mean by that but it's mighty weird to read it, honestly. The whole point you're trying to make is a bit, it's intoxicating and just to be clear about it, that sort of response would be expected on youtube or somewhere, certainly not here and with regards to the attacks.

Please examine the text

"We, the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT, scientific and eyewitness evidence shows that the 9/11 Commission Report is a fraudulent document and that those behind the report are consciously or unconsciously guilty of covering up what happened on 9/11/2001. This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that World Trade Center Towers 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by demolition explosives and that the official theory of the towers collapsing from the airplanes and the ensuing fires is irrefutably false.

We further believe that elements within the US government were complicit in the murder of thousands of people on 9/11/2001. This event brought Canada into the so-called "War on Terror," it changed our domestic and foreign policies for the worse, and it will continue to have negative consequences for us all if we refuse to look at the facts.

THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to:

(1) Immediately launch its own investigation into the events of 9/11/2001 on behalf of the 24 Canadian citizens murdered in New York City.

(2) Act lawfully on the findings of its own investigation by helping to pursue the guilty parties in the international courts.

Committed to truth and accountability,"

I'd guess it goes into International response section, just like Japan, you know those elected in parliaments serve people who elected them. So you shouldn’t really see it as an single voices, you should see it as one voice of the millions.

Not to say, there's nothing to misconstrue, Palin supports new and independent investigation of the attacks. There's noting sinister in that. Or in other words, it does not support silly conspiracy theories, we all reject those, it supports the independent investigation, that's all. Universalsuffrage01:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There may be a new investigation in 25 years, but not likely to be done by the U.S. in the near future...they just concluded their investigations regarding WTC 7.--MONGO01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We are speaking about the calls for independent investigation, whether national or global, we're not singling out US, its international response and there's a section for that. No need to point out we're talking about national parliaments, not some loony conspiracy sites. Universalsuffrage01:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that some can easily argue that the people bringing this to the parliaments are loony themselves. Since this is clearly a developing issue, and not at all resolved, lets take a 'wait and see' approach. A handful of people in various governments calling for another investigation of something they weren't even involved in doesn't seem worthy for inclusion, but rather straws for conspiracy theorists to grab onto. --Tarage02:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I need to call into question the fact that your account is new, yet you have used it specifically for this article and this article alone, all in the course of a day. You clearly aren't a new user either. Someone should investigate that. --Tarage02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand neither of you, honestly. Straws and conspiracies? We're talking about the calls for independent investigation, I think there's a separate article for those conspiracies, or is it this one? That said, you shouldn’t publicly refer to the representatives or high ranking government officials as loonies. I'd say that such approach is highly inappropriate and impolite and.., I'm not sure if you are aware, but what you've wrote above is certainly not an argument, but an insult. Is that normal conduct here? Universalsuffrage03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, random people, even government officials, have to amount to a lot more than you are offering up to be worthy of note here. We have had an official investigation that the vast majority of people support. This is a frail argument, plain and simple. --Tarage07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Be kind.

The fact is, the members of Commission themselves stated that their investigation was 'set up to fail'.

'Solomon: In retrospect, one of the criticisms that you level in this book "Without Precedent" is aimed at both the FAA and NORAD, both of whom representatives testified before the Commission, and both of whom gave what to me - and I'm allowed to be much more impolite than you - sounded to me like lies. They told you testimony that simply... the tapes that were subsequently.. that have subsequently been revealed, were simply not true.

Hamilton: That's correct.'http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html

Pleased to meet you Peter, and thanks for simplifying the point in such coherent manner. Universalsuffrage01:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not addressed my concern that this is a developing story and thus not suitable for inclusion at least just yet. I figure until you address this, I won't bring out my other complaints. --Tarage08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You've just called Sarah Palin a loony, you know? Universalsuffrage03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And? --Tarage07:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that there is scope for legitimate investigation, for example of negligence, or cover-up of negligence, without assuming that people are endorsing lunatic fringe conspiracy theories. Peter Grey21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying you support inclusion of this? --Tarage08:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that there is overwhelming support for a new investigation. Fringe theories need to be ruled out conclusively which some have not been to date, however even supporters of these would for the most part accept a truely independent investigation debunking them as they only hold these theories in the first place because the existing investigations have been so restricted. It is wrong to treat a new investigation as endorsing "fringe" theories solely because some things it may look at are fringe. Palins support for a new investigation is evidence of the growing acceptance by even the debunkers that the original investigations were not adequate. WLRoss Wayne 02:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, WLRoss returns after three months to continue his nasal-bleating. Hasn't worked for the past yearmdash;this month your lucky one? -- "'VegitaU Veggy"' (""""") 02:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's comment is a throwaway line to an individual and appears to be based on the idea of something to help victims families and prevent a reoccurrence, rather than a view the original investigation was factually wrong. With respect, this single off the cuff comemnt doesn't equate to a formal policy stance. When McCain or Palin formally announce (speech, press release, whatever) plans for a new investigation and detail why, then it can be included here. Otherwise we are giving undue weight to a passing remark.

The Canadian and Japanese legislators made remarks supporting a new investigation, though it is not clear whether the Canadian MP actually supports it or was simply reading out a petition sent to her - every citizen has a right to petition Parliament, and Parliamentarians have at least a moral obligation to present those petitions even if they don't personally agree. Regardless, comments by two legislators with no actual power to instigate an investigation cannot be construed to be "overwhelming support".

I do agree on one point, which is that those calling for new investigations shouldn't "automatically" be dismissed as conspirtacy theorists. But that's off the topic - this page isn't the place for a debate on whether a new investigation is required, only whether it deserves a mention in the article on the basis of widespread and verifiable support. The links and references so far are insufficient to support this claim. In the absence of additional material the sugegstion there is notable, widespread support for a reinvestigation is original research and shouldn't be added to the article.

Just a passing opinion. Opposing views and comments welcome. Euryalus05:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I appologize if I was attempting to paint these folks as conspiracy theorists. I merely meant that, while their numbers may be somewhat increasing(I have seen no proof of this), they are still a healthy minority. --Tarage06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And your opinions are based on what? Could you kindly provide a recent reference that would support such opinions? Because temporary references, where allowed, http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO are showing the size of that healthy majority in all of its might.

PS.

Euryalus, do remember, we are talking about representatives of the people. You know those who are governed control those who govern, not the other way around. Supreme power is held completely by the people, at least if you're living in democracy that is. Universalsuffrage00:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to Zogby. Their 2006 poll showed 45% of Americans support a congressional investigation. Their 2007 poll shows it had increased to 51% (I think that makes it a majority?). Calls for an "'independent"' investigation are a little lower at 37% of Americans. To put it in perspective to show that those asking for an investigation are not all fringe- 63% believe the official version, 26% believe the government knew and let it happen and 5% believe the government were involved. Also a 2006 poll showed 84% of Americans believe the government is hiding something in regards to 911. It's obvious there are varying degrees of conspiracy. WLRoss Wayne 09:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps they only support another investigation to get the conspiracy nuts to shut up? 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin or any political candidate will say most anything to appeal to voters at a political rally. The question was put to her in a way that if she said "no", it would sound like she's against the victims' families which doesn't seem like a good thing to say to help get more votes.

I remember way back in 2000, Rick Mercer, who is a comedian in Canada, put some questions to George Bush and to Al Gore, during political rallies, for the "Talking To Americans" part of the show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes". Mercer traveled around the U.S., asking questions to Americans on the street, as well as some politicians, seeing how ignorant Americans are about Canada. He asked Bush, "Prime Minister Jean Poutine said that he wouldn't endorse any candidate, but that you look like the man who should lead the free world into the 21st century. So what do you think about that?" (the trick was to see if Bush knew that the Prime Minister of Canada was not Jean Poutine - poutine is a popular dish in Canada of cheese and gravy on top of french fries.) Bush replied, "I appreciate his strong statement. He understands I believe in free trade. He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbor to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we will work closely together." Bush totally didn't understand the question, but just wanted say things to please people.

So, I can't help but laugh at the idea of taking Palin's off the cuff statement seriously. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, with Palin, YouTube is not a reliable source and I doubt any reliable source has picked up on this soundbyte from Palin. So, no matter what, mention of this does not belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is just a general overview or SUMMARY of the 9/11 attacks, with many subarticles. I think we do have an article about polls and another about reactions to the attacks, and we have an article about the 9/11 Commission. So, if you have anything reliably sourced and notable, it could go in one of those articles (if not already there). I don't see any point in continuing this discussion on this talk page. --Aude12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm not used to a political system that is so deceptive. WLRoss Wayne 22:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin didn't even know that Africa was a continent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html 22:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah who? SheffieldSteel SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is the Vice Presidential candidate under John McCain as the Republican presidential nominee. --Tarage01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Observation

Tell you what, it has been a while since I've read the main article and after just doing so, I'd have to say it's been deteriorating constantly for years.

What is the purpose of this place? It was something about building a consensus on how to provide factually accurate and unbiased historical or contemporary information for all human kind, or something along those lines?

Well, I'm not seeing it happening here, where we have such incredibly unacceptable conduct.

Apart from few sparkling exchanges, there wasn’t a decent discussion on this page for a very long time, yet we can examine healthy debates about 9/11 everywhere, from bbc all the way to the youtube or one of those 'exotic' parliaments.

I'm pretty certain that discussion should be in here, not locked out.

Palin and elections aside, the fact is, people around the world are seeking new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks.

Some editors and administrators should really take a step back and let this place evolve in decent and natural manner. Universalsuffrage00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the first, and you won't be the last. Many editors have come here attempting to change the direction of this article, and few, if any, have made any headway towards the direction you seek. That isn't to say we aren't building a consensus. It's actually the opposite. Consensus has been achieved again and again. However, there will always be editors who do not approve of the consensus simply because it does not align to their viewpoints. So they come here again and again with tired arguments that have been defeated over and over again. I don't know if I should classify you as on of those, but the fact that you are a new account, don't act like one, and have only edited this talk page makes me skeptical. You have yet to answer my question as to why we should include your proposed edits when they are covering something that is still developing. I don't know what else to tell you other than to scour the talk pages and see that your argument, aside from the recent portions, has been proposed and rejected many times over. --Tarage06:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting the article? I'm telling you, the way you're approaching these issues is not what one would expect. Be polite, the purpose of any encyclopedic article is to be factually accurate, I have no desire to swirl through yes plane/no plane theories or to discuss various plausible or far out hypotheses.

Just facts.

That said; let us get back to the point. I'm stating that the article desperately needs improvement. I'm saying that editors involved cannot ignore unfolding history. These calls for independent investigation are world wide occurrence and there are numerous ways to reference them, here, have a couple more. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-even-i-question-the-truth-about-911-462904.html, http://www.nyc911initiative.org/

Answer to your question of why to include the call for independent investigation into article is simple - because there is one.

Apart from that, I'll reiterate it once again, please be kind and assume good faith, sniping each person that comes into scope will get us nowhere. You've asked me to 'scour the talk pages', so let me share another observation. The way you and other reoccurring editors/administrators are welcoming the new contributors to this forum is hardly acceptable. It's almost like you don't want any decent discussion? Universalsuffrage23:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that these references aren't really sufficient. The first is an opinion column rather than a news piece, and actually "undermines" the claim of widespread support for a new investigation in the opening sentence by saying that in Fisk's lectures - "there is always someone in the audience – just one –" calling for it. Support from just one person in any large audience is hardly widespread. The second reference is a 9/11 ballot initiative site. This is not exactly a reliable source - it is an avowed advocate for a particular point of view.

As I said above, if there were genuine reliable soruces showing such support for a new investigation that it was clearly relevant to an article on the attacks, there might be a place for it in this or a similar article. Even then however it would probably be be no more than a single line or so, at least until (if) an actual investigation occurred and there were findings that added to the sum of human knowledge about the issue. Euryalus01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm yet to discern what a reliable source is, for example I'll have to notice that people here are saying that youtube is not acceptable, despite the fact that a news report is a news report. I find that irrational, if we would have a place to upload news reports here on Wikipedia, just to modernize and visualize or.., evolve the experience, I wonder would a news report from mainstream television then became acceptable? If that would be the case, we could actually http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A show the fall of wtc 7!, or provide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PspAeMdnQ-g free educational lectures or something inane as that.

As for references and space you've mentioned, I do not think it would suffice, we've already seen what the members of commission stated about the report. Well, do tell, what would you find sufficient? Would former Senator Mike Gravel Call suffice? Do you find http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for Democracy now to be a reliable source?

I'd also say we'd need at least one sentence which states that people question 9/11, but perhaps we should discuss that one separately. Any thoughts? Universalsuffrage02:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one sentence. There is an entire sub article for it. We don't need more rubbish. --Tarage09:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you kindly rephrase that argument? Universalsuffrage20:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

When you make a rational one, sure. —Tarage00:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we're talking about calls for independent investigation and you're talking about rubbish. You'll have to draw the line between these two arguments. Are you saying that people who call for independent investigation should be categorized under rubbish? I hope not, but then again, and judged by your conduct so far, it seems possible that you're actually capable of insulting who joined the call. Funny thing is, you do so while you write about rationality. Do stick to the topic and do try a bit harder, will you? Universalsuffrage11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize. You want to add to this article that various people are requesting a new investigation, am I correct? You'll note that we have that already. We even have an entire article devoted to descension of the official report. I don't really know what else you want. If you want stronger wording against the official report however, no. We've been over this argument over and over again in the talk pages and consensus has been reached. One or two new names does not tilt the scales enough. Other than that, you seem to be making the same arguments that have been made over and over again in the talk pages. 'It isn't fair that youtube isn't a reliable source'. 'All of these conspiricy theory webpages should be reliable sources too'. It's the same failed rhetoric that makes me believe you are simply a sock puppet for a banned account.

And just in case you still refuse to see the mention, here it is:

"The commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism.192193"

Now can we move on? Or are you going to come back with yet another irrational argument about why this article is wrong? --Tarage00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're pretty persistent with those conspiracy theories you are. If youtube storage was discussed before, my apologies, but I'll reiterate that calling a news report stored at youtube something other than a news report is a complete logical failure.

Now, do tell, how exactly does the sentence "The commission and its report have been subject to various forms of criticism.192193" translates into "Call for international and independent investigation"? Should end users guess we had it in our minds as we described the 'descent of the report', yet we somehow failed to articulate it properly and clearly in any of the sub articles? It seems to me you're trying to weasel your way out of this one. It's like having a ' Health effects' section without word asbestos in it.

If you had a consensus before its just been called into question, so you'll have to build it again, with arguments, not insults. As for wording, the Commission report was 'set up to fail'. Therefore, the report is a failure.

We should state facts, not omit them. Universalsuffrage04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Youtube has never been a reliable source. If you have a problem with that, take it up in the appropriate place. The appropriate place is not here. If you would look at the sentence in the article, you would see it contains a link to an entire article based on what you are talking about. Hence, as I keep saying, "'WE DO NOT NEED IT HERE"'. As I also said, the addition of one or two new people to the 'We need a new investigation' camp is NOT enough to tip the scales in favor of change. I have no need to prove anything to someone who refuses to read the archives. Just because YOU think the report is a failure does NOT make it a failure. Keep your soapboxing to yourself. We are stating what reliable sources state. That is what Wikipedia is for. If you can't understand that, please reevaluate your stay here, or you may find your editing capabilities diminished. Understand? --Tarage05:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Let me know if this is correct - it is your view there is widespread support for a new 9/11 investigation, including statements to that effect from a variety of people including a brief remark by Sarah Palin. Should this be the case, it is your view that it deserves a mention in this article, and that the existing mention saying the 9/11 Commission has been criticised, is too brief and too vague.

If I've got that wrong, my apologies. But if it is an accurate paraphrasing, a couple of points:

There are still too few verifiable sources for the claim there are widespread calls for a new investigation. Some opinion columns, a couple of petitions, lobby group websites and a passing remark by Governor Palin are simply not enough. Some of these sources fail the verifiability guideline, and the others collectively form a synthesis - statements by multiple sources which are used to support a claim not made by any of them. Palin did not say "there is widespread support for a new investigation". The Fisk column specifically states there is "not" widespread support for a new investigation. You're making an important claim and it needs strong sourcing - can you find something from (say) the NY Times or similar clearly stating there is widespread support (by who? the public? legislators?) for a new investigation, and why?

Secondly, this article is about the 9/11 "attacks", and covers the Commission only briefly. It's appropriate to mention criticisms of the investigation but only in a very brief manner to avoid giving undue weight to something peripheral to the subject of the article. The investigation is outlined in detail at 9/11 Commission and criticisms of it at Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Should there be sufficient verifiable sources for a claim there are widespread calls for a new investigation, these should probably at one or both of those articles, which are specifically about that topic.

Thirdly, my apologies if I'm misinterpreting you but it appears there is an element of advocacy in your comments. I appreciate you think there were serious flaws in the 9/11 investigation, and it was 'set up to fail'. But its not your or my views that matter, its what's verifiable in independent reliable sources.

These are just some longwinded thoughts. Other views welcome. Euryalus05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you for articulating what I have been trying to say all along. Hopefully with this, x Universalsuffrage will finally get the message. --Tarage06:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are correct Euryalus and you are some fine sort of interpreter if one may add.

I'll add some more sources

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3626100,00.html Filmmaker Urges International Tribunal to Probe 9/11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/27/books.featuresreview Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11

http://seattlepi.com/opinion/349987_commissioned.html 9/11 Commission: Fox in hen house

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080617zg.html Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=8008 9/11 widows call for new investigation after revelations of White House, commission ties

I'm interested; and apologies if I misinterpreted, but you've stated that Commission report is peripheral to the article? If that is the case, I'd disagree. The actions of the administration with regards to the Commission and all revelations which followed are more than significant. However, after you've pointed out the rant, I'll try to avoid one, as well as any unnecessary digressions. Well, one step at the time, I'd appreciate your input after reviving references provided. Other views are more than welcome too. Universalsuffrage15:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and for the additional links. I agree the Report and objections to it are an important part of the 9/11 issue as a whole, but they are peripheral to "this" article which focuses specifically on the attacks. There are other articles which focus on the Report itself, such as 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commission Report and Critism of the 9/11 Commission. Extensive detail on the Report contents or criticisms are better placed there than here.

The additional links still don't justify a sentence such as "there is widespread support for a new investigation". What we need is reliable sources specifically saying there is widespread support, backed up by (say) polling data. What we have are sources showing a number of individuals and groups want a new investigation, but grouping these together as "supporter+supporter+supporter = widespread support" is a synthesis. There could even be near-unanimous support for a new investigation but without reliable independent sources specifically confirming that claim we shouldn't mention it in the article. As others have said in the archives, Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth.

Noting all of the above, you "have" put together a pretty good list of sources showing there are criticisms of the Report, and that there are at least some calls for a new investigation. Could I suggest we move this conversation to the talk pages for one of the above articles, and see if we can get consensus on a set of words for inclusion there? I wouldn't support a "widespread support" claim based on these refs, but there's room to include text noting that some 9/11 families, some legislators, some columnists support such a thing, and let readers make up their own minds whether that is widespread or otherwise. Euryalus01:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We can easily do what you've wrote above, but we can also have it widespread too, here, where it should be in the first place. I'm open to the discussion and if you'll still be for omitting these facts after the following reference, we'll take it there. Not sure about the reasoning though, because there are other, should one say non-conspiratorial issues which are omitted from this article. Either way, here's the poll.

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231 Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated

47 %

Reinvestigate the attacks

45 %

Not sure

8 %

Universalsuffrage

16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We have several (too many) articles on the 911 conspiracy theories. It's not appropriate to further enlarge upon them here. There's a notice at the top of this talk page that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. It may be necessary to seek arbitration enforcement at some point. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a similar notice at , incidentally, so don't worry about that.

I think the consensus of other editors is clear enough - and in agreement with the Summary style guideline - that this material belongs in a different article (or articles). Since further discussion isn't likely to result in any improvement to this article, then per TALK I think it may be time to close this particular thread. SheffieldSteel SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll close this thread. AdjustShift16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

To all who have struggled against a tide of persistent insanity and inanity to keep this article free of conspiracy nuttery. For me it's too close to help (I saw the second plane hit and watched them fall from right across the river) but it is appreciated!--Fuhghettaboutit23:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Many editors have done their best to keep our 9/11 article free of conspiracy nuttery. AdjustShift16:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that user x Fuhghettaboutit is a sock puppet of an notorious conspiracy theorist and I'm requesting investigation too. Universalsuffrage18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to look. As an administrator here with 31,000+ edits, I just wonder where I'd have found the time. I'm not quite sure how my anti-conspiracy message above fits with your unsupported accusation. I guess it could be a feint on my part; you know, I'm hiding my true conspiracy leanings behind a facade of attacking my actual beliefs for some future purpose, and this very message is a further dodge, constructed to lead you down the garden path while I continue to hatch my theories in secret to take over the encyclopedia (and tomorrow, the world!). Okay. I'm amusing myself too much. Thanks for the message.--Fuhghettaboutit01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

x Fuhghettaboutit is an admin, not a sock. RRR_User:Universalsuffrage_RRR Universalsuffrage, please stop disrupting this page. AdjustShift13:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

motive???

the Koran does NOT say kill americans where you see them? 1. Americans wheren't about at the time of the koran and islam is based on equality, killing innocent people is viewed as cowardice and will send you to hell (yess terroists WILL be sent to hell in islam terms) —Preceding 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The article doesn't say the Koran says these things, it says the 1998 fatwa does. The quote attributed to the Koran is "slay the pagans wherever ye find them", which is from Koran 9:5 though out of context the way al-Qaeda are using it. The quote about Americans is attributed to the fatwa authors not the Koran. I've changed the sentence slightly to make it clearer the quotes are not from the same source. Euryalus12:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=248983017oldid=248902200 This edit makes the sentence clearer. AdjustShift17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Taboo

I'll need a clarification on these last actions, as swift as they were.

I'd like a clear and concise explanation on why have you closed the thread without any decent argument whatsoever and a clear pointer on what have I done to provoke these talks about arbitration enforcement? I have strong doubts that arbitrators would allow this sort of action, because it is actually a ban on discussion and one can hardly have a consensus without discussion.

In other words, instead of democracy we have some weird sort of fascism rampaging in here, at least in my experience.

As Peter stated above, we don't need a conspiracy to recognize well referenced call for independent investigation. I was about to take upon recommendation from Euryalus, but some folks just couldn’t wait, now could they? Well, since this was the course you've taken, let me ask you a question Tom. Do tell, how long are you editing here, I remember you from, dear, it was more than a few years ago, you were quick to impose bans at decent folk back then too, no questions asked it was.

This is one lengthy farce, I wonder what are you folks thinking, do you think you can keep this article locked forever?

Do you think that next memorial will not bring another tide, haven’t you noticed that this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0 tsunamis are getting bigger and bigger each and every year?

How exactly can a group of rogue editors enjoy such lengthy hegemony here? Universalsuffrage17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

see|NOTDEMOCRACY — Arthur Rubin18:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"I remember you from, dear, it was more than a few years ago, you were quick to impose bans at decent folk back then too, no questions asked it was." I am once again requesting an investigation into x Universalsuffrage for sock puppetry. This type of statement does not come from a new editor, yet the account is. --Tarage18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not fascism either, should I go there and write another of those "terrible ideas"?

What are you saying Tarage, that people don’t follow these talks without participation? Universalsuffrage18:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Methinks the lady voter doth protest too much. There is no repression going on here. If you read the closing comments, you'll see that the line of discussion you were following isn't leading towards any conceivable improvement to this article, and you'll also see a link to the talk page guidelines, explaining why unproductive discussions are likely to be closed. Now, depending on exactly what you want to say, and what sources your proposed material cites, you might be able to add it to any one of a number of articles, e.g.9/11 conspiracy theories or 9/11 Commission Report. There are many articles linked from the templates at the foot of the article page; I suggest you start there. SheffieldSteel SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Repression, censorship, factual inaccuracy, call it as you will… so you're suggesting bottom up approach? Why not. Universalsuffrage19:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bottom up nothing, we're flat out telling you it doesn't belong here. You refuse to listen to this, and cry fowl. Heck, I'm surprised I haven't seen a legal threat yet. Yes, one can watch talk pages for a long time, but I am referring to the whole. Wikipedia is a strange beast, and you seem to have a far stronger grasp of it than most new users, yet don't grasp concepts of how it works. Whatever, I'm apparently the only one interested in investigating your history, so I'll drop it. I suggest you do the same in regards to your quest to make this outlandish edit. --Tarage23:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your disputes are, this issue is one of millions of particular facets of information, keep things in perspective. x Tarage is correct, 9/11 conspiracy theories or 9/11 Commission Report are the best places for such information. Need I mention the fact that conspiracy theories and whatnot directly correlate with the subjects dramatic pubic perception? Separate known fact from fiction. Nick carson06:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll close this thread. There are editors who are trying to get our 9/11 article to FA, and this discussion is not helping the article. AdjustShift09:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to the multimedia links

Just the facts seen through the eyes of a FDNY FF. http://soundvisions.blip.tv/1287230 "A Survivors Story" - Short film about Billy Green, Engine 6, FDNY. Soundvisions112:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary - advance knowledge debate

You've asked for discussion SheffieldSteel, what would make that summary more neutral? Universalsuffrage20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not considered neutral by rational people? — Arthur Rubin21:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No Arthur, what would make http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=250477531oldid=250313038 that summary more neutral. Universalsuffrage21:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if it belonged here, it's the wrong section of September 11 attacks. Misspelled Bin Laden's name (if the error is in the BBC or the briefing title is unclear, but it discredits the report either way). Ignores the more precise Clinton briefing (title) from 1998.

Probably belongs only in the "advance knowledge debate" article. — Arthur Rubin21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We can add Clinton too; I have no problems with that, as per nomenclature, agencies have their ways, al qida and all that, we can change that easily if you find it distracting.. Where do you think it belongs? There is not a single word about warnings in this article, yet there were many. Perhaps we should create a section? We can reference the whole lot. Universalsuffrage22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading the source, I felt that the edit did not represent, fairly and without bias, the views expressed in the source. If this information is to be added, it should be at the very least compliant with NPOV. I didn't think that the context in which it had been placed allowed for that, so I removed it. SheffieldSteel SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That and similarly tendentious editis may indicate a misunderstanding of core policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Ricediff=250507332oldid=250467751. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing tendentious in that edit; we can have a separate discussion at appropriate location if you're having trouble with that reference there. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the old reference was lacking some facts. Universalsuffrage23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Would appreciate if you could share a bit more about your concerns, just to see if we can make this information more in line with those guidelines. I was merely following Summary style you've pointed to earlier. Universalsuffrage22:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's not easy with these issues, to share a thought, for example, we could link it directly to August 6 PDB article and it would stand firm with the formulation you've removed; then again, Arthur thinks we would be more neutral if we reference the broader context, whether we talk about the continuity or quantity of intelligence warnings, it would be nice to have some more opinions on the issues at stake. Universalsuffrage22:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The source contains a great deal of background information about the president's daily brief. Here's the immediate context of the material that was added to the article:-

cquote|But note the caveats: reports do not "tell", they merely "suggest".

Perhaps the most infamous PDB also concerns al-Qaeda. It went to President Bush on 6 August, 2001 - just over a month before the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington.

It contained the headline: "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US".

It reads: "FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

Extraordinarily prescient? Or vague and unhelpful?

I just don't see how "On 6 August 2001, president Bush received The President's Daily Brief with title "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US"." can be considered a fair and neutral representation of the views contained in the source. SheffieldSteel SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained I've acted upon summary guideline; well, we'll have to ditch the views then. Universalsuffrage23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Still the wrong section of September 11 attacks, and should clearly "only" relate to "advance knowledge" questions. Perhaps it could be listed under the "advanced knowledge" section of September 11 attacks, but it doesn't seem an unbiased interpretation of the BBC article. — Arthur Rubin23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind clarifications Arthur, I'd agree with you, it should go under the "advance knowledge". Universalsuffrage00:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So where are we with this one, can we start work on the section or what? Universalsuffrage04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it known that passengers were actually ''killed'' with boxcutters when there are no witnesses?

See subject. I propose that be removed. It is only known that the terrorists were threatening people with these knives. —Preceding 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We know because there were calls from the planes - a point that is made clear in the article and in the attached reference.http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf. The relevant pages in the reference are p6 (Flight 11), page 7 (flight 175) and pp13-15(Flight 93). Page 8 for calls from Flight 77, which indicates there were threats but is not conlusive on whether they were carried out. The issue is also covered in much more detail at the pages for each flight (for example American Airlines Flight 11) along with extensive additional references. Euryalus23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, the evidence exhibited during Zacarias Moussaoui trial showed that some of the alleged calls never took place, they've showed beyond reasonable doubt that US Solicitor General lied about receiving call from his wife. Should we reference it? No? It belongs to the reptilian editors section? Well, that's a bummer. Universalsuffrage09:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

People believe that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks because there many evidences that points to al-Qaeda. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your conspiracy theories. AdjustShift13:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were done with us, and Wikipedia. A I suspected, you simply can't keep away. Regardless, we have plenty of reliable sources, including the one cited above, to back up what the article says. Once again, if you have a problem with this, bring some reliable sources to the table or walk away again please. I will not allow this to turn into another month long ordeal because you don't understand how Wikipedia works. --Tarage18:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated at my talkpage, where I've contested the block you chumps imposed on me because of stating a fact, evidence which anyone can download from http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html U.S.D.C. in Eastern District of Virginia shows beyond reasonable doubt that http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/lkl.00.html US Solicitor General lied (perhaps he was tricked!) about receiving phone call from his wife. Those who have trouble to download exhibits from Zacarias Moussaoui trial can look at the mirror of the evidence provided http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/exhibit/BarbaraOlson.png here. That said, we should have no problems referencing data from U.S. District Courts, or do you find such source to be unreliable? I've noticed that reference is already accepted at related article. Universalsuffrage23:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You have just dodged your ban. Hope you enjoy your longer one...--Tarage23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is brilliant, as ever. Universalsuffrage23:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I miss-read the time of the ban. My mistake. Please excuse my derailment of the discussion. However, I do believe that while you are citing a reliable source, you are using your own research. The first link says nothing other than the evidence exists, but says nothing about what it says. The second link is a transcript of an interview with one person. One person is not enough to overlap all of the other sources that say the events occurred as they did. Unless you can accumulate a mountain of reliable sources, I emphasize the word 'reliable', then your argument is rejected. --Tarage00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind way in which you've replied, but you are making wrong assumptions. Firstly, there is no research involved whatsoever, I've pointed to a simple fact. Secondly, there is no second reference; it's just a mirrored excerpt from the first one so that people wouldn’t waste their time. One cannot misinterpret the evidence no matter how hard he tries. Finally, if we have some redundant or historically insignificant sources which are factually inaccurate, and you're saying we have those, then (to use your terminology) such sources are rejected. Universalsuffrage00:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, on Wikipedia, something is never a 'fact' without reliable sources. Once again, your source states the evidence exists, but says nothing about it. We are not here to sift through evidence on our own. That is personal research. We build articles from reliable sources. You can present all the evidence you want and it doesn't matter if it doesn't come in the form of reliable sources. I don't know how else to explain this. And finally, you alone are not the final word on what is and is not a reliable source. We have guidelines that have been followed. http://911research.wtc7.net is not a reliable source no matter how hard you want to believe it is, because Wikipedia guidelines state it isn't. Please go review the three pillars again, because you are missing some key points again and again and again. --Tarage00:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your temper, take your time and read what's been written, url you've pointed to is nothing but the mirror. It's pointless to point it out, since you've already accepted reliability of the original source. Universalsuffrage00:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)For some reason neither the Moussaoui link nor the mirror site will open on this PC. However, there were multiple calls from the planes and even if any one call had some doubt cast upon it, that does not invalidate the others. Also, in general court testimony references only that the person giving the testimony said particular things, not that those things are or are not true. It would appear there is consensus on the calls, and on the attacks on passengers on at least three of ther planes. I'm not sure what can be gained from continued discussion on this point, in the absence of references casting doubt on "all" the calls, sufficient to outweight the sources supporting their existence and contents. Euryalus00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about thetechnical difficulties you're experiencing but the link your PC fails to open says otherwise. Universalsuffrage00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It only says the following:

"Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11

Download this exhibit. It is a Flash presentation contained in a ZIP file.

This is a 27 MB set of files and may take several minutes to download"

Thats all. It doesn't say anything either way. It is simply evidence. x Universalsuffrage is attempting to introduce original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. --Tarage00:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For those with technical difficulties, the graphic evidence in exhibits shows that no call was made between Barbara Olson and her husband. It cannot be misinterpreted and the evidence is provided by US Department of Justice. It's a fact. Universalsuffrage00:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarbaraOlson.png here Universalsuffrage01:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The image you've linked to doesn't appear to have any relevance to your claim. It certainly has no relevance to any of the other calls made by people other than Ms Olsen. So we're where we started - there are multiple sources indicating calls from the planes and no clear sources refuting them. I would think therefore this discussion has reached a natural end. Euryalus01:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What is my claim? I'd appreciate clarification, just to see if you had understood my claim in first place. Thanks. Universalsuffrage01:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)x Universalsuffrage 01:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That Olsen did not make a call to her husband, and by extrapolation that if there are doubts about the Olsen call it is arguable there could be doubts about the others. Euryalus01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought so, thanks. I'll restate my original claim.

"'US Solicitor General lied about receiving the call from his wife."'

I have no interest in other alleged calls and it is not my intention to extrapolate anything or to indulge into futile discussion about conspiracy theories. The only person whose post here was close to my perspective on these things was made by Peter Grey.

I'm not sure if you can recall it, but it was very emotional moment and I remember it well.

Would you agree that such outrageous falsehood deserves a space in this or one of related articles? Universalsuffrage01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

And according to the Moussaoui presentation, there were four calls connected from Flight 77 to unknown numbers. Those could be Barbara Olson's calls? Drawing conclusions from the presentation that her calls did not happen is original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If your theory had any merit, it would have been covered by newspapers or other reliable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources regarding Olson's calls and none saying that her calls did not occur. --Aude01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

:Image:Aa77unknowncalls.png - here are the four calls. --Aude01:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're making ad hominem argument Aude and you're exercising what is called original research and synthesis. Universalsuffrage01:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources for your claim? Using the Moussaoui exhibit to source Barbara Olson would be original research, but citing the http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f00e7db1238f931a2575ac0a9679c8b63 New York Times and other such reliable sources regarding details of Olson's calls are okay. --Aude01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The original research was made by US Department of Justice; exhibit is a secondary source which is already accepted as such elsewhere on Wikipedia. Universalsuffrage01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The presentation does not clarify anything about the unknown calls. It does not rule out that she made calls. You are drawing original conclusions that don't appear in any reliable sources, such as the New York Times. --Aude02:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)\

Aude, I'm honestly not sure why would you point to the historically insignificant article which has nothing to do with the discussion we have here. Those fellows at NYT couldn’t know that Mr. Olsen lied at the time. Again, please, do not use original research and synthesis nor ad hominem arguments, the call related to Barbara Olson is known and there was "no connection". There is no need for rush, editors involved should think things through before making a comment. Thanks. Universalsuffrage02:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Moussaoui presentation is inconclusive, regarding Olson and the unknown calls. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/06/lklw.00.html Barbara Olson Remembered - Larry King/CNN (January 6, 2002) This CNN source is acceptable as a reliable source. I'm still waiting for reliable sources for your claim. --Aude02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, please be aware of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy, regarding "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons." This applies even to article talk pages, and your claims about Ted Olson. --Aude02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

But I've asked you kindly and repeatedly. OK, could you kindly clarify what you mean by inconclusive? Let's do this in purely logical terms, Barbara Olson call is known, unknown calls are unknown. Is there a syllogism for whatever you're trying to pull? Universalsuffrage02:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Barbara Olson's calls (plural) are known http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/06/lklw.00.html http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9f00e7db1238f931a2575ac0a9679c8b63 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf --Aude02:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are known, and there was "'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarbaraOlson.png NO CONNECTION"'. Universalsuffrage02:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who are puzzled by Aude's plural, the only person who stated there was more than one phone call made by Barbara Olson is Mr. Ted Olson. Universalsuffrage03:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times, CNN, and other reliable sources accept and report what Mr. Olson said. I have added a few more reliable sources to the article, which are acceptable for Wikipedia, but your interpretation of the Moussaoui presentation is not acceptable. It has not been reported by secondary, reliable sources. There is nothing more for me to discuss regarding Barbara Olson's calls. --Aude03:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered about you Aude, you are by far the most notable of single-minded editors who are able to work here with no oversight and no sanction whatsoever. If there is a single person responsible for poor state of this article it would be you. I can recall numerous instances in which you've acted against consensus or you've deliberately and without any discussion broke consensus which was established on this very talkpage that is dealing with heavily disputed and unacceptably biased article that few may edit.

It is good thing we keep things on record, because while I'm not sure how exactly you manage to keep your editing privileges in spite of such unacceptable conduct (not to say, that you didn’t bode well in this instance), I'm pretty sure we'll learn that soon enough.

Well, I could reiterate that each and every source you've pointed are historically insignificant to the discussion at hand and move on with it, but as stated elsewhere, I'm actually not interested in this Olson venue at all. There is too much fodder floating around the issue, although the basics are as simple as rock solid fact. It was interesting exchange though and you have my sincerest regards. Universalsuffrage04:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do hope you enjoy your topic ban, if you haven't been banned already. This type of soap boxing is completely unacceptable. Get out. --Tarage04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's unacceptable, but I'm sure it's more than relevant. I'm out! ; ) Universalsuffrage04:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I second the topic ban (if it already hasn't been fully ratified). Please stop. Ohnoitsjamie OhNoitsJamie 04:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Universalsuffrage certainly is not a new editor. I am quite sure he is already subject to a topic ban or a community ban on a previous account. --Aude04:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to say 'I told you so', but I have been calling for a sock puppetry investigation from the start. --Tarage04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you can help by posting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentsUniversalsuffrage —Preceding ) 04:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Universalsuffrage has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logtype=blockpage=User%3AUniversalsuffrage AdjustShift17:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wohaa, I had never realized how people could fight for that, I mean with the common purpose of increasing available knowledge (that is, being in the same tribe). Twipley22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Motive

"After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ---- service."

This is a part of the CIA memo displayed on this page, but isn't mentioned in the motive section. 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please edit the following...

I was trying to find the cost of the 9/11 that the general public is paying in terms of higher cost and time. I wanted to add the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/sep/05/september112001.usnews and also the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2008_Mumbai_attacks as I feel that they seem to be related.

""'ATTENTION: Raj.agrawal""'

This is a "tilde" == ~ ==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest06:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What's currently written:

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

To be legally accurate it must read:

The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks "'allegedly"' by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

Rationale: 1.al-Qaeda as an organization has never been indicted

2. Osama Bin Laden was indicted ONLY "for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania."

Sources: Wikipedia The 2nd source below correctly states "alleged" as this entry should also.

1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Q%27aeda

2. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_ladenCriminal_charges)

No, Bin Laden and others have admitted their role in the attacks. Rx StrangeLove RxS 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't true. Before his widely-reported death in 2001, Bin Laden denied involvement and criticized the attacks. After his reported death a so-called "confession" video surfaced under ... "convenient" circumstances in which a confession is "implied," but only in the particular English translation used by the U.S. government, and then only in sentences which other translators said are simply not present in the original Arabic tape. Anything after that date is clearly fraudulent. Can you say Emmanuel Goldstein?

Wowest

09:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what certain segments of the political universe would like you to believe but in truth there's plenty of evidence for my statement. Example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/04/alqaida.terrorism. Just another conspiracy theory spin nothing more. Rx StrangeLove RxS 17:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also plenty of evidence for my statement, RxS. Evidence is not proof. It is merely evidence. -- Who am I to believe? You or Benazir Bhutto? Yes. There are actual confessions of several other people who either wanted to be considered as martyrs or to please their captors so that the torture would stop. What's-his-name, the "twentieth hijacker" was very interested in being thought a martyr. He also appears to be extremely mentally ill and to be quite a remarkable patsy. An FBI supervisor managed to keep the man's laptop from being examined until "'after"' 9/11 despite the field agent's request for a search warrant. Another terrorist "confessed" to meeting with Bin Laden and a third person at a time when US authorities had that third person in custody. Some of the victims of our "not torture" have been so damaged by their punishment without trial that they will never be competent to stand trial. It's nauseating. Wowest00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop the soapboxing or I will call for an admin intervention. This is your only warning. --Tarage10:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why we don't listen to you or take what you say seriously. --Tarage11:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase the words of the late Benjamin Weininger, M.D., PhD, it is only my responsibility to tell the truth, not to be believed. Have you ever considered the resemblance of your style of argument to that of some of the policemen in the film "'The Terminator"'? But then, we have to consider the adage "truth is stranger than fiction." Personally, I am presently content with being very, very strange. Wowest00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can back up your 'stranger than fiction' fiction with reliable sources, don't bring it here. You are soapboxing, and I should NOT have to remind you again that Wikipedia is NOT a forum. --Tarage10:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, why was the name of the editor who made the "'allegedly"' suggestion, here, deleted, gentlemen? Hello, "'Mokeyboy"'. Please consider yourself to be acknowledged for your contribution to Wikipedia. I'm not going to change the article myself, but "legally," he is correct. We wouldn't want any of these dead people to sue us for defamation, but, seriously, it's unencyclopaedic to merely repeat unproven allegations without attribution. Adding "'allegedly"' would improve the article, but I'm neither going to change it myself nor demand that it be changed. Regarding OBL, though, if he's alive, it's a BLP violation whether you like him or not. Is he alive or dead?

Wowest

00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to in regards to the name deletion, as I am not an admin. However, if you think for one second I will allow you to make the same trite rehashed and ultimately rejected arguments again, you are sadly mistaken. Unless you can come up with NEW reliable sources to back up your soapboxing, I will ask you to leave. Fail to do so, and I will ask for a topic ban. I am not the only one who has had enough of your antics. --Tarage10:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. -- I have a new assumption about the name deletion:

""'ATTENTION: MOKEYBOY""'

This is a "tilde" == ~ ==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now....

Back to Mokeyboy's suggestion

"The following discussion is preserved as an archive. "'Please do not modify it."' Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."

Mokeyboy suggested that the word "allegedly" should be added to the accusation that any given person had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. I agree. Bin Laden is either alive or dead. I don't think he's a zombie. If he's alive, then accusing him of a crime of which he has neither been convicted nor even indicted is a violation of BLP. RxS's article, while interesting, merely refers to other people, not OBL. I'd certainly make an exception if the statement is properly sourced, but I'm not going to change the article myself. As a matter of personal choice, I no longer edit 9/11 articles; I merely comment on them.

Who said anything about Bin Laden? The article mentions al-Qaeda. The "other people" you refer to are al-Qaeda leaders who planned the attack....so you know, there's that. Experts working in their fields and reliable sources back up the phrasing, your objections are unfounded. Rx StrangeLove RxS 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You did, actually!

"No, Bin Laden and others have admitted their role in the attacks. RxS (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)"

Actually, that's a rather interesting article. I just don't know what to think of it, yet. If you don't mind, I'll make any further comments about it on your talk page to avoid upsetting Tarage. Wowest08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"'and others"'....The text says al-Qaeda and I backed it up with leaders of that group admitting responsibility. The rest is just tap dancing on your part. I know you know how Wikipedia works, so I have to assume you're just here to disrupt. Rx StrangeLove RxS 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The following was a response to "'Tarage's "'previous rant (10:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)), before he moved things around to make them more confusing:

Meanwhile, your last post is a violation of CIVIL. "Antics?" Give me a break. This is supposed to be a cooperative effort, isn't it? You could try to get along with people who have other widely-held opinions that happen to differ from your own. Do I accuse you of "antics?" Wowest 07:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You have been told repeatedly that unless you bring new reliable sources to the table, your argument has, and previously was, rejected. Continue to discuss this subject without reliable sources will be considered soap boxing, and will be reported with the intent of a topic ban. I will not say this again. --Tarage05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Wowest , you should have understood that since the arbcom has allowed discretionary sanctions you actually cannot freely discuss about the article in this page as you would for other ones: whatever you say could be at any moment labelled by any administrator to be soapboxing/stonewalling/etc... and he will be free to ban you without any possible appeal as already happened. So I suggest to stop pretending to be free to talk about this article while these very very "special" rules continue to be effective.--Pokipsy76 pokipsy76 09:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee," says the link at the top of this page, titled "Dicretionary sanctions." Also, only uninvloved administrators can act. Otherwise I myself would have long since banned several people. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Appeals exist only in principle, in practice User:Thomas Basboll (the only one who tried) couldn't appeal in any way. Involved admins in principle couldn't ban but actually they did without experiencing any problem, so they probably will be able also in the future.--Pokipsy76 pokipsy76 14:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but they have been very 'effective' at stopping needless bickering. I would like to ask, since you appear to be an expert on what is and is not 'soapboxing/stonewalling/etc...', why we should pay any head to someone who has yet to post ONE reliable source like I have continued to ask? If you have a problem with Wikipedia or Wikipedian policy, take it up in the appropriate place. Not here. Understand? --Tarage18:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough with this silliness. Quit wasting our time. Ice Cold Beer23:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"The above discussion is preserved as an archive. "'Please do not modify it."' Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."

Misinterpretation of CIA Memo?

The current caption of the excerpt of the CIA President's Daily Brief ("Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US") says "Exerpts sic from a previously classified memo from the CIA warning for sic a possible terrorist attack by Bin Laden using a hijacked airplane, dated August 2001." However, the excerpt only says "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a redacted service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists." There is nothing in this excerpt that suggests Bin Ladin wanted to implement a "terrorist attack . . . using a hijacked airplane," which to me implies using the airplane as a weapon. The CIA brief may have been raising only the possibility of hijacking a plane and taking hostages to secure the release of prisoners, as was common in the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the intelligence reporting was several years old and uncorroborated at the time the brief was written. If the foreign intelligence reporting was about a hijacking for the purpose of taking hostages to force a release of prisoners, then I suppose that the reporting was wrong, because Bin Ladin never did that. Perhaps he planned it and did not execute it, but there's no evidence of that. Ketone1619:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the caption. Ketone1615:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral reporting.

As I read this article, I was surprised at how lopsided the reporting is. Much of the official 911 story is treated as fact, when there is growing doubt surrounding the official story. I read the discussion page here and i notice that there is a lot of debate over conspiracy theories and what constitutes a reliable source. I just have to wiegh in and say, that when a CNN poll reports that 84% of people believe that there is a government coverup, suddenly all those news headlines in the associated press are called into question... and all the newspapers who carry those headlines, are no longer reliable sources. I just think this article needs to be less biased and use more phrases such as...'it is believed' or 'It was reported that'. Yourliver06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archive to see why we don't include such language. Ice Cold Beer06:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia Article Policies: Neutral point of View. Yourliver —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC).

I'm aware of the policy. Have you read the undue weight portion of that particular policy? Ice Cold Beer08:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

84% Yourliver08:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight refers to reporting by reliable sources. I have yet to see such a source accept any conspiracy theory. Additionally, the ability of conspiracy theorists to flood a CNN poll and distort the results isn't evidence of anything, except that conspiracy theorists have nothing better to do. Ice Cold Beer08:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that CNN is giving me information from unreliable sources? Yourliver08:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. By the way, a link to this poll would be helpful. Ice Cold Beer08:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yourliver may be referring to a November 10, 2005 CNN.com "QuickVote" where 89% of the respondents answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" The CNN.com QuickVote feature does not really constitute a "poll" as Yourliver claims. Respondents come from the CNN.com worldwide reader base (not from a random sample of the population), no record is kept of how many readers choose not to respond, and multiple voting is not prohibited. Ketone1602:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I will point out that the CNN.com question about there being a government cover-up does not specify what the cover-up is. Perhaps some of the responders believe that al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and the government didn't intentionally let it happen or make it happen, but they also believe that there is a cover-up regarding unintentional errors made within the government (by the CIA, NSC, NORAD, etc.) that could have allowed 9/11 to happen. It's hard to know what people were thinking when responding to that question (if they were thinking at all). It's better to ask a specific question abut a specific theory in a scientific poll that randomly samples the population. Ketone1613:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yourliver, you don't understand the meaning of "reliable." Just because some reliable news outlet conducts a poll of laymen (unreliable sources, on average), that doesn't make the result of the poll reliable information. Polls of the general population are generally inaccurate as sources of fact (as opposed to opinion) because the general population is generally ignorant. In 2003 about 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks, according to a Washington Post poll. Does that make it true? Which is it: 9/11 was a U.S. government cover-up, or it was an Iraq-sponsored operation? Or was it both? Ketone1602:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself. --Tarage08:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Investigations: Here it says that the heat from the fire made the twin towers collapse (the official version). Fire can't be the reason why the buildings collapsed. And besides, if it had melted, the towers wouldn't collapse straight (symetrical) down. It would have chosen the path of least resistance (asymetrical). I am missing eye witness reports. Several say they heard explosions on September 11. http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm , http://www.911rippleeffect.com/ MandreasW00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are not acceptable sources. Please do not attempt to inject anything unless you have a reliable source to back it up. For future reference, propaganda web pages don't count for reliable sources. --Tarage01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Canada Left Out?

Aircraft already in flight were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico.

I think this statement is very condescending. The USA cannot "redirect" flights to Canada or any other sovereign nation. The USA decided to not allow flights already in the air to land anywhere in the USA and Canada kindly allowed these aircraft to land on our territory. Of the 40,000 international travelers that were diverted to Canadian airports, about 6,600 of them landed at Gander Newfoundland, a town of about 9,500 residents.

If these airplanes were dangerous to USA cities, why wasn't it dangerous for them to land in Canada? Thousands of people slept in private Canadian's homes, some for a few days.

Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.

This passage later in the article seems alright BUT under the section "International Response", Canada is referenced along with Zimbabwe. Does this represent what really happened?

Numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaeda ties.

24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.

A rumor that the hijackers came into the USA through Canada or that they had some connection to Canada has persisted to this day. Just recently this non-truth was stated by the current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Congressmen and Senators have had to apologize and retract their statements for repeating this fallacy. The 9/11 commission and all other investigations have categorically agreed that none of the 19 hijackers came through Canada or had any connection to Canada what-so-ever.

"For days after 11 September, Canadians came to the aid of men and women and children who were worried and confused and had nowhere to sleep."

"That emergency revealed the good and generous heart of this country, and showed the true feelings of Canadians and Americans toward each other."

These above comments were from President Bush to the Canadian people December 1, 2004.

Canada's response to the 9/11 disaster are unlike any other countries' response and this article should clearly show that.

David F. Clark

22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does not suggest that the US held a gun to Canada's head and told it to take US flights. The rest of your points contain minutiae unfit for inclusion. Ice Cold Beer05:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the level of detail for this article is appropriate. (Maybe "national response" should be "national and international response" - besides the air traffic, there were security/military alerts in many parts of the world.) Perhaps one of the sub-articles would better address these points. Peter Grey06:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to the above 2 comments I will summarize what is wrong with the article.

The myth that the terrorists had any connection to Canada is clearly wrong and should be stated as such.

The generosity of Canada in taking in the flights, denied landing rights to the USA in the middle of the crisis, should be stated up front.

No other country assisted even close to what Canada did and that should be made clear.

When people help others, decent people say thank you, they don't spread rumors that Canada was somehow at fault.

Both of the above comments don't respond to my complaint at all. Relevant comments are appreciated.

David F. Clark

00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns with regard to the wording stating that U.S. authorities "redirected" flights to airports in Canada. Possible alternatives would probably include "U.S. authorities cooperated with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts to redirect planes ...", or something more specific if there was a notable lack of coordination. I don't yet know any precise wording of the proposed changes or additions, so I can't comment on whether it would be too detailed or not. As an encyclopedia does not reflect the standpoint of any single individual or organization, it is not the place for the U.S. to say thank you (even if this would be the U.S. Wiki, not the English Wiki).

With regard to the list of countries that are mentioned in the article as having introduced "anti-terror" legislation, the list probably (a) is not being updated regularly, and (b) does not include countries like Russia, who have also called some of their legislation "anti-terrorist", as far as I remember. I also very much doubt that a significant percentage of users who read this article would click on the link to Uganda, or Germany, for that matter, to learn more about what is going on in these places. It's also an example of the pervasive overlinking present in the article. --Cs32en01:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments.

However, it was Canada not Mexico that allowed hundreds of planes and thousands of passangers to land during this crisis. My comment about having Canada mentioned in the same sentence as Zimbabwe doesn't mean that that sentence wasn't accurate. That sentence was in the section "International Response" and I would think that what Canada did, deserves a prominent place in this section.

I agree that the wording shouldn't say "thank you" to Canada for what they did but it is hard for me to see why the significant gesture that Canada made (unlike all other countries in the world) doesn't deserve more mention. This article is after all about the 9/11 incident and Canada's contribution should have been mentioned more prominently.

I would suggest the following as the first paragraph in this section called "International Response".

As the crisis of 9/11 was unfolding and the United States refused to allow foreign inbound aircraft to land on US soil, Canada generously agreed to have 226 international flights land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way.

David F. Clark

04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The notability of the issue you raise can be shown by a recent CBC news item http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/24/mccain-border-canada-911.html. I agree that Canada should be given more weight than Mexico (or Germany, or Uganda) in the text (not because it was a gesture, but because it was a more notable event). It's important to show that the addition you want to make is notable or important for the understanding of the topic of the article. News sources or other material described in RS is very helpful to achieve this. Please try to keep your text short, and let me know if you run into difficulties during the discussion. --Cs32en01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As this page is locked to me. (I have read why but haven't been a user for long enough yet.) Could somebody please add the following text to the "International Response" section.

As the crisis of 9/11 was unfolding and the United States refused to allow foreign inbound aircraft to land on US soil, Canada generously agreed to have 226 international flights land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way. see Operation Yellow Ribbon

I believe this paragraph will make the story of 9/11 more complete.

Thanks in advance.

David F. Clark

14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi David, the Operation Yellow Ribbon is mentioned in the section "National response". It should move to the "International response" section, with the additions in your sentence. The word "generously" should be left out. If relevant, we can include the information that this has been regarded as generous, but we would need a source for this. Can you reword your proposal and also make suggestion on how to handle the sentence in the "National response" section? — Regards.nbsp; 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

For the first time in history, SCATANA was invoked forcing all non-emergency civilian aircraft in the United States and several other countries including Canada to be immediately grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the world.134 Any international flights were closed to American airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration, causing about five hundred flights to be turned back or redirected to other countries. Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.

The above 3 points are copied verbatim from the "Immediate National Response" section. I agree that my copy and the above copy should be placed as the second paragraph of the "International response" section.

My new content:

For the first time in history, SCATANA was invoked forcing all non-emergency civilian aircraft in the United States to be immediately grounded, stranding tens of thousands of passengers across the world.134 All international flights were closed to American airspace by the Federal Aviation Administration, causing about five hundred flights to be either turned back or find alternative landing arrangements. Canada agreed to allow 226 US bound International flights to land on their territory and looked after these passengers until they could continue on their way, three days later. see Operation Yellow Ribbon

The reference to 134 at the end of the first sentence would need to be updated in this copy but I think the rest of the paragraph is ok.

David F. Clark

17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Question to involved editors (and everyone else)

Can we include the following in the section "International response"?nbsp; 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(not involved, but) Seems reasonable to me. –xeno "'xeno"' 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)