September 11 attacks/Archive 27

{{aan}}

POV - suitability of &quot;terrorist&quot;

Why does it say terrorists im sure many people do not see these men as terrorists it should be changed to something neutral as well as any phrases that are not NPOV (LeoniDb03:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

What source do you want to add? Tom harrison Tom Harrison 03:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Label them as hijackers (76.1.33.19705:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Use of the word 'terrorist' invalidates the article by turning it into an opinion piece rather than an encyclopaedic article. 'Suicide attacks by Islamic militant hijackers' pretty much captures it all without using this meaningless Newspeak so beloved of public speakers appealing to emotions. The article cannot be made neutral due to a consensus to retain a GWOT POV by US editors. Academic published sources such as http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-103-2298.jsp cover the contrary opinion but are not ibncluded due to BIAS. 9/11 is the start of US public consciousness of terrorism and is of course viewed by nearly all Americans as a terrorist attack but this POV is not held in other countries. Curtains9914:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is opendemocracy.net a reliable source? And what do you want to say with it? That lots of Palestinians danced in the streets when 3000 New Yorkers were murdered, and praised bin Laden as a great holy warrior, while claiming that the CIA and the Mossad were really behind it? That Arafat realized how that looked, and then staged a photo opportunity of him giving blood? If so, there might be a better source for that, and a better article to put it in. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He wants to say they are hijackers, where you got the rest from the simply statement is its own mystery. You would probably be better served addressing the statement instead of attempting to decipher an editors deeper meaning. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with hijackers, its the least POV statement it seems. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also of the view that the word 'hijackers' is more neutral than 'terrorists'and is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if a lot of people hold the view that what happened is clearly a terrorist attack, if it is possible to use a more neutral term, that term should be used Wikipinki

I realize I'm probably stumbling into a minefield, but I'd like to help with this article and get it off protected status. I think "terrorist" is a very POV word, and I agree with the reasons outlined above. Sparsefarce21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! What kind of an idiot thinks that the event of 9/11 wasn't the work of terrorism? I am stupified by the stupidity of such a thought process. I also see that this is another article that cannot be edited. Is there anyone out there that can get the stupid copnspiracy theory junk out of this article? Please help me get this lunacy out of these articles!--Beguiled22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of our policies CIVIL and NPA. Also, all decisions are policy based, not based on personal opinions. Thanks! Moscatanix22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so the anti-US statement made by the fellow above is to be tolerated? Who runs the show around here anyway? Where is the editorial oversight here?--Beguiled22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'same sort of idiot' who claims that abortion clinic bombers aren't terrorists or that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a terrorist? - Fairness And Accuracy For All22:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's civil or not, but I for one am disgusted that anyone would attempt to mitigate the magnitude of the terrorist attack of 9/11. ~~Disgusted2:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that abortion clinic bombers and Tim McVeigh are/is terrorists. The fit the definition just as much as the 19 terrorists hijackers do.--Beguiled22:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of us together are the editorial oversight. In fact a lot of decisions are based on personal opinion, in the form of editorial judgement and consensus. As far as calling terrorism terrorism, we have been through this a few times now. I see nothing new here. Since it was terrorism, and virtually all reliable sources call it terrorism, we should call it terrorism. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But all content matters are subject to policy, which trumps personal opinion. Moscatanix23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to take this too far into philosophy, but by what mechanism does policy do that? Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just mean from a philosphical standpoint and from what RS is. This guy I see after looking at his contributions wants to excise sourced material, which isn't done as it's all notable. Sounds like his personal distaste for it is overriding common sense and respect for the principles of the encyclopedia. And in general, people can't do whatever they want, regardless of anything that isn't policy. I can't add a line that the number of collapsed world trade centers has tripled in recent years for example, unless I source it. Conversely you can't remove a sourced piece of information here if it meets RS and fits the article. 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well sure; you can't triple the numbers because you would be reverted, and blocked if you persisted. We all decide by consensus whether or not a fact is notable and reliably sourced, and if it fits on this page or another. You or I or anyone else can remove reliably sourced information whenever we want. If a consensus supports removing it, it will stay removed. If consensus is against me but I keep removing it, I will get blocked. I think maybe in practice we don't disagree, we just express our understanding in different ways. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's all the same destination, we just see the road differently. Moscatanix23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is an emotionally charged term, but it can also be used objectively and neutrally - that's the difficulty with the word. Nonetheless, the 11 September attacks were undeniably terrorism (attacking highly symbolic and sentimental targets, and murdering non-combattants in the process), therefore the perpetrators were terrorists. However, it would be worth mentioning (where verifiable) that some consider them first as freedom fighters or crusaders or whatever, and as terrorists incidentally. (They don't stop being terrorists, of course, but the viewpoint deserves a mention, no matter how distasteful.) Peter Grey03:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How can the word "terrorist" be used objectively and neutrally when there is no agreed definition for the term? To me "terrorism" means violence carried out without moral justification. As such the term can never be used neutrally when people operate by different moral codes. We may as well say that the 9/11 attacks were immoral and unjustified, cowardly and unfair. Published opinion of the 9/11 attacks shows that a majority of residents of some countries did not view the attacks as terrorist but rather as justified retaliation for US intervention in the Middle East. To quote from wp:npov :"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Discussion of terrorism should form a large part of this article as this event was certainly the start of the War on Terror and the event was described as terrorist by many international commentators and world leaders. However, Wikipedia cannot neutrally describe any event as terrorist in its narrative voice. Not Hiroshima, not Dresden and not 9/11. While the article remains in its current state, employing judgemental opinion terms in its lead in, the neutrality of the entire article is in question. Curtains9918:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What else would we call the terrorists but terrorists? Outrageous.--Beguiled22:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We could call them 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' which tells us a lot more than just calling them baddies or terrorists. I just had a look at Britannica's entry on 9/11 which describes the events as follows:"series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States. The attacks caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism." Curtains9911:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that quote. As mentioned above 'Islamic militant suicide hijackers' is not only less POV but also more descriptive. Sparsefarce21:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is used, the reader will imediatly assosiate with terrorism anyways, so it doesn't matter. | x "'A"'ndonic"'O"' | AndonicO/My Autograph Book "Sign Here" 22:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so in an effort to improve this article by making it more more neutral, and bearing in mind the Britannica description above, how would other editors feel about changing the lead-in section so that it no longers refers to terrorists in the narrative voice but to "militant Islamist/Islamic suicide hijackers"? At the same time the lead-in paragraph should refer to the agreed fact that the event marked the start of the War on Terrorism. Please suggest a wording. Thanks, Curtains9923:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to say at the beginning that this was an act of terrorism, or that the men who did it were terrorists. This is true, and is the terminology used by reliable sources. Calling them something else is not neutrality, it is promoting a political view. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with x Curtains99. The reliable sources that call it terrorism (mostly in the US and UK) have a vested interest in labeling it as terrorism. Because it is such a subjective term, I agree with the more specific terms mentioned above. There are many people worldwide who would not consider it terrorism and would conversely consider many US actions terrorism. Either way, neither should be labeled that in an encyclopedia. Those promoting the use of the word terrorist need to move beyond personal opinions, worldviews, and emotions and aim for a truly neutral article. Sparsefarce00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but I've been through this with the camped editors here before. They refuse to accept a NPOV, and being just one person I was unable to challenge them on this. I'd also like to add, that it has been suggested some of the editors here work for the US government. Damburger02:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I meant in my comment is, if we change it to "Al Queda militant suicide hijackers" (which I support doing by the way), readers will still identify it as terrorism. Therefore, we are being more NPOV and specific, while still getting the point across. The section "Let the facts speak for themselves" in the article x "'A"'ndonic"'O"' | AndonicO/My Autograph Book "Sign Here" 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the definition of NPOV, "where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one," I think there is an easy solution to this problem. Why do we not just agree to write something like "viewed in the popular US and UK media as terrorists, a view that is disputed by some as being grounded in self-interest" or something to that effect? --Howtoeatrat21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"disputed by some?" Tom harrison Tom Harrison 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I have requested unprotection in order to add a POV tag to this article. Curtains9903:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary: Terrorist - "One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism." The noun used in the article is not POV in my opinion. A POV problem could arise from describing the motivations for the terrorist's acts. So far I do not see a POV problem with the description of those motivations. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Abe. Sometimes it's more POV to say "it's all just opinion" than to use a contested term that some people might disagree with. Let's keep in mind that whatever description we use (not just here, but in other cases as well: "intelligent design," "climate change," "social security," etc.) is going to carry some weight. We can debate the usefulness of these descriptions here, on blogs, and in public--and at the same time respect the sanctity of an article and agree to use the consensus, commonly understood, ordinary language definition without requiring any disclaimer. Any insertion of a POV tag in this article seems likely to provoke a lot of anger and attract a lot more attention to this article--making it much more unlikely that it would be unlocked anytime soon. And isn't the reopening of the article what we're all after? --Nbramble04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Abe and Nbramble. Terrorism is a war strategy, and terrorists are those who engage in that strategy. Using the word "terrorist" to describe the hijackers is a semantically correct descriptive noun, not a biased or unobjective term. Would it be more accurate/less controversial if the hijackers were described as "human bombs", or "kamikaze bombers" or something to that effect rather than terrorists? RDB6245317:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As an admins who watches RPP and looks through request, I cannot in good conscience respond to the unprotection request. It is my personal opinion that the word "terrorists" is an NPOV description of what happened. Terrorists=ones who cause terror. What do you call crashing planes into towers and the Pentagon? On the flip side, I obviously don't edit this article because of this. I'll go back to staying out of this now. -x Royalguard11··Royalguard11/ER Review Me!) 04:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors and administrators here certainly have a difficult time explaining the sources of ideas they convey, and unnecessarily so in my opinion. One problem is that application of the terms "POV" and "NPOV" to editorial discussion are entirely idiosyncratic to Wikipedia, sister projects and their heirs. "More POV" is such a subjective notion it has no objective meaning at all when I read it; I read it as a shared concept primarily intended to cement together a community with the notion that they have a unique and more accurate epistomology than any other thinkers in all of history. Another problem is that the project tends to presume social, political and cultural constructs can be presented in the same definite language as one presents scientific constructs. Blue light is almost always in the 475 nm wavelength and no significant population anywhere in the world contests that construct. Carbon always has an atomic mass of 12.0107 Amu and nobody with any credibility in any scientific community contests the construct. Terrorism is only terrorism among those who say it is terrorism. What's the big problem with saying who calls it terrorism and who doesn't? "Attack" is a very precise word. Why try to remind ourselves each time we read about certain attacks that a lot of people use the adjective "terrorist"? Wikipedia attempts to be the dicator of reality when it declares something to be terrorism. It is only terrorism according to well, the vast majority of the Western world, but sorry, you aren't that important. Maybe that's why you try to be language dictators. Elsewhere, your demand that parochial constructs such as terrorism be presented as a fact tantamount to a scientific finding makes you the object of ridicule and damages your credibility as a source of information. That isn't a personal attack -- it is a frank representation of how strident claims that one's cultural constructs are an ultimate truth are seen around the world.

Fortunately, I don't care that you are the object of ridicule, so I have no vested interest in persuading you that there are more astute and profound approaches to describing your world. I merely share my observations of reputable sources. MunPi04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It may just be a semantic construct in the end, but ultimately, terminology is very important, even with, rather, especially with, something like wikipedia. There are many people read these articles like encyclopedic information. They treat them as science, as the atomic mass of Carbon, for example, as accurate and potentially undisputable. The beauty of wikipedia is that we can all dispute them by taking part in the editing process, etc. to create the closest "scientifically accurate" or least amorphous/opinion based interpretation as possible, and semantics--or POV--is crucial to this project. RDB6245317:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who’s right regarding the use of the "terrorist" label, we can at least acknowledge that there "is" some dispute about it, both on this page and in the world at large. In other words, even if we disagree on the issue, we can "agree that we disagree" on the issue. Doesn’t that make this a question of opinion, according to the NPOV page’s specialized definition of the term ("a piece of information about which there is some dispute")? Maybe we should agree to concisely acknowledge multiple perspectives in the article, even if we have to do so grudgingly because we believe the correct one is clear. This seems to be what the NPOV policy asks. Jonathankrop Jonathan Krop 19:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear that this "dispute" really exists out in the real world. Is there a citation of someone notable who claims, not simply that they would "prefer" to call the hijackers something else, but who asserts in good faith that the actions were definitively "'not"' acts of terrorism, at least with respect to the World Trade Center? (The Pentagon might be considered a military target.) Peter Grey21:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It DOES NOT MATTER how many people say it is terrorism. The factthat nobody can agree what the definition of terrorism is (because any definition a nation comes up with tends to fit some of its own past actions) means the word has no place in an encyclopedia. That is accepted elsewhere in wikipedia, but apparantly not here. The reasons are quite clearly political, and quite clearly due to the makeup of the editors. When you say things like 'nobody thinks its not terrorism.' what you really mean is 'none of my middle-class, white, christian american friends think its not terrorism'. I am getting tired of the blatant POV being pushed here. Damburger21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedon-fighter is not sophisticated neutrality, it is a controversial political point of view. I can't see how trying to inject race, class, and religion into the discussion is likey to improve things. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause class doesnt play a role in most things in the world ... including peoples own PoV. No comment regarding the rest of his comments, I guess that means we are reaching an agreement that "terrorist" is a PoV. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think we are reaching such an agreement. The consensus seems to be that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. This is not surprising, since that is the consensus in the sources. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"how many people say it is terrorism" does not matter, but it does matter whether or not this is a real disagreement that should be documented or an asinine philosophical discussion that adds nothing to Wikipedia. Nobody can agree on definitions of freedom, love, ethnicity, liberal, ownership, etc., but we find ways to cope. If it is not true that the actions are universally considered acts of terrorism, then that is highly notable and belongs in the article, "'providing"' that a counter-example can be demonstrated. Peter Grey23:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that we have at least two groups of people: One group believes that using the word "terrorism" to describe the 9/11 attacks is a POV, and the other group believes that NOT using the term expresses a POV. In the end, both sides are right to some degree. First, let me affirm that most sources cited to as authorities on Wikipedia describe the events as "terrorist attacks." (see below). Of course, you can argue that all of these sources express a POV as well, and you would be right to a degree. But you can argue that everything is a POV, particularly when dealing with a description of past events. What we are arguing is not POV vs. NPOV, but "to what degree is something POV and when does that mean something should be omitted or reworded?" ---- On the other side of the argument, since there is such a strong contingent not wishing these attacks to be described as "terrorist attacks," what is the harm in using a different term? In other words, why not just call it an attack? If someone can propose a paragraph (maybe I'll do this myself if I have time) I think you might realize the omitting the term might not express a political POV as you might expect. Josh.anders23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

* Forgive the string of citations: Johnson Van Natta, "TRACES OF TERROR: THE HEARINGS; Congress's Inquiry Into 9/11 Will Look Back as Far as '86" "The new York Times" June 5, 2002 ; Storch, "Study to probe slow pace of Muslim integration in burbs" "Chicago Tribune", April 20, 2006; Miller, "Rice's Comments to Face Scrutiny at Hearing; Commission probing the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been checking to see if her recent public utterances square with other evidence." "LA Times", April 8, 2004; Smyth "EU Urges Banks to Protect Clients' Details," "The Irish Times" Nov. 25, 2006; "Secure profits; The business of homeland security" "The Economist" March 27, 2004; Turkish premier stresses importance of "alliance of civilizations" in EU bid BBC Monitoring Europe - Political - BBC Worldwide Monitoring September 18, 2005, Sunday; "Tunisia;IFLA/FAIFE Protests Restrictions On Access to Information in Run-Up to World Summit on the Information Society" "Africa News" July 8, 2005; "Bush Urged to Provide Visa Waiver to Koreans" "Korea Times" September 25, 2003, Thursday Copyright 2003 Hankook Ilbo.Josh.anders00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

* Another suggestion might be to use the word or not and clarify the position in a footnote. I think an actual tag might bring more attention to the dispute rather than mitigate the controversy, but perhaps a footnote wouldn't have the same attention-drawing effect. This is similar to what x Jonathan Krop suggested. I don't think its likely that an agreement on the complete exclusion or inclusion of the term "terrorist" is going to reached. Josh.anders00:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

***A footnote is a good compromise. It's clear that there is disagreement on this term, but that can't require its complete exclusion from the verbiage of this article. After all, the after effects of 9/11 created a world in which the words "terror" and "terrorism" are part of everyday parlance (i.e. the war on terror; the terrorism threat level), a phenomenon that, neutral or not, is directly linked to the attacks of 9/11. Calling the 9/11 attacks simply "attacks" fails to establish that connection--the word terror need not be used in any of its forms as the single descriptive noun in the article, but it does have a place therein. RDB6245314:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

***It's a fact no absolute neutral description without preconceived opinions exists in the world of wording, especially for such a event involved so many political and religion controversies. So it is a good approach to add a footnote by just taking "terrorism" as a general description rather than a judgment of the nature of what happened. Otherwise there is no way to get out from endless disputes of POV or NPOV and get the article unprotected for further improvement. Cyber07yl16:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

***I support the use of footnotes. Here's my suggestion: why don't we use the word hijackers in the body of the text and indicate by way of a footnote that many International sources describe the acts as "terrorist" attacks? Wikipinki wikipinki

Peter, I do think there are indications of such a controversy. See, for instance, the BBC World Service's http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,,593698,00.html decision to refrain from referring to 9/11 as a terrorist act, along with its stated reasons for this choice. And of course, there are people who rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks and would decry the classification of its perpetrators as terrorists. Other examples are a Google search away for anyone who wants to look. Whether or not you or I agree with these perspectives, the fact is that they're out there. We can acknowledge both sides of the "terrorist" labeling dispute without slanting the article towards either. The NPOV policy counsels that we should directly assert, as a fact, only "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." I just don't think that's what we have before us here. Jonathankrop Jonathan Krop 02:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan that there is a genuine dispute and that if it's possible to use a more neutral description, we should use that instead Wikipinki wikipinki

Hypothesizing that there must be someone that disagrees is original research. The people who rejoiced at the attacks obviously understood them to be terrorist acts - they rejoiced because of who the target was. Certainly, there are some people who might wish (as an expression of their particular point of view) to downplay the terrorism element of the attacks; is there anyone who genuinely believes that they were "'not"' terrorism? Peter Grey04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter: some of the people who rejoiced at the attacks undoubtedly took the position you ascribe to them (i.e. it was terrorism, and they were happy about it). I'm not sure how productive it would be to dive into other possible conceptions of the attacks by such people, the issue of whether terrorists self-identify as such, etc. Can we reach consensus on the idea that, if it "were" (hypothetically) demonstrated that there is a non-negligible number of people in the world who don't think of 9/11 as an act of terrorism, we would have a genuine dispute worth addressing? Jonathankrop Jonathan Krop 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

*If, hypothetically, a country had custody of a collaborator of the hijackers and refused, in good faith, to extradite him on the basis that no act of terrorism had occurred, I think we would easily have consensus that that point of view would be noteworthy. Peter Grey06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the dispute involving Japanese history textbooks--putatively portraying the WWII as being glorious (I digress). The word "terrorist" does have historical connotations that "hijacker" does not. The meaning of "terrorist" has evolved and is likely to evolve while that of "hijacker" has not and is unlikely to do so. Why don't we adopt here what paleontologists do? They use Latin for naming things because the language is dead. To be objective, one needs to use words whose meanings are not easily susceptible to change. Xye293816:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's worth asking rhetorically, what exactly is gained of any significance to the article, by describing the instigators as "19 terrorists" rather than "19 hijackers" or "19 activists" or similar. Someone will say, "It describes the act more accurately". But it doesn't - the act is thoroughly described in the article and none of this needs the word "terrorist" to make clear. The hijacking, suicide collisions, death, destruction and motives, none of this need the word "terrorist" to make clear their nature. I cannot think of another good reason to put a disputed word into an article, when it is not needed and alternative wordings exist, and when the article itself provides all the information needed for a reader to label the act and its instigators as they will. That is NPOV.

So what is the benefit of adding the term "terrorist"? To say that clinically, some people call these individuals terrorists? But that's been proposed and is disputed as inadequate. To emphasize that they definitely, conclusively, were terrorists? But that's just how one side in the war characterizes their lethal efforts. And of course, the facts (if the label were removed) speak for themselves to the reader anyhow.

I'm looking for what it is that calling them in Wikipedia's voice, "19 terrorists", as opposed to "19 something else" (with the rest of the article listing the facts for the reader to decide) would add to the article. I can see no real benefit, nothing the article would convey that it doesn't convey already. To me it seems the main motive is a desire to see these people labelled emphatically as terrorists. And that desire would be a breach of both email) 19:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On the question of whether "terrorist" represents a POV, can we cite outside sources? A number of prominent authors (for example, Alain Badiou) have argued that using the word is a matter of your POV? Anysignificant (as per Wikipedia's standards) disagreement on this question should lead us to consider the word POV. To act otherwise is to embrace a (second-order) POV of a certain group of persistent editors. Superabo08:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See Reuters' statement on why it avoids use of the word terrorist

http://web.archive.org/web/20011002123400/http://about.reuters.com/statement3.asp

194.125.21.99

08:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reuters seemingly indicates that it is "emotionally charged" not a POV. You might think this is enough to qualify, but I'm not sure. Surely, if such controversy surrounds this term, there is more direct authoritative source. Josh.anders05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this quote from the head of the terrorism reasearch unit at the RAND corporation explains the problem with this word (taken from the terrorism article)"On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. `What is called terrorism', Brian Jenkins has written, `thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." Curtains9914:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

&quot;Terrorist&quot;

Not that I'm unpatriotic, because I am patriotic and I do think the events were terrible, but doesn't the word "terrorist" imply some sort of point of view? I mean, some people do think that the people who did these attacks were heroes. I think it would be more appropriate to replace the word "terrorist" with the word "hijacker". Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It does sound POVish but Wikipedia refers to 9/11 as a terrorist attack in numerous other articles, notably in the Terrorist article itself, so it seems to be in good company. Most definitions of terrorist would easily include an attack thats "calling people to" a religion and encouraging them to stop their spread of "lies" and "debauchery". For more information google Osama bin Laden's letter to the american people. Whoblitzell

This is being discussed above at Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksPOV Curtains9903:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "terrorists" is too broad in this context. It must be changed to Islamic terrorists to be specific accurate.--Patchouli04:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The '9/11 Report' refers to the 19 hijackers as hijackers. Yes, they were also terrorists, but hijacker is the more specific term. All the hijackers were terrorists, not all the terrorists were hijackers. Hijacker is the more precise term, and therefore the correct term. Regards, 01:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not all hijackers are terrorists - D. B. Cooper. Terrorists is the correct and precise description. Calling them anything else makes the article less factual, and advances the (inaccurate) political view that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter'. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this debate (nor the one "POV-terrorist" above). Did no one read the article and Wikipedia's definition of Terrorism?

Terrorism definition: ""Terrorism is a term used to describe certain violent or otherwise harmful acts or threats of such acts. Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), deliberately target "non-combatants", and are not conducted by a "legitimate" government"". The attacks were violent and intended to create terror for a political goal and targeted non-combatants. Thus the attacks were terrorism by Wikipedia's own definition. Since definitions are the groundworks for any non-subjective communication anyone disagreeing should probably start to change that definition.

The source cited for the "Terrorism" classification of the 11th September attack is the "'unanimous"' UN security council resolution of 12th Sep. 2001 which ""Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 ...."". The only thing more saying "We, the Peoples, condem this as an act of terrorism" would be a UN general assembly resolution. Anyone who want to get rid of the name "terrorist" for the hijackers should therfore IMHO present either an UN Sec. Council or an UN General Assembly resolution which says so.

MBP

17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is BTW also a UN general assembly resolution (A/RES/56/1, see bottom of http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r56.htm) which says the same. MBP19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Islam extremeist terrorists", so we don't imply that all Muslims are terrorists. Zbl00:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Tom Harrison: terrorist is not a 'precise description'. It is a notoriously difficult term to define. Over 100 definitions are provided in http://www.amazon.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/0195118162 this book and another 100 in http://www.amazon.com/Political-Terrorism-Concepts-Theories-Literature/dp/1412804698 this book alone. Many terrorism experts have written about the subjective nature of the term (as I have referenced above). Everyone has their own definition, including or excluding certain characteristics. One key subjective element is that of 'legitimate violence'. Morally legitimate? Legally legitimate? Legitimate by the laws of Natural Justice? Who knows?

MBP: Unanimous UN resolutions do not constitute NPOV. If the UN announces something this neither makes it true or a neutral point of view. The UN has great difficulty deciding what terrorism is and http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html admits this on its own site and further admits that its members have a variety of differing definitions of terrorism. Four years after 9/11 when the UN resolution called the attacks 'terrorist', the UN secretary general was still seeking a definition of terrorism as http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4716957.stm reported by the BBC. How does that make sense?

Wikipedia's defintion of terrorism as quoted by MBP above is just one of many in this encyclopedia. In any case wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (wp:rs).

I'm going to try to empathize a little with those who believe that terrorism is a precise description and a neutral non-pejorative term that should be used in Wikipedia's narrative without fear of editorializing the content.

*I guess that many people really believe that terrorism is a scientific definable term because it has elements that are non-subjective such as that the act should include violence by irregular forces aimed at civilians for political purposes.

*I think that for Americans, 9/11 is the event they associate most with terrorism and an event that was described by all their friends and national media outlets as such.

*I guess that many editors here were personally affected by the attacks; either they lost loved ones or they were emotionally affected by the coverage. They thus find it hard to think in a neutral way about what happened.

Curtains99

01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorism" has some fuzziness in its definition - so do most words. That's not the same as having no meaning or a purely subjective meaning. And the 11 September attacks are not a borderline case - there are "'no"' examples of people who claim the attacks were not terrorism, just philosophical objections to the word. Peter Grey02:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A majority of residents of Jordan and Palestine believe that the attacks did not constitute terrorism. So do at least 25% of Egyptians, Syrians and Lebanese.http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-103-2298.jsp. Many articles appeared in mainstream Arab newspapers supporting this POV. National TV channels also carried coverage reflecting this opinion.http://www.ifilm.com/video/2770010. Published reliable sources including the opinion that the WTC did not constitute terrorism include:

*Al-Hayat (London edition), 17 september 2001 The meaning of terror according to the American dictionary is known. The term refers to any resistance to the new colonialism. In contrast, the collective and racist annihilation of peoples constitutes (according to the American dictionary) a civilized action that should not be resisted."

*Afaq Arabiye (Egyptian newspaper), 19 September 2001 In the eyes of Muslims, the US is a force of oppression, thus the Muslims see what happened as divine retribution, carried out under the supervision of Allah by unknown soldiers.

*Many more references to published Arab opinion that the attacks did not constitute terrorism are available http://memri.org/jihad.html here.

*A better approach to this article would be to describe the event factually including all the elements that would lead some readers to decide that the event was terrorist. Then the article could include the fact that the UN and various other reliable sources described the events as terrorist and that the event led to the foundation of the GWOT. This is more convincing for the intelligent reader than just baldly stating the point of view that the attacks were terrorist or evil or bad as a fact. Curtains9911:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*Curtains99 has made a very sound suggestion. I could not have said it better. We should strive to be as factually accurate as possible and if these facts would lead some readers to arrive at the conclusion that these acts were that of terrorits, then so be it. The reference to the description by UN etc could be stated in a footnote. Wikipinki

And the survey question contains a false choice fallacy. This idea that "terrorism" is merely an expression of disapproval and not a characterization of tactics (i.e. disconnected from the whole concept of 'terror') is exactly why omitting the word introduces a non-neutral point of view. Peter Grey14:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC) That's not to say the opinions aren't important or aren't valid - that result is certainly noteworthy and, in the absence of more scientific polling, should be mentioned in this article or possibly a sub-article. But it's not a statement that no act of terrorism occurred. x Peter Grey 14:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist, despite its negative connotations, has a factual definition. It means one who participates in acts targeting civilians with the aim of causing other civilians to feel afraid and thus comply with their demands"

*I feel that the most specific, least POV, term we could use is "Islam extremeist terroist" It does not imply that all Muslims are terrorists, but it explains that these terrorists were Muslim and had Muslim goals. Zbl13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*If the Jordanians, Palestinians, and whoever else think we had it coming because of colonialism, and that it was not terrorism but part of some noble struggle, I could support including a section saying so with appropriate citations. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

**Well then we are making some progress. That's great. Peter, "terrorism" is both a characterization of tactics "'and"' a term of disapproval; in the same way that "whore" and "infidel" describe "prostitute" and "atheist" but throw in some disapproval. To some extent this article as it stands is neutral from an American point of view, but Wikipedia articles are meant to be free from geographical and political bias (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_viewBias). There are five times as many Muslims as Americans on earth and another 4 billion people from neither camp. I'm in the last group and from my point of view the article looks biased. The article shouldn't say that the attacks weren't terrorism - that would be a POV; but it should list all the characteristics of the attacks that are often associated with terrorism: hijacking, suicide bombing, militant islamism, non-governmental militia, targeting of civilians, political motives, desire to instil fear, and then leave the reader to make up his own mind whether it was a good or a bad thing, whether 9/11 was obscene terrorism or a justified action. Do you not think the facts speak for themselves? Curtains9916:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

***WP is supposed to only report what reliable sources report. We are using sources written about 9/11 to describe what happened that day and immediately after. This should not be from a personal standpoint but from what the reliable sources say. --PTR16:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

****WP can only report as fact information that is not in dispute. Otherwise it should list each opinion with attributions. I have http://memri.org/jihad.html previously linked to a large number of Arabic newspaper articles that do not consider the attacks terrorist. Have a look at this IHT http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/22/news/pew2.php article detailing Muslim attitudes to suicide attacks in defense of Islam. The source survey for this article is http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253 here . Curtains9917:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*****This article is not discussing suicide attacks in general but the specifics of one event. The article you reference didn't specify the 9/11 attacks in their survey. In addition, it only shows Jordan (45%) and Egypt (43%) answering NEVER in the minority to the question of when it's appropriate to use suicide attacks. All others in the list answered NEVER in the majority. This, again, is all beside the point. The reliable sources, not our opinion, is what this article is based on. You mention above that from your point of view the article is biased but does it correctly report the reliable sources available to english speakers who would be using this resource? --PTR18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

*""terrorism" is... a term of disapproval" Find a dictionary that says that and we'll be all set. Peter Grey17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

**Peter, If you agree that 'a term of diapproval' is a synonym for 'pejorative' then see the Oxford Concise dictionary of Politics:""'Terrorism:"' Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups. But if such actions are carried out on behalf of a widely approved cause, say the Maquis seeking to destabilize the Government of Vichy France then the term 'terrorism' is avoided and something more friendly is substituted."Other dictionary definitions run along the lines of 'terrorism=violent action intended to terrorize' which is broad enough to include war, shock and awe etc..

***Cute. Resolving a alleged NPOV problem with a dictionary of Politics. Peter Grey16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

**PTR, the article does not correctly report reliable sources which should be done by attribution, what it does instead is to select some of the views expressed in the sources and express them as fact in the narrative of the article. Foreign language sources are as valid as English language sources in the English version of Wikipedia (see wp:vSources_in_languages_other_than_English). I am going to bow out of this discussion now and return to the nasty business of work. Thanks for your insights and particularly to Peter for his false choice fallacy which I had not come across before. I am leaving you with the majority view of editors on this page that terrorism: is not a pejorative term, has a precise definition and is universally applied to the 9/11 attacks. Curtains9923:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism CAN be pejorative (like the word fascism), and does NOT have a precise definition. What governments agree on, organisations (like the UN) decide on and newspapers print has nothing to do with this. Obviously governments have to be careful with their definitions, otherwise they may well find themselves branded with the very term they seek to define. The broad sense of the term is what matters here. The act was clearly carried out by terrorists, whether they consider themselves freedom fighters or not. It would be refreshing to have people say "Yes I'm a terrorist, but this is what I need to do", but sadly because of the nature of the world people are forced to spin everything.

This is a nonsense argument. What is a good argument is whether the term should be used in the headline, and I for one think it should not. Whilst I accept it is clearly an act of terrorism, I do not believe that such an emotive term should be used in the headline, and most definitely not the disconnected term Islamic. --Angryjames23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If this attack started the "War on Terrorism", how can it not be called terrorism? Zbl15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to perpetuate this discussion, but the question nicely illustrates the opposing positions - the "War on Terror" shamelessly exploits the sensationalism of the word 'terror' while having relatively little to do with actual terrorism. This is an obvious politically-motivated distortion. So the debate can be rephrased: does the existence of this kind of spin prevent Wikipedia from using the term with its proper meaning? Peter Grey01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should NOT be prevented from using such a term, but rather it should seek to avoid exacerbating such exploitation. By careful placement of such words you can neutralise the ill effects, in direct opposition to the approach taken by journalists. This sets the neutral tone of the article. By all means state the facts, but do NOT compress those facts into emotive sound bites, no matter how semantically and factually true they may be. --Angryjames13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant also to add in direct response to Zbl; by all means call it what it is, in this case terrorism. But when you headline that term, or use it in sound bite you encourage and emphasise shallow thinking. When people are presented with over simplified concepts they tend to ignore all else. What is important here is that a group of men flew planes into two civilian occupied buildings. That leads to the question WHY? Which is the most important issue here. Many people who see the word terrorism believe that answers the question WHY, as if terrorism was a motive unto itself. The same is true for "War on Terror", as opposed to a "US coalition force invaded Afghanistan". Do you see my point? One technique begs for further analysis, the other appears to define the whole. --Angryjames13:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"That leads to the question WHY? Which is the most important issue here." It may lead the reader in that direction. I do not agree that the root causes of terrorism, or 'why do they hate us' is the most important issue rising from the facts of the attack, either for this article, or as a matter of public policy. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you jump from "Why?" to "Hate"? I didn't imply a connection. "Hate" has nothing to do with it. Did the Americans hate the Japanese? Is that why the Americans dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think not. Nor did Britain hate the Germans when they bombed Dresden. They were clearly acts of terror, but they weren't acts of hate. The hijackers may well have been manipulated because of their hate, but it's unlikely. So my question is now; if "why?" is not the most important issue in such an event, then what is? As for public policy, how can one solve a problem without understanding why the problem occurs? I'm not implying that if you find out your foreign policy is unpopular or a root cause that you should necessarily change position. Difficult decisions must be made. But to avoid analysing such data is to me abhorrent. I realise it's not the job of Wikipedia to emphasise such things, but perhaps it should be considered ethical to avoid a partisan position. --Angryjames17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. Whatever the most important question, I would not organize the article as answers to questions, but as a series of summaries with links to other places to go for more information. We have a sub-section on 'motive', and an article on Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, which is unlocked. That might be a good place to summarize the various notable analyses of the terrorists' motivation. And of course, I don't think you are avoiding a partisan position, but promoting one. Although now that I think of it, maybe it would be useful to describe again exactly what change to the article you are proposing. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article should be nothing more than a statement of facts. I'm just concerned that using certain language, whilst it may be factual, in the lead paragraphs and/or title can appear partisan, and will offend certain areas of the global community. Specifically I object to Islamic and Terrorist, and would proffer the neutral term Hijacker in those positions. I'm not suggesting you cover up the truth here, but merely move such facts into say the motives section where they are less likely to be objectionable. Yes, they are Islamic, but it is unlikely that their religion per se has anything to do with this. To highlight that fact is pointing the finger at the religion and most importantly the many peaceful people who follow its tenets. I should point out that I'm a white British Anglo-Saxon atheist, with absolutely no connection to Islam or Muslims. For the sake of a word, I urge you please to consider my suggestion. Regards. --Angryjames20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it bias to use a world recognized, or mostly world recognized term for an event that started a war with that same term in its title. Also, how nonbiased is a politcal dictionary. Anything political is biased. Zbl02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case yes, in perhaps another no. You are suggesting a World Encyclopedia should make use of a political slogan as its basis for including such a word. --Angryjames17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A History book (neutral source) used 9/11 as an example when defining the term terrorism. THe same histroy book (rememeber the book is neutral) used the word terorrist and terrorism to refer to Al-Queda and Bin Laden. In that case, the wording may need to be changed if the word terrorist falls out of public usage, but otherwise it is fine. The term "War on Terror is not a Political solgan, it is as much a factual name as the "War of 1812" Zbl21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Hundred Years War" is the factual name of, not a single war, but a sequence of wars over a period lasting, not 100 years, but 116 years. The "War on Terror" isn't even an actual war, and appears to only incidentally involve terrorism (not counting terrorism that it has itself generated). (Although it has started at least one genuine war so far.) Peter Grey22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, and I'd like to add in response to Zbl: How do you know the book is neutral? You're telling me it is and then using that as a fact to prove something. You're not proving much mind, no one but a fool would doubt these people were terrorists. I don't understand how such a term would fall out of public usage either. It's a perfectly good word and, political spin aside, pretty well understood. As for War on Terror, it sounds like something the McDonald's or Coke PR people would dream up. It's an advert. If you think the advert represents the truth read no further. If you accept the need/desire to go to war and using such advertising is valid so be it, but let's not try to teach a grandmother to suck eggs, please. --Angryjames19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of compromise

I would like to suggest that perhaps this discussion is not going anywhere, and perhaps there are some possibilities for compromise that, at the least, could be raised for discussion. If the problem for some people is simply labelling something "as" "terrorism", that could be altered "'provided"' some "'very"' strong statement as to perception as terrorism is made. This would, undoubtedly, actually further emphasize the terrorist character of the attacks, but would satisfy the semantic concerns that have been raised. Peter Grey22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Listening to the tone of the debate here, I do not believe such a "'strong "'(read convincing) argument could be put forward. I might as well go back in time and try to convince people that having two wash basins, one for Negroes and one for Whites is a bad idea. Why am I even saying "go back in time"?!? Terrorism is one thing, but the fact that no one here seems to give a hoot that the term Islamic is used in the first paragraph is beyond me. This argument seems subtle, it seems not to matter, irrelevant... "it's just a word". It's a marker, a line drawn in the sand by people who think their opinion is irrefutable and accepted. The same people who might lock a supposedly global encyclopaedic web page to prevent anything but the stench of their own opinion from seeping out. It's a butterfly flapping its fragile wings, another ripple capable of destroying two gigantic towers, and perhaps much more. --Angryjames19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: Terrorist

Is the noun, "terrorist," defined as "one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism http://www.bartleby.com/61/27/T0122700.html," appropriately used in the September 11th attacks article? Abe.Froman Abe Froman 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Agree"'

Abe.Froman Abe Froman 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

stevencool104

20:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

See RS, V, OR. We don't invent reality, we report it. NPOV does not mean misrepresenting sources in order to make the subject of an article happy. Weregerbil19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

--MONGO08:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not calling "terrorism" what plainly was, is not neutrality, but promoting one point of view, and giving it undue weight. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 12:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly an act of terrorism caused by terrorists. --Dual Freq12:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Encyclopedia Brittanica also states (in their history of terrorism article):

"The deadliest terrorist strikes to date were the September 11 attacks (2001), in which suicide terrorists associated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airplanes, crashing two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City and the third into the Pentagon building..." --PTR19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A spade is a spade... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 constitutes terrorism. The term has been used by http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7949.doc.htm Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/ U.K., http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3222,36-687756@51-641954,0.html France, http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,623034,00.html Germany, http://service.china.org.cn/link/wcm/Show_Text?info_id=167467p_qry=9/11 China, http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/09/11/crash010911 Canada, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/21489207.cms India, http://english.chosun.com/cgi-bin/printNews?id=200609110002 South Korea, and the list could go on. --AudeVivere Aude 00:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

yep --Jpgordon jpgordon 00:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist here. Wikipedia is not supposed to make reality subjective.--Sefringle07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They crashed planes into buildings and killed many people! "Hijacker" is usually a reference to a plane being taken over because of some specific person and being help for ransom/kidnapped/ect. And the only people who dispute this is those who call them "freedom fighters". The IRA probably was called something similar by supporters, but we in the real world™ called them terrorists. What was their goal? Kill many people, nothing else (ref=Osama bin Laden et all). Bin Laden is a terrorist (defined by the CIA), and admitted to doing 9/11 sometime. Therefore, by extension, anyone who is allied with bin Laden and carries out his goals is a terrorist. -x Royalguard11··Royalguard11/ER Review Me!) 23:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree, due to Wikipedia's own definition as well as cited source of classification, see talk above. MBP17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Agree"' Though a thorough understanding comes not from that nearly self-referential definition, but from the one it does refer to. Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of "intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." (emphasis added)

Zbl14:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) I feel that making the wording "Islam extremeist terrorist" would also work.

"'Agree"' Based on x MunPi's argument above that use of such a term must be based on the clear consensus of credible sources on the subject, with evidence to this requirement being met by RRR_User:MBP_RRR MBP's note that the United Nations security council unanimously and unequivocally condemned """in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001."" Mael-Num23:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the terrorists were, are, will continue to be terrorists. We aren't going to be sugar-coating the facts so some radicals won't feel insulted.--Beguiled20:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Disagree"'

Curtains99

09:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as a acting gribbleflitty is the act of acting like a gribbltflit. Defining words with themselves is something you are told not to do in 4th grade. Because the word still has no definition in the end. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Definite disagree"' - The NPOV issue here is that "terrorist" is a word used only by those on the outside, to describe those on the inside. It is not a word that both sides agree on. In other articles on groups classed as terrorist by some other people, the term is only used in "X describes them as Y" format. The voice of Wikipedia itself, shouldn't. There is a significant and notable minority view that rejects the classification as terrorist. So we note that "X says Y", but we don't use the term in our own voice as a definitive label for them. Thats standard NPOV approach. To do otherwise would be using Wikipedia to make a point. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: Terrorist is clearly a pejorative word and every nation that defines it, excludes its own actions from the definition. People reading a factual description of this days events will not need to be editorialised to in order to understand it was a bad thing. Damburger01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Big Disagree"' and just seeing the conversation grow on this talk page, I'm even more inclinded to disagree with it's usage. Thanks for bringing up how the BBC world news (referenced above) doesn't use the word "terrorist." Sparsefarce06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Disagree."' That the hijackers were "terrrorists" is disputed by a clearly significant portion of the world's population, and therefore constitutes opinion, not fact, as per NPOV policy. Superabo18:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The word terrorist IS entirely appropriate as a description for those who carried out these attacks, but it should NOT be used in the headline. The actions speak for themselves and if you want to use such a term please do so further down the page. --Angryjames17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Disagree"' Per user:FT2 and WTA The policy clearly contradicts what those who agree say:

Terrorist, terrorism

There is significant debate whether the term "terrorist" is a neutral description, or an opinion. Arguments for both views are summarized below.

"1. The words terrorism and terrorist may be cited where there is a verifiable and cited indication of who is calling a person or group terrorist." This is the standard Wikipedia format "X says Y". If this is followed, "the article should make it clear who is calling them a terrorist, and that the word does not appear to be used, unqualified, by the "narrative voice" of the article." In other cases, terms such as "militant(s)" may be a suitable alternative, implying a group or individual who uses force to attain their objectives. "(Note: - The term is not as likely to be disputed if the person or organization verifiably and officially calls themselves "terrorist". But then this should be cited.)"

2. "It is often not necessary to label a group or individual as a terrorist, any more than to say "X is an evil person". Describing their acts will make clear what they are." Examples of how Wikipedia has handled terrorism can be found at:

Al-Qaeda - "Al-Qaeda is the name given to an international Islamic fundamentalist campaign... The Government of the United States regards Al-Qaeda as a terrorist organization, primarily because..."

Provisional Irish Republican Army - "The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an Irish Republican paramilitary organisation. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in Great Britain, Ireland, the US and many other countries..."

Contras - "The Contras were the armed opponents of Nicaragua's Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction... The Contras were considered terrorists by the Sandinistas because many of their attacks targeted civilians."

Encyclopedic:

X is on the U.S. Department of State's "Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations" list.

X, identified by the Y government as responsible for the Z suicide bombings or "who claimed responsibility for the Z suicide bombings", is classified as a terrorist group by A, B and C countries or bodies.

Countries A, B and C regard X as a terrorist group because...

Not encyclopedic:

X is a terrorist group.

Y, leader of the X terrorists, ...

After a rapid military response, the X terrorists abandoned the hostages.

Key points have been italicized.-- 21:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"'No vote"'

Peter Grey 04:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC) I would consider this a question of fact, not opinion of editors. If there is a verifiable disagreement out in the real world as to the substance of the question as opposed to word games (and not otherwise), then NPOV would require that both perspectives be accomodated.

If, as some editors believe, "terrorism" is appropriate as a label of people's opinions, rather than actions, then perhaps the article could simply say the attacks are "'universally regarded as terrorism"' (which would actually make a stronger statement). Peter Grey03:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

""""" 06:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC). But I'd like to ask the opposing side, what word would you use to substitute for terrorist?

The use of the word in the article now is just gratuitous (it modifies "suicide attacks." One could also use "hijackers." Superabo18:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of reporting what other sources use. A large amount of RS use the term. The definition of terrorism in almost all cases fits the acts of Sept. 11th. It probably shouldn't be bandied about liberally but it should definitely be used. Intentional targeting of civilians by non-state entities usually qualifies with everything from McVeigh to Al Qaeda. It doesn't matter what our opinion is. "Terrorist" (or some version thereof) is what is usually used to describe the attacks. If significant V disagreement can be found than include both views in an NPOV discussion. It is that simple. --Rtrev07:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'll have to classify this event as State-sponsored terrorism, thus successfully disabling myself from this vote:(. Lovelight13:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not intrisicly opposed to the description of this as terrorism, I do feel the other proposals are better Nil Einne16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll: [[Islamic terrorism|Islamic terrorist]]

"'Agree"'

"Islamic terrorist" is specific captures reality.--Patchouli04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely captures a reality. Can be used objectively especially if linked to articles that discuss it in greater depth. Although, I do agree that sources should be used when available to employ the word. --Rtrev06:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle

07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Disagree"'

The word terrorist cannot be used objectively and should only be employed in sentences like "X described Y as a terrorist". Curtains9909:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Diagree that iy should be used at all, but if at all will have to follow the rules on WTA, and cite who said everytime per Curtains. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagee strongly: Not onlt is this using the POV term 'terrorist' but it is also is slandering the Islamic faith. Its clearly a political slur/ Damburger01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. (please see my comments above regarding the use of the term terrorist. Furthermore using the term Islamic in this way is entirely inappropriate (see my comments in a section below). They may well have been Islamic, they may well have been a lot of things, but using such a term in the heading is extremely offensive. You may of course later point out that person X was a Saudi or that they were Islamic if you must. But not in the headline. --Angryjames17:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree: Do we call Timothy McVeigh a "Christian terrorist"? Senseless and biased. My heart would support "religious terrorists" even as I intellectually recognize this as biased asshole athieism, and I would more decisively support "political terrorists", or "(geographical location) terrorists", This wasn't really about religion, all religions are equally flawed, all are equally capable of motivating or supporting acts of horror. Anybody who argues otherwise is deluding themselves. No sense in singling one religion out. --Action Jackson IV08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Islamic" refers to Islam, "Islamist" is a proponent of re-establishing a theocratic caliphate. "Terrrorism" is a tactic - it is better suited as a description of actions rather than people. Peter Grey01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Strong Disagree"' I happen to think that "terrorist" is the correct term, but I do not think we need the religion added in. --Wildnox02:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"'Comment"'

I think this month we are refering to Islamist terrorism. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically that is the current name of the article, but it shouldn't be.--Sefringle07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Calls for independent investigations

A while back we had suggestions about enlisting notable individuals who are well aware of 911 inconsistencies. Apart from www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306googlecensoring.htm famous-http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.content.html Bravo Charlie! interview, in which Sheen send his regards to our fine conspiratorial editors here, pointing clearly what is a civilized perspective on commissioned edits: "It's like they want to pigeonhole all of us into conspiracy nutbags when we're not debating things that are related to UFO's bringing down the towers or Building 7 or the Pentagon and so its feels like there's things in there that we’re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," or in other words: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Sheen_interview_on_911_garners_media_0323.html "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets: that feels like a conspiracy theory." We should certainly mention David Lynch who recently also said it decently ( non-conspiratorially) well, while describing 911 as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhYYN7QhcKs "event which has many questions, and no answers." Or how about pointing to well placed http://barbrastreisand.com/statements.html statements of Barbara Streisand, she had to endure quite a lot of vicious attacks from "official conspiracy nuts" you know? Same goes for James Brolin who once again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO2yZegigZo pointed that http://www.911weknow.com/ "we all know it". Then there's Sean Penn who's http://www.factivism.com/content/view/24/33/jc_allComments recent speech does strike at the http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/1219-14.htm heart of the matter. Anyway to avoid further "linkspam", Acebrock already did some excellent work on these and other http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AAcebrock%2F9%2F11diff=91454077oldid=91303082 missing topics, and my only concern with such well intended edit is whether these calls should be addressed in section about conspiracy theories… To clarify, if we backpedal a little, we may recall that in the root of "truth movement" and probably every other "truth" related site is (nothing else but a) call for new and independent investigation (so we would finally seize to conspire so ludicrously), yet this call is nowhere to be mentioned? Perhaps we could find a valid and unbiased formulation which will address these notable concerns from notable individuals without making conspiracy circus out of it? Preferably in a new section which would also reflect current http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006 public opinions… if you would kindly share your perspectives… Lovelight14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion: no additional conspiracy drama is needed on this page. It's as simple as that. Weregerbil15:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is trying to confuse two issues: there were legitimate calls for investigations in the face of Little George's inability to provide explanations and accountability. This is a valid part of the story, and perhaps the "'existing articles"' could be expanded. Because there has been no accountability, these calls rightfully continue. There is a completely different phenomenon of conspiracy theorists who reject (mostly maliciously) actual truth and propose pursuing a new "truth" suited to their superstitions. Also, "notable individuals" in this context can only mean qualified experts, not simply any notable person, and those making ludicrous speculation have so far not been influenced by reality. Peter Grey17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is about a number of unanswered, not investigated questions (foreknowledge being among easy ones). Who would be "qualified experts" on this issue of unanswered questions? Mainstream media which most of them support goverment on its issues? Those voices mentioned by Lovelight are definitely notable. To the Lovelight's list I would add Gore Vidal, Peter Dale Scott, Robert M. Bowman (who got 44% votes in Floridahttp://bowman2008.com/ and new 9/11 investigation is one of his http://bowman2008.com/issues_az.htm9_11 main issues).... more to come. SalvNaut18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A celebrities opinion doesn't carry any more weight then any of us when it comes to conspiracy theories. If Sean Penn's opinion can be added, then I want my opinion added also. If he has something to say about acting or movies that might be a different thing. Rx StrangeLove18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between unanswered questions, and "'speculation"' as to the reasons for unanswered questions. "Question X remains unanswered" raises a valid issue; "Question X remains unanswered because any investigation would reveal ridiculously implausible crimes" is conspiracy theory nonsense, and hurts good-faith investigation. Peter Grey19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that problem here is whether to include Sean Penn's particular opinion or not but whether a paragraph about unanswered questions, unresting voices from general public and celebrities, has its rudiments. I think that it has, or at least the paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories should be enlarged. Now, here, you won't find information about those difficult questions raised, other than short CT paragraph. This is very POV. SalvNaut20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, and recognizing that difference would be a step towards valid and unbiased formulation… Emphasis should certainly rest on http://pdfserver.prweb.com/pdfdownload/388743/pr.pdf notable http://www.vt911.org/final911Questions.htm demand for http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006612310307 answers. I'm sorry if I've pointed that too vaguely. Lovelight20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There already exists a page for 911 conspiracy theories. No need to litter this page with repeats from that parent. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards, this is the parent article, hence it should mention breifly however items that are in 9/11 conspiract theories. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Other than a single link to the 911 conspiracy theories saying there are conspiracy theories, I don't see any need whatsoever to add the theories themselves to the parent article. Separation between fact and likely fiction should be maintained. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Its kinda the norm when it comes to parent articles, the sub articles get minor mentions in it to point people toward the articles that spawned from the parent, see: Iraq War, Operation Gladio, etc. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now who is backwards :-) Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked politely, let's try and avoid any such circus. This discussion has "'nothing"' to do with term conspiracy. I'd suggest you drop such link (or spin, if you prefer such terminology). We are talking about demand for independent investigation. Apart from vox populi, we have voices of celebrity and I honestly see no importance whether these are scientists, researchers, politicians, free artists… Perks have no importance here… Once again, "valid questions" about "unanswered questions" and calls for independent investigation don’t belong to the realm of conspiracy. Lovelight20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why the talk pages have "'repeatedly"' asked people to distinguish between unanswered questions and questions certain people don't like the answers to. It shouldn't be hard - the conspiracy theories are not exactly subtle with their suspension of disbelief. Peter Grey01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the demand for indy investigation has lead to the creation of the 9/11 commission its surely ntoable enough to make its own section into the article. Not only did it spawn that but it also spawned an investigation by the New York State Attorney Generals Office, which is another, but on a smaller scale. So I agree, the indy investigation isnt about conspiracy theories, just about a non governmental investigation and its quite notable to have its own section, good job Lovelight. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The 911 commission is linked in the 911 attacks article, already. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As well it should, as part of a larger section is what people are stating, its also highly notable as I believe there is a study citing over 40% of people wanted a new investigation. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Then feel free to add what people are stating to the 911 conspiracy theories article, which exists for speculation surrounding the September 11th attacks. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I will start writing the section, thank you for your input however. It just seems like we are not understanding one another. Lovelight, I will try to get somethnig to you this weekend to look over and let me know what you think before I add it. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Lovelight13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. You might find these polls useful.http://www.911blogger.com/node/3720http://www.911blogger.com/node/2760 SalvNaut01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And make sure any additions have consensus! Rx StrangeLove03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

So Charlie Sheen thinks that there was some conspiracy? and Sean Peen too? NO surprises here. Are they like some kind of experts or something? Like their opinions are what should be in an encyclopedia? I think I am important enough to alos have my opinion in the article, but I don't think many people here would allow my opinion to be in the article.--Beguiled22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned only two among so many. Isn't your opinion already there? SalvNaut01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, two, but none of the rest (not that Charlie Sheen or the likes are experts). None of thir opinions are worth anymore than that from two dead flies, so it makes no difference. Opiinions are everywhere, but don't have squat to do with an encyclopedia.--Beguiled21:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The War on Terrorism

Please add following reference, as pointed:

"Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials http://www.outragedmoderates.org/2006/02/dod-staffers-notes-from-911-obtained.html speculated on…". Lovelight15:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A blog with a POV slant in its title does not conform to RS or NPOV. The presentation of primary sources in the form of notes is also problematic. RS generally disallows blogs as reliable sources. Is there a media outlet meeting RS that has reported the notes presented in the blog citation? Abe.Froman Abe Froman 16:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The origin of report is confirmed by Pentagon. Here is http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1716842,00.html a qoute from Guardian: "The Pentagon confirmed the notes had been taken by Stephen Cambone, now undersecretary of defence for intelligence and then a senior policy official. "His notes were fulfilling his role as a plans guy," said a spokesman, Greg Hicks." Lovelight16:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that might go better in U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 16:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, those statements are directly linked to so-called "war on terrorism" with regards to 911 events. There is no more appropriate location than this one. Lovelight19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not War on Terrorism? Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've took only brief look at that article, it seems heavily disputed and in somewhat poor condition. The point is, we've got this excellent citation, it's just a reference and I see no reasons for dispute. I've noticed that this was already noted in article about US invasion of Iraq; however, all of this has little to do with 911 link to Iraq, while notes speak of this link before they speak about anything else. As Guardian pointed: "But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck." Lovelight19:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds to me by your own description that it is about the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and should go in that article (linked in the right-hand template, by the way). Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it sounds like it's a citation of the fact that US officials decided to invade Iraq immediately after attacks. As described right here. I'm not sure why you have impression that we are talking about writing a section in another article, because we are talking about simple reference for this one. Lovelight19:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more appropriate in the article that is about the same topic as the reference. There is no reason to expand an already long page to add material that should go on a sub-page that could benefit from it. This page should summarize the detailed material presented in the sub-articles, from Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, to Health effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks, to September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Now I'm close to repeating myself, so I'll stop and wait to hear what others think. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The link provided by Lovelight is not suitable for this article...haven't we repeatedly stated that this article is primarily about the events on 9/11/2001 and not the Iraq war and related subsequent events? Anyway, if that source does have a place, it is best in the U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks article.--MONGO23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Will this be another unnecessary marathon? MONGO, the story goes, once upon a time on "September 11th" Donald Rumsfeld said: "Go massive… blah, blah, blah." I'd suggest we act rationally and logically. This is a citation about direct link between 911 and invasion of Iraq, which is already (so modestly) recognized in "wot" section here. It's just a meager, itsy-bitsy reference… so please, you'll need to find another argument and you'll need to be aware of the trends too. I'll certainly be spooked if Illuminoso jumps in… Lovelight23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if you deem it necessary, Lovelight. So silly the ongoing effort to tie the events of 9/11 to the much later Iraq war. There should be no surprise Rumsfeld wanted to seek all information he could as to who the culprits were, and certainly Iraq was on the trouble meter...but all this is still neither here nor there because this article is about the events of 9/11, and adding weak and peripheral nuances to this article to satisfy the never ending attempts to say the Iraq War was a part of the big conspiracy...so big a part, it still was well over a year before the "invasion"! You do relaize that the Iraq war wasn't some knee jerk reaction of course...I mean, if the administration was so anxious to go invade Iraq, it would have been far easier to create some silly diplomatic incident as a justification. Rumsfeld wasn't the only one pushing to go big...and even Al-Qaeda had considered going after nuclear power plants, but thought it might get out of controlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,907062,00.html...had they gone after nuclear power plants and killed a hundred thousand with the spread of radiation, the likely consequence would have been, at the least, massive bombings using MOAB's and maybe even a nuclear retaliation...what else would someone expect if one group of people killed a hundred thousand or more of another...did the terrorists think the U.S. was going to sue for peace? Fat chance.--MONGO09:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Question: Is Rumsfeld one of the "U.S. officials" referred to, and did he actually make any speculations at the time? The document does not demonstrate any deductive reasoning or speculation. Peter Grey00:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering all of this to be common knowledge, after all it was already (invisibly) stated in former secretaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_RumsfeldRun-up_to_Iraq biography. I'm not sure about the other part of your question? He obviously gave very precise "speculations" on that day. If you take a moment to study whats provided you'll see that: "The "actual notes" suggest a focus on Saddam. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit SH at same time - not only UBL Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden," the notes say. "Tasks. Jim Haynes Pentagon lawyer to talk with PW probably Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy for additional support ... connection with UBL." Also note that it was said to the person who was: ""responsible" for crisis planning, and he was with the secretary in that role that afternoon." It's all incredibly "irresponsible" if you ask me… Lovelight00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is speculating on action, not responsibility. "Common knowledge" includes the disconnect between the two. Peter Grey04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Common knowledge was response to your query about whether "Rumsfeld (is) one of the "U.S. officials" referred to…"… And I agree on first part of your latest statement, yes indeed, Rumsfeld was irresponsibly sharing tasks (speculations if you must) which are a very base of what we today know as "missing link" between 911 events, Saddam and al-Qaeda (he also defined that reasonability, and after these notes UBL has become the part of the paradigm, even if you are ready to avoid such conclusion, but that is another issue…) What puzzles me most, is the fact that we've been through all this already; you agreed on all that… it’s a citation of that fact. I'm not sure what's the issue here? I'm assuming a good faith and all that, but is this some sort of domestic (lets cloud our judgment and see no evil hear no evil) concern? I'm from Europa and from here I tend to see these things without any "fantastic colors"… I've already agreed on your over-moderate "speculating" in "wot" section, in spite the fact that we are talking about unfounded and incredibly Kissinger alike "'decision"' to invade another country on false pretences… I'm honestly not sure why you don't consider this edit for what it is, and that is just a "citation intended for verification of existing content." Lovelight10:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What is it, a "missing link" or "false pretenses"? You repeatedly try to assert both, and they're contradictory. Let me rephrase: Is Rumsfeld making a speculation "related to that particular context of the Wikipedia article"? In other words, is he "'publicly"' suggesting the possibility of official "'Iraqi collaboration"' with the hijackers? Rumsfeld directed the scope to be "things related and not", so in fact responsibility is not raised as a concern at all. What the documents actually say (and on which outragedmoderates.org apparently agrees) is that Rumsfeld wanted, "'in secret"', to examine military action against Saddam Hussein, a "'pre-existing"' political goal. In other words, exploit the tragedy for political ends, something the hijackers are not responsible for. Peter Grey14:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Flawless, it seems we constantly agree. The swindle goes both ways, but that is not the issue here… So let me remind once again. We already have formulation. "Immediately after the September 11 attacks U.S. officials speculated (things related or not, judge whether… and all that following nonsense from US administration we listened for years…) on possible involvement by Saddam Hussein; although unfounded, the association contributed to public acceptance (outrageous exploit of the tragedy) for the 2003 invasion of Iraq". I've just provided citation for that fact, this citation or section itself is in no way related to hijackers. You keep repeating that strange argument… As for last part, Rumsfeld tried to give his orders secretly, but these are now available publicly. Lovelight15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very, very simple: A document only made public on 10 February 2006 can not possibly have contributed to "public acceptance" in 2003. Peter Grey04:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, all is very, very simple in deed, and you're simply wrong. One wouldn’t be as disappointed, but you are obviously able to use your organon well. Well… I'll have to admit, there are certainly moments in which one enjoys these sorts of sophistic game play, but discussion should end once silly and/or serious arguments are put to rest. Nothing has change when it comes to my contribution; it is as valid and decent as it was in the moment it was suggested. This note is "verification" of the claim "long available" to the public. Most of the mainstream media was well aware of this and I'm not about to comment on their complicity for this particular dispute we are having here. In 2005. polls showed that 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks and from decent perspective wikipedia shares huge responsibility for such nonsense. I'd suggest that our fine editors think about that for a moment… The fact is, "origin" of these opinions is that meeting held on 911 in which US administrators, Rumsfeld in particular sought the ways to justify invasion of another country. For that he used tragic event which will be classified as "State sponsored terrorism", and we will get there even if it takes a lifetime…

Now, about your point. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11, this information was made public around 2002. memorial as an exclusive story who's summary is clear: Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack (or immediately after the attacks, as it is written right here). In other words, we were sitting on this singular information for years, however, it is now (since 10 February 2006 that is) sourced and verified, therefore it can and will be used as a citation in this heavily disputed article. If you would prefer some other source, such as Guardian, or CNBC, no problem there, just say so… if there is a need to show the flaw in your deduction, say so. Lovelight

Re-add tl|editprotected once consensus has been reached about this external link. If you have any questions, please contact me at . IanManka Ian Manka 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've opted to use the CBS news source for this -- blogs are not considered reliable sources, per policy. However, a CBS news report (in my opinion) seems like a more reliable source to include in this article. Plus, the site to be cited is named "Outraged Moderates" -- a fairly POV title. If you don't wish to have this source, please continue discussion to find the most appropriate link, and add tl|editprotected once consensus has been reached

Weak exposition of motives

The Motive section seems to have an odd presentation. It starts with "According to official U.S. government sources..." - weasel words - before explaining the 1998 fatwa, which is the only really comprehensive claim of responsibility. Then the 9/11 Commission findings, which have some special credibility issues, and then Little George's inane "hatred of the freedom" nonsense. The findings of qualified experts appear last. Peter Grey17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to add it and start an edit war, but Osama bin laden answered the 'why' question himself in his often glossed-over letter to the American people. It can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/021120-ubl.htm and as far as I'm aware it isn't on Wikipedia Whoblitzell08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin laden has answered why clearly for years before 9/11 in interviews, declarations, messages and conversations. The purported "bin Laden letter" that you refer to has not been authenticated as coming from bin Laden. Information was provided in this Wikipedia article at one time that debunked the letter. The letter appeared on the Internet in Arabic a year after 9/11. It was reported in a November 24 ,2002 article in The Observer , in an article that cites no intelligence-agency estimates about the likelihood of its authenticity, only using journalists' beliefs that it is really a letter from bin Laden explaining the motivations for the attacks.

Reasons to question the authenticity of this particular letter include:

a style different from all the interviews

a strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before.

lack of any other source that includes as motives either

"debauchery of Western Civilization " or

a "call for conversion to Islam of the infidels."

The letter has other obvious problems that indicate it is a fabrication which at point is extremely amateurish. Does anyone take the following seriously?: "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?" Who ever actually wrote the letter got carried away. And what is this Islam that the writer of the letter "calls us to" "And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language. " But Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Islamic, this letter talks about "total equality" "without regard" to even sex? Who ever wrote the letter was really having fun at that point. The letter, in an outline format that bin Laden has never used, supposedly asks us to do in numbered several things and now "stop supporting Israel" is pushed down to number 4? Come on. The whole style of the letter is a different from everything that is known to have actually come from bin Laden. 69.114.77.5908:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"According to official U.S. government sources..." are not weasel words, because they are sourced. From the weasel words page, in a nut shell, you should "avoid 'some people say' statements without sources." The only source for most of the info on this site, is US government sources, or news sites that quote US government sources, or videos and letters that are found by, and validated by, (wait for it...) US government sources. It's not wrong to say that the motive for this attack is described by US government sources, if they are the ones describing the motive, and we can't get other passable motives into the article. I'd go even further to say that most of the arguments in this talk page are as weak as the one made at the top of this section, saying that these are weasel words. If the only source for a section is the US government, and it's cited, then it better say that it's according to US government sources, or it's nothing more than government propaganda.—Slipgrid20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Even with sources, do we really know?

Do we really know, even with the sources that American Airlines Flight 77 actually crashed into the pentagon? And do we really know that the phone calls were really those of the people inside the planes? There has been much debate on what actually happened, and I don't think that we should display these events as fact if we're not almost certain that these events took place. I'm not unpatriotic or anything of the sort, but I think that we really don't know that these events occured. Ian Lee 03:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, among MANY other things, do we know that al Qaeda did these terrible things? I think, again, we should remove the things we don't know for certain (or are at least really sure of). Ian Lee 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do we really know" Yes. Peter Grey05:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If nobody "really knows" (while true, nobody knows) then we may aswell remove most of the articles on Wikipedia Lithium500

We don't really know if God exsists so should we ban organized religion and tell people that they must begin saying maybe when they discuss the Bible? "Maybe Jesus died for our sins. So you should convert to Catholocism because Jesus may be able to save you. we aren't entirely sure tho....." I think the events should be reported to the best of our ability this is Wikipedia not Cospiracypedia. 69.214.49.24506:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC) GodoftheLost

What are you talking about?!? Do we really know if the plane hit the Pentagon? What leaves a doubt in your mind about that? I have absolutely no clue what you are getting at? If the plane didn't hit the building, then what did, and where the hell is the plane now? I still can't believe I just read that posted question. I'm totally confused by that one... Ndphil21 J-Dog 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not we call the attackers of 911 terrorists or something else is not important at this stage, as long as the opening of this page in its whole is much worse and clearly carries out the subjective opinion of certain people. But as long as its the US governments opinion no rules apply. Like is the case on so many issues in this world after the attacks. And now this topic is closed for editing, bye people with the very same view as the US Government official explanation. Not surprising. I beg you to stick to the fact. There were attacks, no doubt about it, but we have little proof that says muslims planned and carried out these attacks. I think it is of significant value for this Wiki that the opening is edited to be more objective. Wake up Wikipedia. Youre not supposed to be one of many tools on this "war of oil". As long as its possible to proof what happened this day I think it is very important that the people are enlightened with these facts. God doesnt exist, there is no proof about it, just like there is not enough evidence and proof that the opening on this topic is correct. The difference is that we can find proof on this issue. As long as its possible to find answers, we must find them.

84.48.86.3722:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Bryan S.

Philosophically speaking the difference between "know" and "believe" is a complex issue. We must assume in order to survive.

What I'm more concerned about is the use of the term Islamic or Muslim which whilst it may be true, it implies significance beyond stating the fact. Like saying five black men robbed a bank. Yes they may have been black, but should we state it, and particularly as a headline?

--Angryjames23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Moussaoui info should be given its own sub-header &amp; Motassadeq needs to be mentioned

Due to the notable case brought against Moussaoui the segment entitled "Other potential hijackers" should be subdivided with his info first and then everyone else listed later in the segment. It is ridiculous that his name does not appear in the contents table, and you have to go out and Google around until you can get the right spelling and then come back and do a page search to find him in this article. Because he was found guilty you don't automaticlly realize that he might be included in "potential hijackers" (though once you find him there it seems a logical placement). It would aid the reader looking for his information to sub-divided the segment so they can click on his name from the contents table.--Wowaconia 18:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Something like this:

1 The attacks

...

1.5 Other potential hijackers

1.5.1 Zacarias Moussaoui

1.5.2 Others mentioned as likely conspirators

Please change this, the article is currently locked against editing or I'd do it myself.--Wowaconia 18:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No new edits have been allowed since Dec. 26. "'How long is this lock-out going to drag on?"' Now this page is becoming dated and losing credibility as there is no mention that "A German Court sentenced Moroccan student Mounir al-Motassadeq to 15 years in prison for helping the September 11 suicide pilots plan their attack." Reference = http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,458610,00.html

Go to arbitration already!!! "'This is making the whole Wikipedia project look petty."'--Wowaconia18:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename &quot;Conspiracy theories&quot; section

I propose that the "Conspiracy theories" section be renamed to something along the lines of "Alternative theories". The term conspiracy theory is misleading and has negative associations. However you view it, the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy; that is to say people conspired together (in secret) to carry out the attacks. Under the true definition of the term, even the "Official version" is a conspiracy theory; theorising that Islamic extremist CONSPIRED to do it.

Furthermore, In my opinion, the negative (almost comical) associations with the term reduce the neutrality of the article.

For these reasons I believe the term is being used inappropriately.

) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, those are conspiracy theories. The section name is therefore more accurate as it is than it would be with the one you suggested. | x "'A"'ndonic"'O"' | AndonicO/My Autograph Book "Sign Here" 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is aptly titled, already. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree--Sefringle07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"The term "conspiracy theory" is used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial." - Wikipedia ariticle "Conspiracy theories".

QED. The alternative theories have less methodological flaws than the "official" version. I suggest you take the time to research this before dismissing them as "conspiracy theories". The neutrality of this article is being compromised by this term.

Physicsellis

17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already neutral by menationing them. The main article also labels them as conspiracy theories: 9/11 conspiracy theories. Look through this list, and you'll see that conspiracy theories should and are labeled as such. | x "'A"'ndonic"'O"' | AndonicO/My Autograph Book "Sign Here" 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories are folklores. It is in no way true that 9-11 was committed by anyone else other than Islamic terrorists. Conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and are almost always just to stir up contravercy. The 9-11 Conspiracy theories are no different.--Sefringle01:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why are 9 of the 17 hijackers still alive? Impressive terrorists if you ask me; not only do they defeat the most sophisticated defense system on the planet, but they also defeat several fundamental laws of physics and also defeat death. It is extremely unlikely that the events were carried out by Islamic extremists and is much more likely (and the evidence shows this) that it was carried out by rogue elements of the US government. This page continues the effort of gatekeeping the truth from those who seek the truth by labelling this section "conspiracy theories". I believe that many of you arguing in favour of the official version have not studied any other alternative. I was skeptical too, but in the interest being scientific I studied the facts, and this caused great anger, upset and fear but eventually I had no choice but to yield to the facts. We are not stirring controversy, merely seeking the truth. I will stop pressing for 9/11 truth when the universe collapses and everything dies. —The preceding 18:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

OK. Now lets make up information from unreliable sources and pretend they are fact.--Sefringle03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you are unaware of something and have not studied it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is a fact that there are dozens of unanswered questions which many people feel are very important —The preceding 10:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Ignoring talk of conspiracies, cast your mind back to the events of the day. You should recall that the events that the media reported do not tally with the official 'theory' of what happened that day. Therefore they should be labelled 'Alternative' to distiguish themselves from the official 'theory'. Note the official story can only be truley classed as a 'theory' as it too is unproven. —The preceding 86.142.172.13817:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Jamie

This is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox for promoting conspiracy theories. There are plenty of other websites where you can do that. Everyone please note, there is no need to respond to posts that obviously have no relevance here - doing so only encourages more misuse of this talk page. --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The user obviously wants greater notice of conspiracy theories in the article, not sure why everyone is oblivious to this and treating it as "off topic discussion". I will assume good faith in that its a Friday before an extended weekend in the US and perhaps some people are tired and not noticing the obvious. Please also refrain from telling people to ignore those you do not agree with, its quite disrespectful. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the petition to rename the Conspiracy Theories section. The term is derogatory and insulting to the principals of Wikipedia. "'Criticism of the Official Account"' would be my personal favorite for a title. All articles that are written from a neutral point of view contain some criticism. I hope no one here is arguing that it is un-Wikipedian to add some criticism of the official account? Digiterata08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We have an article which does this and interestingly enough, it's titled 9/11 conspiracy theories...so no reason to call them something other than what they are.--MONGO08:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input MONGO. Just to clarify, whether or not there is a name change for the 'Conspiracy Theory' section, I still believe there is room in this article for a section titled "Criticism of the Official Account." To represent a neutral point of view, criticism of the official account - separate from "Conspiracy Theories" - would greatly improve the balance here. Digiterata06:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We have an "alternative theory" article already, it's called 9/11 conspiracy theories. We don't need to muddy up a factual article with paranoid fantasy. Morton_devonshire "'Morton Devonshire"' 06:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "Paranoid Fantasies of Conspiracy Theorist?" Or if that's too POV, we could go with with "Conpiracy Theories of Paranoid Fanatics". --Tbeatty06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is altogether a misnomer, however it has become the common term to describe alternative theories that contradict official statements, albeit pejoratively. Once again arguments here have been reduced to semantics rather than dealing with the real issues. I personally hate the term, but I see no valid alternative, except perhaps linking "9-11 Conspiracy Theories" to "9-11 Alternative Theories" which seems ridiculous. --Angryjames18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If I say that Gordon Brown's rule of keeping the British state's net debt below 40% makes no sense and is anyway rendered meaningless by the off-balance-sheet accounting for PFI, that is an alternative theory that contradicts an official statement. "The WTC was collapsed by a Martian bomb from behind the grassy knoll in a fugging Fiat Uno" is a conspiracy theory. --Samuel Blanning Sam Blanning 11:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's a valid one. The rules for CTs vs ATs are complex, but can be argued from past experience. CTs generally require non-official support, come from a non-official source and tackle highly charged emotive subjects where the theory implies wrong doing on the part of officials. The term official here is being used in the broadest sense of course (the BBC would be considered official for instance). If you said Gordon Brown was covering up something, and if you gained support for that theory, and if you represented no official body, then yes, your argument would be labelled as a CT. Of course even the BBC print rubbish, consider the Alive Hijackers article for instance ;) --Angryjames13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even the "official" theory concerns a conspiracy! How else do you get four airplanes to crash at the same time, get Superman (who doesn't exist) to go bad? mdash; Rickyrab | 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I said "The term "Conspiracy Theory" is altogether a misnomer". CT is a label, you therefore cannot debate the semantics. It would like arguing that you cannot call someone "white" because their skin isn't white. It's a label. Nothing more. --Angryjames13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than rename the section, remove it and post a secondary entry called "Alternate 9/11 Theories" with a remark that the investigation into the complete causes is ongoingRobblin03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there an ongoing investigation, or simply a group of people asking questions and rooting around for scraps of evidence? --Angryjames13:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We use extremely poor (doublespeak extreme) terminology. We use it because mainstream media (obviously complicit when it comes to forging of our actuality) and those behind it instructed us to do so. To refer to people who ask valid and important questions about inconsistencies of 911 events as to conspiracy theorists is remarkably dim. Almost as dim as having a war on terror (purely psychological term/war as you may well be aware of). If you ask Google about http://www.google.hr/search?hl=enq=911+investigations+ 911 investigations you'll be overwhelmed by their 's, http://www.google.hr/search?hl=enq=9%2F11+investigations+ independent investigations are everywhere. As for your other point, I strongly disagree with your conclusion, BBC didn’t print rubbish (especially not with regards to your example there), as a matter of fact http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html editorial discussion show's clearly that those folks were "forced" to go back and implement changes in "the archive" (Orwellian Nightmare at its best), thus trying to rewrite the history itself. If you are wondering why mainstream media won't touch this, you should be well aware of the true reason and the true reason is sheer "lack of freedom" (clearly reflected in this circus we have here). As we have learned in the Northwoods, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin bay, Operation Gladio, 911, London bombings… there is persistent consistency which can easily be described as http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/How-To-Start-A-WarMay02.htm State Sponsored Terrorism. Lovelight15:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Valid and important questions I support whole heartedly. What I don't support is disconnected logic. I called the BBC article "rubbish" because they printed the headline "Hijack 'suspects' alive and well" when they had confirmed no such thing. In fact they had grabbed an Arab story line that proved to be untrue. When they found this out they simply made a minor alteration (as detailed in your link). What they should have done is made a public apology with a similarly significant headline. Is that too much to ask for? Must also ask, why do you compare London Bombings to the others on your list? --Angryjames17:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The reports of living dead (even partying) hijackers were, if nothing else, then http://www.welfarestate.com/911/ numerous. I see nothing wrong with article in question; as a matter of fact statements of FBI, flight (passenger) manifest as well as http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml news reports clearly show that we had more than one "case of mistaken and/or stolen identity." If you prefer logic you should demand the apology from FBI (who acknowledged that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt), not from BBC who simply noted that alleged hijackers are alive and well (while clearly stating possibility of mistaken identity). All that spinning aside, truly troublesome fact is that none of this was adequately investigated by 911 Commission. The report has same, as noted by the FBI itself "obviously questionable" list of hijackers… To be honest, it's just another of inconsistencies, like those bags which Ata (who enjoys lap dances and frozen margaritas) so conveniently left (to be instantly found) with all that incriminating evidence… Not to mention other http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html "Uncle Sam's lucky finds". Well, what's there to say? Crash-proof passports? Its very poor screenplay to say the least… As for London bombings, there is persistent consistency (interlink) when it comes to inconsistencies of these events. You probably saw the http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4943675105275097719 the Ludicrous Diversion and http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9026971387182561652 Minded the Gap? As with 911 we have, yet another, terrorist act which has many http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumours_and_conspiracy_theories_about_the_July_2005_London_bombings questions, rumors and theories. To make things worst this consistency goes further, and if you remember political climate in which another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plotSceptical_responses_to_the_arrests great plot was foiled you'll see that timing of these events (midterm elections in US are conveniently missing from pointed skepticism), as well as the lack of transparency and/or solid facts are something to be worried about. "imo", of course. Lovelight00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Jihadist?

Many have expressed concern over the use of the word "terrorist" in the article. What about the term "Islamic Jihadist?" Eh? Nobody should argue that one, imho. Could anyone say that the hijackers weren't that?--SweetNeo8505:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "jihad" does not necessarily mean war in the sense most of us understand it, and cannot therefore be used here. As for Islamic, that is highly inappropriate and offensive (see my other posts on this page). --Angryjames18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The name of the article is Islamist terrorism. Changing that name can be discussed on that article's talk page, or at requested moves. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The headline (first paragraph) of the Sep 11 page now uses the phrase Islamic extremists. But no doubt other pages use equally offensive terms in titles and headlines. --Angryjames13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

Can an admin delete all of the links to a picture that does not exist in the article? It makes the page take a long time to load. --BenWhitey19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That was fast. Already done. --BenWhitey19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[[Windsor Tower]]

right|200px|thumb|Windsor Tower at 12:06 p.m. on February 13, 2005. Quite charred, as one can see.

..sustained in Feb of 2005 sustained a 20 hour fire without much damage to its steel frame? Was that a hoax? Are Spaniards worldclass engineers that such building withstood complete burnout with fire leaving only frames behind. Or is it the other way around with World trade centers... I still don't see any reason that a single aeroplane would be given the power to take down such building, that was according to documental archive built just (and only) for withstanding terrorist attacks. And I doubt it that Spanish are better engineers, quite the opposite... --195.210.230.22622:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What the eyes see and the ears hear the mind believes. It is impossible for one plane to do that to each of the towers, especially when they were designed to withstand multiple impacts from jet liners while enduring a 150 year hurricane and 10 times the maximum load that could ever be exerted on them (i.e. the weight of people standing shoulder to shoulder on every floor multiplied by 10). Furthermore, the majority of the jet fuel was burned up in fireballs outside the building on the initial impact. This left only moderate low temperature fire (characterised by excessive smoking (oxygen deprived fire) which in no way could melt the steel. The firemen even said they could put it out with just two fire hoses right before the building mysteriously imploded (after only an hour too, gee, who writes this stuff?). At what about WTC7? If you think that buildings spontaneously collapse symmetrically and at free fall speed onto their own footprint then I suggest you read up on some basic laws of physics. —The preceding 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

This page is actually not a conspiracy theory chat board. This is for discussing the maintenance of the associated encyclopedia article. No drama, no trolling, no general chatting please. This discussion thread will be removed in 3... 2... 1... mdash; Weregerbil 09:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed we're discussing facts presented and written in this very article, wouldn't you agree Weregerbil? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3554851540803945132q=Windsor+madrid This is a video of the Madrid Windsor Fire that lasted over 20 hours and raged with fire, contrary to what was seen with World Trade Center ... all » 7. This building survived as have every other steel framed building that has ever caught fire. This isn't about conspiracy theory, it's questioning whether those who built towers should be taken on responsibility for not so flawless job they've done. It is a structural question of a building that was built to withstand.. Minoru Yamasaki was the architect. --195.210.251.1709:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That building had reinforced concrete in its core and was not hit by a widebody jet.--MONGO07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The WTC buildings also had 47 reinforced concrete support columns at their core. Furthermore, these were hermetically sealed as standard. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3281135121622917423. It's true that the out columns supported a percentage of the weight, but as the designer of the building says, it was very effective at redistributing weight in the event of damage.

No, it had 47 steel columns encased in gypsum boards, and none of that matters anyway since the columns themselves were damaged by the impact of the planes. The weight was redistributed but the subsequent fires reduced the carrying capacity of the floor trusses.--MONGO13:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand the planes did not strike that far into the center, which is why the elevators remained working throughout. There was a documentary on WB11 some time back that had a middle eastern guy talking about how the plane hit the building on the floor/side he was on and he was able to still get out.--x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

None of the elevators in either tower above the points of imapct were working after either plane hit each building. In fact, many elevators had their cables snapped causing them to crash to their lowest normal service floors. Naturally, one would have hoped for more survivors, but to cite one example of someone who managed to eascape from a near death situation is not a good example that explains why all the others perished. The aviation fuel even sent a fireball down to the concourse level in the south tower, probably via an elevator shaft. The only reason anyone escaped from the south tower above the point of impact is because that aircraft hit the southeast side of the building, leaving the northwest stairway only partially damaged. All the elevators and stairwells were located in the central core of each building.--MONGO21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes little sense, if the plane penetrated the building into the center the elevators would not have worked at all, not simply not worked above a certain floor. But you also believe that all WTC buildings collapsed because of a fire, which defies history. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The elevators were staged...they didn't all go from the top to the bottom of the building. Each building was essentially three buildings in one and persons needing to go the uppermost floors would ride at least three different elevators to get to the uppermost floors. I never said the buildings collapsed just due to fire...they were also hit by wide body jets going at speeds near to and over 500 mph. Have you read anything produced by the National Institute of Science and Technology?--MONGO22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats normal, if you worked in an office building you would be aware that staged elevators are common. I ride 2 elevators to get to the floor I work on and that is only the 36th floor. You dont get points for stating the obvious. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Building collapse is a question of structural engineering, not history. And no-one thinks fire was a factor in 4 WTC. Peter Grey22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So true I am sure there is a logical reason its just never happened before and happens to the building specifically made for it not to happen rofl, gg no re. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Real engineers know that "'every"' building is designed not to fall down. And it's not like Madrid Windsor Tower was salvageable. Peter Grey22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So you say? Wow I am flabbergasted at this revelation. Perhaps I should have been clearer since you didn't get the implication. I was reffering to the "made to withstand a plane collision" issue. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

V is your friend. How many reliable sources support these "alternative theories"? If your answer is more than zero, go back and read RS. Anyone who wants to remove the more obviously delusional posts from here will have little opposition from me (JzG/help Help!) 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase so people dont need to get some TEA. Mr. Guy I happily disagree with you, your concept of "delusional" does not share reality with polls from Gallup etc. which state that the majority of Americans at least do not agree with the account presented on this article space. I find it quite in a negative light when an admin makes a decision on a page that they have a personal opinion regarding, but that is why we often do not meet in the middle it seems. Well good chap good day and have a jolly old fun extended weekend if you are located here in the states. Perhaps we will meet one day on the slopes. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If an elevator shaft was damaged, then that whole shaft would have been out of order, not just the part below the plane strike point. That said, elevators should not freefall just because their cables have snapped, thanks to Elisha Otis. Do we know which of the three stages was hit? Presumably the middles ones? I guess that might have also cut power to the top stage if the power cables to it were cut? I am not an expert, but I'll have a guess that the bottom stage shut itself down for some reason, rather than actually being seriously damaged. Elevators are a really bad way to exit a damaged building. Regards, 22:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In each tower, only one elevator went almost the entire distance from the base to the top floors. All other elevator were staged. The express elevator in the south tower would allow access directly non-stop to the observation area at the top of the building, and the one in the north tower went to the windows of the world restaurant at the top of that building. In the north tower, the uppermost stage was hit. There were over 100 elevators in each building, counting freight elevators. (97 passenger and 6 freight) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34255,00.html. In the south tower, the aircraft struck right at the dividing point between the middle section and the upper section of the building. See the 4th diagram on the right and the section titled "elevators like subways" in http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html this link. There were reports of elevator failures which resulted in the elevators plunging to the lowest level they would normally service.--MONGO07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There were lots of reports remember, you said we cant rely on news from that day. Lets not cherry pick, are reports from that day, immediatly following the attack credible? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, I do not see any Boeing aircraft inside Windsor Tower. The fire it sustained was from other causes. Comparing it to the WTC fire is simply apples and oranges. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct there was less fire dmg to the WTC when it fell and it seems no real proof of structural damage, however the building was made to take the impact of a larger plane then actually hit it. WTC 7 was it that is said to have fallen due to fire dmg alone? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Without a verifiable source citing professional conclusions of a structural engineer, speculative allegations are not encyclopedic. Peter Grey04:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1 WTC took out 7 WTC - that's hardly "mostly into their own footprint". No-one cares what the "Bush White House" says on technical issues. If there's a "more reliable source", please identify it, and it may possibly contribute to the article. But bear in mind a source is not "more reliable" simply because it says what you think it should say. We've had the engineering vs intuition discussion before. Peter Grey12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you can find pictures but being someone who passed ground zero and actually worked 2 blocks down as a messenger for some time before it fell, I can tell you it did fallinto its own footprint. The issue you seem to not understand is that even if it feel straight down ther eis still the issue of all that concrete and it was enough to splatter across the street. For instance make a tower of sound and then squish it straight down, its going to expand at the base outward ... Do you realize how close the buildings were geographically? --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There's video showing how the buildings really collapsed. Unless by 'into its own footprint' you mean the unremarkable observation that things fall vertically. Peter Grey12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes vertically, now make a pile of something and knock out one side, does it fall straight down? If the arguement is that it was damaged beyond being able to stabalize on one side only, then it really should no thave fallen straight down. The arguement for the elevators is that only one side was hit really badly, then it goes back to being that it was dmg all around so it fell straight down. Tell me something, why do they hire people to knock down buildings if all you have to do it put it on fire and let it crumble? 3 buildings fell straight down due to fire, first defying the idea that towers can fall from fire dmg, havent so far, then defying the idea of ever needing professionals to demolish a building. I guess its a coincidence or just dumb luck that NYC skyscrappers will always fall straight down, bad luck that fire will take them down though =/ Lucky I start a new position next month where I should be on the ground floor. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_CenterThe_collapse_mechanism. Apparently the WTC towers had some load balancing trusses on top. Quite useful to ensure the building continues standing if only few structural support elements fail but something which will probably cause catastrophic failure of all structural elements if enough of them fail since the load is constantly transfered to the remaining. If you need a more intuitive example, imagine a bicycle wheel. You can continue to ride if a spoke cracks since the load is distributed to the remaining ones. If you'd continue to ride long enough more and more spokes would crack over time due to the increased and asymmetric load and then you would suddenly have a catastrophic failure of the remaining spokes and land on the street (actually you wouldn't be able to continue to ride such long as the lateral deformation of the wheel would stop you before). Something similar probably happened at WTC and didn't happen at the Windsor tower so both events are not comparable. Note I'm a layman concerning mechanical engineering but you also don't seem to cite experts. Uups, forgot to sign. MBP18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, but there is no point in using this page to argue the merits of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are forums for that. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 14:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? This is the 9/11 article talk page. The point is to talk about editing of the article. Discussions of conspiracy theories are germane to the article because the causes of 9/11 are relevant to the topic of 9/11 itself, and thus the discussion of conspiracy theories about 9/11 is relevant to the editing of this article. mdash; Rickyrab | 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have any qualified experts made a comparison of the two buildings? Otherwise all this silliness is original research. Peter Grey17:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"'second"' that. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 21:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am Spaniard and this issue was broadly commented here. I was also curious so I listen carefully. The two key differences between WTC towers and Windsor tower were 1) the temperature of the fire was much lower in Spanish building since only furnitures and carpets fed it (instead of jet fuel) and 2)not any support was damaged by any impact so not any column was forced to support nothing that did not support before the fire started. Apart from that, the concrete around the steel (I do not know the correct english word for the steel inside concrete columns) was much thicker in Windsor. I heard a full interview with one of the architects of WTC and he said that they have been aware of the risk of a fire so each column in each floor had a fire estinguishing device aimed to reduce temperature of the columns. Unfortunately the whole system was damaged by the planes so it did not worked on 9/11. The combination of high temperatures on the steel plus the lack of some elements of support caused the collapse. Just as to round the question, I also saw in Scientifican American a report about conclusions of 9/11 for future towers to be built, specially in Pacific Rim were many are planned or under way. The conclusion was that in the same case of a plane full of fuel crashing the towers, there was no way to make the building last much more than the time that the WTC lasted. So the strategy will be to create evacuation procedures using reinforced emergency elevators that allow the building to be abandoned by everybody in half an hour. Thus, the towers that are going to be built from now on would have a requirement of being able to resist any fire -on foot and with enough elevators working- until are empty. So the behaviour of WTC towers was not only outstanding for his time but dificult to improve even now with all the new materials and computer simulations available.--Igor2116:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of a talk page?

Why is this talk page semiprotected? This is nuts. mdash; Rickyrab | 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anons should have a right to comment on the 9/11 article, and to that end, I shall make a talk page for this talk page. Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/talk, tl|hangon

I am requesting a merger of the new page with this parent page, now that the new page's purpose has ended. mdash; Rickyrab | 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it was being trolled by those whose primarily purpose was disruption...just guessing, of course.--MONGO07:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

weren't you the one who semi-protected this page MONGO? and didn't you semi-protect it because someone you permabanned out of process was posting as an anon? I'm prepared to rekindle the POV debate sometime in the near future, because the more I look the more the evidence points to conspiracy theories. Also this article is far from neutral. I'm putting an unprotection request up right now-- 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember if I semiprotected it or not, Acebrock. As far as being nuetral, if the conspiracy theory people think they will succeed in adding their misinformation to this article, they have been mislead. In fact, if there are more pieces of misinformation that are nothing but disruption and harassment as was the case until it was semiprotected, then it will be immediately removed. The person I permabanned out of process...oh, you mean Cplot? What was out of process was that he already had two 3RR blocks leading up to that and was doing nothing but attacking everyone...get your facts straight before you make loud misrepresenations about my actions.--MONGO14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I see, that I didn't ever once protect or semi-protect this talkpage....http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Logpage=Talk%3ASeptember+11%2C+2001+attacks.--MONGO14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was x Naconkantari's fault, and he or she has also apparently picked now, of all times, to go on a wikibreak. mdash; Rickyrab | 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page has been unsemiprotected. Since I succeeded at what I set out to do, I'll shut up now. mdash; Rickyrab | 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, I see no reason to listen to anyone who makes personal attacks against me as you did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protectiondiff=101784561oldid=101781302 here. note the edit history and how you say I got my facts wrong "as usual". if that's not a personal attack then personal attacks do not exist. I admit I got one fact wrong, the person semiprotecting the page, but you still blocked Cplot without going through the normal channels, and why is adding more about the conspiracy theories POV? please explain, in full without calling them nutty, idiotic, or anything else that would be deragatory-- 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi...either add discussion that is designed to make this article better or your misrepresentations about myself and other editors will be removed in the future.--MONGO22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 and All That

Wow, all of this nonsense about conspiracy theories and planned demolitions. Yes, it's unusual for skyscrapers made from steel to collapse from fire. However, this was a very hot couple of fires. Furthermore, folks who were IN the danged Towers reported having seen no demolition work going on, whereas had explosives been planted beforehand some would've seen something unususual - after all, the Towers were supported by their side walls, and many folks had offices by those walls. Thus, someone's office would likely have been disturbed by the drilling or by the planting of explosives. Yes, I agree that 9/11 was a Bad Thing, and I even agree that it was a conspiracy that did it - after all, four planes don't crash for nothing - but this was a case in which skyscrapers literally burned to the ground, unlikely as it seems. I suppose those Conspiracy Theories are quite a Silly Thing indeed, and maybe their proposers should head over to Hastings and take a break - with "1066 and All That", of course. mdash; Rickyrab | 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not soapbox. Also the fires aren't 2000 degrees, which would melt the steel, but 1400, which would make them slightly rubbery-- 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if you ever worked in a building like the Twin Towers but there is construction going on almost every day, everytime a tenant moves out contruction comes in to redo the layout of the floor. Movers come in and out of the building constantly as well. Anyone saying they didnt hear commotion is either not near it, or lying. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, people would've known something was going on - at least some of them. Construction workers get seen. Furthermore, since the 1993 bombing, security was beefed up at the WTC, so if there was an inside job, it would've had to involve someone on security (explosives in massive quantities are harder to sneak through than the box cutters that Al Qaeda used on the airplanes). mdash; Rickyrab | 18:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Split screen 9/11

Just wondering why the multimedia link that used to be on this page located at http://ia300233.us.archive.org/3/items/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline-44min.mpg was removed. I think it is highly valuable material, and I have no agenda.

I understand that people might think this guy was agenda driven in producing this video, but it's the only one I've found that so effectively places the coverage from so many outlets together. I'd be very interested to know why this link might have been removed. —The preceding ) 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Arbcom For 911?

This page has been protected on and off for a month, and that's not good for Wikipedia in general. There is a concentrated effort to add conspiracy theory related material to this article. It makes me wonder if the effort is being organized offline. That being said, should we consider bringing an ArbCom for the 911 article itself? The objective is to have arbitrators agree conspiracy theory material should be included in the conspiracy articles, and not the main 911 article. With such a decision, the offending material could be deleted on sight, and/or the contributing editor warned or banned. Without a higher authority involved, I do not see a way to unprotect the page without edit warring. Abe.Froman Abe Froman 17:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinknig quite the similar except change to "'There is a concentrated effort to remove conspiracy theory related material from this article"' and I wouldnt violate AGF. Perhaps that is what is contributing to the hostility here, pelase try to abide by the Wiki policies in the future. Thank you. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh, a conspiracy theory about the conspiracy theories. What's next, a conspiracy theory about people conspiring to theorize about folks conspiring to theorize about others conspiring to destroy the World Trade Center? This is getting ridiculous - people not only theorizing that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (there was, that's not the point; the discussion is over "who" conspired and "how" the conspirators brought down the Twin Towers), but people theorizing that those conspiracy theorists are themselves ganging up in a conspiracy. mdash; Rickyrab | 17:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Or people conspiring to remove material about conspiracy theories, for that matter. mdash; Rickyrab | 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OR conspiring not to! Whatever, I think it is perhaps time to goto Arbcom, I have some conspiracy trends that will be useful. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page is off to arbcom, feel free to add your statements, folks. mdash; Rickyrab | 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't: the arbcom clerk decided that 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Arbcom form that I used and what I had put on it, though.

Conspiracy theories on [[Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks]] and semiprotection of that page

"'Initiated by "' mdash; Rickyrab | "'at"' 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

- banned user that may be sockpuppeting and which may have triggered Naconkantari's semiprotection (user talk page is protected)

- since I wound up commenting and asking around after discovering this semiprotection of a talk page, I guess I'm involved, too.

"Note:" There may be others involved in this; it is a complicated discussion and I waded into the middle of it. mdash; Rickyrab | 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

provide diffs showing that the involved parties have been notified on their talk pages

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Naconkantaridiff=101837150oldid=101502630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MONGOdiff=101837276oldid=101746902

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearUmpfdiff=101836385oldid=101320907

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abe.Fromandiff=101836483oldid=98010304

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_harrisondiff=101836574oldid=101786871

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ItsAProphetThingoldid=101836683

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acebrockdiff=101836750oldid=101457226

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peter_Greydiff=101836844oldid=100955717

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rickyrabdiff=101837398oldid=97600356

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=101841542oldid=101827732

"Note:" Cplot, the banned user, could not be notified on account of his ban and the protection of his userpage; furthermore, obtaining a statement from him would be difficult due to the ban. mdash; Rickyrab | 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

; Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried - "am not sure about this"

Statement by [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]]

There is a situation of semi-protection of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, which is making it practically impossible for anons to submit requests for edits to the main article. It is there because people supporting conspiracy theories and people feeling that the talk page should not contain discussion of conspiracy theories are arguing with one another, and some users (I am uncertain about this) may have been banned and may be using sockpuppets. Nonetheless, I am concerned that good-faith anons are being censored by this semi-protection. Furthermore, I wonder if a ban on users excessively discussing conspiracy theories and their IPs is a good idea or not. My POV is that a) conspiracy theories are relevant to discussing the cause of 9/11, b) the discussion of conspiracy theories often disintegrates badly into soapboxing and even "whining", c)blocking all anons from editing a TALK page over the edits of a few is ridiculous, and d) the situation needs sysop help. mdash; Rickyrab | 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Statement by {write party's name here}

(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries. Remember to sign and date your statement.)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Protection and Arbcom

I have unprotected the talk page for now. I don't think you can have permanent semi-protection on a talk page without some kind of intentional discussion; leaving it protected because it might be trolled again is not a good solution. It can be reprotected if necessary.

I'm not sure exactly what the intent of arbitration would be. If you have been having problems with anons and disposable accounts using the talk page to inappropriately promote conspiracy theories rather than discuss the article itself, the most you will get out of the arbitration committee is a finding that inappropriate talk can be reverted or archived. It would be easier if you could agree among yourselves to do that. (Such an agreement would have to include most significant editors and most "sides" of the issue, of course.) Note that whether you decide to remove inappropriate comments among yourselves or ask arbcom for a ruling, in the end it will come down to the editors here needing to agree on which comments should be removed, since arbcom won't do it for you.

If the problem is disruptive editing by regular editors then you can file an arbitration request, although the committee will expect you to show prior attempts at dispute resolution, such as an RFC. Good luck. 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected to keep harrassment of the editors out of here. I don't care if the conspiracy theorists post here, but if they are going to making false accusations or engaging in personal attacks by questioning individuals about their editing, then that needs to go.--MONGO22:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to have it permanently semi-protected (or at least long-term, say a month at a time) I think you should ask for consensus among the other regular editors. If most agree, I'll re-protect it. I'll also watch it for a while. 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I prefer for no protection, but again, if I see harassment by Cplot, I will immediately remove it and hope other editors will do the same.--MONGO23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather it be left unprotected. It might be best if people did not respond to trolling and soap-boxing, and just immediately removed it. If that can't be done, then long-term protection may be needed. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 00:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I question what you call Soapboxing, I hope that we can instead take a poll to remove comments, if everyone agree's then it should be removed. Comments made in favor of conspiracy theories should not be removed, especially when asking for them to be included in the article. If this gets out of hand, I will have to ask for outside assistance. Deleting comments should only be done in extreme circumstances. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 12:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

TALK: "Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Vandalism, trolling, etc are routinely removed from Wikipedia; irrelevant discussions can be similarly removed. I don't think conspiracy theory pages need different rules and polling drama. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; gunk that does not contribute towards that goes away. Weregerbil13:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic, noone here is discussing vandalism or general conversation. Thank you. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 14:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

lt;- shift left

@everyone: never mind DeepCover; already blocked as another cplot sock. @cplot and friends: thanks for your input. It is gratifying to know that my humble decrufting work on Wikipedia is so effective that it makes you to try to troll me. The best an anti-troller anti-vandal can hope for is to be so effective that trolls and vandals get all hot and bothered about him. Validation of my existence! Great success! Thank you! Weregerbil01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this thread serves as a good example of why this page does, in fact, need to be protected. --Action Jackson IV08:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact (and judging by the recent history;), it would be far easier (and far more decent) if we would remove http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacksoldid=102261714 the cause of vandalism itself. Lovelight22:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason this page is protected. That is because a substantial portion of the population disagree with its content. The 9/11 truth movement is not going away. I strongly suggest that you all research the events of that day in detail to find out why. Else, you can keep this page locked forever and leave it wallow in its own crapulence. That wouldn't be such a bad thing, as hopefully 9/11 truth sites will overtake this one as more and more people wake up. Incidentally, I am pleased to notice that a "911" or "9/11" google search yields five to six 9/11 truth sites on the first page (out of ten). Locking a talk page? That is absolutely absurd. People need to ask the question; why are things so bad that both the page and the talk page need to be locked? Maybe there are lots who have valid questions and points and want to see them reflected in the article. The truth will win out. At the end of the day the "official" version is like the valence-band of a small band-gap intrinsic semiconductor at room temperature: full of holes.Physicsellis22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is where to post requests for unprotection. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image Covering Text

The image of the lightpole on the cab it covering the text, I tried to fix it but I can't see the anything about the image when I click edit page...sorry I'm a bit of a wiki noob. Patmagroin128913:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Affiliated with al-Qaeda

I wish to bring up the issue of al-Qaeda taking part in attacks. There is no reference as to evidence of al-Qaeda being affiliated with the attacks. I believe that we should only have hijackers in the article and no mention of al-Qaeda actually doing it. There can be the theory of al-Qaeda doing it, but not saying that they actually did it. —The preceding ) 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Bin Laden said he picked the people, this is referenced in the article. --x NuclearZer0faults Zer0 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. That is sufficient evidence to back up "who dunnit". —The preceding ) 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Provide other hypothesis in main article

I think it would be good to have in the main article other possible hypothesis than the ones expressed in the 9/11 Comission. For example in the case of the Madrid bombings of March 11, in the Spanish Wikipedia http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atentados_del_11_de_marzo_de_2004La_discusi.C3.B3n_sobre_la_autor.C3.ADa_.2811-14_de_marzo.29, there is room for different studies, backed up with sources.

--165.138.169.3321:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there going to be an attack this weekend in Salt Lake and San Antonio? 68.89.131.14621:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/whitepaper.aspx?docid=72826

Tom Harrison versus CosmicLatte

The sentence at issue is:

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt, as billions of dollars worth of office space was

damaged or destroyed.

The question is "what was destroyed."

Office space was destroyed.

That's rather a strangely constructed sentence, when you look at it.

Looking further, what does it mean? Billions to construct? No. Billions to rent? For how long? Billions to replace? That might better.

The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt. Office space which would cost billions of

dollars to replace was damaged or destroyed.

That's my suggestion.

Wowest

15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

"Billions of dollars in office space" and "Office space worth billions of dollars" seem to mean the same thing in comfortable English, and might equate to something like "Office space that would be appraised at billions of dollars" in more laboured English. Despite the fact that office space was destroyed, however, neither "office space" nor "destroyed" are syntactically important components of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "billions" (both "of dollars" and "in office space" are prepositional phrases--the grammatical equivalent of junk DNA, if I may offer a metaphor) and the corresponding verb is the auxiliary verb, "were." Cosmic Latte16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example for comparison: "Members of al-Qaeda hijack the planes." "Al-Qaeda" is more semantically interesting than "members," but "members" is more syntactically important because it is the subject of the sentence, whereas ""of" al-Qaeda" is a prepositional phrase, set off by the preposition, "of." So the infinitive of the verb, "to hijack," must be conjugated to correspond with "members" (hence "hijack") rather than with "al-Qaeda" (in which case it would be "hijacks," at least in American English). You can insert as many prepositional phrases (PP) and relative clauses (RC) as you'd like, and still the subject will be plural: ""'Members"' "of" al-Qaeda PP "from" Jupiter PP "with" thirty toes PP, "who" play Scrabble RC "with" kangaroos PP "that" eat ice cream RC "'hijack"' the planes." "Ice cream" may be singular, but all that matters is that the subject of the sentence is plural. Cosmic Latte16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)