September 11 attacks/archive28

Ungrammatic title

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

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

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

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

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

Possible to make this page perma-protected ?

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

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

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

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

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

Kamikaze?

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

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

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

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

GA nomination on hold

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources should be added to these statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What went wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failed GA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll

In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind… Lovelight01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)