Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 36

message: Since I can't edit this article I can only politely request to add the NPOV tag to this article.
This article start by saying:
:On that morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda ...
Which references to an article claiming Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda based on the infamous video translation. According to WP:V any statement that doesn't have reliable, verifiable sources is open for removal. In this case we're talking about verifiability of the translation of the video.
WP:V also says:
:exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
In this case there appears to be only one translation of the video. To verify the source the video should be translated by multiple sources, not just one. Since this source is thus not verifiable at this point the claim that Al Qaeda is responsible for the attacks is unsourced, thus, non-NPOV, thus open for removal.
Please let's apply WP's rules. If anyone can make this source verifiable please do so. Otherwise, if WP rules cannot be applied to such an important article then there is no point in continuing WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007 
:By invoking "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", I assume you think that this is an exceptional claim. I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate on that a little further, because this is not an exceptional claim on its face. Natalie 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this source not verifiable?  It specifically states that the attacks on September 11th were committed by Al-Qaeda; the "extraordinary claim" being made here is not the fact reported by the CBC, but that they and myriad other media sources, government and academic sources translated the tape incorrectly.  --Haemo 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well that none of the media sources did their own translations of the original tape. They all just read or broadcast the press releases from the Bush regime, or reprinted the wire service stories coming from the same source. When people who actually speak both English and Arabic state that the text was mistranslated, they get labeled "conspiracy theorists," and the truth is ignored. Wowest (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not relevant to the verifiability of the source. Reliable sources, which the CBC is, have a reputation for fact checking — and that includes checking that the translations they use, regardless of their source, are accurate.  If you disagree with their reporting, that's not an issue for Wikipedia.  --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are multiple translations of the video, including one by Al Jazeera which originally broadcast the video. (see above quotes)  This is already cited in the article.  Furthermore, the video is available online for anyone to watch.  I'm able to understand what Osama says without the translation, and find the Al Jazeera translation accurate and the CBC article also accurate. CBC also meets Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The source also specifically states that the attacks were committed by Al-Qaeda; the CBC is a reliable source and so the fact in question meets verifiability standards.  --Haemo 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As an aside,  really isn't the best tag to indicate a problem with sources. Other templates can be found at WP:TM. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just because that is the closest citation does not mean it is the only one. There are dozens of other sources used in the article that support that statement as well. Mr.Z-man 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I could add a NPOV tag but I don't as it would be reverted immediately. 62.102.20.10 is right: There are only 9/11 conspiracy theories for what happened. The official theory is by definition a conspiracy theory, too. This understanding should be included in all 9/11 articles. --mms (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag to be added to this article 

message: I have seen various articles refer to the terrorist attacks as "9/11". I think this doesn't sound very encyclopedic and we should change any article that refers to the attacks as "9/11" to "September 11, 2001 attacks" or something along those lines. What do you guys think? --Xer0 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is probably a good idea.  9/11 is just a date, and only in American parlance is it synonymous with the attacks.  --Haemo 06:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to do that. "9/11" is already synonymous with "terror" around the world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good point. Certainly in the English language though, 9/11 is far more strongly associated with this event than any other, so the redirect is appropriate; the  template gives a pointer for any other usages anyway. Whether or not the term is a context-friendly choice in any given wording should be dealt with on an individual basis and is an issue of style as well as terminology for the article concerned. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "9/11" vs "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" 

message: These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda I think that this statement is in need of a citation(s). Especially that of independent researchers. It seems many independent researchers have found just the opposite.--DatDoo (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is accurate, though, although "independent researchers" is ambiguous.  It would probably be correct to say "the vast majority of" political leaders, mainstream journalist, and independent researchers...., but that would be difficult to source.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't really understand. It's not sourced in the first place. I think this is an important point to many people and if it is true it certainly needs to be sourced no matter what right? Perhaps it would be better to write "the vast majority. I'm a new user so I'm still getting used to some of the rules. Thanks.--DatDoo (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. These summaries of other articles need not include every reference. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
I think this is a specific point and it is likely to be challenged.--DatDoo (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best one is this article in Popular Mechanics, where it specifically states that the mainstream account is "widely accepted".  There's also a good NPR interview where they interview an expert who explains that they're not accepted as credible by historians, or experts.  This Time article also specifically explains that they've been rejected by the mainstream media. --Haemo (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subarticle also provides a citation, which we could steal.  --Haemo (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up before in regards to that sentence. After much debate it was altered to add the word "most" when refering to independant researchers because as it reads now it implies a vast majority which is clearly not the case when considering those who have actually examined the subject which was the basis of the objection at the time. I was not aware that it had been changed back. Wayne (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello Haemo, the citation in the subarticle dosen't actually correspond to the claim it is supposed to support. Also, thanks for the heads up Wayne, I saw the discussion on the other page.--DatDoo (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Researchers Conspiracy Citation 

message: We don't know if the terrorist planned to destroy the buiildings by Arson...we do know that what they engaged in was Aircraft hijacking, hoping for Mass murder,  resulting in Murder suicide, and that it was therefore, a Suicide attack...that is why I reverted Wowest's addition of arson.--MONGO (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As have I, it seems like it's quite trivial in the greater scheme. --Golbez (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Stating that the goal was "arson" is original research unless you have a specific citation to back up that claim.  Bin Laden could have hoped for any number of things — a fire, serious structural damage followed by a collapse, damage requiring a demolition, or simply casual mayhem.  Without a definitive statement, we cannot say for sure.  --Haemo (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you suggesting we include "arson" in every attack where explosives are used, because they can potentially cause fires? --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm asserting that setting a building on fire as the result of action consistent with a criminal intent is arson. Similarly, involvement in a robbery in which anyone kills anyone else is considered murder, no matter who killed whom. Wowest (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's not arson.  If I break into a house and accidentally set it on fire it's not arson; arson requires the intentional setting of a fire for an unlawful or illegal purpose.  Since you don't have any sources stating that Bin Laden was trying to set a fire it's not exactly helpful here. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arson]] 

message: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but it seems as good a place as any.
Whatever happened to the September 11th wiki (http://sep11.wikipedia.org/) ?? Several pages on wikipedia still link to it and wasn't sure if it closed down due to money problems or what. Thanks.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 03:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was closed down because it was rather un-wikimediaish. If we have that, why not have tribute wikis for anything? A wiki where anyone can post about their brother who just died in a car accident? It was moved to the non-foundation site http://www.sep11memories.org. More info is here:  --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11th Wiki? 

message: I think there should be a mention of the "Accidental Tourist" photoshop picture that was forwarded around right after 9/11. I think it is a reaction to 9/11 that is strange and should be documented. I'm going to do some more research now and will likely add edit soon. Please add your thoughts on how best to link this article. Clerks. (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At most, that should get a link in the 'see also' at the end of the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't need to be in it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things that could be linked to the 9/11 attacks. A single e-mail hoax isn't of any significant importance...especially considering the main article is only a few paragraphs long. — BQZip01 — talk 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tourist guy]] 

message: Is it pertinent that 24 members of the Bin Laden family, as well as Saudi Royals (about 140 Saudis total) were allowed to fly out of the U.S. on September 14, 2001? That info would probably go here, since it was a rare exception to the fight blackout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Immediate_national_response Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right? http://911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight has several links from news sources and the commission report itself debunking the myth. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL @ ' User:Pedant (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The flight blackout ended on the 14th anyways, so that wouldn't be an exception. --clpo13(talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right?" No, I meant the 14th. My info was from here, all with citations from contemporary print news sources: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301flight&scale=1#a091301flight (And in terms of the 9/11 commission report, I probably would trust that about as much as I'd trust the Warren Report, meaning I wouldn't.) In terms of the absolute blackout having already been lifted, I understand, yet many of the Bin Ladens and Saudis who who left wouldn't have passed a competent or prudent security check, especially not in the week following a terrorist attack (for reasons listed on the link and elsewhere). Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it depends on which sources you want to believe. But the issue about the family leaving has long been considered a non-event by most people. --Golbez (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediate news sources were reporting events as they occurred, rather than a story to represent a commission viewpoint well after the facts. Plus, I'm not sure you or anyone can speak for "most people"; plus, it wasn't simply the immediate Bin Laden family who left, it was 140 Saudis, all of whom the governement had a legitimate reason to detain. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing about immediate news sources is that they can be corrected later on. For example, the story from a mere week after the attacks so repeated by truthers that some of the hijackers are alive and well and living in Saudi Arabia - too bad the BBC has since published multiple articles refuting those original statements. But I suppose a certain tunnel vision is required for these people. --Golbez (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden family 

message: A tag has been added to this article, arguing that it's too long.  However, according to article size guidelines this article is within acceptable limits.  The argument has been made that it take too long for people on slow connections to access it.  Unfortunately, this is simply impossible to make it smaller — the fact is this, because people keep needlessly asking for  sources for innumerable statements in the article it has 180+ references which each compose around 1/3 of a k a piece.  That's over 60k of references alone.  There's simply no way to make this article smaller without removing some of the references — and that's not going to happen. --Haemo (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we can take out all the "kooky stuff" like the references to aircraft crashing and buildings collapsing and dead people, and just leave it at: It was decided that a war would be profitable for some people or corporations, and someone (or groups of someones) made it happen, and nobody wants this article to be long.  The end. User:Pedant (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not very helpful. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Haemo, this article easily satisfies the occasional exceptions section of WP:SIZE . RxS (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the current length is appropriate given the magnitude of such an event.-Wafulz (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: I don't know why Osama bin laden is listed as the perpetrator of the attacks, but what is that based on?, just what the government claims?.
This seems to be often overlooked, but Given Osama bin laden has not been indicted, 'nor wanted for anything in relation with 9/11, and is only linked to other lesser terrorists attacks, its highly predudicial to say he's the mastermind.No evidence has ever been shown linking him, just the commonly excepted claim.
And from what I remember he never explicitly claimed responsibility.
But what I'm really trying to say is, yes Al Queda was responsible for 9/11, and bin laden is the head of it, but does that mean he directly participated in what al queda did?, Or is more like a branch of his organization was responsible for something he condoned but had no direct participation in.
His personal responsibility likely lies somewhere in between, but the fact is there is no evidence in support of government claims, and FBI don't even list 9/11 as why he's on 10 most wanted list.I just think people will be misleaded reading this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "perpetrators" section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden".  Numerous reliable sources call Bin Laden the "mastermind" behind the attacks, and he has personally taken responsibility for conceiving of and planning them in explicit terms. --Haemo (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the article...it has links to other sources.--MONGO (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Those would be reliable sources both asserting that he's the mastermind behind the plot, and that he took responsibility for it.  If you don't agree with them, then you'll need to produce reliable sources disagreeing with them in order to get anything done on the article.  Otherwise, you're at a fundamental loggerhead with our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, here, here, etc. --Aude (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable, third-party sources is context-sensitive, moderated by common sense. In a situation in which some part of the executive branch of the U.S. Government is probably guilty of some degree of wrongdoing, no part of that branch of government is a reliable source except to the extent that it is accusing another branch of wrongdoing. Likewise, following the commencement of known activities such as Operation Mockingbird, certain mainstream media fail the reliable-source test in such a situation. I'm open-minded, though. Please provide an unbiased, reliable third-party source supporting the government's position. Wowest (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch specifically uses the phrase "Bin Laden takes responsibility for 9/11".  The Guardian specifically says he "took responsibility for the September 11 attacks".  Reliable sources is a clear guidelines on Wikipedia — and it says nothing about throwing out the "mainstream media" because you don't believe them. --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources also reported accounts of bin Laden's funeral in 2001, indicating that he died of a lung infection. Foreign heads of state opined that this was highly likely because of his kidney disease. Any claim that subsequent videos, showing someone who doesn't quite look right and doesn't quite sound right are bin Laden are extraordinary, and require extraordinary proof, particularly when they are made by agents of a regime noted for lying. Wowest (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wowest : Before starting to make a fool of yourself, please read a book called "The looming tower" from Lawrence Wright were you will found the whole story from day one. It was Pultizer price and it is most exahustive and reliable source of this particular aspect ot 9/11. --Igor21 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources are not reliable when making claims based on hearsay evidence only. To date there has been no authenticated evidence linking Bin laden to 911. He may be the most likely perpetrator but it is POV to make the claim he did it without pointing out that there is no actual evidence of guilt. Wayne (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, he didn't remote control the planes into the building or something.  He helped plan and support the attack.  That's why the perpetrators section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden. --Haemo (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources "claim" Bin laden took responsibility. The evidence is disputed with only the US government supporting it's authenticity. Therefor the article can legitimately make the claim. It is only POV if it's not mentioned that the evidence is unreliable. Wayne (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably not.  He's clearly claimed responsibility, contrary to Wayne's statement above, but proving it is another matter.  Is encouraging the action (clear) and claiming responsibility adequate for conviction under Islamic law?  It certainly isn't under US law.  Conspiracy convictions (under US law) require identifying a specific action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, and I don't think we can identify a specific action he took related to 9/11.  That being said, if captured, he would probably be "accidentally" shot a few hundred times, to avoid the problem coming up.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to include something in an article, just reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin laden 

message: There's currently been some discussion about the "See Also" properties of the "Conspiracy Theories" section in the article.  There's a kind of half-hearted discussion above, but I think we could definitely benefit from some more concentrated focus here.  Currently, the proposal is as this, to link to the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center as a "See Also" link.
I'm not really sure that this is appropriate.  Guidelines indicate that these header should be used to link to related articles — however, I'm not sure if these are representative of the theories being discussed, and gives undue weight to specific groups and theories about the attacks.  There's no rationale for why these particular theories are more important than other, competing theories,  or why this group is more important than other 9/11 Conspiracy Groups.  Frankly, I think we're better simply linking to the sub-article which extensively discusses both of these articles. --Haemo (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A 9/11 conspiracy section article that does not somehow mention the controlled demolition theory or the 9/11 Truth movement is like a Beatles section that does not mention Beatlemania or Sergeant Pepper.  If this were a the Beatles article saying it would be saying the rough equivalent of “that some people do not like the Beatles" and then repeating "but the vast majority of the music press and fellow musicians conclude that the Beatles are one of the most influential groups in history”. It’s a useless waste of space. If you spend any amount of time looking at "conspiracy" websites,message board debates, mainstream or alternative press practically everyone of them mentions  the controlled demolition theory and most of the journalistic articles mention the 9/11 Truth movement. You say there is no rational reasoning as to why these are more important. That is a good question and a very interesting one and a subject for experts on public opinion and journalism. As for us as Wikipedia editors all that should matter is that these are the most notable, there are Wikipedia articles written about them and that many readers may not know about. Why deny them the option of finding out they exist?  This adds a total of one line to the article what is the grievous harm here? Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said there was no rationale presented for why these are included.  Our 9/11 conspiracy article does not omit these — you claim the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled Demolition hypothesis are as integral to 9/11 Conspiracies as Sergeant Pepper is to the Beatles.  I would suggest otherwise — there are many, many movements and theories surrounding the attacks, and these are just two of many.  In fact, probably the only central theme which can be written about 9/11 conspiracy theories is their absolute multiplicity; virtually any permutation of events, plans, and those responsible can, and has, been put forward as an explanation.  --Haemo (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Beatles put out many other important works besides Sgt. Pepper. There have been a multiplicity of "theories" as to the meaning of Beatle lyrics. That does not change the fact that that a Beatle section that fails to mention Sgt. Pepper does a great disservice to the reader. Putting in a See also line does not say these are the only theories or movements. The 9/11 CT article is still the main article the CD and Truth movement are the "also" line. The reason the reader might not know that there are a multiplicity of theories is that there is no line stating such information. All putting in a see also line does is make it easier for the reader to get detailed information on the most discussed CT theories/movement.  Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This metaphor is too stretched to be useful at this point, but I definitely think that it gives it too much weight — especially to 9/11 Truth.  The "movement" itself is related to the theories, not the attacks — I think you have a good point about the controlled demolition hypothesis, and it should stay.  However, the Truth movement is tangentially related to the attacks, and integrally related to the conspiracies. --Haemo (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't belong in this article under any circumstances (linked or otherwise). Links to CD and 9/11 Conspiracy theories make sense but not a link to one group over another that promote those theories. The 9/11 Truth Movement is notable within conspiracy theory circles and can be linked from those topics but it is not notable in 9/11 topics in general and has no place as a link. RxS (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that the controlled demolition hypothesis carries at least the same weight as NISTs working fire and debris hypothesis. I'm not sure why would one be omitted and other admitted. Both of these are well known and well recognized hypotheses. We should also note that we lack official explanation of collapse. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is evidence of fire and debris, and there is no evidence of demolition, the hypotheses do not have equal weight. Peter Grey (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is so in your opinion or your POV, how we call it here, my opinion differs, but that is not the issue. We have two notable hypotheses, if we are to follow the NPOV, both of these hypotheses should be mentioned. There is no reason to accept the fire and debris theory which is yet to be proved and there is no reason to accept the controlled demolition theory which is yet to be proved. However, there are very good reasons to mention both notable theories, and the first which comes to mind would be NPOV. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Existence and non-existence of evidence are not opinions. Peter Grey (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be clearer about it. Do we have evidence which proves the fire and debris hypothesis? Or are you referring to the controlled demolition hypothesis? Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think the video tapes of debris and fire in the immediate area are good evidence. Really, please stop this pointless arguing, I can assure you, you will be limited from disrupting this topic soon. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be much easier if you would provide a reference for your claim, for you see the video tapes of the WTC7 collapse are widely accepted as the proof of controlled demolition. I can assure you that I'm not willing to engage into fruitless discussion around this issue. Your posts are annoying to me, at least as much as mine are to you. Such is the nature of quantum entanglement. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The 7 WTC collapse looks like a demolition, but that is evidence only of a catastrophic structural failure, which has many possible causes.  The talk archives explain this in more detail. Peter Grey (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe I have spoken to you before, so I don't know what plural you speak of. As for WTC7, fire and debris were visible, whereas somehow covertly wiring 60 floors of busy office tower for controlled demolition were not. But enough of this. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What sort of explanation and what sort of the attitude is that? Do you have evidence which proves your claim? Or should I parrot you and say, the squibs and rate of fall are consistent with the controlled demolition. But enough of this, both hypotheses are notable and should be mentioned in the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please restrict comments to the article and means for improving it.  Discussing the merits or demerits of different theories is not productive, and is not the purpose of this talk page. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The article about the 9/11 Truth Movement reads as an advertisement more than an encyclopedic article. They are not nearly as organized or as big as they themselves would like to believe. So, yeah, I concur with removing that link to that article. If I had more time, I would try and clean that article up a lot.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I'd like to add a link to a Memorial that I'm associated with called "Flags on the 48".  Bascially it's a memorial hike held every year to commemorate the victims of the attacks.  Fittingly, the first hike was held on Sept 15, 2001 on Mt. Liberty and from there the event grew.  In following with the guidelines, I'm seeking consensus here.  The link is http://www.flagsonthe48.org
Coberg (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The memorial hike sounds like a very worthwhile event, but try searching 9/11 memorial on Google.  There are countless worthwhile events or memorials.  We have a limitation on space for links, per the external links guidelines. How do we choose which ones to include?  I don't think we can choose one over all the others.  Instead, I think it's best to keep the number of links to a minimum, and leave it to sites like the Open Directory project to include the links. --Aude (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial Link 

message: I notice that two "total death tolls" for the event are given - 2,999 in the lead paragraph and 2,993 in the infobox. Why the difference? Neither are sourced, but I'm sure the one in the infobox must have come from somewhere. The one in the lead paragraph seems to be a napkin calculation from adding up all the previous sourced numbers. In such a contentious article, details like this probably shouldn't be left to original reasearch like that, especially if they can't agree with the numbers floating right next to them. Could someone familiar with the sources around this subject be bold and put forward a reliable one which does the final death toll for us, and update both numbers to agree? BigBlueFish (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're accurate.  There were 2974 victims of the original attack, plus 24 missing, plus 1 who died from dust exposure.  This is the 2999 figure.  On the day, there were 2974 + 19 deaths; 2993.  Confusing, yes.  I'll reword the lead to indicate it's victims. --Haemo (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deathscrepancies? 

message: It is stated that the number of deathes is 2974 or something similar. Were all those deathes confirmed or are they presumed dead? this is a confusing subject. The way it is stated, 2974 were confirmed dead without any doubt (ie remains from their bodies were found). This also negates the possability that any of these people exploited the situation to start new lives under other identities.
I would appreciate if this could be clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.163.237 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article states, 2974 people were confirmed dead, usually by finding human body parts identified by DNA evidence. 24 people are missing, and presumed to have died — there is a slim possibility that they took the opportunity to vanish. --Haemo (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  confirmed deaths?! 

message: In the opening text it states "The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There are no survivors from any of the flights."
To me this should be changed to "There were no survivors from any of the flights". Otherwise the current wording implies there were survivors from the planes who subsequently died.
 Thanks for spotting this. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors