Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 30

message: Due to the spam prootection, I am posting the answer for Haemo here.
:::The falling speed is stated here.
:::"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside ........."（commission report page 305/pdf page)
Not amateur, the official report said so. You are saying your calculation but you are daring Newton physics is wrong. Newton physics is correct unless you try to figure out extremely small things or large things. Now when you calculate it, if you can, the value is very close to ten seconds. If you can not calculate it, please go back to school and learn real math, please. Then we can talk each other. The value is based without air resistence. With air resistence it can be 10 seconds or more depend on th density and shape, etc. If the expert is real, he should consider resistence of the steel, concrete, glass, air and so on. Even air is important. That's why you see squibes.--Shoons 07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no physics expert, but weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?"  Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?" In physics terms, no. Although the geometry of the towers is the reason they fell straight. Peter Grey 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We already know the connection between gravity and things falling down. he should consider resist[a]nce of the steel, concrete, glass, air.  Exactly.  Calculate the behaviour of the remaining part of the building under impact loading and show that the times are appreciably different. And do remember that the part of the building we're interested in was behind the dust cloud. Peter Grey 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The building was collapsing ahead of cloud, if you have not seen it, please take a look at it. And again ten seconds according to official story and this ten second is equivalent to duration of free fall. --Shoons 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The collapsing time 

message: There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view.  Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations.  The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia.  But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation.  On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history.  Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies?  Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy?  None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.
In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy (http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001?  The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'.  It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding.  Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading.  In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol "Chief Investigator Jim Hoffman"....I'm sorry, who exactly is the San Diego citizens Grand Jury? RxS 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Oneismany...if some articles don't cover things then feel free to write them.--MONGO 05:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy shit, I just read the "Citizens Grand Jury" article, and I got that bad ole feeling -- the same one I got when I first read about the Khmer Rouge's "Peoples Tribunals".  The 9/11 CT'ers aren't just stupid, they're dangerous -- we haven't seen propaganda like that in the U.S. since the days of Uncle Joe.  It's chilling.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they should also hire someone with more than a 3rd grade education in English to write up their next press release, too. --Golbez 22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego Grand Jury article? 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24dust.html?ex=1337659200&en=871bd1f50af7df48&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
1. I cannot find 2749 or 2750 count anywhere in the article. According to the news article this is official.
2. The news article and the wikipedia article mentions James Zagroda. Perhaps a mention to Felicia Dunn-Jones is in order, since it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that her death was caused by wtc dust (unlike Zagroda's).
67.80.122.91 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From BBC:  2,750 Jumping cheese Cont@ct 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "For the First Time, New York Links a Death to 9/11 Dust" 

message: According to this CNN article, "the September 11 death toll at the World Trade Center now stands at 2,750." However, our article says "2,603 died and another 24 remain listed as missing." Which one is correct? Kaldari 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC death toll 

message: Is it worth mentioning that the steel recovered from the site (about 330,000t) was sold to other countries? some of it was used to make cutlery, some was used for pots and pans, car doors etc. my source is a documentary on recycling of steel. ∆ Algonquin 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why, considering that has little, if anything, to do with the actual attacks.  --Haemo 12:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many people believe it relates to the investigation following the attacks.  For experts to adequately investigate the cause of the collapse, analysis of the steel is believed to be important.  The designers considered it a major engineering feat, designed to withstand airplane collisions. The causes should be of interest to engineers, especially since the collapse is an apparent failure of the intent of the designers. Shipping the steel off before and adequate analysis could be made is believed to be a indication of the inadequacy of the investigation. Thus, if we can find reliable sources for the removal of the steel and the questions many are asking regarding that removal, I believe it should be included. Kevin77v 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it's probably better on on the main "investigation" page, Collapse of the World Trade Center, since it's a relatively unknown theory.  --Haemo 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel 

message: This has probably already been said, but would it make more sense to change 'suicide' to homicide? Technically, suicide as defined by Wikipedia, "is the act of intentionally taking one's own life. The term "suicide" can also be used to refer to a person who has killed himself or herself."
Granted, these people did end up ending their own lives intentionally, but they did so by killing numerous others as well. I simply believe a better word could be chosen. Am I wrong?
EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign. --Tarage 09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the attacks were suicide attacks is an important tactical detail. Peter Grey 15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tactical yes, and I understand the importance of saying these people took their own lives as well as thousands of others, but suiside... seems to singular. Are there no verbavors out there who can provide a better one? --Tarage 09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicide Attacks 

message: The hijackers are only alleged hijackers. The perpetrators are only alleged to be Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
In the interest of fairness and accuracy, as well as truth, I request again that we come to a consensus to include words such as "alleged," "allegedly," "reportedly," etc., where appropriate, involving any of the accusations (allegations) that the article asserts. The people in question were not tried and convicted of the crimes accused (alleged). Therefore it is unfactual and inaccurate to state such things as fact.
I submit that Wikipedia's touted "Neutral Point of View" supports the addition of words such as "alleged" to every single instance where a person or group is accused of a crime in this article.
Regardless of what you believe or think you know, stating a person's guilt without a conviction upheld in a court of law is the equivalent of libel. Are you more interested in maintaining a libelous article, or one that presents a neutral point of view? Declaring someone's guilt where none has been proven is not a neutral point of view, and goes against everything Wikipedia is about.
Ultimist 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been extensively discussed.  In fact, you can see this exact same question being answered on this page, and numerous times in the archives.  Read through those if you want to understand why this is inappropriate -- chiefly, read about undue weight. --Haemo 07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia policies, I am allowed to post my opinions regarding changes to an article, to try to gain consensus.  In fact, Wikipedia's policies encourage such discussion.  If you dispute Wikipedia encouraging this kind of exchange, take it up with the owners of the site.  Every cited source's assertions about a person or group's guilt is nothing more than an allegation.  The addition of "alleged" and similar language is supported by the fact that every cited source is full of implicit allegations.  Any cited source that states "Osama bin Laden did this..." or "Al Qaeda did that..." is making an allegation. Ultimist 07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not discouraging you -- I'm telling you that it's already been discussed ad nauseum, and you're not brining anything new to the table.  All of your arguments, and concerns have already been discussed, and addressed -- unless you have some shocking new evidence published by reliable sources which is so stunning and definitive that it causes a total re-examination of the entire narrative, you're not going to get anywhere.  Again, see about undue weight to understand why your interpretation of neutral point of view is misguided... or any of the numerous other explanations in the archives.  --Haemo 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing the point, I think.  Support for adding the word "alleged" is in every source cited within this article.  Every single source makes allegations.  Remember, the facts have not been proven in a court of law.  In the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not the other way around.  I also repeat that the act of declaring someone's guilt in written form without a court conviction to back it up is libelous. Ultimist 07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're missing the point, and misapplying neutral point of view.  Josef Mengele was never tried for his crime - yet look at his article.  Again, see undue weight before commenting further.  And please read the archives.  I'm not going to comment further until you do both of those.  --Haemo 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, Josef Mengele's cited sources lead back to works and testimonials from people who were subjected to his crimes, and/or people who witnessed it.  They lived it.  No reasonable comparison can be drawn between that article and this, since there is no eyewitness testimony as to bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.  Furthermore, why is Bush "not concerned" with bin Laden if he truly did orchestrate the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the world?  Please, in the future, try not to put this discussion off course by comparing apples and oranges.  9/11 and Mengele do not compare. Ultimist 08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "alleged" absolutely needs to be added, for accuracy and Neutral Point of View 

message: To return to the original point being made in this section:
:Kevin77v wr: I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either.  As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account.  We should merely indicate what the source of the official account.  Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v 07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: please vote

message: The start of this section dives right into the history of Al Qaeda, which is a subject that has its own section, and should go there. The article should begin with the fact that the main suspect ( bin Laden ) has not been charged with any crime relating to 9/11. 
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109
"..Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.."
Simply mentioning that he has been charged with other crimes is not enough information, specifically, it must be stated somewhere that he has not be formally charged with any crime related to 9/11, and he is a suspect. Any sentence placing the blame on bin Laden (without also mentioning that he is only a suspect) should be removed from wikipedia.--Bennyxbo 17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my question would be why is it so important to say that when he's already admitted responsibility? During a (rightly or wrongly) time of war I'm not sure civil courts have much input/relevance. RxS 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you check the date on that article?  A lot has been learned since 9/27/01.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
"
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 28, 2006; Page A13
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.
But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice
"
Mr. Tomb was all too prophetic it would seem. I know you will say that the teamliberty/Muckraker quote is unreliable, that's why I am going to throw the mp3 down as the source.--Bennyxbo 12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Responsibility

message: I'm not very good at editing these wikipages, but I believe the following line to be unfairly representative of 9/11:
These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.[118][119]
I believe that the problem with this is that mainstream is by definition apart from a conspiracy theory.  If these mainstream people held the views of the conspiracy theory then they wouldn't be mainstream anymore.  
There are, however, numerous people that either through a position of power or education are important to consider when discussing the events of 9/11 that are not credited on the main page.  Many of these views can be found in "9/11 and American Empire" Volume 1, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, Olive Branch Press, 2007.  To quote the book exactly, 
"All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11.  Ten of them had earned the Ph.D.  Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one of them was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon.  The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly." (Preface VIII)
They do offer very compelling arguments which I am not going to get into here.  I feel it deserves to at least be mentioned that there are important and well educated people who offer strong evidence to the contrary of the "mainstream" belief.  If wikipedia is going to be a scholarly source then it must acknowledge diversified opinions so long as they have their own justification.
74.135.161.163 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It rather depends what the 'evidence' is and whether or not it is considered reliable or noteworthy by others, not by the eleven contributors making their own claims of their self-importance. Peter Grey 01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The US government is not exactly approaching this as a matter of criminal justice.  It may be appropriate, however, to underline that bin Laden's role is not known exactly, although it does seem to be clear that he is a co-conspirator. Peter Grey 06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs to allow for diversified perspectives so long as they offer justification. 

message: Should this article discuss what the operating procedures of NORAD and the FAA were and some of the associated theories regarding why there was a failure of the US defenses?  This article addresses what happened, but very little about the causes of the failures that lead to the events.  I'm not sure of what are all the details that should be addressed, but I feel this general topic is very relavant.  Is it addressed in any related articles? Kevin77v 00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one was expecting our planes to be crashed into buildings on purpose. I don't believe it needs to be elaborated on.--Tarage 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's surely a good thing the tax payers put in trillions of dollars for this system.  Perhaps they didn't spend enough because apparently the potential of using the planes as projectiles escaped NORAD's thoughts.  But seriously though, do you not all think this needs more than just a passing thought? Kevin77v 09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KAL007 it didn't fail.  Ooops.  This is why there isn't a shoot first policy.  It's also why that even today, when airspaces are breached (and htere have been thousands) we have no shootdowns.  And we've also have not had a terrorist attack.  Your presumption of failure is misplaced.  --Tbeatty 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You people must be joking.  You DO realize that on 9/11 NORAD was holding drills involving the exact scenario of planes crashing into the WTC towers and Pentagon, don't you?  Do some research.  NORAD failed to intercept the allegedly hijacked planes because NORAD was ordered to STAND DOWN.  Neither bin Laden nor al CIAda could have accomplished such a thing.  'Twas Cheney. 69.145.121.50 05:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a link proving that? --Golbez 05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Did the Defenses Fail? 

message: One aspect of "trivia" related to this article was that the subsequent grounding of all aircraft in the ensuing days gave scientists a rare opportunity to research the effects of airborne smoke on the theory of Global dimming.  Should this be linked under "trivia"?
:Actually I think it could be mentioned in the article itself, not in a little "trivia" section. Perhaps under the economic impact section. This is actually a notable thing, the few days without contrails was a unique forbidden experiment. --Golbez 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global dimming? 

message: Would the following link be an acceptable link to put into the external links section: Complete 911 Timeline? EPM 01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline link 

message: It'll probably earn me some FBI surveilance, but I tagged it anyway. Morganfitzp 14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes... because your oppinion voids out everyone else's. We've been over this so many times, yet people like you never seem to get it. Don't add these things unless there is a general concensus on the issue. Otherwise, you are just trolling. --Tarage 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I get it. Thee's no need to be mean. Morganfitzp 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with both of you. Yes, the September 11, 2001 attacks-article is definitly a POV-article (though not tagged as one), and yes, there has to be some sort of concensus before putting the tag on the article.  Geir 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. Morganfitzp 21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is only POV if you have decided to avoid the facts of the incident.--MONGO 07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree there is a POV problem.  The conspiracy theories are given too much Undue Weight.  If you have any good suggestions on how to reduce this Undue Weight, please propose it.  We've been fighting this for a long time and we appear to be at a standstill so the POV tag won't stand but proposing reductions might be supported on the talk page.  --Tbeatty 07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is actually a good argument as to why this article is almost perfect. Both sides, the conspiricy theorists and the anti conspiricy theorists both don't like it. Ballanced. --Tarage 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is there no POV  tag here? 202.124.176.4 05:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is neutral. Why do you want one? --Golbez 06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Referring to the Reactions sub-section, i find the current layout of the article problematic.
there is no separation between "immediate reactions" and "aftermath reactions", no proper mentions examinations of events such as the "MEMRI 9/11 5 years later in Arab and Iranian media" document or the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks either. and there's definitely too much information in that segment in stuff which should be on separate articles and reffered to with  templates. Jaakobou 17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions and Aftermath 

message: : presumably by Islamic extremists 
There are two theories:
*the mainstream theory is that Osama bin Laden hated our freedoms so much that he inspired 19 young men to hijack 4 planes, evade the best defence system in the world, make the President sit and do nothing, and destroy WTC7 as a bonus.
*the underground theory is that a group of criminals infiltrated the government and gave some help.
Since in the real world, the debate is ongoing, and has not been decided upon by any neutral party, there cannot be any reliable source which definitely has a conclusion.
Therefore wikipedia cannot take sides either, as this would be OR.
— Xiutwel (talk)
**The main theory is that OBL despised U.S. foreign policy and resented U.S. troops in Saudia Arabia and throughout the years attacked the U.S. interests numerous times.  I doubt he cared about U.S. freedoms.  Rather that is a rhetorical device used to highlight the differences between Western secular society and the Taliban model that OBL strived for.  Secondly, you make the mistake of assuming the underground theory has wide enough acceptance to be stated here as an alternate explanation of events. It is not.  Rather it is notable for it's fringeness but not for it's account.  It is very much like the JFK conspiracy theories that warrant mention as conspiracy theories but not in the actual factual accounting of history.  --Tbeatty 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: :Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed, presumably due to structural failure, on the day of the attack.
Building seven was announced collapsed 25 minutes before the fact; its demolition was announced on radio; experts are baffeled by its collapse.
How could wikipedia attest it was not demolished?
— Xiutwel (talk)
::Prove it was. --Golbez 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing my point: if we leave out "presumably" we would consider it proven that it was NOT demolished. I do not need or want to prove that it was demolished, I just want wikipedia to reflect the facts fairly. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Therein lies the problem.  The controlled demolition theory is not based on facts; it's based on its adherents making things up.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact is that the building collapsed due to damage suffered from the collapsed of 1 WTC. That its collapse was announced 25 minutes before the fact has zero established bearing; maybe you'd like to express complete thoughts in the future rather than supposed factoids. --Golbez 07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually we don't even need presumably since everyone agrees that it collapsed from structural failure.  Controlled demolition theorists, NIST, or directed energy weapon theorists all agree that the structure failed.  The cause of structural failure my be disputed but I have not heard a conspiracy theory alleging the buildings are still standing.  --Tbeatty 08:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2

message: *It then received massive support from the United States in fighting for freedom against the Soviet Union.
Is anyone disputing this? — Xiutwel (talk)
* Al Qaeda literally means: "the database" (of warriors and agents). 
Is anyone disputing this? — Xiutwel (talk)
:What do either of these have to do with anything? I'm not disputing or confirming, I'm just trying to understand why you even bring these two things up... --Tarage 06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Al qaeda didn't get "massive" support from the U.S.  Native afghani tribes and Pakistani's received aid.  They spent as they saw fit including on Arab fighters, but it would have upset the tribal sensibilities if the U.S. gave lots of money to Arab "foreigners" fighting in Afghanistan.  --Tbeatty 08:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 3

message: * His suspected involvement in the September, 11 attacks, however, is not even mentioned on his FBI-most-wanted page.http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Is this untrue? — Xiutwel (talk)
:Does it matter to this article? --Tarage 06:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 4

message: *This lasted several days and provided climate researchers with an unique opportunity to measure the Global dimming effect.
What's wrong with this? People may feel it's inappropriate to combine the issues, but they are connected, and Climate change can be a deadly tragedy also.
— Xiutwel (talk)
:It isn't neccary. --Tarage 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the 1 day datapoint provided significant scientific information.  Just like one sunny day doesn't prove or disprove global warming.  --Tbeatty 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5