Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 32

message: People are readding the POV word terrorist (disallowed by wikipedia, as I've outlined above) with the description "per talk" or "see talk" - despite the fact these editors have not contributed to the talk page at all!
I have repeatedly described how and why, according to wikipedia, IT DOES NOT MATTER how many people say a group/event is terrorist: its against wikipedia policy to use the word in the narrative voice at all. The only responses have been citations of people who describe these attacks as terrorist - completely ignoring the very valid point I've made. Yet editors still continue to be so confident they've 'won' this debate that they keep readding the word as if the dispute has been resolved in their favour. 
Is there nobody editing this article that is even slightly reasonable, or even willing to read and understand a counterargument? Damburger 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, "per archives" is a bit vague. I would like to invite anyone who feels that consensus on anything has been reached in some archive, to pinpoint it. There are just too many archives not to. Agree? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A problem with "newspaper so-and-so says they were terrorist attacks" is that it looks like it's a fringe opinion of a few dissenting sources. Listing all the sources that routinely describe it as terrorism isn't particularly practical either... When sources routinely say it's a spade, and it has the added benefit of very well fitting the definition spade, let's call it a spade. WP:RS. Weregerbil 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And, once more, you have completely ignored the point. It does not matter one bit what the balance of opinion is; the policy is clear. We don't use that word in the narrative voice, because it is a pejorative. You seem to think there are exceptions to this rule, but there are not any (feel free to try and find some). You haven't a leg to stand on so you are presenting the opposing argument as something it isn't. Thats called a Straw Man, and is intellectually dishonest of you. Damburger 14:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wonder why you don't get much response to your comments, it may be because you keep attacking and biting everyone who disagrees with you. Please see WP:NPA. Weregerbil 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling you on your evasions and straw man attacks is not a personal attack. I'm commenting on your pathetic excuse for an argument, not you yourself. Now, can you actually address the subject and find a part of wikipedia policy which contradicts what I am saying? Or are you going to keep changing the subject? Damburger 14:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it says that you should say it in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". So in this case, you may say "the United Nations consider them terrorist attacks", but not "they were terrorist attacks", like I pointed out above. Melsaran 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they were terrorist attacks. I define terrorism as: killing person A to scare person B. I disagree with the wikipedia policy to not use this word in the narrative, but I abide by it. I think 911 was perpetrated by either islamic extremists, homeland terrorists, or both. However, I more believe in sticking to consensus, so I agree with Damburger, Rklawton, Melsaran: do not use the word terrorist in the narrative. Disclaimer: I may accidently violate this rule of style myself. Feel free to correct me whenever I do so. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Per Talk" 

message: Friends, many of you strongly oppose my opinion that it is not certain that 911 was perpetrated as an outside attack. (In fact, I believe the most likely explanation is that it would be an inside job.) So be it. It's a free world, anyone can believe whatever he/she likes. I can and you can.<BR>Nonetheless, there is a tremendous amount of facts that we DO all agree on. Why not move the current article to "the official account of the September 11, 2001 attacks" and have a neutrally worded article about the vast amount of undisputed material instead? The way this has been going for years, it's such a waste of our energy, folks!
Suggesting a new lead:
::On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by means of hijacked airliners. Four airliners were hijacked; three buildings were hit, the fourth airliner was destroyed. The government and mainstream media widely accept the attacks as being carried out by 19 Arab hijackers. Alternatively, it is widely believed the attacks were an attack orchestrated from within the United States, with conspirators in high places of the government. Articles: ... and ...
And then the rest of the events which are not disputed, worded with a neutral narrative (not labeling 'terrorism'), and attributing viewpoints.
Rationale: I do not think we will easily reach consensus on this article. Clearly the editors which advocate the official story have a need for the article to be according to their view of the world, and are abhorred by wording it neutrally. Therefor, I think the best solution is to have a consensus article and a seperate article for the mainstream view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I belive 911 was an inside job, but I have no problems with the term "terrorist" or "terror-act". I agree with Xiutwel that the future for this article is under a main-page. It has it's righfull place on wikipedia, but needs clearifying about beeing a Point-of-View-article. Geir 16:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *as a compromise I would be willing to abandon renaming this article provided that in the lead there is a sentence explaining this is a mainstream view, not an objective view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't HAVE to compromise a thing. The article is fine the way it is. It will not be changed no matter how much you complain about it. I for one am sick of arguing this over and over again. LET IT DIE ALREADY. --Tarage 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft introductory paragraph 

message: ...(continued from #back to the polls)
I think there is a paradox. In the September 11, 2001 attacks, there are two major suspects: Osama bin Laden and an alleged shadow government. Now, in order to establish which due weight to give to either the mainstream view or to conspiracy views:
*government sources and associated media reports are deemed reliable sources (which is not the same as trustworthy sources)
*popular opinion does not count
*scientists, military, intelligence personel which are fired for speaking out about their mistrust of the government seize to be "reliable sources" from that moment on
*any fact which is at odds with the official version, even if acknowledged as "true" is labeled "factoid" (in the second meaning, being: irrelevant bu true detail)
It appears to me that this is a snake biting its own tail. When following this process, it is absolutely impossible for wikipedia to write about crimes committed by the establishment neutrally unless they themselves admit it. Every other authority is denied. Every expert, major politician that speaks out is set in a corner a lone lunatic.
This cannot be the way forward? We must be able to find a better way to find some balance between what to include and what to leave out? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be more a discussion for Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks instead of September 11, 2001 attacks.  --PTR 18:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would apply there, also, but this discussion is about THIS article being NNPOV. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But your para above talks about suspects.  I'm not sure what you want to change.  I don't think an article saying most people think this but some people think that is going to be very readable.  That's why the subarticles are linked. --PTR 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For readability, and given the views of most wikipedians, I would suggest a lead paragraph stating that this is the mainstream view. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: not major - That's your opinion (and such is your right) but it is not mine. Since you believe they didn't do it, there is no need for you to question all the spin stories they put out, and you are confirmed in your belief. But your reasoning goes in circles. Independent sources would not make a strong case against the inside job theory. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that comment makes me wonder if you really understand how Wikipedia works. It's not up to you or I to decide what's "major" Something is "major" when experts working in their field and neutral third party sources say it is....this all should go without saying. You can consider something "major", I can consider something "major" but for Wikipedia's purposes our opinions don't matter. RxS 01:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer-review and reliable sources 

message: I know this is a pretty minor thing to bring up, but we've got 177 refs here. What do people think of a four col reflist? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall trying it in a preview before, and it looked terrible; but, since there there's been a drive to clean up the references into standard formatting so maybe it would look good now.  --Haemo 06:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) 177 refs is typical for an article like this.  Evolution has 167, New York City has 161, and even I-35W Mississippi River bridge already has 102 refs.  But only two columns.  Three columns of refs used here is unusual, and I think four would definitely make them too squished together and difficult to read for people using smaller screens. --Aude (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 col reflist? 

message: Please, kindly change the following sentence in the attacks section… 
A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell.
Into this one>
A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., the 47 stories building was not hit by plane, it collapsed without resistance in less than 7 seconds, after six years the official explanation of its collapse is still pending. 
Reference: NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation 
Feel free to improve the wording, many thanks. 89.172.46.93 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Request denied. --Golbez 10:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The source supports the current wording and it is less vague than the proposal which implies that there may be a cause unrelated to the collapse of buildings 1 & 2 whcih is not supported. .   --Tbeatty 14:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the source doesn’t support the current wording. The source is all about working hypothesis and ongoing investigation. We had a discussion above, there were no takers, feel free to add your comment there, again, working hypothesis in an ongoing investigation is not acceptable and cannot be presented as proof. There is no official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 and we cannot invent one, it's against our guidelines it is disturbingly POV, to say the least. 89.172.46.93 14:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that you're a new user, so you may not be aware of this but we've gone over this topic many times. Reliable sources, experts working in their field in and out of official positions and neutral third party sources all around the world indicate that WTC7 collapsed from damage resulting from the attacks. None of these sources display any doubt about this...don't mistake due diligence for doubt on their part, thanks. There are other articles that discribe conspiracy theories, perhaps you could examaine those for possible improvements...  RxS 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, but you'll need to provide reference for your claim, a single official source will suffice… I'm not interested in conspiracy theories… there is no official explanation for collapse of WTC 7. None. That sentence is false, especially so with regards to provided reference, so what is that? It is nonsense, isn’t it? You provide a reference and then you misrepresent its meaning? Why?! 16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see this exact same discussion in the last archive section.  --Haemo 00:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: @ user 206.169.172.212; perhaps so, if you can find the reference… elsewhere, it's already done anyway… this article in its current form, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report will become historically insignificant… best wishes… 78.0.94.68 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC 7 

message: Ok, how much energy has been used here basically saying: "You're wrong, we're right"? It doesn't lead us anywhere, does it?
I want to focus on two goals for this article/subject:
===A disambigued/main page===
I want a disambigued/main-page that says: "The mainstrea/majority-view of this event can be found here.." and "Another view(s) can be found here.."
This article/discussion has proved beyond doubt that it is very hard to include any other points of view into the existing article. Thus, it can't function as a first-page for the subject.
:That is very much not going to happen. That would be completely equal weight. --Golbez 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an "alternative view article"...and those claims , as stupid as they are, are examined at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:POVFORK. In a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So would we insert that line before every sentence, or just once a paragraph or so? --Golbez 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not for every sentence. But especially in the beginning and yes, maybe once a paragraph. Geir 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the official version so it is difficult to make it nuetral. I would suggest however inserting somewhere that 71% of Americans (latest poll) do not support the official version of events as the page currently gives the impression it is a majority viewpoint of the public rather than only a majority viewpoint of investigators. Wayne 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the "official version" -- this is the version which is supported by reliable sources and experts on the subject.  And Golbez was joking above — your suggestion makes an utter mockery of undue weight guidelines.  Again, and 60% of Americans don't believe evolution occurs.  Should we stick that in the lead of the article?  Or perhaps just every paragraph or so?  --Haemo 06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <3 --Golbez 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two goals for this article 

message: I want a disambigued/main-page that says: "The mainstrea/majority-view of this event can be found here.." and "Another view(s) can be found here.."
This article/discussion has proved beyond doubt that it is very hard to include any other points of view into the existing article. Thus, it can't function as a first-page for the subject.
:That is very much not going to happen. That would be completely equal weight. --Golbez 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an "alternative view article"...and those claims , as stupid as they are, are examined at 9/11 conspiracy theories.--MONGO 21:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:POVFORK. In a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A disambigued/main page

message: I want a more neutral/objective language in this article. From "This-is-The-One-and-Only-Truth" to "Acording to the mainstream version it is so and so..".
This is the wikipedian way of dealing with issues where there are conflicting/different views. Geir 11:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So would we insert that line before every sentence, or just once a paragraph or so? --Golbez 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not for every sentence. But especially in the beginning and yes, maybe once a paragraph. Geir 17:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the official version so it is difficult to make it nuetral. I would suggest however inserting somewhere that 71% of Americans (latest poll) do not support the official version of events as the page currently gives the impression it is a majority viewpoint of the public rather than only a majority viewpoint of investigators. Wayne 06:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the "official version" -- this is the version which is supported by reliable sources and experts on the subject.  And Golbez was joking above — your suggestion makes an utter mockery of undue weight guidelines.  Again, and 60% of Americans don't believe evolution occurs.  Should we stick that in the lead of the article?  Or perhaps just every paragraph or so?  --Haemo 06:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <3 --Golbez 06:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A neutral language.

message: I searched but I don't think the damage to this building, its dismantling, or the two further (I would say) 9/11-related deaths that occurred there recently are in the article. Should we at least have some mention of it? --Golbez 18:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the damage section - September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Damage.  The deaths are not, but they are mentioned in the Deutsche Bank Building article.  I'm not sure about when deconstruction will be complete, but the LMDC website still says September 2007.   I'm skeptical about that, but we need to find a more up-to-date source for that. --Aude (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deutsche Bank 

message: I would first like to say that the following is not a personal attack - merely an observation.  I have read through most of the talk page notes on this article and I do understand the policy on verifiability. But in my opinion, I feel the question of true impartiality must be brought up - especially after viewing the comments of Tarage.  Seemingly, Tarage seems so passionate about going against governmental findings and mainstream theories, that his/her rebuttals against possible conspiracy discourse may actually keep future generations from coming to this site and getting the broad scope of what may have actually happened.  I feel comments like "Because the conspiricy theories are all without substantial sources." show that Tarage believes the only credible source for information on September 11th is the government. 
It's great to be a great American (if Tarage is an American, I can't say for sure), but to toss out comments by other posters simply because their comments didn't come from CNN, MSNBC, or FOX news, violates Wikipedia's own policy on neutrality.  Comments like "Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way...you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened." seems to denote that Tarage cannot even fathom the possibility that our government could have possibly done something that contradicts the "documentation".  If the Nixon administration could cover up their actions against John Lennon back in the 70's or of course, Watergate, then could it not be possible that some of these "so-called" conspiracy theories may have some truth to them?
Example.  In one of your earliest notes, you stated on the subject of opinion polls:
"Public oppinion polls can be quite flawed. For example, the way you phrase a question can change the answer people give. I'd have to know exactially what questions were asked, as well as the motive of the poll."
But, on another Wikipedia article, we could take a look at the approval rating polls of our current president.  President Bush had an approval rating of 92 percent back in October 2001 (according to ABC).  In July of 2007, his approval rating, according to ARG, was 25 percent.  Now, would we exclude the ARG poll information simply because ARG may not be as recognizable to the general public as say ABC would be?
So, under conspiracy theories section, the comment "These theories are not accepted as credible by virtually all mainstream journalists, scientists, and political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.", despite article "verification", could be deemed as a statement of opinion, rather than a reflection of neutrality.  My questions to Tarage would be:
1. What do you deem a credible source?  Does this have to be a reasonably recognizable impartial news organization?
2. Do you believe that the news organizations of this country are, in fact, impartial?
3. If a news report (surfaced on any of these news sources) stated information that called into question or completely and undoubtedly refuted the information that is currently in your September 11th wiki article, would you post that information in depth upon it being posted to Wikipedia or would you allow your our personal feelings on the subject to prevent you from doing so?
Again, this is not a personal attack.  I'm just merely trying to understand why it seems that you, Tarage, are trying to keep information off the article, when it is obvious that numerous people have brought up stronger points for not just a quick inclusion in the article of the fact conspiracy theories on 9/11 exist, but these points make a good case for there to be a broader discussion in this article about some of the points brought up by these theories.  I understand that their is a seperate article for the theories, but I must agree with some of the previous posters - this article is far from neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kct2002us (talk • contribs) 03:09, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:There has been no evidence presented that any WP:RS has given the 9/11 conspiracy theories any degree of reliablility; they have reported on the existence of the theories, but not their "truth".  We should do the same.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to make it perfectly clear that the oppinions expressed by myself are NOT the oppinions of some of the better authors here. The only posts I take responcibilty for are my own, and likewise they should only be applied to me, not the "Pro Terrorist Use" group as a whole. Editors such as Haemo and MONGO are far more eloquent than I am. The purpose of my posts are to voice my oppinion and mine alone. Once again, please do NOT apply my ignorance of editing to them. To do so is a cheap and pathetic tactic. --Tarage 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, while my arguments may have as many holes as swiss cheese, I trust that editors like Arthur_Rubin can take my nonsensical-ish arguments and back them up. Again, my oppinions and arguments are my own. Don't apply them to anyone else but me. --Tarage 23:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Read the reliable sources guidelines.  Reliability is not the same as what we colloquially would refer to it as, and there are clearly delineated guidelines for when a source is reliable.  The key principles are (1) editorial oversight and (2) a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking.  --Haemo 01:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kct2002us, please note that the essence of wikipedia's  no personal attacks guideline is that editors should comment on content, and not on the contributor.  Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartiality? 

message: I know I'm being pedantic but shouldn't the article be named "September 11, 2001, attacks" (with a comma between 2001 and attacks)? I believe that's more grammatically correct. Or was there some reason the comma is missing? -- tariqabjotu 16:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is in the archives several times.  Since the English Wikipedia covers several dialects and stylistic rules, there is no single perfect solution.  The current name seems about equally objectional to everyone. Peter Grey 18:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not pedantic. And, yes, you are correct. There should be two commas setting off the parenthetical year in the American English form of "September 11, 2001, attacks." Nevertheless, it's not worth fixing the title because the rest of Wikipedia reflects the same punctuation error. Due to an inflexibility in Wikipedia autoformatting, in many instances, American English dates cannot be viewed with correct punctuation without screwing up the dates for users who chose to view autoformatted dates in the British form (i.e., "11 September 2001 attacks"). See this discussion for an explanation:. The consensus in the Manual of Style talk pages was that it is better to have "hanging" years (such as "September 11, 2001 attacks") in the American form than to have an out-of-place comma (such as "11 September 2001, attacks") in the British form. If the ubiquity of this punctuation error bothers you (as it does me), I suggest you change your viewing preferences to the day-month-year format. That won't help with the title of this article (which is clearly wrong but ultimately not worth fighting over) but it will alleviate the problem when reading most other articles. Lowell33 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Wireless99's challenge of the word's application got me thinking about this.
Perhaps we are tangled up in the hood ornament when we should be looking at the engine to see if the hood ornament is on the right car? Perhaps our "reliable sources" have, as a consequence of their usual lazy way, been driving around a Ford with a Mercedes hood ornament? To be clear, perhaps some of the sources which have been using the term "terrorists" say right in their articles that the intention of the terrorists is something other than to instill fear; something like retribution or to destroy an American icon for example.  
Several contributors are saying;
terrorism/terrorist activity "involves an intent to cause fear"
We may be looking at it from the standpoint of which reliable sources use the term terrorist. Perhaps we should be looking for reliable sources which address the intent of the attack? It seems to me that the intention to cause fear is an integral part of the term and we may well find that there is not a broad universal agreement among reliable sources as to the hijackers' intent; in which case that would allow us to design wording which meets all of our guidelines. I realize my point is a bit esoteric but I also believe that if we find/think there is a conflict between the generally accepted usage of the word to describe the attack and the generally accepted intentions of the hijackers that the latter would trump because it (intent)is the essence of the former. Mr.grantevans2 01:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your point is a little subtle, but the UN's labeling as "terrorism" specifically addresses the intent of the actions, because they have adopted the "academic consensus" definition, which speaks to intent.  --Haemo 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can the UN reliably speculate on what was going through the minds of terrorists, whose minds were vapourised 6 years ago? Damburger 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I accept that; here's the rub: nowhere within this article's subtopic of "motive" [] are we suggesting the intent of the attack was to cause fear. Instead we quite properly use reliable sourcing to reflect other motives. I am saying that the "motive" section of this very article precludes the use of the word "terrorist". Am I getting this point across or is it confusing? Mr.grantevans2 14:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not confusing, your contention is quite clear, and it represents a tiny fringe viewpoint that has some esoteric merit, but should in no way change the proper use of the word "terrorist" on this entry, even given Wikipedia guidelines. This entire discussion would be considered bizarre at the editorial offices of most print encyclopedias. The minute dissection of increasingly obscure points takes us further and further from reality.--Cberlet 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of the English-speaking world's newsbodies would also concur with you on that...and this is the English Wikipedia...I do understand that the Arabic wiki version of this article incorporates more conspiracy theories. But 300 kb's of people arguing about what is probably the best example of terrorism and that it shouldn't be referred to as terrorism is, frankly, ridiculous.--MONGO 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm stumped on why, if the intent to cause fear is an integral part of the term "terrorism", that specific intent is not mentioned in this article under motive; perhaps it should be if there are sources to back it up; but, if not, I think that just adds a heavy weight to the argument that the "T" word is the wrong word, even if the reliable sources are using it. Mr.grantevans2 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think one of the reasons, evans, as to why intent to cause fear is not mentioned in the 'motives' section is that the main sources used are from the ex post facto al qaeda videos, giving the reasons for the attacks. Now if you are launching a holy war  against an enemy, and you want them to be scared, you don't tell them you are using tactics aimed at their civilian population whose entire point is to induce terror (akin to "we want you to be scared of us muhahahaha..."). You want them to think of you as an equal in some sense - you want the holy war to be thought of as an actual war similar to a war between two nations. It worked of course because Bush started the nonsense "war on terror", with an "axis of evil", trying to defeat an enemy that is largely imaginary.Wireless99 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps our vantage point is wrong? 

message: There was no evidence of any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down was the fire. When you enter 10,000 gallons of jet fuel into an office building and you have steel thrust contruction like the trade centers did, they warped bent and gradually was more then the building could handle. As for Unitied airlines 93 was not shot down but brought down by the hijackers when the passangers of flight 93 fought back and stopped them. The 9/11 Commission reported that "authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington. In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft — American Airlines Flight 11 — long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center," according to CNN.com. Furthermore, the closest fighters were about 100 miles away and were unarmed. Fighters also went after a Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 which was suspected to be hijacked though it was later determined untrue and the plane was safe.Alauran 05:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, when I saw this header I expected a totally different message.  Do you have any suggestions for changes to the article?  Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats because I deleted a previous post that was obviously trolling. Apperently, Alauran didn't see it in time and posted a responce. Or maybe this is a parody of that post. --Tarage 06:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no evidence of "any type of explosive bombs what really brought the towers down" because there was no attempt to find any and the primary source of such evidence was deliberately destroyed before it was examined for such evidence. No evidence found (if no one looked for it) does not equal no evidence. I haven't looked at flight 93 yet so can't comment. As for the fires...90% of the fuel burnt outside the buildings (the fireball). There is survivor eyewitness testimony that within 15 minutes of impact there were only small scattered fires on the impact floors. NIST found that the fuel was not a factor in the fires after the intial impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p50, para3). NIST’s tests found that peak temperatures were reached in 20-30 minutes, and that temperatures were below 600C (NIST NCSTAR 1-5 p78). The most significant aspect of all the tests NIST carried out is that they could not (NIST NCSTAR 1-6 page lxxii, para5) get the trusses to fail!  Strange as it may seem these were results of the NIST simulations yet they concluded fire made the trusses fail without actually determining exactly why (in fact they determined that maximum damage to the steel occured 20 minutes after impact. Why didn't it collapse then?). Obviously the tests were inadequate and the cause of collapse is undetermined. Whatever the air force did on 9/11, it is the first and ONLY time armed fighters were not sent to intercept an aircraft that flew off course. There are plenty of gaps for conspiracy theories to fit in. Until there is a proper investigation they can't be discarded. I will also point out that I did not read the NIST report until a few weeks ago so I may find I am incorrect once I look into it closer. Wayne 10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This last paragraph qualifies as WP:OR.  There may possibly be something to investigate here, but there's nothing that should affect editing of the articles until some reliable source comments on those. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't use this talk page for soapboxing, or general comments about the subject.  --Haemo 00:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth Of 9/11! 

message: This source describes an effective helicopter airlift from the World Trade Center in 1993.  The source cited stated that helicopter rescue would be "impractical", but I don't interpret it to be worded strongly enough to indicate for sure that absolutely no one escaped by helicopter.  Can someone think of a source that says categorically that absolutely no one made it out from the roof in a chopper? Wnt (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are all the relevant passages from the Commission Report:
*"Doors leading to the roof were locked. There was no rooftop evacuation plan. The roofs of both the North Tower and the South Tower were sloped and cluttered surfaces with radiation hazards, making them impractical for helicopter landings and as staging areas for civilians. Although the South Tower roof had a helipad, it did not meet 1994 Federal Aviation Administration guidelines." 
*About the 1993 attacks: "Several small groups of people who were physically unable to descend the stairs were evacuated from the roof of the South Tower by New York Police Department (NYPD) helicopters. At least one person was lifted from the North Tower roof by the NYPD in a dangerous helicopter rappel operation- 15 hours after the bombing. General knowledge that these air rescues had occurred appears to have left a number of civilians who worked in the Twin Towers with the false impression that helicopter rescues were part of the WTC evacuation plan and that rescue from the roof was a viable, if not favored, option for those who worked on upper floors. Although they were considered after 1993, helicopter evacuations in fact were not incorporated into the WTC fire safety plan."
*"At 8:56, an NYPD ESU team asked to be picked up at the Wall Street heliport to initiate rooftop rescues. At 8:58, however, after assessing the North Tower roof, a helicopter pilot advised the ESU team that they could not land on the roof, because "it is too engulfed in flames and heavy smoke condition." By 9:00, a third NYPD helicopter was responding to the WTC complex. NYPD helicopters and ESU officers remained on the scene throughout the morning, prepared to commence rescue operations on the roof if conditions improved. Both FDNY and NYPD protocols called for FDNY personnel to be placed in NYPD helicopters in the event of an attempted rooftop rescue at a high-rise fire. No FDNY personnel were placed in NYPD helicopters on September 11."
*At 9:06, the NYPD Chief of Department instructed that no units were to land on the roof of either tower. At about 9:30, one of the helicopters present advised that a rooftop evacuation still would not be possible. One NYPD helicopter pilot believed one portion of the North Tower roof to be free enough of smoke that a hoist could be lowered in order to rescue people, but there was no one on the roof. This pilot's helicopter never attempted to hover directly over the tower. Another helicopter did attempt to do so, and its pilot stated that the severity of the heat from the jet fuel-laden fire in the North Tower would have made it impossible to hover low enough for a rescue, because the high temperature would have destabilized the helicopter.--Sloane (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Helicopter attempts were considered, and you can see various copters in the area. The heat from the building was so intense that it was decided that a rooftop rescue was impossible due to the heat interfering with landing and steering, and the fact that the smoke made visibility very touchy. Coolgamer (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did any helicopters at all take off that day?