Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 28

message: The entry title ought to be “September 11, 2001, attacks” if the date format is going to be Mmmm DD, YYYY.   However, beyond making this note, I am not going to try to wrestle with anyone over this issue. —SlamDiego 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously discussed.  This is the same style Wikipedia uses for 7 July 2005 London bombings etc. Peter Grey 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely false.  “DD Mmmm YYYY” ≠ “Mmmm DD, YYYY”.  In the latter case, the year is offset by a comma.  A title “11 September 2001 attacks” would be grammatic, and “September 11, 2001, attacks” would be grammatic, but “September 11, 2001 attacks” is not. (Now, I need to work on my resolve to let this go.) —SlamDiego 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Ungrammatic" even a word? Travb (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh.  Just let it go.  The "issue" here basically boils down to a difference in the way Americans write (and, to some extent, "say") dates.  A far more idiosyncratic "American" title would, in fact, be September 11th attack or 9/11 attack(s) or even 9/11 terrorist attack(s).  For the record, "ungrammatic" is not, in fact, a word.  "Grammatically incorrect", perhaps, yes..."antigrammatical", still, albeit "unused", is correct.  "Ungrammatic" is, unequivocably, not a word.  In light of that simple fact, this is probably a good place, if there were ever a good place to point this out, I think that perhaps a far more important focus for committed WP editors should be proper grammar within articles, rather than whether article titles reflect a single editor's particular ideas about the proper use of punctuation.  Tomertalk 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ungrammatic title 

message: Is it possible to "vote" on one version of this article and make it perma-protected?  I know this is against everything that wikipedia stands for, but this article has been the center of argument for years, there is 26 pages of archived material (Granted, users on this talk page archive quite frequently).  These years long arguements have had a ripple effect across wikipedia.  
anyway, just a suggestion. Personally, I have never got involved in these really high-profile pages such as Iraq War and 9/11.  It seems like a waste of time to be edit warring over one page indefinetly...Travb (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:STABLE.  Never got very far. Thatcher131 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... thanks again Thatcher131. Travb (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Stub-Class. It's perma-protected (WP:STABLE?) stub and I'm not sure why would you ask for something we already have. This is rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. I'd suggest we stick that pov tag and turn this into the Start-Class article. Lovelight 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible to make this page perma-protected ?

message: :I've never heard that. However, I have heard that kamikaze attacks were essentially the "invention" of suicide bombing. I don't think it needs to be mentioned, though. PTO 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suicide attacks were no longer a novelty in 2001. Peter Grey 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamikaze? 

message: This article covers the event very well, but I have put it on hold for now with a few suggestions on improving it further before passing it as a GA.
*All wikilinks should be checked for redirects, that should be really easy to fix.
*"According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." Rolling the plane should be clarified with a definition or wikilink for readers unfamiliar with the term.
*Add a comma to the number of fatalities in the World Trade Center (in the fatalities section) to keep it uniform with the other numbers.
*"Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds." This statement should be fixed up, this seems POV about stereotypes of hijackers/terrorists.
*"Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a Fatwa signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by many as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts." Are seen by many who?
*"In response to this speech ("Bush's claim that we hate freedom"), Bin Laden remarked in 2004, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."" Remove extra space between citation right after this statement.
*"Blood donations also saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11." Where did they surge at? Within New York City, around the country/world?
*Possibly expand the Civilian aircraft grounding section or move the statement to another section.
*Remove extra space for citation in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Potential health effects section and move the see also link to the end of the section.
Sources should be added to these statements:
*"Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77."
*"As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed."
*"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, including one on Flight 175. Additionally, Marsh lost 38 consultants. Approximately 400 rescue workers, most of them of the FDNY, died when the towers collapsed."
*"According to the Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)."
*The damage section also needs sources, covert the link into an inline citation.
*"27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks, only 19 participated."
*"When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."
*"The winning design of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition was Reflecting Absence created by Michael Arad. It is expected to open in 2009."
This is a very well-written article that just needs a few modifications. Although some of my suggestions are very minor (I'm sure you'll enjoy fixing those ones), I'll wait to pass the article when the other ones are fixed. There are many sources available for these events and I'm sure it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find some for the statements above. So, for right now I'll put the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the changes I just made don't alter the above observations by increasing the flawcount for the article.  Tomertalk 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is US territory, there is no consensus, just enforcement.., no wonder people are steering away from it… and about this good article nomination, at this point in time? Lovelight 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...shocking...  Elvislives 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination on hold

message: I'm sure this question has been raised before, and it's no doubt been lost in arguments over conspiracy theories, but isn't there a section missing on the security, intelligence and defence establishment failures related to 9/11? There are bit about it in the sub-article on responsibility, but it seems to me that this article so far has left out even the 9/11 Commission's slap on the wrist for the intelligence community. What sorts of barriers to introducing that sort of section do people here see? I.e., we need a section about "what went wrong" inside the US, which made 9/11 possible.--Thomas Basboll 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we had a page on intelligence failures, but I can't find it now. We might begin by assembling somewhere a list of pages with material on the subject. There may be something already that is just not linked in. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see any barriers either, I think as Tom see's it, its just a matter of an editor creating a nciely written and sourced paragraph to introduce into this article. Sourcing being the most important issue I believe. Tom, since you replied first, do you have any particular issue against including material regarding the failures of the intelligence community in relation to 9/11? Any thoughts you would like to share or items you would like to see appear in it? --NuclearZer0 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that I don't agree with the whole "intelligence failure" meme. I work in the defense industry, and while I certainly see a fair share of ineptitude, I think it's highly implausible that every facet of government intelligence "stood down" that day. I think that there was far too much money to be made (at least half a trillion US$) from 9/11 to simply believe that we "overlooked" the years of planning, "missed" the months and weeks of preparation, or "failed" to prevent the acts of a group that had been under either our control or watchful eye for almost 20 years. I'm not even mentioning the fact that our trillion-dollar "defense" system also failed from end to end as well. I'm fairly busy right now, but I think a well-sourced article on this subject will be good for this article--not just for this area, but also for the "conspiracy" area, which has been decimated by the apparently overwhelming zeal to lump the "thermite demolition" and "Pentagon cruise missile" crowd in with the "why did Bush delay the creation of and then refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" worriers.99th Percentile 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We might already have a page that is just not well-linked to other articles. I would say the way to begin is to put together an inventory of articles that include information on the topic. Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. I am currently rewriting and source a section for another article, but will jump on creating a section on this article right afterwards. Do not think we need to make such an inventory however, you already searched and were unable to find anything, I am sure as an admin you have more tools to locate pages at your disposal then I do. So I will see if I can write something up and source it accordingly then plop it in. Considering the subject does anyone have a reccomendation where I should put it when done, or Thomas if he writes it up? --NuclearZer0 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there's no special admin search tool. The way to begin is to find out what we have already. Once we have an ennumeration of internal links that talk about the idea, we will better know what we need to summarize and link to from here. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I think you were mistaken, I didnt say there was a special admin search tool, I just stated you would be able to search things I could not, like deleted articles etc. I tried some basic searches much like you above and came up blank. As I stated, I will start on something, if you find an article let me know and I can incorporate its ideas and sources. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just keeping to the vulnerabilities would keep things simply I believe, adding in engineering failures, if any were present, would require moving and shifting within the article. However a section on vulnerabilities seems important as you stated, much went into fixing these failures, the Patriot Act, new airport security regulations, the orange green blue security codes, not sure about fixes from air traffic controller standpoint however. If you need any help at all let me know. I have written and sourced a few smaller articles and would be glad to help in any way I can. Luckily there has been so many WP:RS sources on the topic that it will not be hard to create an entirely verifiable section. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What went wrong? 

message: It appears that there have been no changes to the suggestions listed above so at this time I am going to fail the article. The article is very well written and covers it in detail, however, it does need more sources to pass. Please fix the above suggestions before nominating again. --Nehrams2020 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: This needs a definite source. To my knowledge it is merely a popular myth/presumption. While there have been reports (from family members talking on cell phones) and ambiguous indications from the black box recording, there is yet to be any definitive proof that the passengers on this flight attempted a takeover of the plane, or to what extent such an attempt had on the ultimate fate of the plane. The speed with which this myth propagated is what makes it problematic -- it served to instill patriotism and courage in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when details were still extremely sketchy, and people simply accepted it as fact. Even assuming this was what happened, important questions like "did the passengers onboard approve of this course of action, or was it instigated primarily by a handful of glory-seekers?" have never been asked in the popular press. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs. For now, I'm going to remove this line from the article, though if anyone feels strongly enough to add it back (and I suspect at least one person will be) then I'll leave it alone and you can continue the discussion here. VanishingUser 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs." Yet you already characterize it as a 'myth' so you seem to have a pretty good idea what happened. --Golbez 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers 

message: ok, I believe that this external link should go in, please read through it (carefully) and address your concerns. You see, while I'm well aware that we have the other article I'd weigh that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong. I'd also say that the failure of 911 Commission should be pointed (and not directed) out (of) here. Share your thoughts, if you will… Lovelight 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong The link is entirely about conspiracy theories - they don't "naturally belong" in the article with "conspiracy theories" in the title? Anyway, the whole point about conspiracy theories is that they go beyond and/or contradict historical fact, so "key events" are not important even to the conspiracy theorists. Peter Grey 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks

message: In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally: 
Text of survey question: "81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
(And that's not even getting into the sampling bias.)  Peter Grey 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excess details about conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article.  That said, the poll found that 53% believe members of the Bush Administration are mostly telling the truth but hiding something.   That does not jive with "84% of US citizens are questioning mainstream account of the attacks." --Aude (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a ref -- Lovelight 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which excess details Aude? There aren’t any… Lovelight 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, he didn't know that the attacks were coming, unless of course someone has trouble understanding plain English.--MONGO 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't noticed this one, Mongo, stay on topic… we are talking about the public poll where 81% of people don't believe one word of that sentence. Lovelight 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 84? Its 81... do search again… Lovelight 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: R u searching? These things are www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm not so hard] to find… Lovelight 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you need to reread the edit I reverted . It claimed 84%.  I would expect that number to be in the source that was used to make the claim "84%".  Since it wasn't in the source, it must have been completely made up.  Tbeatty 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated bellow, my apologies, I was www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm mislead myself.] Lovelight 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People's opinions on a poll are no more notable than the poll itself...and that is all we can go on. Nothing about a poll either proves or disproves the facts of the case.--MONGO 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm not sure why you've pointed that out, since this is about recognition of public opinion, not about acknowledgment of the facts. It's a bit like control demolition hypothesis, it doesn’t serve as a proof, it serves as hypothesis… Lovelight 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely for the reasons I did. Who cares that there is a poll? The poll does nothing except state an opinion. I haven't seen a poll recently about the number of folks who believe in UFO's...but I bet the number is high, yet there is zero proof that UFO's exist.--MONGO 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about the poll? Everybody, ask your governments, they breathe and act by public opinions, or at least they should… Well Mongo, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you cannot dismiss opinions of millions because you don’t care… Lovelight 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Lovelight, the opinion is noted but inadmissable since it doesn't do anything to enhance this article. Precisely, most people believe in UFO's, yet there isn't any proof of them. Thanks.--MONGO 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, quit with the UFO's, its boring tactic to say the least. Stay on the topic, if you can, to parry on this I'll simply add that there is not a single proof that this… this "official" take on events is true. Not a single one Mongo. That's the main reason that we have these lengthy games (& disputes too). Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The poll question, in fact, offers very little supporting any particular conclusion. The results simply say 81% of respondents (not the population at large) believe that someone close to Little George has not admitted to how much they knew before the attacks, for any reason.  I can't imagine what the other 19% were thinking, this is documented fact in the case of Condoleeza Rice. Peter Grey 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already gave you a reference, the question is clear: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter.  I read the statement that 81% are “questioning mainstream account of the attacks” and was very surprised that the figure was that high.  But when I went to the cited source and read all the 9/11 related questions, I saw nothing that was related to the statement – the closest question being that most think (myself included) that the Bush admin. was/is “hiding something.”  I would hope that they don’t tell up 100% of everything they know… if for no other reason than security, but that does not make this group doubt the mainstream account of what happened; it's a stretch and jump to get to the sentence in the article.  The 81% statement is bogus and should be either left out of the article or reworded to reflect what the poll question really says.Leon7 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realize that it was extremely poor wording, I did carry it from another article and that was a mistake. Nevertheless you've seen the other polls and the numbers are equally surprising everywhere, I'd say it's notable enough to be recognized in the article.  Lovelight 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, since I've never seen you here, I'd deeply appreciate if you choose to do it. Lovelight 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking.  Well?  I don't know that it is notable.  As I stated, it's no surprise that our government official know stuff that they don't want to pass on; that's the nature of the jobs that they hold.  In fact, it is naive to think that they should tell us everything.   However, having said that, there has to be a fine line as to what the public should demand to know.  I would guess that your 81% statement on the number that doubt the mainstream account of what happened is closer to 20%. Leon7 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have those references above and it's obvious that the #'s are much, much higher, but those won't meat WP:RS… hmm, that will leave us with zogby polls and similes. Think it's about third of population, but I haven’t checked that in a while… Lovelight 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or half? It would make sense, since we live in this unhealthy dichotomy… Lovelight 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind… Lovelight 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll 

message: Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a place to discuss the article. Not to discuss the topic. --Golbez 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Sdedeo WP:TALK Guidelines (See WP:TALK#How_to_use_article_talk_pages). There it clearly states that 'Talk pages are not for general conversation', so keep it to a minimum, there must be 1000s of forums for general conversation relating to this topic, plus overtime if this happened to all articles, surely the servers would collapse. Oliver Davison 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: For a wiki where discussing the topic of the September 11 attacks would be appropriate, I would suggest In Memoriam: September 11, 2001. — Ti89TProgrammer 01:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is one major difference between the title of this article and "7 July 2005 London bombings" - and that is the location.  Surely the article should be [[September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington DC" or something similar.  Or change the name of the London bombings to 7 July 2005 bombings" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.140.198 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask someone anywhere in the world what happened on July 7 2005 and I would wager most people outside the UK would not know. Ask anyone what happened on Sept 11 2001 and far more people would know. --Golbez 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More complaining about the title

message: Is it possible to "vote" on one version of this article and make it perma-protected?  I know this is against everything that wikipedia stands for, but this article has been the center of argument for years, there is 26 pages of archived material (Granted, users on this talk page archive quite frequently).  These years long arguements have had a ripple effect across wikipedia.  
anyway, just a suggestion. Personally, I have never got involved in these really high-profile pages such as Iraq War and 9/11.  It seems like a waste of time to be edit warring over one page indefinetly...Travb (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:STABLE.  Never got very far. Thatcher131 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... thanks again Thatcher131. Travb (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Stub-Class. It's perma-protected (WP:STABLE?) stub and I'm not sure why would you ask for something we already have. This is rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. I'd suggest we stick that pov tag and turn this into the Start-Class article. Lovelight 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to make this page perma-protected ? 

message: I believe I read somewhere that the terrorists were inspired by the Kamikaze attacks during World War 2, but I can't verify this anywhere.. Has anyone else ever read that?
Yes actually the elite controllers of the CIA and the Federal Reserve saw 9/11 as a Kamikaze attack they either went for the gusto or their monopoly control would crumble.  So they orchestrated the events of the day.  They had to cover their tracks in case they were caught this is why they conducted numerous drills on the morning of 9/11.  These drills mirrored exactly what the terrorists supposedly carried out.  The chance of a drill being conducted at the exact time as the exact same incident is implausible.  It happens time and again the Russians use drills to cover themselves in case they are caught.  If someone catches them before it's over, they can say oh, we were conducting a drill.  My friends were murdered by a criminal elite within my own government.  I want the truth to come out God Bless everyone who seeks the truth in all its forms.  The official conspiracy theory of 19 highjackers using box cutters to take over 4 planes and hit 75% of their targets is the theory that offends me not the 9/11 truth movement which seeks to understand and find out what really happened.
Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard that. However, I have heard that kamikaze attacks were essentially the "invention" of suicide bombing. I don't think it needs to be mentioned, though. PTO 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Suicide attacks were no longer a novelty in 2001. Peter Grey 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kamikaze? 

message: This article covers the event very well, but I have put it on hold for now with a few suggestions on improving it further before passing it as a GA.
*All wikilinks should be checked for redirects, that should be really easy to fix.
*"According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder,one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." Rolling the plane should be clarified with a definition or wikilink for readers unfamiliar with the term.
*Add a comma to the number of fatalities in the World Trade Center (in the fatalities section) to keep it uniform with the other numbers.
*"Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds." This statement should be fixed up, this seems POV about stereotypes of hijackers/terrorists.
*"Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a Fatwa signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by many as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts." Are seen by many who?
*"In response to this speech ("Bush's claim that we hate freedom"), Bin Laden remarked in 2004, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."" Remove extra space between citation right after this statement.
*"Blood donations also saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11." Where did they surge at? Within New York City, around the country/world?
*Possibly expand the Civilian aircraft grounding section or move the statement to another section.
*Remove extra space for citation in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Potential health effects section and move the see also link to the end of the section.
Sources should be added to these statements:
*"Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77."
*"As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed."
*"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, including one on Flight 175. Additionally, Marsh lost 38 consultants. Approximately 400 rescue workers, most of them of the FDNY, died when the towers collapsed."
*"According to the Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)."
*The damage section also needs sources, covert the link into an inline citation.
*"27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks, only 19 participated."
*"When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."
*"The winning design of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition was Reflecting Absence created by Michael Arad. It is expected to open in 2009."
This is a very well-written article that just needs a few modifications. Although some of my suggestions are very minor (I'm sure you'll enjoy fixing those ones), I'll wait to pass the article when the other ones are fixed. There are many sources available for these events and I'm sure it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find some for the statements above. So, for right now I'll put the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope the changes I just made don't alter the above observations by increasing the flawcount for the article.  Tomertalk 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is US territory, there is no consensus, just enforcement.., no wonder people are steering away from it… and about this good article nomination, at this point in time? Lovelight 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah...shocking...  Elvislives 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination on hold 

message: I'm sure this question has been raised before, and it's no doubt been lost in arguments over conspiracy theories, but isn't there a section missing on the security, intelligence and defence establishment failures related to 9/11? There are bit about it in the sub-article on responsibility, but it seems to me that this article so far has left out even the 9/11 Commission's slap on the wrist for the intelligence community. What sorts of barriers to introducing that sort of section do people here see? I.e., we need a section about "what went wrong" inside the US, which made 9/11 possible.--Thomas Basboll 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we had a page on intelligence failures, but I can't find it now. We might begin by assembling somewhere a list of pages with material on the subject. There may be something already that is just not linked in. Tom Harrison Talk 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see any barriers either, I think as Tom see's it, its just a matter of an editor creating a nciely written and sourced paragraph to introduce into this article. Sourcing being the most important issue I believe. Tom, since you replied first, do you have any particular issue against including material regarding the failures of the intelligence community in relation to 9/11? Any thoughts you would like to share or items you would like to see appear in it? --NuclearZer0 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that I don't agree with the whole "intelligence failure" meme. I work in the defense industry, and while I certainly see a fair share of ineptitude, I think it's highly implausible that every facet of government intelligence "stood down" that day. I think that there was far too much money to be made (at least half a trillion US$) from 9/11 to simply believe that we "overlooked" the years of planning, "missed" the months and weeks of preparation, or "failed" to prevent the acts of a group that had been under either our control or watchful eye for almost 20 years. I'm not even mentioning the fact that our trillion-dollar "defense" system also failed from end to end as well. I'm fairly busy right now, but I think a well-sourced article on this subject will be good for this article--not just for this area, but also for the "conspiracy" area, which has been decimated by the apparently overwhelming zeal to lump the "thermite demolition" and "Pentagon cruise missile" crowd in with the "why did Bush delay the creation of and then refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" worriers.99th Percentile 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We might already have a page that is just not well-linked to other articles. I would say the way to begin is to put together an inventory of articles that include information on the topic. Tom Harrison Talk 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. I am currently rewriting and source a section for another article, but will jump on creating a section on this article right afterwards. Do not think we need to make such an inventory however, you already searched and were unable to find anything, I am sure as an admin you have more tools to locate pages at your disposal then I do. So I will see if I can write something up and source it accordingly then plop it in. Considering the subject does anyone have a reccomendation where I should put it when done, or Thomas if he writes it up? --NuclearZer0 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there's no special admin search tool. The way to begin is to find out what we have already. Once we have an ennumeration of internal links that talk about the idea, we will better know what we need to summarize and link to from here. Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I think you were mistaken, I didnt say there was a special admin search tool, I just stated you would be able to search things I could not, like deleted articles etc. I tried some basic searches much like you above and came up blank. As I stated, I will start on something, if you find an article let me know and I can incorporate its ideas and sources. Thanks. --NuclearZer0 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Just keeping to the vulnerabilities would keep things simply I believe, adding in engineering failures, if any were present, would require moving and shifting within the article. However a section on vulnerabilities seems important as you stated, much went into fixing these failures, the Patriot Act, new airport security regulations, the orange green blue security codes, not sure about fixes from air traffic controller standpoint however. If you need any help at all let me know. I have written and sourced a few smaller articles and would be glad to help in any way I can. Luckily there has been so many WP:RS sources on the topic that it will not be hard to create an entirely verifiable section. --NuclearZer0 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Very good points. The lack of proper dealing with those failures, like at least acknowledging them officially, is another reason for the emergence of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having those vulnerabilities described in this article would definitely take out some tension from it. This is just a side argument to the obvious one, that most factors that had led to the attacks should be described here. SalvNaut 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What went wrong? 

message: It appears that there have been no changes to the suggestions listed above so at this time I am going to fail the article. The article is very well written and covers it in detail, however, it does need more sources to pass. Please fix the above suggestions before nominating again. --Nehrams2020 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: This needs a definite source. To my knowledge it is merely a popular myth/presumption. While there have been reports (from family members talking on cell phones) and ambiguous indications from the black box recording, there is yet to be any definitive proof that the passengers on this flight attempted a takeover of the plane, or to what extent such an attempt had on the ultimate fate of the plane. The speed with which this myth propagated is what makes it problematic -- it served to instill patriotism and courage in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when details were still extremely sketchy, and people simply accepted it as fact. Even assuming this was what happened, important questions like "did the passengers onboard approve of this course of action, or was it instigated primarily by a handful of glory-seekers?" have never been asked in the popular press. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs. For now, I'm going to remove this line from the article, though if anyone feels strongly enough to add it back (and I suspect at least one person will be) then I'll leave it alone and you can continue the discussion here. VanishingUser 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs." Yet you already characterize it as a 'myth' so you seem to have a pretty good idea what happened. --Golbez 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers 

message: ok, I believe that this external link should go in, please read through it (carefully) and address your concerns. You see, while I'm well aware that we have the other article I'd weigh that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong. I'd also say that the failure of 911 Commission should be pointed (and not directed) out (of) here. Share your thoughts, if you will… Lovelight 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong The link is entirely about conspiracy theories - they don't "naturally belong" in the article with "conspiracy theories" in the title? Anyway, the whole point about conspiracy theories is that they go beyond and/or contradict historical fact, so "key events" are not important even to the conspiracy theorists. Peter Grey 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks

message: In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally: 
Text of survey question: "81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
(And that's not even getting into the sampling bias.)  Peter Grey 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excess details about conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article.  That said, the poll found that 53% believe members of the Bush Administration are mostly telling the truth but hiding something.   That does not jive with "84% of US citizens are questioning mainstream account of the attacks." --Aude (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a ref -- Lovelight 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which excess details Aude? There aren’t any… Lovelight 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 18:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, he didn't know that the attacks were coming, unless of course someone has trouble understanding plain English.--MONGO 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't noticed this one, Mongo, stay on topic… we are talking about the public poll where 81% of people don't believe one word of that sentence. Lovelight 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 84? Its 81... do search again… Lovelight 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: R u searching? These things are www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/120906_b_Poll.htm not so hard] to find… Lovelight 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you need to reread the edit I reverted . It claimed 84%.  I would expect that number to be in the source that was used to make the claim "84%".  Since it wasn't in the source, it must have been completely made up.  Tbeatty 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated bellow, my apologies, I was www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm mislead myself.] Lovelight 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: People's opinions on a poll are no more notable than the poll itself...and that is all we can go on. Nothing about a poll either proves or disproves the facts of the case.--MONGO 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I'm not sure why you've pointed that out, since this is about recognition of public opinion, not about acknowledgment of the facts. It's a bit like control demolition hypothesis, it doesn’t serve as a proof, it serves as hypothesis… Lovelight 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely for the reasons I did. Who cares that there is a poll? The poll does nothing except state an opinion. I haven't seen a poll recently about the number of folks who believe in UFO's...but I bet the number is high, yet there is zero proof that UFO's exist.--MONGO 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about the poll? Everybody, ask your governments, they breathe and act by public opinions, or at least they should… Well Mongo, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you cannot dismiss opinions of millions because you don’t care… Lovelight 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Lovelight, the opinion is noted but inadmissable since it doesn't do anything to enhance this article. Precisely, most people believe in UFO's, yet there isn't any proof of them. Thanks.--MONGO 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, quit with the UFO's, its boring tactic to say the least. Stay on the topic, if you can, to parry on this I'll simply add that there is not a single proof that this… this "official" take on events is true. Not a single one Mongo. That's the main reason that we have these lengthy games (& disputes too). Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The poll question, in fact, offers very little supporting any particular conclusion. The results simply say 81% of respondents (not the population at large) believe that someone close to Little George has not admitted to how much they knew before the attacks, for any reason.  I can't imagine what the other 19% were thinking, this is documented fact in the case of Condoleeza Rice. Peter Grey 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already gave you a reference, the question is clear: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" Lovelight 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peter.  I read the statement that 81% are “questioning mainstream account of the attacks” and was very surprised that the figure was that high.  But when I went to the cited source and read all the 9/11 related questions, I saw nothing that was related to the statement – the closest question being that most think (myself included) that the Bush admin. was/is “hiding something.”  I would hope that they don’t tell up 100% of everything they know… if for no other reason than security, but that does not make this group doubt the mainstream account of what happened; it's a stretch and jump to get to the sentence in the article.  The 81% statement is bogus and should be either left out of the article or reworded to reflect what the poll question really says.Leon7 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I realize that it was extremely poor wording, I did carry it from another article and that was a mistake. Nevertheless you've seen the other polls and the numbers are equally surprising everywhere, I'd say it's notable enough to be recognized in the article.  Lovelight 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As a matter of fact, since I've never seen you here, I'd deeply appreciate if you choose to do it. Lovelight 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for asking.  Well?  I don't know that it is notable.  As I stated, it's no surprise that our government official know stuff that they don't want to pass on; that's the nature of the jobs that they hold.  In fact, it is naive to think that they should tell us everything.   However, having said that, there has to be a fine line as to what the public should demand to know.  I would guess that your 81% statement on the number that doubt the mainstream account of what happened is closer to 20%. Leon7 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have those references above and it's obvious that the #'s are much, much higher, but those won't meat WP:RS… hmm, that will leave us with zogby polls and similes. Think it's about third of population, but I haven’t checked that in a while… Lovelight 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or half? It would make sense, since we live in this unhealthy dichotomy… Lovelight 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whenever you are ready… Lovelight 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, be kind and assume good faith, here, have my third apology, along with further explanation and clear disclaimer… I don't have a need to state anything but the facts. The fact is… I've implement those edits hastily and without decent check of www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm the source.] I'm aware how it may look, and I was so disturbed by my own action that I've choose to block myself willingly for 48 hours, so that I would learn the lesson. Anyway, thank you for your understanding as well as for recognition of the informative nature of such addition. Lovelight 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll 

message: The September 3rd, 2006 edition of Time Magazine, a major news publication in the United States, reported that "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves."
Owing to this high number, what justification do this page's contributors have for limiting the Conspiracy Theories section to one small paragraph? Mach Seventy 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I thought we had a sizable article on conspiracy theories. --Golbez 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no justification, I'll look this up and implement it in the article, you could do it too… Lovelight 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not opposed to doing it, but I don't think what I'd write would make everyone happy.  And Golbez, yes we have a conspiracy theories page- but the lead in on the main page ought to be proportionate to the importance of the sub-page - whether you like it or not, the conspiracy theories are always going to play a big role in everything surrounding 9/11 Mach Seventy 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gonna happen.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it will, yes it will… if it doesn’t happen 911 will happen again & no one would like that, right? Anyway, its good to see some fresh opinions here… yes it is. Lovelight 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd support adding this.(either this or the one above if Lovelight is willing to use the source's actual language and distinctions) The conspiracy section is small, it doesn't need to be huge or anything, but a mention of some public opinion would be helpful in my opinion. --Wildnox(talk) 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have two articles:  (1) this one, for the facts; and (2) the other one, for all of the "theories".  That arrangement has wide consensus.  Any attempt to change that will be met with stiff opposition.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I fully support keeping the theories and all that stuff in that other article(s). I just happen to think that mentioning one of the two aforementioned public opinion polls could be informative. --Wildnox(talk) 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better to discuss the polls on the conspiracy theories subarticle.  The scripps poll seems to be most on point and specific about conspiracy theories.  For comparison purposes and perspective, they also ask respondents about other things like if the federal government is withholding evidence of extraterrestrial life.  The Scripps poll also gives a breakdown of which demographic groups (e.g. young adults, lesser educated, etc.) who are more likely to agree with conspiracy theories.  All this details are suitable for the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you painting pictures Aude? People draw their own details… as for writing, anyone can do it… Lovelight 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The general population are not experts.  The Zogby poll found that 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building -- 7 World Trade Center collapsed.  I don't think so much weight needs to be given to these polls.  Discussing the details in the subarticle is sufficient. --Aude (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a question of expertise it is a matter of opinion. It's informative, as well as notable. Not to say that it's ultra-minor addition. Lovelight 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and about WTC7, don't you think it's time to "educate" the public? Lovelight 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  New to this discussion.  There's already a conspiracy theory article.  Polls like this can be parked, there.  Abe Froman 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This reference, which Morton threw in just so that the muddy waters would be muddier, was taken from my talkpage… I'd encourage anyone who has any doubts to look at the original context. Lovelight 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly. There is not a shard of physical evidence that points to Al-Qaida as a suspect. This is "Jack The Ripper" all over again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by El magnifico (talk • contribs) 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories Section 

message: Yes Morton I agree, this one is about the facts and facts say that certain amount of people are skeptical of official take on events. I'm not sure why would facts be met with such stiff opposition, but I do understand your efforts and your POV. Well since we're examining the facts, how about a fine factual section on that foreknowledge? Regardless of perspectives recent BBC's documentary (my condolences to fine journalism, but have courage, after all, the minority is to blame…) did illustrate that there was a sheer failure to act. This failure should be recognized not only here, but on all related pages… such as of Dr. Rice's, signor Rumsfeld's, Monsieur Cheney's und der Herr Bush's of course… How about such facts? Those have nothing to do with conspiracy. Since yesterday, I'd also say that building 7 deserves a bit more room. It's been neglected for a while, and at least we'll have something to do while we wait for final report. No conspiracy there, just recognition of a very peculiar fall. I'm sure they'll explain it, eventually… Lovelight 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreknowledge (take #247) 

message: While the September 11 attacks were in the first instance an act of external aggression on US targets, their deeper motivation and remarkable success cannot be attributed to the acts and intentions of the hijackers alone. The events of that day must be understood on the background of a series of systemic failures of both a social and technical nature, which include the military establishment, the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and the civil aviation industry.
US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target.
The events of September 11, 2001 revealed that the United States was much more vulnerable to terrorism than had been imagined. Despite awareness of the threat, terrorist cells that would eventually carry out the attacks were able to live and even train for their mission in the US, without being thwarted by intelligence or law-enforcement agencies. The background for this failure seems to have been poor communication between agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA.
Airport security and air defence in the US also seemed ill prepared to prevent the events of that day. Four hijackings we able to occur and proceed unhindered toward their targets. In both cases, authorities had apparently expected a different sort of enemy. Hijackers were expected to take hostages and make demands, not use the airplanes to inflict immediate damage; enemies from the air were expected to come from outside US airspace.
Finally, three of the biggest skyscrapers in the world proved to be unable to survive the attacks, even though the possibility of aircraft collisions had been considered in their design, as had the need to survive hurricanes and earthquakes.
===Comments on draft===
The above section has been reverted twice now by Aude. First he said it was "not ready"; then he said: "unreferenced, editorial (not encyclopedic) tone, no consensus". Okay. Have at it. What parts are written in an editorializing tone? Can they not be fixed by replacing a few words? The account presented here can be sourced 90% (I'm guessing) to the official 9/11 commission report, and the rest can be found in some of the mainstream, booklength treatments of the events. It's common knowledge, relevant, well written (if I may so), and completely encyclopedic. Moreover, it establishes a frame of failures on that day that guides a reading of the rest of the article.--Thomas Basboll 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely written, but it's entirely opinion, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's the opinion of every expert that's looked at this topic. Is it my opinion that US foreign policy is not well received in the middle east? Is it my opinion that this has been a motive for terrorism against the US?--Thomas Basboll 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "attacks" section needs to be first, as it is now, and then go into discussion of motives, responsibility, and why the attacks happened.  Such background should discuss Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.  We already have a section on motives, which discusses their view of U.S. foreign policy, as well as responsibility.  There is also an article on airport security which can be improved, and maybe something can be added to the 9/11 Commission Report section. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. You may view logs for the deleted page to find out who deleted it and why. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole article over at Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good place to work from.  There is also an article on planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  I have tried separating the motives section from "responsibility" and added links to both the background history and planning articles.  I think a one paragraph summary of those could fit under the "Background history" heading.  Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following on my last edit, I moved things back closer to where they where with "responsibility" and "motives" under the same heading, while still linking to the "background history" and "planning" articles. This seems to be a more logical way to organize the article. --Aude (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read through Thomas's draft repeatedly and have no issues with it, this article is very small in size as it is (especially so with regards to the gravity of the events), so these constant redirections are not good way to go. Properly referenced and cited with some minor rewording draft would certainly (and notably) improve the article. That said, Aude has repeatedly shared this puzzling (not ready) explanation? Since I've seen it (experienced it) before, think we are all entitled to some decent answers. Aude who decides when are we ready, and what exactly are we waiting for? Finally, I'm certain that fair amount of people are watching developments here, so let me remind you folks, this is not a Big Brother, chip in, have your say. Lovelight 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how these details are at odds with the statement I propose: "US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target." My way of putting has the virtue of being centred on the topic of the article, but otherwise I think we're saying the same thing here.--Thomas Basboll 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason whatsoever to discuss the U.S. policies in the Middle East in this article. This article is about what happened on 9/11 and much of the rest of the issues of why, who, and whatnot deserve a breif mention and a link to other articles that already examine these issues you just mentioned. If they aren't adequately addressed in those articles, then create one. Lets stay focused on the day.--MONGO 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "The extent of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the U.S. military provoked considerable criticism. Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, the Navy and Army commanders on Oahu, were relieved of duty, and official investigations were begun at once. Some historians and others went so far as to accuse President Roosevelt of having invited the attack (or at least done nothing to stop it) in order to bring the United States into the war against the Axis." (Enc. Britannica)
Reading this article about 9/11, however, one gets no sense that anything "went wrong" on 9/11 other than whatever went wrong in the minds of the terrorists. (As if the decisive factor was the motive.) This article therefore does not really help the reader to understand a very important historical event, i.e., it does not present a even a cursory overview of the factors that contributed to the catastrophic consequences of the hijackers' actions. It simply summarizes the actions and the consequences. It doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the event. It occurs to me that Wikipedia is here running into one of its intrinsic limits. Perhaps an event like 9/11 simply can't be understood by collective effort. But let's work on it for few weeks and see what we can come up with.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The fault of the attacks is with the terrorists. What you're suggesting indicates you want to split the blame. I think I have stated repeatedly that the U.S. knew for some time prior to the 9/11 attacks that there were targets in the U.S....they did try and blow up one tower in 1993 afterall, but nothing that came to happen on 9/11 was sufficiently known by intel to be able to prevent it from happening. Besides, I think you must still miss the point...this article is about the events of one day and what you seem to want to expand on is very peripheral to that specific focus.--MONGO 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article (as it stands) is also about the consequences of those events. Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed. But (like I just suggested above) that would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor. A nation's defences are entrusted with defending a nation (truism but true). Such defences can therefore fail. When they do, historical events occur. Accounts of those events should include the failure of defence systems to prevent them. The alternative is ignorance, which isn't really one of the goals of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed"...who else is to blame? Again, you are getting off focus of where the article should be focusing on...the events of 9/11. "That would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor? I see...so their rape of Nanking and our efforts to demonstrate to them that we disapproved of their invasions and genocide by trying to isolate the Japanese economically makes the U.S. responsible for them attacking Pearl Harbor? If you want to expand on where the u.S. intel failed, then I suggest one of the other articles linked above.--MONGO 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here they are again...Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.--MONGO 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we need to expand this article so it would make sense, we need this background as we need to mention those war games, explain the failure of commission and so on… in other words we'll need to make it more encyclopedic… lots of work. Lovelight 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that belongs in this article...there are other articles that these issues are already examined in.--MONGO 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry Mongo, all this can be done with just a few sentences, people can then examine further… with interest. And please, do unlock this page, these monologues are a bit boring… Lovelight 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow. "The Rape of Nanking". I'm not going to discuss who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in world history, Mongo. That won't get us anywhere. The point is that if any country is successfully attacked by a well known enemy (as in the cases of Pearl Harbor and 9/11) then leaders of the nation's defences will be held in part accountable by the people or their representatives (as happened in the case of Pearl Harbor) or at least by historians (as has happened in the case of 9/11). Not for the attack, of course, but for its relative success. The US was surprisingly vulnerable in all sorts of ways to this particular sort of action. This article gives us little sense of how difficult and/or easy it was for the hijackers to pull it off. Yes, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to spread the blame for the damage the attacks caused around a little. In so doing I'm following a pretty mainstream approach to history. This was a complex event.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is a middleground to be reached partially, and then possibly expanded later. While MONGO does not own the article and therefore cannot tell anyone what its scope is, for now we can possibly work in that scope. The war games that took place on 9/11 are events that took place on that day, failures of the control towers to respond properly as well as the military to respond fast enough are also items that can be included and examined in a section, as they happened on that day. Later other options can be looked at such as a RfC or Arbcom hearing regarding expanding the article to cover everything about 9/11 instead of just the day. So what do people think about limiting the section proposed to just failures that happened in that day, flight controllers, military readiness/wargames, local authorities radio systems etc. Part of me finds it odd that anyone can say blame should not be spread around since people have been fired since and an entire institution [removed] was created. Apparently even the administration feels something was lacking. --NuclearZer0 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I see what you mean about one-sided (though I would argue that it is simply pulling in the article back towards a more balanced view). Perhaps a paragraph about the background conditions that fostered these especially effective terrorists would help here. The only problem with that is that their operation seems suprisingly crude. Their flight training was elementary (just enough to get the job done, it would seem) and they overpowered the flight crew by sheer force and using simple weapons. While this may sound polemical, I think I'm arguing that as the article stands it gives undue weight to the actions of the terrorists, which were almost magically successful when we consider the results. Once the background of complacency and negligence, as you put it, along with some larger systemic problems (especially in the area of inter-agency cooperation), and perhaps the wargames at the time (exacerbating the "fog of war"), are taken into account, however, the effectiveness of the attacks begin to be comprehensible. It should be the task of the article to help the reader understand the attacks.--Thomas Basboll 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is going to be a challenge to inject "the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong," and it is something I do not support. Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're taking that a bit out of context. In this context it just means making use of whatever close readings of the official record there are and to make use of the information that this yields in an appropriate manner.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a job for an investigative journalist, with an independent editor providing oversight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone like Erich von Däniken would be interested in such matters.--MONGO 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section (draft) 

message: The above section has been reverted twice now by Aude. First he said it was "not ready"; then he said: "unreferenced, editorial (not encyclopedic) tone, no consensus". Okay. Have at it. What parts are written in an editorializing tone? Can they not be fixed by replacing a few words? The account presented here can be sourced 90% (I'm guessing) to the official 9/11 commission report, and the rest can be found in some of the mainstream, booklength treatments of the events. It's common knowledge, relevant, well written (if I may so), and completely encyclopedic. Moreover, it establishes a frame of failures on that day that guides a reading of the rest of the article.--Thomas Basboll 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely written, but it's entirely opinion, which we don't allow here on Wikipedia.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's the opinion of every expert that's looked at this topic. Is it my opinion that US foreign policy is not well received in the middle east? Is it my opinion that this has been a motive for terrorism against the US?--Thomas Basboll 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the "attacks" section needs to be first, as it is now, and then go into discussion of motives, responsibility, and why the attacks happened.  Such background should discuss Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.  We already have a section on motives, which discusses their view of U.S. foreign policy, as well as responsibility.  There is also an article on airport security which can be improved, and maybe something can be added to the 9/11 Commission Report section. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. You may view logs for the deleted page to find out who deleted it and why. --Aude (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole article over at Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good place to work from.  There is also an article on planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  I have tried separating the motives section from "responsibility" and added links to both the background history and planning articles.  I think a one paragraph summary of those could fit under the "Background history" heading.  Thoughts? --Aude (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following on my last edit, I moved things back closer to where they where with "responsibility" and "motives" under the same heading, while still linking to the "background history" and "planning" articles. This seems to be a more logical way to organize the article. --Aude (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read through Thomas's draft repeatedly and have no issues with it, this article is very small in size as it is (especially so with regards to the gravity of the events), so these constant redirections are not good way to go. Properly referenced and cited with some minor rewording draft would certainly (and notably) improve the article. That said, Aude has repeatedly shared this puzzling (not ready) explanation? Since I've seen it (experienced it) before, think we are all entitled to some decent answers. Aude who decides when are we ready, and what exactly are we waiting for? Finally, I'm certain that fair amount of people are watching developments here, so let me remind you folks, this is not a Big Brother, chip in, have your say. Lovelight 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how these details are at odds with the statement I propose: "US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target." My way of putting has the virtue of being centred on the topic of the article, but otherwise I think we're saying the same thing here.--Thomas Basboll 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason whatsoever to discuss the U.S. policies in the Middle East in this article. This article is about what happened on 9/11 and much of the rest of the issues of why, who, and whatnot deserve a breif mention and a link to other articles that already examine these issues you just mentioned. If they aren't adequately addressed in those articles, then create one. Lets stay focused on the day.--MONGO 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on draft

message: I can see this is going to be a long process. As I understand it, the standardly accepted account includes an understanding of how US authorities failed to prevent the attacks (failed in the sense that the buildings also "failed", i.e., not necessarily with any suggestion that they should have behaved differently--though that question must of course be noted). Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for; it is in the Encyclpaedia Britannica article on Pearl Harbor:
:"The extent of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the U.S. military provoked considerable criticism. Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, the Navy and Army commanders on Oahu, were relieved of duty, and official investigations were begun at once. Some historians and others went so far as to accuse President Roosevelt of having invited the attack (or at least done nothing to stop it) in order to bring the United States into the war against the Axis." (Enc. Britannica)
Reading this article about 9/11, however, one gets no sense that anything "went wrong" on 9/11 other than whatever went wrong in the minds of the terrorists. (As if the decisive factor was the motive.) This article therefore does not really help the reader to understand a very important historical event, i.e., it does not present a even a cursory overview of the factors that contributed to the catastrophic consequences of the hijackers' actions. It simply summarizes the actions and the consequences. It doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the event. It occurs to me that Wikipedia is here running into one of its intrinsic limits. Perhaps an event like 9/11 simply can't be understood by collective effort. But let's work on it for few weeks and see what we can come up with.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fault of the attacks is with the terrorists. What you're suggesting indicates you want to split the blame. I think I have stated repeatedly that the U.S. knew for some time prior to the 9/11 attacks that there were targets in the U.S....they did try and blow up one tower in 1993 afterall, but nothing that came to happen on 9/11 was sufficiently known by intel to be able to prevent it from happening. Besides, I think you must still miss the point...this article is about the events of one day and what you seem to want to expand on is very peripheral to that specific focus.--MONGO 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article (as it stands) is also about the consequences of those events. Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed. But (like I just suggested above) that would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor. A nation's defences are entrusted with defending a nation (truism but true). Such defences can therefore fail. When they do, historical events occur. Accounts of those events should include the failure of defence systems to prevent them. The alternative is ignorance, which isn't really one of the goals of Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed"...who else is to blame? Again, you are getting off focus of where the article should be focusing on...the events of 9/11. "That would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor? I see...so their rape of Nanking and our efforts to demonstrate to them that we disapproved of their invasions and genocide by trying to isolate the Japanese economically makes the U.S. responsible for them attacking Pearl Harbor? If you want to expand on where the u.S. intel failed, then I suggest one of the other articles linked above.--MONGO 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here they are again...Background history of the September 11, 2001 attacks, planning of the September 11, 2001 attacks.--MONGO 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, we need to expand this article so it would make sense, we need this background as we need to mention those war games, explain the failure of commission and so on… in other words we'll need to make it more encyclopedic… lots of work. Lovelight 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that belongs in this article...there are other articles that these issues are already examined in.--MONGO 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry Mongo, all this can be done with just a few sentences, people can then examine further… with interest. And please, do unlock this page, these monologues are a bit boring… Lovelight 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow. "The Rape of Nanking". I'm not going to discuss who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in world history, Mongo. That won't get us anywhere. The point is that if any country is successfully attacked by a well known enemy (as in the cases of Pearl Harbor and 9/11) then leaders of the nation's defences will be held in part accountable by the people or their representatives (as happened in the case of Pearl Harbor) or at least by historians (as has happened in the case of 9/11). Not for the attack, of course, but for its relative success. The US was surprisingly vulnerable in all sorts of ways to this particular sort of action. This article gives us little sense of how difficult and/or easy it was for the hijackers to pull it off. Yes, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to spread the blame for the damage the attacks caused around a little. In so doing I'm following a pretty mainstream approach to history. This was a complex event.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there is a middleground to be reached partially, and then possibly expanded later. While MONGO does not own the article and therefore cannot tell anyone what its scope is, for now we can possibly work in that scope. The war games that took place on 9/11 are events that took place on that day, failures of the control towers to respond properly as well as the military to respond fast enough are also items that can be included and examined in a section, as they happened on that day. Later other options can be looked at such as a RfC or Arbcom hearing regarding expanding the article to cover everything about 9/11 instead of just the day. So what do people think about limiting the section proposed to just failures that happened in that day, flight controllers, military readiness/wargames, local authorities radio systems etc. Part of me finds it odd that anyone can say blame should not be spread around since people have been fired since and an entire institution [removed] was created. Apparently even the administration feels something was lacking. --NuclearZer0 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I see what you mean about one-sided (though I would argue that it is simply pulling in the article back towards a more balanced view). Perhaps a paragraph about the background conditions that fostered these especially effective terrorists would help here. The only problem with that is that their operation seems suprisingly crude. Their flight training was elementary (just enough to get the job done, it would seem) and they overpowered the flight crew by sheer force and using simple weapons. While this may sound polemical, I think I'm arguing that as the article stands it gives undue weight to the actions of the terrorists, which were almost magically successful when we consider the results. Once the background of complacency and negligence, as you put it, along with some larger systemic problems (especially in the area of inter-agency cooperation), and perhaps the wargames at the time (exacerbating the "fog of war"), are taken into account, however, the effectiveness of the attacks begin to be comprehensible. It should be the task of the article to help the reader understand the attacks.--Thomas Basboll 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is going to be a challenge to inject "the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong," and it is something I do not support. Tom Harrison Talk 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're taking that a bit out of context. In this context it just means making use of whatever close readings of the official record there are and to make use of the information that this yields in an appropriate manner.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a job for an investigative journalist, with an independent editor providing oversight. Tom Harrison Talk 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone like Erich von Däniken would be interested in such matters.--MONGO 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on draft (continued) 

message: I highly disapprove of this section, reorganized by AudeVivere.  The timing closely coincides with my movement of 'Conspiracy Theories' to the reactions section.  These theories need not be correct-but they are assignments of responsibility and belong in that section.  Putting Conspiracy Theories in the 'reaction' section seems only to dismiss theories that have some meat to them.  And i'm not sure how 'responsibility' goes into 'background history' anyway.  A poor edit.
I've thought lately, perhaps it would be a good idea to settle the conspiracy theories mention on the main page with, or course, the brief mention, but also a section detailing the contradictions, flaws, and irregularities in the official account without mention of the theories claiming to account for them.  I'm sure that nobody who's contributed to this article, which is and should be more than a bare-bones account of the events and background, hasn't come across some of the contradictions in the official story (WTC7, Pentagon damage anomalies, etc.)  Instead of claiming "Bush did it!" or "mini-nukes" on the main page, why can't we mention these?  The official story isn't perfect, and so the wikipdia article which follows the official story closely if not to-a-T needs to make mention of it. MachSeventy 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "official story" that you keep talking about?  Seems to me that you are trying very hard to marginalize the facts here, when this is one of the most-reported-upon stories of this century.  The 9/11 Commission Report does exist, but it's hardly the last word on the subject.  There are literally tens of thousands of mainstream accounts of what happened that day, and none of them support the so-called "alternative theories", except to make light of their frailty.  The common account of September 11th, on the other hand, is backed by the consensus of thousands of objective journalistic reports -- reports that we can rely upon here in fashioning this encyclopedia.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, the official account covered in this article is the official account I'm referring to.  And no, there are accounts which differ from this view.  These include those from firemen inside the building who reported explosions, individuals who report strange security conditions in the towers in the days prior to the incident, individuals who cite interference by authorities on the ground outside the Pentagon.  Look around for them, they're there.  Do you really believe everything you read? Mach Seventy 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia doesn't investigate anything.  We're a tertiary source, relying on trustworthy secondary sources.  Yours is an odd use of the word "heresy," which means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position."  This would mean that any theories but the dominant theory, that 19 hijackers (no g, one h) commandeered four airplanes, etc., etc, is heresy.  Wikipedia operates off of reliable sources and verifiability, and the dominant theory has plenty of sources that satisfy these requirements.  The vast majority of alternate theories do not.  Prettymuch all of them, actually.  So, no, we're not going to give them equal footing. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So noted. --Golbez 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Background History" Section and A Recommendation 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous
-RxS 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Question moved to Reference Desk 

message: some day the truth comes to light
Woefully misguided are those that trust Bush's government.
Remember kids; relatives of deceased loved ones are more inclined to be vocal.
The only place ostensibly containing info from relatives of 9/11 passengers is the 9/11 memorial page with every victim.
Someone should ask that guy where he got the pics from and if we could speak to those people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.38.223.224 (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hope 

message: I'm really curious now: what is the disagreement all about? Peter Grey 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted since it moves the items around in the TOC and puts CTs under Responsibility instead of Reactions.  I don't think it belongs under Responsibility and I think if this is going to be moved we should have a chance to discuss it.  --PTR 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been engaging into what has become an edit war from some time on this.  I am not amused by the quick willingness of some fellow editors to ask for talk page consensus on how we should reorganize this article when a reorganization that added a strange "Background History" section, which included in that section accounts of the actual day of the attacks (thereby being nonsensical), attracted no such calls for a consensus.  The edits I have made reflect the belief that the "Conspiracy Theories" are best thought of as assessments of responsibility coupled with alternative accounts of the events before, during, and after the attacks.  Placing "Conspiracy Theories" in the "Reaction" section is nonsensical, seeing as the official accounts are not included under the umbrella term "Reactions."  Moreover, I'm sure that fellow editors are aware of the effect of placing the Conspiracy Theories section and link in the reactions section: it treats such Conspiracy Theories as simple, predictable, organic reactions to be expected in the wake of a catastrophic event.  It does not treat the theories, which have weight and adduce evidence the official account cannot explain, as epistemically equal, but in effect demeans them.  I am open to the view that Conspiracy Theories be given its own main section in the 9/11 article, and be expanded on the main page to perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the anomalies, theories, and criticism of the theories if need be.  MachSeventy 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Conspiracy theories are obviously reactions, since they are expressions of paranoia. There is an argument that the 9/11 Commission is also a reaction, particularly since it worked under limitations which appeared politically motivated. I didn't see any logic in the other rearrangements. Peter Grey 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...That's exactly the point I just made.  They both fall under reactions.  So either we include both under the heading or find a more suitable place for them.  The 9/11 Commission got its own section - why not the conspiracy theories?  And yes, conspiracy theories can be expressions of paranoia, but it isn't exactly like 9/11 conspiracy theories are so unfounded as to be judged only as reactions.  If we had termed them "Alternative Theories" would your first reaction have been to dismiss them as paranoia? Mach Seventy 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Nonsense about conspiracy theory folklore aside, anything in response to the attacks could qualify as a reaction; maybe there is some value in clarifying where "Reactions" fits into the story. Peter Grey 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Conspiracy theories are reactions; they are not good faith inquiries into issues of responsibility. Peter Grey 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has precisely nothing to do with the vote on this topic. Mach Seventy 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: What does this have to do with the article?  And who are these individuals profiting?  Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries, for instance, weren't made by studios but by independent filmmakers who mostly drew together secondary video footage.  And do you actually know what reactionary means? 24.88.76.172 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For many of the promoters, I think listing with 'Opportunists' is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a bizarre claim! I guess you are one of those lying government shills. Anyoen can download Terrorstorm, Loose Change, and many other 9/11 related videos questioning the OFFICIAL LIES abotu 9/11 for FREE. Not charge! Get it! Which means NO PROFIT. If anyone is making a buck from 9/11 it's the shills being paid to lie in defence of the official story on sites like this one.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.190.83.130 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opportunist is not necessarily pursuing money.  Some just want the attention, or get some sick joy from spreading misinformation and wasting everyone's time. Peter Grey 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Opportunists... what are they taking advantage of to further interests of their own?  It isn't possible that proponents of conspiracy theories just want the truth and haven't been satisfied by the commonplace viewpoint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.76.172 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fascinating questions, but are they relevant to this article?  Whether money, sensationalism, or good faith pursuit of truth, conspiracy theories are still wrong.  Peter Grey 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's intelligent.  Where did you go to school? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.76.172 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So childish you are. Do you really think that something like this could have happened without the foreknowledge of Mossad - for example ? Wake up people, Osama Bin Laden is still working for the CIA - like he officially did for 12 years.--El magnifico 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 March reverts 

message: The conspiracy theories are nothing but an attempt to make a buck off the deaths of thousands of people. Anyone trying to make these profiteers lunacy more notable is probably being paid by them to do so. 9/11/2001 conspiracy theories=make a fast buck. There is nothing reactionary about them, only evil profiteering.--Beguiled 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does this have to do with the article?  And who are these individuals profiting?  Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries, for instance, weren't made by studios but by independent filmmakers who mostly drew together secondary video footage.  And do you actually know what reactionary means? 24.88.76.172 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For many of the promoters, I think listing with 'Opportunists' is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What a bizarre claim! I guess you are one of those lying government shills. Anyoen can download Terrorstorm, Loose Change, and many other 9/11 related videos questioning the OFFICIAL LIES abotu 9/11 for FREE. Not charge! Get it! Which means NO PROFIT. If anyone is making a buck from 9/11 it's the shills being paid to lie in defence of the official story on sites like this one.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.190.83.130 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opportunist is not necessarily pursuing money.  Some just want the attention, or get some sick joy from spreading misinformation and wasting everyone's time. Peter Grey 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Opportunists... what are they taking advantage of to further interests of their own?  It isn't possible that proponents of conspiracy theories just want the truth and haven't been satisfied by the commonplace viewpoint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.76.172 (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Fascinating questions, but are they relevant to this article?  Whether money, sensationalism, or good faith pursuit of truth, conspiracy theories are still wrong.  Peter Grey 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's intelligent.  Where did you go to school? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.88.76.172 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So childish you are. Do you really think that something like this could have happened without the foreknowledge of Mossad - for example ? Wake up people, Osama Bin Laden is still working for the CIA - like he officially did for 12 years.--El magnifico 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy theorist motivations

message: * This page was mention here: Wikipedia_talk:How_to_archive_a_talk_page#Excessive_archiving  Why is this page archived so much? Anyone else have any theories? Travb (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  excessive archiving 

message: At this point this seems like such a stupid question,but there seems to be little in this article about it.Does anyone know exactly how the commercial airliners where hijacked by the terrorists?even on this article and even on the timeline section it simply states that they took over the plane,but how did they manage to smuggle weapons on board a plane? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.18 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks...we can click the link above so no reason to copy and paste their info again. Osama is wanted mainly for the Embassy Bombings since that makes it easier to try him in International Court. The evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks is in the article.--MONGO 07:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so the evidence is in the article... but there is not enough evidence to even try to convict him in the court... Possibly some wouldn't ever like September 11 trial to begin. There would be soo many problems with explaining how things happened exactly... and there is no Osama. SalvNaut 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijackers 

message: Hello, I would like to present to you this new section about effects in popular media (sub-section of "Long-term effects").  Please include more examples in the "examples" section if you can find any.  Note: For the 2 examples I already put there, I copied some text directly out of the articles linked to about those examples (but not where I put "citation needed" templates).
Enjoy! --Wykypydya 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "effect" seems to be a hightened sensitivity to terrorist violence. Certainly a valid point, although cataloguing all the examples might be excessive. Combining Effects in popular media and Effects on morale into, say, "Effects on popular culture" might be a good fit. Peter Grey 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Effects on popular culture is a good topic, but details I think are suitable for the subarticle - September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture and not the main article. As such, I have moved the paragraph to the subarticle and provided a link in the main article to it.  In the main article, a one or two sentence summary of the subarticle (per WP:SUMMARY) would be okay.  Effects on morale seems subjective, but possibly okay if sourced properly.  It could probably be mentioned in the popular culture subarticle. --Aude (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  **New** section!: "Effects in popular media" 

message: Can I suggest linking to the following picture discussed in the following blog - http://www.lommers.org/2007/02/17/911-ground-zero-high-resolution-picture/
I have provided the blog link as opposed to the direct link since anyone who takes a look should read the blog - the picture is VERY large and therefore should not be downloaded if you're on dialup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bah23 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to picture 

message: This is meant to end once and for all the edit war over Conspiracy Theories and its rightful place in this article.  I have contended that the Conspiracy Theories section is best placed under "Responsibilities," while others have disagreed.  The following restates or crystallizes my case.  
Firstly, the various conspiracy theories (or alternative theories) relating to 9/11 indisputably include assessments of responsibility - taking into account a number of anomalies related to that day's events, 
the theories reject the more popular account of 9/11, roughly equal to the account detailed in the remainder of the Responsibility section, and instead implicate individuals and groups in the United States government, the corporate world, and other parties in the murders of thousands. These theories are supported by claims based on physics, behavior of officials, nontransparency, and motive, not to mention marginalized first-hand accounts and primary sources. 
Secondly, alternative accounts falling under the heading '9/11 Conspiracy Theories' are popularly believed: as mentioned, a Scripps/Howard poll found that 36% of the American public believes it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves. This makes the assessment of responsibility significant. 
Thirdly, the current placement of Conspiracy Theories under Reactions deprives these theories of epistemic equality.  Terming the alternative theories "Reactions" puts them on equal ground with true reactions such as fear, disgust, anger, and jubilation.  This implies that the theories are without reason or lack coherence; instead, they are organic human reactions to important events to be expected.  This is wholly inappropriate for a developing, reasoned explanation of what happened.
Finally, I would like to voice my disgust at fellow editors who have reverted my edits, which were supported with an apparently unnoticed vote on this talk page, citing as justification "not an improvement" and the like.  These were not reasoned reversions: they were the work of weasely editors who would rather resist change than debate it.  I found it laughable that I was served with a warning over edit warring when one individual rejected my continued, supported edits with superficial cause.
===Those FOR moving Conspiracy Theories to the Responsibility Section===
# Mach Seventy 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories: Reactions Section or Responsibility Section? 

message: # Mach Seventy 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Those FOR moving Conspiracy Theories to the Responsibility Section

message: # Peter Grey 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Those AGAINST moving Conspiracy Theories to the Responsibility Section

message: *There is already consensus on this.  The proposed move has no merit at all, which is why the suggestion was summarily dismissed when the first 'vote' was taken. Peter Grey 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: First, I see no point in voting on whether a part of an article should be here or there. It needs to be figured out. So please, bring your arguments on the table. Thank you.
Second, I suggest to rename the whole section. "Conspiracy theories" in my view is not an adequate name. It implies that there is some kind of conspiracy when US officials (or others) are involved in the planning and acting out of the attacks while there would be no conspiracy if none is involved. This is wrong. Check out conspiracy.
As alternative names of the section I suggest "non-official explanations" or "Explanations contradicting official account".
Third, in the end, the task will be to weed out the interpretations and present the facts. As an example: if there was no plane crashed into the Pentagon, we will not figure that out by editing plane or missile back and forth and putting the different accounts up and down different sections (reactions/responsibility). We will figure it out by editing out anything that can not cite credible sources. If some source is being criticized, mention the criticism. We can only get more detail that way. In the end the big picture will evolve out of the many many small pieces.
--Kjell.kuehne 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conspiracy theories" is the term used to describe these kinds of theories.  Check out Conspiracy theory.--Dcooper 12:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The implication is that the "theory" lacks supporting evidence and relies on implausible assumptions, which is correct. Peter Grey 12:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Theory" is correctly used as Peter just pointed out.  "Conspiracy" is correct usage because it depends the wide and coordinated numbers of people from many areas and occupations that would be required to plan the attacks, perform the the attacks, plant false evidence to give credibility to the official account and thereafter maintain perfect silence for over 5 years on all of it. This is implausible.  patsw 12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are using your point of view that such an attack is implausible because of the supposed massive numbers of complicit people required?  There are many people that dispute that point.  For example, as in the military, there are many missions and sub-missions, and each group of people in each mission only know the details of their mission.  Even after the mission they may not have known that they were helping in something evil.  Everyone is on a need-to-know basis.  As for there being "perfect silence", there are many prominent people questioning the offical story and demanding a new investigation.  They immediately get shunned, rediculed, lose thier jobs, and the majority of the press gives them no attention.  This fact automatically reduces the amount of whistleblowers.  I'm not going to go into the details of how this point is often disputed.  The point is that regardless of who is right on this issue, your argument is a point of view, as is my argument.  Neither should be taken as fact on Wikipedia. Kevin77v 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conspiracy Theories" is not an adequate name 

message: Please add  in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA in zh.wikipedia 

message: Hi, I'm very unfamiliar with the 9/11 hierarchy of articles, and think that this should be included somewhere. But I am currently busy and haven't the spare time to work out the relevant place. If someone wore familiar with the articles could add it, i would be very grateful. Thanks, Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request editor familiar with the 9/11 articles add this info 

message: I recently watched a news clip showing on site first responders yelling to each other to get out of the area due to the fact that the building just next to the towers which I forget the name of but that was 47 stories high, was about to be "brought down" for safety reasons because it had sustained too much damage to be stable. Right after the warning to clear the area, in the background you can hear explosions going off rapidly, that were set by someone somehow. An engineer was interviewed about the clip and said that only experts could have set those timing devices and had the build implode that evenly and quickly. He said it was a professional job of controled demolition and would have taken at least 30 or 'more' men about at least half hour or 'more' under good conditions to set up. Or as Golbez brings out it would take a lot longer- so why did it have all the indicators of this being a set up? See this link: http://www.wtc7.net/ No planes hit that building yet it collapsed. Buildings with steel structures are built to hold up to a lot and remain standing. Also I just watched another clip that showed the engineers analysis of what happened with the towers and it showed how they came virtually straight down like a professional demo job .It could have been set up long before all this happened if it was an insurance scam on the buildings. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665The insurance companies should look into this.  Can someone check into this and write an article? Well maybe I did not remember each thing the news clip said exactly and I can not spell but what about the witnesses accounts of hearing timed explosions and the audio of first responders calling for everyone to get out of the area because the building was about to be brought down? PS I just watched loose change and I am convinced it was all an inside job. It was all for money and power http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change+recut  this is free to the public and should be watched by any citizen with an honest heart who wants to understand what happened. (69.129.105.58 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 30 or more men a half hour to set up? I'm sure professional demolition companies will be shocked to learn that they have a competitor who can wire a building for demolition far faster than has ever been accomplished in history. Also, none of the towers fell 'virtually straight down', and the building wasn't 'brought down for safety reasons'. The name of the building you're thinking of is Seven World Trade Center. --Golbez 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (To show how preposterous such a question is - 30 men 30 minutes for 47 floors means they had every person spend a half hour lugging explosives up to about two floors each and professionally install them. Or, 30 men spent less than a minute doing the same in each floor. Each proposal, and every one in between them, is impossible.) --Golbez 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you've edited to try to make it work better, but that just makes your argument worth even less - three weeks is "a half hour or more", so that just means it's impossible to prove your argument wrong. I will believe the controlled demolition hypothesis if and only if you can show me when and how 280 stories of office tower were wired for controlled demolition - a process that usually takes weeks for 20 stories. So, show me opportunity and method, and we're in business. Til then, I have my planes with 19 arabs, and you have an empty hypothesis. At least my theory has physical evidence. --Golbez 03:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As for witness accounts - if I hear three booms about 2 seconds apart, that doesn't mean they are timed. People heard booms, prove they were timed. Secondly, 'brought down' or 'come down'? They told people to clear the area because they thought Seven was in imminent danger of collapse - which it did. Show me this audio. --Golbez 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I really can't tell you what to believe, unfortunately. Perhaps the best thing to do is to watch "Screw Loose Change", which is an annotated version of Loose Change - that way you kind of get both sides all at once. Though it will have an obvious bias against the conspiracy theorists, but I have to say that this video is what finally convinced me that there was no massive government or Silverstein conspiracy. The problem with this all is that the only real opinion you can have is the one you find yourself, based on fact from others. I can only try to help with those facts and dispel other things at theories and hypotheses. All I can say is that, in the heat of the moment, a lot of people might hear or say things that are incorrect, and become only apparent after the fact. Perhaps you should try to find these recordings, and if you cannot, perhaps it is your own memories that are cloudy. Either way, none of this can go into the article without a proper citation. --Golbez 00:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Watching such movies like "Loose Change" or "Screw" version of the former will not get you any closer to the truth. Reading books is a bit better. But the best thing to do is to look into reports of reliable people, see what they propose, what kind of problems do they point out etc. I recommend nistreview.org. Reading there I've tracked this very interesting info from the front line of computer modeling of WTC disaster. After reading it one can see that simulations of fire made by FEMA were completely off reality ("heat source 1500° C" ?), in opposition to a modeling of the plane hit, which apparently was done pretty well. What about NIST simulations? Many have objections to them. Whatever happened, neither FEMA, nor NIST researched and described it properly. SalvNaut 01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You mention it being an insurance scam. Considering Silverstein got somewhere around $5 billion from this, and it cost him $6 billion to build a new tower... if it was a scam then he really screwed it, didn't he? Also, you have to wonder when the explosives were place. You don't wire 280 floors of office tower without the office workers noticing. --Golbez 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motive is the weakest part of the conspiracy theories.  What could possibly justify so much effort, secrecy, money, and risk just to demolish a building that was already damaged beyond repair? Peter Grey 02:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  timed explosions heard by witnesses at the scene 

message: Per Wiki page instructions, I am opening a discussion point to add a link to an interview that I conducted with a Department of Defense employee present (within sight) of the attack on the Pentagon on September 11th. 
As my 501c[3] non-profit foundation (American Antigravity) is partially supported by Google Ads, I would prefer NOT to hotlink to the audio-file directly, but instead to a descriptor page for the file, at the following URL:
http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/584/1/
Feel free to listen to the interview that I've conducted - it was off-the-cuff and unexpected when it happened, and thus is a little less structured than many of my others. However, I feel this is an important part of the history of September 11th, and thus is worth a link on the Sept 11th Wiki page.
Please note that the interview subject recounts his personal experience of the 911 attacks. This interview promotes the mainstream (non-conspiracy-theory) view of the attacks, and in no way disagrees with or undermines the accepted view of how or why these attacks occurred. It is not promoting a specific political or ideological agenda, merely providing context for understanding this tragedy from the viewpoint of one particular witness.
My interview subject had a number of colleagues who were inside the Pentagon for a briefing and were killed when the aircraft hit the building, and describes them briefly to memorialize their sacrifice.
Thank you;
Tim Ventura
tventura6@comcast.net
====CIA IG Internal Review====   
Additional US Gov't Reports
The article makes no reference in the gov't response section to other US reports and investigatins. I added:
   
- The Inspector General of the CIA conducted an internal review of the CIA's performance prior to 9/11, and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism, including failing to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and failing to share information on the two men with the FBI. (American Conservative, April 1, 2005, http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html last visited 2007/3/29.) 
Golbez saw fit to remove this whole entry with the note "can't you link to the report directly?". I agree that there could be a link to the IG report. But I consider it unhelpful and disrespectful to remove a fully cited contribution merely because an additional citation could have been added. If Golbez wishes to contribute to the article, (s)he can add the additional cite or ask that it be added. Removing anotherwise good entry is not a constructive step. Since Golbez has not made any objection to content, I am restoring. 
Finally, the Congressional investigations should also be referenced here. I leave that to others.--NYCJosh 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept 11th Pentagon Insider Interview - Requesting a Link 

message: Additional US Gov't Reports
The article makes no reference in the gov't response section to other US reports and investigatins. I added:
   
- The Inspector General of the CIA conducted an internal review of the CIA's performance prior to 9/11, and was harshly critical of senior CIA officials for not doing everything possible to confront terrorism, including failing to stop two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, as they entered the United States and failing to share information on the two men with the FBI. (American Conservative, April 1, 2005, http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html last visited 2007/3/29.) 
Golbez saw fit to remove this whole entry with the note "can't you link to the report directly?". I agree that there could be a link to the IG report. But I consider it unhelpful and disrespectful to remove a fully cited contribution merely because an additional citation could have been added. If Golbez wishes to contribute to the article, (s)he can add the additional cite or ask that it be added. Removing anotherwise good entry is not a constructive step. Since Golbez has not made any objection to content, I am restoring. 
Finally, the Congressional investigations should also be referenced here. I leave that to others.--NYCJosh 22:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA IG Internal Review

message: The dancing Israelis incident that was reported by a number of mainstream media outlets, but funnily never mentioned again seems to paint a clear picture of who was responsible for the 9/11/2001 attacks. For those in need of a refresher this is what happened. On the day of the 9/11/2001 attacks 5 Israelis dressed as Arabs were seen and filmed in New Jersey dancing in the streets and congratulating one another and were also reported by residents to the police as jumping for joy while filming themselves in front of the towers after the initial impact. They were also reported to be driving a white, 2000 Chevrolet van with 'Urban Moving Systems' written on it and police were told to stop any white van if it was located. Police did stop the van and when they apprehended them they told the police "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.". The NYPD then found in their van maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters, $4700 cash stuffed in a sock and foreign passports. Bombsniffing dogs were also brought to the van and reacted as if they smelt explosives. The FBI also ceased and developed their photos, one of which showed one of the suspects holding up a flicked lighter in front of the buildings. Two former CIA officers confirmed that the moving van company 'Urban Moving Systems' was a front for Mossad and said that moving vans are commonly used for intelligence operations, they also said these Israelis were detained for only 71 days before being quietly let go and said "There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this was basically going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11." 
Can someone explain to me why there's no mention of any of this? 
Phazon - 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to me to be nothing but anti-Semitic propaganda. Show me some sources. --Tarage (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was actually in the article for a very long time though much shortened and having the reply to it from the Israeli government. I have no idea why it is not in it now although i may be confused and it is in another article. Tarage is pulling your leg, he knows very well it is supported by RS.  BTW they were not dressed as Arabs and were not jumping with joy (the witness who reported them said highfiving and no one else saw them there). Only one of them was Mossad and it also doesn't imply who was responsible. At worst it implies inappropriate behaviour. Wayne (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate it if you didn't speak for me. I was not pulling anyone's leg, and from what you pointed out, stating that they were 'Dancing Israelis' and that they were vital to this article IS propaganda, and I won't have it. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate, doesn't need to be on the main article. Hut 8.5 18:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Go choke on your nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for speaking for Tarage. As he is a frequent editor on this page I mistakenly assumed he would be more familiar with the subject.  Thanks Hut 8.5, I knew I had seen it somewhere and it is proof that it has not been censored. It does suggest possible advance knowledge so is appropriate there but does not need to be mentioned in every 911 article. Specifically it is here. Wayne (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why nothing about the dancing Israelis?