Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 22

message: I am a reader, not an active user of wikipedia. I will make this short and brief:
How can you write that they where terrorist attacks? and that Al-Qaida was behind? when so many facts points in other directions? and no metion of the possible governmental involment?except from under the heading of "conspiracy theroies".?
or the fact that it is highly possible that explosives where used to bring the towers down?or the fact that they where buildt to withstand an airliner of the size that crashed? or the fact that WTC 7 collapsed without being hit by anything?and the way they collapsed was that of a controlled demolition.
ypu have chosen to buy into the official US goernment version of the incidents, instead of giving more weight to indepenant and by far more reliable sources.
I feel sick to my stomach.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.196.183 (talk • contribs) 
::Take a pepto. The buildings were designed to withstand such impacts, but not such impacts with the addition of jet fuel. It is the jet fuel that incinerated the buildings, not the impact. Please talk to a credible engineer or architect with at least 5 years experience before you start typing jibberish. Also, some of the buildings were destroyed by explosives for safety reasons as a matter of public record. The two towers were not among them. Majestic Lizard 01:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen some of these conspiracy videos and as articulate as the arguments sometimes are, they operate on the layman's ignorance of the principles of modern architecture. Again, it was the jet fuel which incinerated the buildings, not the impact of the planes alone. Had there been no fuel in the jets the buildings would have withstood the impact. Again, talk to some architects and civil engineers (real ones). I'm sure they will shed light on many of your misconceptions concerning this incident. Majestic Lizard 01:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, guess we are all a bit tired of that hula hoopin', we talked enough, let's start walking… and it is a bit uncomfortable to see this discussion as game of ping-pong between me and Peter. Guidelines here are very simple, so please, parachute in... -- Lovelight 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you get along within Reality when your basic hold on cause-and-effect is so destroyed (or maybe it was absent from the start)? Thousands of points of physical evidence pile up on the side of an Al Qaeda planned and executed operation and, to top it off with such finality, Al Qaeda itself admits to it! It's as if Lovelight (who hates Bush) is walking along and finds his hair on fire. He sees a tall guy with an Arab head-dressing running around a corner, throwing away a Bic lighter. Far in the other direction he sees a guy who looks like he must have an American accent talking on a cell phone. Lovelight's conclusion: Bush is on the other end of that call and his confederate obviously lit up his hair with a 50-meter-long matchstick. This is the level we are talking on. JDG 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn, you are absolutely right, I have access to unbiased and unfiltered information, which shifts my perspective far from such which is presented here. It's like this particular clip which you currently have to download, since, at the moment, it is mysteriously missing from Google video index or US media (regular occurrence, actually). And I honestly, don't hate Bush (like the name implies I'm more of a peace & love person), never said how Al Qaeda didn't do it, didn't started that issue about collapse times, never tried to vandalize article or to throw an edit without discussion… Heh, all in all, I didn't do much here, but listen to your insults, and your arguments without arguments. All I want is my little reference…… I'm not even pissed at you're little exploit, it is obvious that you have misread discussion here, and it is not your fault if you are so well misinformed as you obviously are… Politically speaking this whole thing is far beyond damage control anyway:)  -- Lovelight 23:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All in all you keep banning and censoring stuff, because there are no argument left. If you would listen, you would probably hear and understand the need for other perspectives… -- Lovelight 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no rejection of alternate perspectives, simply rejection of evidence that is inconclusive, faulty or outright fraudulent. What could possibly make someone believe that an amateur video clip based on bad simplifications and low-quality photographic material would be more reliable than studies using first-hand evidence and a substantial body of experienced professionals? Peter Grey 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we possibly avoid all this things which were only supported from my side, not insist upon in any other way except in means and needs of discussion… and if we would focus on those other things (namely foreknowledge and missing 911-al quieda-Iraq connection) then we would be focused on undisputed, well documented facts. Now, I understand and support summary style of this particular page, and in that exact understanding I see no need for discussion about how, and why, and blah, blah is 911 related to invasion on Iraq (all those things that should or are discussed in interlinked articles). There is this particular fact, a small, factual sentence about the reality where US administration repeatedly connected events of 9/11 with (al-queida harboring) Iraq, thus justifying invasion. Now, why would such outrageous, deeply effective (Almost 90% (of US troops) in Iraq think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks lie with such disturbing side effects stay neglected?" – as that already provided link illustrated) lie be ignored? What exactly are we discussing here? Political correctness? I'm not proposing an essay here; I'm talking about one simple, true sentence… Does one really need to illustrate irrationality of keeping a blind eye on such deceptions which cause nothing but unnecessary death and destruction? Concerning this particular issue, it seems we have a consensus against truth here… which just shows, in what a deep, deep… bush, this page is:)... -- Lovelight 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The subject is not neglected, it has its own article. Why do you want to mention something that you yourself agree is unrelated to this article? Peter Grey 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite opposite;), I'm saying that such particular sentence should be right here in "Domestic Response" or "War on terrorism" pieces, think it is fairly important, if not to US, then for the World… Iraq is conveniently missing from article, while 9/11 conveniently justified invasion of Iraq? How can one expect we can agree on missing planes, when such closely related link refuses to be linked to article? Is there an article called "Iraq-9/11 connection"? -- Lovelight 20:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As mentioned, the subject has its own article.  Right here: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. (And there aren't any planes missing.) Peter Grey 23:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, there are no missing planes from your perspective… Mine is different, I tried, and tried to find that particular birdie (just to keep my sanity in place), but there is none… perhaps you can show one to me? But please, don't throw those puny videos we all seen… Anyway, we can talk about all that collapsing and plane hunting later, fact is, 911 was used to justify invasion of Iraq. Why is this fact neglected here? I'm not talking about Saddam and al quieda, it is about 911 and invasion of Iraq, that first big operation which is missing in this article, as it never existed… This is not 1984, you cannot construct your own history… Say, why you keep pointing in that other direction? This is not a second hand issue here; this has nothing to do with that other article… this is serious stuff that you choose to ignore for no reason whatsoever. Unless, of course you are under Patriot Act, so you have to be careful what you think, write and speak… Have you seen my remark in biased section? Lovelight 00:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "missing plane" - that was debunked a while back: .  The vid you linked is even mentioned.--DarthBinky 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That link is silly and self refuting, as pictures provided there showed so clearly (IMHO of course)… you can Google on that subject if you wish, at this point of time "Pentagon issue" won't be addressed by me… For starters I would like to finish something and note the fact how invasion of Iraq was justified with the missing link to 9/11 events… Just facts.  Lovelight 01:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now you're showing your bias.  A site that actually gives references is "silly and self-refuting", but Michael Moore-style spin video clips (ie pushing an agenda and rarely giving references or contexts) are credible?  Give me a break.  --DarthBinky 01:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Instead of sophistic rhetorics that site should show a picture of the plane which is still missing no matter what they say… (IMHO of course;)… you can Google on that subject if you wish, at this point of time "Pentagon issue" won't be addressed by me… For starters I would like to finish something and note the fact how invasion of Iraq was justified with the missing link to 9/11 events… References are already provided … objections? Lovelight 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Peter Grey 23:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sceptic 

message: It is an enormous oversight that there isn't a single mention of the FEMA-coordinated search-and-rescue operations involving over 350 specially trained dogs and handlers. This was the largest deployment of search-and-rescue teams in U.S. history (presumably in the world), and I believe it deserves a mention.
Important/useful links:
Picture Gallery: The World Trade Center's Heroic Rescue Dogs - Photos of 9/11 dogs in action
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency - 9/11 Info page - The definitive source
National Search Dog Foundation - more info
Each of these links will provide a wealth of information regarding the subject.
72.78.222.99 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so refreshing… Yes, let's bring the search dogs in. -- Lovelight 19:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An enormous oversight (SAR operations, search dogs) 

message: ::: . Despite this fact, the FBI "wanted" release for Osama bin Laden does not specifically mention 9/11 as a crime for which the FBI seeks him "other terrorist attacks" http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm  
:# (cur) (last)  10:36, 22 September 2006 Golbez (Talk | contribs) (no thanks. the only point of these edits is to push the pov.)
:# (cur) (last) 10:19, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // reformulation ; SEE Talk page PLEASE)
:# (cur) (last) 01:36, 22 September 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rv - not a reliable source; rm innuendo)
:# (cur) (last) 00:54, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (rv // ref // Morton please be more precise in your comments)
:# (cur) (last) 00:26, 22 September 2006 Morton devonshire (Talk | contribs) (revert to version without unsubstantiated bullcrap)
:# (cur) (last) 00:25, 22 September 2006 JustFacts (Talk | contribs) (/* FBI "wanted")
:# (cur) (last) 00:22, 22 September 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - Muckraker)</pre>
Golbez, I'm sorry you feel this way.  Similarly, one could argue that the only point to remove this neutral, unbiased, information, is to push the government POV.
The dispute flag goes up. If anyone would like to point me to previous discussion / consensus, please provide a date (from your own edit history?) or link to the talk page, because I don't see it.
What a waste of our energy this is, wikipedia !!! Should we not have a broad discussion on how to allow for several 'POV' facts simulataniously in order to make all 911 articles NPOV? 
*e.g.: Wikipedia_talk:911 POV disputes<BR>
— Xiutwel (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite this fact is incorrect, since it is not in contradiction to the previously discussed rules for the most wanted list. Aside from questions of fact, I would suggest as a matter of style that the relevant section is already too long and is not improved by adding a critique of the wording of a fugitive notice. Peter Grey 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The fugitive notice is being misrepresented to create unsubstantiated doubts as to the identity of the parties responsible for the attacks.  "Mind reading skill" is not necessary when the intentions, even assuming good faith, are so transparent. Peter Grey 21:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of the reason for not indicting Bin Laden may be how the Bush administration views terrorism and 9/11 (acts of war), versus the Clinton administration which handled terrorism as more of a law enforcement and criminal matter.  Also, consider the Moussaoui and other cases, where significant amounts of evidence were derived from intelligence sources, such as al Qaeda detainees.  To file a criminal indictment, requires disclosing intelligence information and perhaps sources/methods.  With the ongoing "War on Terrorism", the administration probably doesn't want to do that. Nonetheless, this document from the U.K. government outlines evidence that makes them confident that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks.  They also note "Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially, due both to the strict rules of admissibility and to the need to protect the safety of sources." To ignore all these reasons why Bin Laden hasn't formally been indicted and simply insinuate that the government doesn't think Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks is disingenuous. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. --Golbez 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In other words, you yourself are asserting it fails relevance?  Anyway, the mention would clearly fail WP:NPOV since, even on this talk page, it has caused confusion about the role of the list in law enforcement and the role of law enforcement in the overall response to the attacks, so the result (whether or not intentional) would be to make the situation less clear to the reader.  However, there probably is a suitable sub-article that could stand to have more detail about how the response to the attacks fits with the criminal justice system. Peter Grey 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, it does seek him. The FBI seeks him. He cannot, however, be on the 10 most wanted list because he has not been indicted. Lack of indictment does not mean they seek him. So... --Golbez 03:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: whether or not the US's law enforcement apparatus officially seeks OBL (which they do) is not the proposed edit under discussion.  Peter Grey 04:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. — Xiutwel (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus?  When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority?  Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters?   Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement.  The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction.  Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "no thanks" FBI poster dispute 

message: I am sorry to notice that Aude has removed the dispute flag without acknowledging this clearly. I hope this was a sloppy mistake, not intent.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=77295791&oldid=77195278#Responsibility
So we seem to agree that:
*OBL was not indicted for 911
*OBL was indeed indicted for e.g. the Kenya bombing
*people can only be announced wanted AFTER being indicted
*we can bomb a country back to the stone-age in the process of looking for a suspect, before indicting them (no source needed, self-evident)
Until we get Reliable Sources for the above three facts, the dispute flag has to stay up, I'm afraid...
— Xiutwel (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're proposing the dispute flag because there's consensus?  When bin Laden is listed by the FBI as the "MOST WANTED TERRORIST", do you believe that "most wanted" does not represent a high priority?  Have you considered that police services do more to apprehend suspects than simply print posters?   Bill Clinton, in his infamous recent interview, explained quite clearly and concisely that after the 1998 United States embassy bombings the pursuit of bin Laden had escalated far beyond law enforcement.  The irony is that under President Bush, the pursuit of bin Laden by the US Government has been less than whole-hearted, and this is a noteworthy fact, but petty questions about details of police procedures only serve as a distraction.  Distractions are not constructive additions to the article. Peter Grey 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  continued dispute 

message: I wanted to add to the Attack section overview the line, "The hijackers made no monetary  or political demands." but didn't want to start a firestorm.  Does anyone object?--PTR 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems harmless, but because of the timeline, by the time the lack of demands became noteworthy, the hijackers were already dead. Peter Grey 02:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like something people might ask years in the future when it's not so fresh.--PTR 02:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way I think it's notable is that these hijackings were unlike anything in the past.  At the time, airline pilots/crews had certain procedures to use in hijacking situations -- cooperate with the hijackers.  And NORAD, the FAA, and other government agencies had certain procedures, which turned out to be totally inadequate for this new, unprecidented situation.  Maybe something to that effect, with appropriate references should be added? Might be tricky to find the right NPOV wording, though. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 03:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was thinking.  I'll see what I can find.  If I can't get anything NPOV I won't put the line in.--PTR 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijacker Demands 

message: Hi there, hope everyone had a great weekend… Lockup again? Well, hope I'm here long enough because I really won't to add that little 911-Iraq variable (it will come up in more then one section, so I'll give it a bit more thought, since that addition should be brief and to the point…) Say, where are we at this point in time? Denial? Opposition? Acceptance… Anyway, I would also like to see 9/11 In Plane Site in "see also" division… Not to mention Loose Change? Why is such notable film not presented here? This move is seen by at least ten million viewers worldwide, and it should be in plain sight. Is there some reason why this two movies shouldn’t be added? And in regards to that unprecedented and colossal ineptitude Aude mentioned, yes, we could take a look at whereabouts of US military on that day. There should also (IMHO of course) be notes about Bush Saudi ties, those planes which flew when no one flew… and so on… -- Lovelight 11:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Saudi plane thing was refuted. It is false. --Golbez 12:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?   Really?  Honestly?:) -- Lovelight 12:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Were three links to the exact same article necessary? Also, waitaminute, what's the story here? The article says they flew on September 13. The airspace was at least partly open by then. --Golbez 12:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That question is answered in provided article and elsewhere and there are other sources. But this discussion should come a little later, it has something to do with the fact that US government has refused to release recordings of communications from any of the hijacked 9/11 planes (missing is what is all about, information of unclaimed put options is available but kept, footage of whatever hit pentagon is available, but kept, and so on)…I'm not sure if you noticed, so I'll emphasize what was important in those links: "I'm over it," he said in a telephone interview. "The White House, the FAA and the FBI all said the flight didn't happen. Those are three agencies that are way over my head, and that's why I'm done talking about it." Of course, such quote doesn’t mean that I'm over it… or that I'll give a wrinkled nickel for those US agencies… I would still prefer complete rewriting of this article, but if there is need to do things little, by little, it's OK with me… Those unasked question will be and should be asked… Perhaps tomorrow, perhaps after November… -- Lovelight 13:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you!  It is so hard to watch this article with all the unsubstantiated and non-academic links to questions that may or may not have any relevance to an article that is clearly the work of many interested individuals. Rtrev 02:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi Air Travel Exemptions 

message: I have no intent of putting these questions into the article. Just the fact that the info is not on the poster, and anyone who thinks this is logical, should source that belief.
Do you agree with this?
*Me, and several other wikipedians, feel that it is proper to include the information on the FBI poster into the article.
*This is contested, this information would be irrelevant, because there is nothing strange about 911 not being on the OBL-wanted poster
*we have provided adequate sources for the fact that the poster does not explicitly mention 911
*should you then not be obliged to give sources for your claims, if you want to convince me not to include this bit of information, which complies with wikipedia standards?
*This is not about satisfying MY curiosity, this is about substantiating YOUR claims.
I propose you give it some thought, if you cannot give arguments I will put the dispute flag back up tomorrow, making sure it refers to the right section this time - sorry! — Xiutwel (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proof what you claim

message: I am going to put the dispute flag back up (I've seen no response to my queries). To summarize:
*OBL is on the FBI website, wanted for terrorism, stating explicitly: for e.g. the Kenya bombing but not for 911
*at first glance, this might suggest he is not deemed connected to 911
*according to the Muckraker report, the FBI stated they have insufficient evidence to support such a claim
*many wikipedians claim that
*#the Muckraker report cannot be a reliable source
*#911 is not on the poster, simply because of burocratic issues. OBL "has not been indicted for 911" yet.
*This could be true. However, it could also be a total fantasy, grasping at straws. Who knows?
*So I asked and asked again for substantiation of these claims regarding common burocratic procedure.
*No reply was given, nor a link to a previous discussion on the talk page where these issues would have been addressed. (I can find none myself)
*In conclusion: 
*#if it is only logical that 911 is still not mentioned on the FBI poster/site, then this fact would not be very important (we could nonetheless include it, with explanation, to help our readers understand the issue when they might come across it elsewhere, outside wikipedia)
*#if the above claims re burocratic procedures are mere speculation, we are left with the facts. It is a reliable fact that 911 is not on the FBI website. It is sourced. It is not original research, because this was not found out by wikipedians but by the Muckraker report. It is interesting, because it could be an anomaly to the official story. So, why not include it?
This is all I can see and say about it. I hope we can come to a decision, so we can resolve this and remove the dispute flag.— Xiutwel (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The United States government determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks. Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted involvement in the incidents.
*With respect to the first sentence: it is a known fact that the US government stated this explicitly, over and over again. Whether all entities within the government believe it, is something else. The FBI matter needs resolving, and until it is resolved, this wording is not acceptable. I would at least replace determined with stated, but I think we should include something on the FBI website also. Suggestions on how to go about this are welcome! — Xiutwel (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: summary FBI poster dispute flag

message: Point taken, I would like to resolve that missing (first big operation) issue in War on terrorism, however is seems how this will reflect in both, Responsibility and/or Public/Domestic response sections. Which makes all handling a bit tricky.., here is a quick draft with some of possible scenarios. Fact is: "US administration repeatedly connected events of 911 with Saddam Hussein and Iraq." This can be added to existing text in this manner:  
Domestic response:
The Bush Administration also invoked 9/11 as the reason for invasion of Iraq and initiation of secret National Security Agency operation, to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications between the United States and people overseas without a warrant.
This would then reflect in War on Terrorism section, which is linked to equally named, equally disputed and unclear article (unfortunately, one can hardly find time to look at the talk page there…). It can certainly be added to existing material here, as in example below... 
War on terrorism:
In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that they had "changed the world forever." The Bush administration declared a war on terrorism, with the stated goals of bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and military sanctions against states perceived as harboring terrorists and increasing global surveillance and intelligence sharing. Immediately after 9/11 attacks US officials accused Saddam Hussein for harboring and supporting Al-Qeida. False statement served as turning point in means of justification and pubic acceptance for 2003. invasion of Iraq. The second-biggest operation outside of the United States was the overthrow of Afghanistan's Taliban government, by a U.S.-led coalition. The U.S. was not the only nation to increase its military readiness, with other notable examples being the Philippines and Indonesia, countries that have their own internal conflicts with Islamic extremist terrorism… 
This fact can also stand as simple sentence in Public response or other mentioned sections... this is first draft, please help, suggest, share your links and opinions... Thanks.   
Few citations, missing links, prewar and post 9/11 rhetoric's:
*Claims and Facts 
*missing link  
*Context
*Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11
*Rice: ‘There Were Ties Going On Between Al Qaeda And Saddam Hussein’
*Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap    
*Condi, about pre 9/11 plans for Afghanistan
*Bush stands by al Qaeda, Saddam link
*Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11
*Cheney records
*In quotes: Iraq-al-Qaeda links
*The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
*The Common Sense Connection
*Rumsfeld's breakfast
*Wolfowitz 
*The PNAC Letter
*Bush at War
*simple truth
*Richard Clark
*"Shocking revelations"
*fair play
*BBC - Bush maintains Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda are connected
*Public poll - Saddam Link to 9/11
*Harris poll
*CNN Poll
*BBC
Some video streams:
*Cheney
*Cheney persistency
*logical category called contradiction
If more citations are needed, I'll provide… -- Lovelight 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously suggest that the type of things you wish to have here are actually better placed in those articles. We try to stay focused when we have long articles and this one simply doesn't have much more space available, especially to dwelve into peripheral areas.--MONGO 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11-Iraq Link 

message: Dear Lovelight, I change your heading from a level 1 to a level 2 heading.
*Could you please fill me in, which part of the text in the article you would like replaced or amended, it is not quite clear to me? — Xiutwel (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously suggest that the type of things you wish to have here are actually better placed in those articles. We try to stay focused when we have long articles and this one simply doesn't have much more space available, especially to dwelve into peripheral areas.--MONGO 12:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: re: Iraq link

message: The article claims that a video tape of Osama was released in May 2006. I don't believe this is true at all -- elsewhere Wikipedia indicates that an audio tape was released consistent with what this article claims.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  68.175.82.207 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 September 2006
*I will mark this in the text. — Xiutwel (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama video tape 

message: I think we should use some caution when stating that OBL would have admitted to 911, since this relies largly on video evidence which may have been tempered with. So it's ok for me to say it, as long as there is some caution in the wording.
 Truth is the first victim in any war
— Xiutwel (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2006
I agree with Xiutwell. --JustFacts 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OBL admitted 

message: Allegedly, Reuters has decided not ever to use the word terrorist when describing events, in order to remain NPOV. An idea for wikipedia? — Xiutwel (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bigger issue than this article alone, you will have to discuss it on a policy page. --Golbez 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I wonder if a suicide bomber blew up their main offices if that would be enough for Reuters to stop being so ridiculous.--MONGO 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MONGO, let's see how Reuters reacts to a story titled "Most Beloved Matyr of Allah (Praise be Upon Him) departs for Paradise (and 72 virgin girls) by destroying the heathen offices of the Crusader agency Reuters." Cerebral Warrior 08:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They never explicitly say "9/11 was the act of terrorists" but boy oh boy do they like to dance around it, as in this example.  They say the "risk of terrorism" has not gone down, they imply that al Qaeda is a terrorist organization right before referencing the "suicide hijackings" of 9/11, and they quote other people who refer to terrorists in airplanes.  No, they never exactly come out and say that 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, but the implications are extremely strong.  This isn't an act of neutrality; it seems more like a game of Taboo. JDoorjam     Talk 06:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, this page is still run by a mob of Americans who won't ccept a true NPOV. The opening paragraph describes the attackers as terrorist and in an impressive feat of post-mortem mind reading states that they predominantly targetted civilians (instead of, say, military and economic structures?). I have tried to reason with them but its obviously too soon for any of them to be objective about this. Damburger 09:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "mob of Americans"...certainly sounds like a bigoted remark we can do without. I suppose the WTC was a military target? Interesting. With as many as 20,000 people working in each of the WTC towers on a busy day, what better target in the U.S. would a terrorist have picked to both kill civilians and to attack the finacial infrastructure? Nevermind.--MONGO 10:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that in this case the "'mob of Americans'" might have a point.  This issue is a little larger than this article alone.  The term terrorist has a functional and working meaning that clearly applies to the situation on 9/11 (especially with the responsible group stating explicitly that they wanted to plunge America into a state of fear and terror).  Whether it should be abandoned more broadly is beyond the scope of this article and this discussion.  Until some kind of concensus is reached it should remain. !@#Rtrev 16:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist nomenclature 

message: The link title "Evil succubus;" is unacceptable under WP:BLP as it gives the appearance of making a negative improperly sourced comment about a living person. Simple reinstatement of the title may result in your being blocked. If you wish to keep the title, it should be fully substantiated and acceptable as such to third party scrutiny. Tyrenius 03:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedia, not a chat room. Peter Grey 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of link title 

message: Would you please add to the very top that "this is the official story"?
In that way conspiracy theory and non conspiracy theory people would both be happy.
Given the incredible "coincidences" and luck 19 cave people clearly had you owe it to the world.
--[avid reader] 06:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopedic version., not an "official" story.  Wikipedia relies on many sources.   Peter Grey 12:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the official story, its the true story. The truth is that Islamofascists crashed those planes into the very symbols of the free world, thereby killing thousands of innocent people. Any conspiracy theorist who claims otherwise in my humble (possibly erroneous) opinion,  needs to be packed off either to Gitmo, or to a mental asylum. Cerebral Warrior 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A narrative supported by evidence and speculation based on paranoia are not equal "theories".
The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are not in any way the very symbols of the free world. Peter Grey 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official story