Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 14

message: I don't see any plane in this pohotography. Ariev 22:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photography

message: There was some confusion between OrbitOne and myself; he thought I caused the vandalism.  Everything's worked out now.  Xiphoris 11:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meved this down from up top....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Hi, there was some obvious vandalism to this page with someone defacing it to say that Saddam Hussein was behind it, UFOs, Effiel Tower was hit, etc.  I tried to revert it properly but don't know if I did.  Xiphoris 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved this down from up top.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: ...so why did User:SNIyer12 delete all of the page contents...?  Jhardin@impsec 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He just put the older stuff in archives, where you can still read them. Tom Harrison Talk 21:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put the older stuff so that I can reduce the page size. However, you can still read the older stuff in the archives. SNIyer12 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put a headline on this......--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: To tell the truth, i think the government knew all about 9/11 n' crap. Oh, and if the towers fell from planes, then why did they fall EXACTLY how buildings fall when they are dynamited eh? I think that 9/11 was all planned.  Son Goku22
: Yes... I have the same suspicion. Here's a web site that I found. Oh, by the way, try to remember to put a headline  on the section.....--Shark Fin 101 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicions 

message: I am repeating this because it is unfinsihed business that was archived.
This article is still too long.  It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky.  I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality.  It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section).  How about it, guys?  We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also want to point out that we have over 40 URL footnotes.  That is too many.  We should delegate that stuff to the "main article" subpages or make regular references out of them. With seven subpages, it should be possible to get this article below 30 KBytes.  -- Pinktulip 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the bulge 

message: I can think of no more clearly illuminating circumstance in which the definition of conspiracy could be more accurate than when defining the actions of the hijackers 69.231.8.216 07:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories and try to get a feel for the consensus there. Thanks. El_C 07:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of teenagers looking to boost some pairs of Nikes from Wal-Mart is a conspiracy as well.  What's the point? patsw 14:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't use "set", "group" or "series" it's not just POV, it's bad English.  The conspiracy preceded the attacks.  Once the assault was underway, the four groups or sets of hijackers could no longer conspire. Ruby 16:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9-11 was a conspiracy 

message: I have noticed the edits and reverts, concerning comparisons of the 9/11 death toll with those of the Battle of Antietam, during the Civil War.  I think some clarifications are needed:
# I don't think that Rmmbrhllwn / 68.185.250.128 / MI6mole quite understands what the term casualty means.  Casualites include fatalities, as well as # wounded.  
## The Battle of Antietam, which occurred on September 17, 1862, resulted in 3,620 deaths (both sides), not 20,000 as was stated in this article.  
### The Battle of Gettysburg occurred over three days, with 6,655.  I don't know how many occurred on each of the days, but probably not as many as 2,986.
### The Battle of Shiloh occurred over two days, with 3,477 deaths.  Again, probably not as many as 2,986 were killed on either of those particular days.
# I also think making a comparison between military deaths during war and civilian deaths during a terrorist attacks, doesn't fit in the article, yet alone the introduction. 
:-Aude (talk | contribs) 21:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but bear in mind that those figures are not accurate for confederate troops and in some cases, only count federal dead. Regardless, there is no need to evn have the comparison in the article anyway...it serves no purpose except to make the event of 9/11 seem less important than it was.--MONGO 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with [[Antietam]] 

message: Another user insisted that this topic was to be created.
I added a link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm) disputing the claim of the "nineteen hijackers". I see no problem adding this link. Do you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.1.180 (talk • contribs) 
:I also remember the doubts about some of the hijackers in the days following the attacks... I think you're referring to Waleed_al-Shehri.  However, the reports of surviving 'hijackers' were later discounted, as a mix-up involving names — very common names in Saudi Arabia.  The following article (and quote) is cited in the Waleed al-Shehri article on Wikipedia:
:"...at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.
:The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain." - quote from (Spiegel online, September 8, 2003)
:-Aude (talk | contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. you can sign your comments by adding ~~~~.
It should be noted that some of the "hijackers" are ALIVE and well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
--Tyler rurdon
That was dated the 23 of September, 2001, when news was sketchy. What does the 911 commission have to say about it? Do you honestly think that hasn't been resolved? --Mmx1 02:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hijackers 

message: *Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax - Yahoo News 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by CaribDigita (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 February 2006
This is interesting, but it's not news.  It's a press release.  They're self-proclaimed experts.  They wrote this themselves for distribution.  Perhaps their claims are true, but this isn't an actual news piece written by journalists, it's a press release written by the people making these claims talking in the third person.  What I find really interesting is that Yahoo News seems to have picked it up as news.  --Mr. Billion 04:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax? 

message: Hey there crusaders. Great, 3 words in and it's already potentially loaded language. *laughs weakly*
just quickly, i haven't read the archived discussions but i have read the article and this page in its entirety. Apologies for those bothered by a topic already covered being brought up again, if that's the case, but having considered that may be the case i think it merits further consideration.
I think that http://st911.org/ should be included as an external link.
I know that many will say that it belongs on the 9/11 conspiracies page, but i think that its content is in the conspiracies page. Adding it as a link recognizes that there is an increasingly divergent opinion about the facts of the tower collapses. Wikipedia is great in that its content is factually supported as best as possible (recent study indicated that Wikipedia is generally at least as reliable as Encyclopaedia Brittanica on science and nature articles) but also able to incorporate new information. 3 of the papers published by PhDs at the site i'm suggesting respond to the findings of the 9/11 Commission. They report interviews with highly regarded demolition experts, they add additional information about certain events in the lead up to and the follow up of the WTC collapse.
They do have a wide base of skills and experience within their membership, and if there is objection to adding a link to their site on the grounds that some of its content or links it provides are not as well supported as others, then i believe there should be a link from this Wikipedia article to at least the same article as linked to from the WTC7 Wikipedia entry which is available on the ST911 site.
I am not starting any argument here based on things which I've read, watched, listened to, or considered and i don't feel i need to or that anybody needs to take a contrary 'raving loonie conspiracy' stance. The article would be more complete if the link was included in the External Links section, or if Scholars for 911 truth was hyperlinked when it's mentioned in the article, although that would then have to go to a Wiki about them before linking.Holigopoly 17:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a judgment on the validity of the website or the group's arguments, but simply the list of links on September 11, 2001 attacks is already very long, perhaps too long as-is.  I think links should go on the most relevant sub-article.  In this case, I think the best place for the link is Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where Scholars for 9/11 Truth is discussed. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  seeking consensus on adding external link 

message: I am not putting in 'scare' quotes. What do you mean by that? When I last asked for request for comment the consensus that came out of it was that terrorist word was undefined and too POV to use it (unless article is quoting USGOV) -- max rspct leave a message  14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where was this consensus established, i.e. that the word terrorist was undefined and too POV to use in reference to the 19 highjackers? patsw 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Max, come on man. What is the deal with your opposition to the term terrorist. The actions of the hijackers on 9/11 was terrorism...maybe the actions of the U.S. with using the atomic bombs on Japan or bombing Dresden was terrorism too...I don't care about that...we are editing an article about 9/11, not WWII. You just recently got through reverting the Terrorism article in which you reverted back to a version that clearly stated that Terrorism is "outside the bounds of conventional warfare"  and the hijackers actions were clearly just that. You don't like the U.S. or whatever, but cease this singling other editors out by name...it is borderline personal attack.--MONGO 14:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You must be joking yeah? How is Islamofascist terrorist not a sweeping label - Please don't troll here! Lets be factual, unbias and not used recently invented terms hey!  -- max rspct leave a message  13:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:AGF.  Not trying to do anything except be descriptive, because what we are talking about here is a specific group of terrorists.  Looks like you're on your own with this issue.  User:Zen-master fought a similar cheese-stands-alone battle on the term "conspiracy theory," and wouldn't give it up -- the Administrators finally banned him for one year because he wouldn't pay attention to consensus, and kept insisting on his POV.  I didn't have anything to do with that, just hoping that you won't get stuck on attacking the term "terrorist", which seems to be well-defined and accepted as a neutral term.  What we need is a term that narrowly describes the people that flew the airplanes into the towers, but large enough to include their aiders and abettors -- Islamofascist terrorists seems appropriate, or simply terrorists.  Wikipedia has already decided that the word "terrorist" is a neutral term -- please consider accepting this Wikipedia consensus.  Morton devonshire 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quit playing games with the language. Just because you aren't sure where the boundaries are doesn't mean you throw your hands up and say the term is meaningless. Similarly, there's great difficulty defining what a Limited War is in the sphere of military history. There's debate around the fringes, but it's pretty clear that Vietnam was a limited war and WWII was not. It's pretty clear that the 9-11 hijackers are terrorists.
--Mmx1 22:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Did you not follow the link I provided in which you reverted back to the definition that terrorism is outside the bounds of conventional warfare. That, is also, ipso facto, the definition essentially embraced by the UN. It's getting tiresome with my username being tossed around, so I'm going to ask this to stop...thank you.--MONGO 03:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as appeals to motive, and ad hominem, what is the title of this section? Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked you what the newspapers and governments of those countries call them. I think the New York Times is published in New York, though maybe they have a far east edition. And I did not ask you about the 9/11 terrorists, I asked you about the terrorists with whom the Philippine and Indonesian governments are having conflicts. Anyway, If you don't know, as I don't know, what the local people call them, maybe it would be useful to find out. You say the newspapers' choice doesn't determine what's correct, then you point to the BBC and Reuters and say we should follow their example - Why? Tom Harrison Talk 23:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article deals with a historical event for which the relevant facts are not likely to change.  The article and the talk page are not a discussion board on American imperialism, semantics, or compare and contrast the style guides of the BBC with the Associated Press.  If you want to argue that the 19 were insurgents and not terrorists, then explain it on the basis of it being the most accurate word descriptive of their actions of September 11,2001, and attempt to establish a new editing consensus for this article. patsw 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant what the local governments and press call the people they are plagued with. The term I recommend to refer to the terrorists in the Philippines and Indonesia is Islamic extremist terrorists. This is technically accurate and, I think, supported by use in the local media. I don't think anything involving Islamofascist is likely to be stable, is probably not used in the Phillipines or Indonesia, and is probably less technically correct in this context. Still, I prefer Islamofascist terrorists to insurgents, which is not an accurate description. Unless I've misunderstood, none of this discussion is about what to call the nineteen 9/11 terrorists. Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic extremist terrorists is perfectly fine with me.  Shall we vote and end this?  Morton devonshire 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamofascism has been tabled.  Islamic extremist terrorists is still perfectly fine with me.  Shall we vote and end this?  I vote against the term "insurgent".  I vote for the term "Islamic extremist terrorists."  Morton devonshire 11:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: With all respect to Morton, I'm not sure this is the kind of thing we should vote on. I changed it in the article; let's see how it goes. Tom Harrison Talk 13:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Islamic extremist terrorists" is redundant. Just use "Islamic terrorists." --Cberlet 14:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patsw and MONGO POVing this page again

message: "The anniversary of September 11, 2001 was dedicated as 'Patriots day'." Can someone move or remove this from the intro? My browser can't edit the intro without chopping off the end of the page. Cheers, Ziggurat 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move sentence 

message: This aricle is pov. It claims the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory to be factual, something diputed all over the world, even by Bush's former economy minister. All factual statements of the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be NPOVed and the 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory must be split to its own article, just att all other 9/11 conspiracy theroies are on other articles --Striver 13:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simply absurd. The page mentions that some dispute the overwhelming evidence implicating Bin Laden, and provides links.--Cberlet 14:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that is great. But POV. The article champions the theory as factual, and doing so is pov as long as it is contested by a notable amount of people. --Striver 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is factual, and well supported. Disputes are appropriately noted already. By the way, what's the tag for "Delete - POV fork?" Tom Harrison Talk 14:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The article properly satisfies verifiability, and citing sources policies, and appropriately notes alternative theories.  There is no need to slap a POV tag on the entire article.  And the article is already split into multiple articles, which are accessible from this main article and through the template TOC. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is something specific about the article you feel is POV, let's discuss it.  But, I don't know what you meed by "a notable amount of people".  It is very widely, overwhelmingly accepted (and cited in the article) that Bin Laden was behind the attacks.  Other theories are noted in the article, but are they accepted by "a notable amount of people"?  what do you mean by "notable"?  We need something more specific and verifiable, with citations from reliable sources, than "a notable amount of people". -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: the article does a very good job at Verifying that most people belive in this theory. But that does NOT mean it is NPOV to claim it to be factual. My problem is NOT that this theory is the most widely accpeted, and even belived to be factual by many. My problem is that that wikipedia CLAIMS it IS factual, a clear breach in NPOV.
I will give you a list of educated and notable people disputing the theory, i cant do it from here. Ill return with a list in about 4-5 houres. --Striver 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the old "NPOV means we can only state that some people say the earth is round while others believe it is flat" argument. Not true. Not what NPOV means. This is postmodernism on crack.--Cberlet 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:POVFORK for the guideline on why 9/11 Bin Laden conspiracy theory should be, and shortly will be deleted. patsw 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree that the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory. It is a factual account, well supported by verifiable citations. To the extent that there is disagreement, the article addresses that and refers the reader to other pages for more information. I'm not even convinced that, as the tag says, "The neutrality of this article is disputed." I don't think the mere fact that someone says, "That's POV" means the article has to be tagged until they're satisfied. That interpretation would allow an unscrupulous editor (not you, speaking in general here) to hold any article hostage.  Tom Harrison Talk 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It takes more to tag an article than someone insisting that it be tagged. Otherwise, I could go to any article on Wikipedia and say, "That's POV! The tag stays until I'm satisfied that it is neutral." Surely you agree that the standard must be higher than that. Tom Harrison Talk 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom is 100% correct. Rather than tagging the article again and again, please point out specific instances where you feel the text passes judgment inappropriately. I don't agree that the conspiracy allegations (and accusers) are reputable enough to be mentioned anywhere outside of the CT section. There is no reason to allude to these theories by watering down every sentence in the article. The official account, news reports, the overwhelming majority of scientists, first-person reports, phone calls from the planes, and the international community all support the theory that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers were responsible for the attacks. Rhobite 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bin Laden openly admits he orchestrated the whole thing. So the Bush administration says it's Bin Laden, scientists says it's Bin Laden and Bin Laden says their right. It would be POV to say it may not have been Bin Laden in spite of it. Celcius 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pov and split

message: The above-conflict has shown a bright light on an issue I hadn't considered before, which is WP's policy on Admin neutrality.  Since the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I've seen Admins violate all sorts of WP policies to advance their own edit agendas, everything from nominating articles for speedy deletion, ad hominem attacks, stalking, violating 3RR, and writing articles without sources.  Is there truly no neutrality standard for Admins?  Sorry to burden this audience, but I'm trying to understand where the line is supposed to be drawn, and want to hear from those of you that I know from these pages rather than some dufus who patrols Admin pages. Also, the issue has now become relevant for this article (and the fork) as well.  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 18:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for supporting me. --Striver 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins are held to the same editing standards as every other editor. If you have concerns about conduct by a Wikipedia user, please follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Please remember that admins are people too, and it would be unreasonable to believe they should be perfect in all ways. Everyone has made some mistakes at some point. Rhobite 19:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Admin Neutrality A Myth?

message: :By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."
:When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It's also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them.
WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation
--Striver 23:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert M. Bowman, former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Is he also a nut-case? --Striver 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Who knows? Who cares...maybe he has a political agenda, or maybe he has been mislead by conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 13:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, fact stands: He does not belive in the Bin Laden conspiracy theory, and is a part of a significant minority, that happen to include me. This article is POV since it dissregards that. --Striver 13:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are just loud...that doesn't mean they are numerous...whenever someone has something to say without any substance to back it up, they usually have to be loud to get anyone to pay attention to them. Interestingly, I have looked through their websites with an open mind and I found not one shred of proof that there was a coverup, a conspiracy or controlled demolition. All they provide is opinion.--MONGO 13:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we addressed building 7 before and the misrepresentation of the "pull it" quote. Do you have proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 13:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is Harry?  Honestly, enough about what I believe, or what the other editors believe, or what you believe.  Please, present the evidence for making a change to the article. 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you claiming the Larry Silverstein believes that bin Laden did not bear responsbility for the 9/11 attacks?  If so, where did Silverstein express this belief? patsw 17:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, i personaly belive that larry sliped and didnt follow the official coverup story when addmiting that they blew up building seven. But that is not really relevant, im not here to convince anyone of anything, only to make sure that Wikipeida policy is followed, something that is not done right now, to the loss of my point of view. --Striver 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More on POV

message: Please, no meta-discussion in this section. patsw 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary or secondary sources presenting verifiable evidence that bin Laden did '''not''' bear responsibility for 9/11 

message: There seems to be no consensus for Striver's particular point here, except his own, so let's consider the matter decided. Stive-man -- admire your determination, but save your powder for another day. Peace out. Morton devonshire 01:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think that there is a Wikipedia policy which requires statements to be backed up with evidence? Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. Rhobite 04:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is absolutly no such demand, Wikipedia does not care the very least in the truth or deman any kind of evidence from people. Wikipedia:Verifiability only demands that what we say is sourced by people, and nothing more, nothing  about those people being right or having prove or not being nuts. If half the world says the world does not exist, then wikipeida will not claim that as factual. Anyway, i do not want the article to state anything as factual, rather the opposite, that it stops stating contested theories as factual. --Striver 11:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OBL was the mastermind behind 9/11...he even admitted to this. There is no theory as you may wish to think.--MONGO 11:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant. We are not discussing evidence, we are discussing amount of people rejecting the theory. Further, i contest he admitted it, but that is not relevant to this discussion.--Striver 12:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Cheese Stands Alone

message: I am NOT here to prove or promote any theory, theis or anything at all.
I AM here to state that the Bin Laden theory is not to be stated as factual.
--Striver 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the best thing to do is go and add this information to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 08:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you intentionaly missunderstanding what i am sayin? Read what i wrote again. And dont you insult me by clapping me on the head and saying pejorative things like that! --Striver 11:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearification

message: I'm suprised to see that so many people belive that conspiracy BS. Hell, someone has even claimed that a nuclear bomb destroyed the towers. Kurt Leyman
You are talking about the nutcases, either patsies or idiots. Let me quote:
:May 2005 update: Walter's seclusion in Europe did not last long. He (or his publicists) arranged a multi-nation tour of 9/11 skeptics to speak on these issues, arranging for some very good authors and experts along with some hoaxers pushing discredited disinformation. One of the good activists was expelled from the tour for complaining about the presence of a writer for one of America's most widespread neo-Nazi newspapers -- a more sensible strategy would have been to expel the neo-Nazi newspaper from the tour, not a New York City based activist seeking justice for the environmental damage caused to human health by rushing to reopen Wall Street when it was not yet safe to do so.
:Shortly before Walter's European tour started, reopen911.org was given a substantial overall that massively increased the nuttiness quotient on the site -- the most notorious is now an outrageous suggestion that the Twin Towers were blown up with nukes. Reopen911 now has these claims on its homepage - just in time for the European media to examine what is marketed as the best material from the 9/11 truth movement in the United States.
:Were the Twin Towers brought down by a Nuclear Detonation?
:Hunter Thompson Killed over explosives evidence.
:Mr. Walter should get a special award for the most stupid claim yet uttered by someone pretending to be a 9/11 truth activist for this nonsense. 
--Striver 16:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm.... 

message: If it is proven factual, why dont you go claim the 1 000 000 dollars?--Striver 14:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that million dollar prize is winable, you've fallen for a silly media stunt.  -Quasipalm 16:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How come? --Striver 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact?

message: Why is the paragraph about Howard Stern here? This doesn't seem to be public response but an advertisement for Stern. His show was an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' is POV. My local tv station was also an 'unlikely source of news and comfort' but it has no mention. 
Should this paragraph be deleted? I could be wrong of course so if I am that is fine.
--Skinnyboy401 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right, it should be removed, or qualified ('unlikely source of news and comfort to many new yorkers (this would require citation I think). -Quasipalm 16:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public response in the United States 

message: The fatwa was jointly issued with Fazlur Rahman (Maulana Fazlur Rehman) leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam rather than the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman. Is this correct? -- max rspct leave a message  18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FAS lists one signatory as "Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh."  Looks like it is correct. --Mr. Billion 17:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Or... Actually, that's odd.  The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam group you mentioned seems to correspond with the name "Shaykh Mir Hamzah," who is "secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan".  The name is "e-Pakistan" instead of "e-Islam," but it looks like the same group.  Anyway (assuming you're talking about the 1998 fatwa) the dead scholar Fazlur Rahman can't be a signatory to the 1998 document, since he died in 1988. The "Fazlur Rahman" listed on FAS's copy of the fatwa was apparently Bangladeshi.  Confusing.  Maybe we're not talking about the same fatwa after all.  --Mr. Billion 17:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatwa signatories

message: Am I right in saying that all the hijackers had identity cards? If so, that would seem to be notable and thus worthy of mention in the article. Eiler7 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  I don't believe it would be an important detail either. patsw 01:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity cards

message: I've removed the text, "five major airlines declared bankruptcy in the four years following the attacks", because I think including this implies a direct cause and effect between the terrorist attacks and the problems in the airline industry.  Undoubtedly, the terrorist attacks had a major effect on the airline industry (so, I kept the word "severely"), but even without the attacks, the airlines were in trouble anyway.  This is due similar reasons as those impacting General Motors and the Ford Motor Company (e.g. underfunded pensions, health care costs, benefits, ...).  Another major reason for the airline stuggles is competition with airlines such as Southwest Airlines, which doesn't have the same structural problems and hasn't experience the same problems since the terrorist attacks. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says the airline industry has problems because of 9/11 which continue to the present?  Passenger air travel reached the pre-9/11 peaks in July 2004 and has continued to grow since then. Dept. of Transportation) patsw 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airlines declared bankruptcy