Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 20

message: Is it necessary to have two photos of him included? KyuuA4 04:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden Photos 

message: A thought just occurred to me. Do the fatality figures for the planes given on this page include the hijackers? 'cos I'm not sure if they should. Either way we should make it clear whether or not they do. Kingal86 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about fatality figures: hijackers 

message: September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks. Commas in dates, geographical locations, &c., function as marks of parenthesis. The parenthesis has be closed by a second mark. Think of it like "September 11 (2001) attacks" and the "Arlington (Virginia) Pentagon". We don't leave off ")"—so we don't leave off the comma. Just as we write "Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A., is the location of the Pentagon" and "Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was an important day", we also do this when the multi-word term functions attributively. Associated Press example from late March 2005: "Four suspected Islamist radicals went on trial in Paris on charges that they provided false documents to two Tunisians who posed as journalists and killed the celebrated Afghan resistance hero Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States." — President Lethe 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like September 11 attacks. Maurreen 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also agree with this alternative, but I would prefer "9/11 attacks" even more as it is far and away the most common name and has, because of use in media, become widely understood even abroad. Jonathunder 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: *Strong Oppose There is only one problem with the proposed change: it's not English, the misguided punctuation of some AP transcriber on autopilot to the contrary. But I think this is fatal. Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: A change to September 11 attacks would remove this figment; is it not done because of some ambiguity? Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like September 11 attacks. Maurreen 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also agree with this alternative, but I would prefer "9/11 attacks" even more as it is far and away the most common name and has, because of use in media, become widely understood even abroad. Jonathunder 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It is clear that this is not supported, and I agree with the arguments. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request:not moved

message: Read about the mainstream coverage:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm
Its a disgrace for wikipedia that the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews are deleted as non-notable when aljazeera stats: 
:Sheen, star of the TV sitcom Two and a Half Men, provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.--Striver 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oh well, we'll manage somehow. --Golbez 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Media storm" is rather subjective, but it might have a place in one of the secondary articles. I would point out that calling for an independent investigation is nothing unreasonable, only calling for an independent investigation with the presumption of what it might find. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: Here guys, another one you can insult: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/280606latestcelebrity.htm]--Striver 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Challenging misinformation does not require insults. Peter Grey 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you please elaborate what are the credentials of this musician to make opinions about engineering. did he study in architecture or engineering at which university? Mieciu K 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one 

message: There is an obvious mathematical error under the first subheading ("The attacks").  The fatality total is listed as 2986, made up of the sums of 265, 2595, and 125.  The problem is pretty clear: 265 + 2595 + 125 = 2985, not 2986.
I attempted to fix this error by adding one to the plane total (I based the 266 number on the fatality table in the "fatalities" section of the entry), but another editor erased my correction and changed the "fatalities" section to reflect a 265 number.  I do not dispute this change, as it was cited and appears to be correct.  However, because the 2986 number was likely based on the faulty flight fatalities, I am going to revise the total casualty number down by one.
I have not provided a source for the 2985 number because, frankly, sources conflict.  I have begun to look for a reliable source for fatality numbers, and if I find a good one I will revise all the numbers to reflect it.  However, given that we have conflicting sources, I think it makes sense to make the Wiki entry internally consistent.  Right now there is a blatant mathematical error on the page, which is a major problem.  If anyone does not like my revision, please feel free to fix it--but re-creating an obvious math error on a major wiki page by reverting to the old version is NOT a "fix."  We should not have a total that is different from the sum of its supposed parts. 
: Looks like I forgot to sign my entry.  I originally posted this the evening of June 28, 2006. SharkAttack 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to find sources to reference all the figures, with the most recent source being a CNN article (also reported in other media outlets) from October 2003.  I haven't found anything more recent, though it's possible that the figures have been revised since then. --Aude (talk contribs) 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical problem 

message: I want to add...
http://www.911.colleenmcgarry.com
Can I get permission?
I want to add...
http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/WarOnTerror.shtml#Sept11
Can I get permission?
:You don't really need permission: be bold! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a collection of links. What makes this website significant that we should add a link to this website? Mieciu K 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: # (cur) (last)  15:01, 4 July 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm conspiracy theory; rm promotional link)
 # (cur) (last) 14:51, 4 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - see bin Laden article)
I've re-inserted the fact that the FBI does not accuse bin Laden of 911-involvement. Personally, I presume this can only be so if they too believe the confession-video could be a fake. They would have enough evidence, if he confessed, wouldn't they?
I am not, for the moment, reinserting doubts on the confession video's. Let's leave that for a later stage.
*Please consult the Osama bin Laden page and its talk page for this debate, before editing.
*please do not revert without due explanation on this talk page.
Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons for this is because the links of Osama to the embassy bombings is conclusive, so in order to fully prosecute the hunt for Osama it's best to do so under the best potential for later prosecution. If ever captured alive, they can try him for the embassy bombings, which are prior to 9/11 and for which the evidence is conclusive, whereby, the evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks is less conclusive...but that doesn't mean that the FBI, INTERPOL and other agencies think Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so that needs to be understood.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revert

message: #I was not as clear as I intended to be. I meant: seen from the standpoint that the White House is bona fide in this, it is logical to dismiss anything else as conspiracy theory. I was not intending to say, that this should be the wikipedia policy on this subject! I am hoping we can find a way to write together a page that satisfies wikipedia criteria according to all wikipedians.
#My feeling is that 70-90% of wikipedians choose to believe the government point of view, judging from the edits. Just a guess. That leaves a significant minority who think it is possible that the White House mounted a cover-up. As was said earlier: 
##either they're covering up how they distorted the truth about 911 in order to go to war (but this would not be covering up about 911, so this is irrelevant concerning the poll mentioned above)
##or they're covering up that they were inadequate in preventing bin Laden from doing this
##or they're covering up they did this themselves and blamed it on bin Laden, or a combination
#verifiable sources: I would say we can go no further that establish whether some info, whether true or not, was presented in some widely recognized source, such as a newspaper, news program or document report. Absent these, a "conspiracy web page" must do but this is not very helpful since this will be disputed instantly.
#reputable sources: there aren't any. Period. Not about the guilt behind 911. Since the guilt is being denied by all involved, Bush and bin Laden alike. We should therefore restrain ourselves to summing up who said what and when. The sayings themselves are facts; what is said are not facts but possibilities.
#I think it is fair to put the tag up now, but it would be better to be the wiser party and first get going with specifying in detail which remarks in the article merit the tag. A general reference to this talk page as a whole is too easy, since theoretically the article might have been adapted according to discussions here on talk.
#*I just made archive 19 of this talk page, so it definitely will not suffice, just referring to the talk page as a whole. We need to be specific. Let us first reach consensus, that due to the opposing interests, government sources can not be seen as reputable, except for declaring what the government wants to declare.— Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is the primary article on this subject, that level of detail might not be appropriate, particularly since .  It would also be necessary to explain why it's noteworthy, what it implies about conditions in the building, and, because many conspiracy theory argments include the observation, to point out that it actually contradicts the conspiracy theory scenario and supports the mainstream account (and I suppose the "official" account as well, whatever that is). Peter Grey 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Molten metal is another subject which should be included in the article. If people want to know a lot of detail they can click on the link (Wikipedia uses links) at molten metal at WTC or something like it. Again the previous comment by Peter Grey may be creating more disputes and not solving any; shows just how much the 'disputed' tag is needed (it should have been there ages ago). Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: by the way Peter you didn't tell us yet why detail should not be incorporated into the article. There is a notable emptiness after the words partiularly since... it's almost funny :-) Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Digiterata, it seems the reference to molten metal is disputed. (Just like the rest of the article and the whole article itself.) It seems Peter Grey has a very different idea about it (it's supportive of the official account - but he doesn't want to mention it strangely enough) than for example me (it's supportive of some of the alternative accounts). The fact that it's not in the article is one of the many instances of the biased-ness of the article, and the fact that you and me want it in but others not is an axample of one of many disputed issues in this article. greetings Sacca 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This main article needs to be concise, written in Wikipedia:Summary style.  Details on the Collapse of the World Trade Center should go in that article.  And, molten metal is something discussed in context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, so discussion of molten metal should go there. There are many other aspects of 9/11 that are covered in summary style in the main article. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it is also discussed in the alternative theories. That's again very convenient, that anything which is discussed in the alternative theories doesn't have a place in the main article. That's the best way to keep this article biased, for sure! Congratulations, you've found it!  Sacca 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the logical place for this kind of detail. Since the molten metal phenomena (there are two - something metallic falling from the building during the fire and hot and/or painted orange metal present at the site after the collapse) are real, documented events, but they are non-notable, not really implying anything beyond a) fire and b) collapse, which are not "disputed". Peter Grey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molten metal appears when using explosive materials, not in a fire caused by a relatively short burst of large quantities of fuel. The molten metal is one very controversial subject because it points back to the method of controlled demolition which was used to take down the World Trade Center. The molten metal was not only seen dripping out of the building, but also encountered in large quantities in the basement, where there was no fire, but where large explosions are reported (verifiable) to have occurred. Together with the speed with which the WTC collapsed (free fall), it is one of the main indicators which betrays the true cause of the coming down of the WTC. But anyway not to worry, I've decided not to come back here since I don't want to waste any more time going over the same arguments time and time again with a limited group of people only aiming to keep certain data out. Keep it as biased as you want, but please notify me when there's some kind of vote because I'll happily join in that. bye bye for now...  Sacca 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Molten metal does not imply any of these things; that is one of the leaps of faith the conspiracy theorists use, hoping that the average member of the public will not notice the gap in the argument. Peter Grey 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: Some proposal by Xiutwel 

message: I think it is clear to everyone involved that this page is highly disputed. That said, I would prefer if we can avoid resorting to adding Disputed Tags to the article - at least until we try harder to gain consensus over how NPOV and Verifiability apply in this case. As a specific example of a disputed fact is the continued exclusion of all reference to mainstream media accounts of Molten Metal sightings at Ground Zero on and after the attacks.
For more detail on the Molten Metal discussion, see []
For mainstream source material, see: []
This is a clear example of a Disputed Fact. It is well documented by multiple credible mainstream sources, but has been excluded from Wikipedia because it may not fit the official account of events. It is clearly a violation of NPOV to exclude this notable and verifiable fact: "Molten Metal was observed at the site of Ground Zero for days and weeks after the attacks.
Whether or not you agree that reference to Molten Metal should be included in the article. Does anyone wish to argue the fact that it isn't even disputed?
Digiterata 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this is the primary article on this subject, that level of detail might not be appropriate, particularly since .  It would also be necessary to explain why it's noteworthy, what it implies about conditions in the building, and, because many conspiracy theory argments include the observation, to point out that it actually contradicts the conspiracy theory scenario and supports the mainstream account (and I suppose the "official" account as well, whatever that is). Peter Grey 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Molten metal is another subject which should be included in the article. If people want to know a lot of detail they can click on the link (Wikipedia uses links) at molten metal at WTC or something like it. Again the previous comment by Peter Grey may be creating more disputes and not solving any; shows just how much the 'disputed' tag is needed (it should have been there ages ago). Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: by the way Peter you didn't tell us yet why detail should not be incorporated into the article. There is a notable emptiness after the words partiularly since... it's almost funny :-) Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right Digiterata, it seems the reference to molten metal is disputed. (Just like the rest of the article and the whole article itself.) It seems Peter Grey has a very different idea about it (it's supportive of the official account - but he doesn't want to mention it strangely enough) than for example me (it's supportive of some of the alternative accounts). The fact that it's not in the article is one of the many instances of the biased-ness of the article, and the fact that you and me want it in but others not is an axample of one of many disputed issues in this article. greetings Sacca 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This main article needs to be concise, written in Wikipedia:Summary style.  Details on the Collapse of the World Trade Center should go in that article.  And, molten metal is something discussed in context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, so discussion of molten metal should go there. There are many other aspects of 9/11 that are covered in summary style in the main article. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it is also discussed in the alternative theories. That's again very convenient, that anything which is discussed in the alternative theories doesn't have a place in the main article. That's the best way to keep this article biased, for sure! Congratulations, you've found it!  Sacca 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the logical place for this kind of detail. Since the molten metal phenomena (there are two - something metallic falling from the building during the fire and hot and/or painted orange metal present at the site after the collapse) are real, documented events, but they are non-notable, not really implying anything beyond a) fire and b) collapse, which are not "disputed". Peter Grey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molten metal appears when using explosive materials, not in a fire caused by a relatively short burst of large quantities of fuel. The molten metal is one very controversial subject because it points back to the method of controlled demolition which was used to take down the World Trade Center. The molten metal was not only seen dripping out of the building, but also encountered in large quantities in the basement, where there was no fire, but where large explosions are reported (verifiable) to have occurred. Together with the speed with which the WTC collapsed (free fall), it is one of the main indicators which betrays the true cause of the coming down of the WTC. But anyway not to worry, I've decided not to come back here since I don't want to waste any more time going over the same arguments time and time again with a limited group of people only aiming to keep certain data out. Keep it as biased as you want, but please notify me when there's some kind of vote because I'll happily join in that. bye bye for now...  Sacca 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Molten metal does not imply any of these things; that is one of the leaps of faith the conspiracy theorists use, hoping that the average member of the public will not notice the gap in the argument. Peter Grey 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed: Proposal to include Molten Metal reference

message: It's interesting that nobody bothers to show any evidence for who the hijackers actualy were. It's even more interesting when you consider that the FBI admited that the hijackers were using assumed names and fake IDs. In fact, the 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes. So, who were they, really? If Wikipedia is going to say that these men were "Affiliated with Al-Quieda" then it damm well better back that up with some evidence. So far, all I see in this regard is a lot of alegations and not much evidence.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_175.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/U175pass.html
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html
--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note -- you don't appear to be signed in as that user . A bit laborious, I know, but please sign in so that we can all be sure who's who, eh? :) Luna Santin 04:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hijackers 

message: It's not original research but common knowledge. Is there a dispute regarding The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? patsw 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Let's roll" 

message: We now have an infobox... on terrorist attacks? Oy vey. Is this *really* needed? --Golbez 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is bad tasty.--Pokipsy76 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: WHERE IS THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW FOR THIS PAGE!!
I try to put in the qualifiers and I get a message that says that I'm a vandal.
This page is simply an extension of the mainstream media propaganda.
9/11 was an inside job.
You don't have to say it was but you can't have a fair encyclopedia entry on 9/11 if you don't state both viewpoints SIDE BY SIDE.
Further down the article does have some qualifiers. Good to see!
But they must be througout the article.
This is an example of showing both viewpoints:
Some passengers and crew members were able to make phone calls from the hijacked flights, though this is disputed as analysis of the voice indicate no panic, and the people couldn’t answer simple, straight questions. They reported that multiple hijackers were aboard each plane. A total of 19 were later identified by the FBI, four on United 93 and five each on the other three flights. Though conspiracy theorists point out that the Arlington county coroner said, “To this day I have not seen one drop of blood, not one.”124.168.86.15, 09:40, July 18, 2006
There already is a page for this.  OH MY GOD LOOK WHAT WE HAVE HERE! Did you not ready the numerous debates about this already?  Squiggyfm 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...both viewpoints..., where one viewpoint is 9/11 was an inside job.  (Not because it's ridiculous, but because there's no evidence.) Peter Grey 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's fun to see month after month new editors come here and say how they don't believe the mainstream account, that they tried to edit the article and that they were shut down by the same group of admin. It happened to me, before I gave up on this, it happened to this guy, and looking at the dozens of discussion archives it happened to countless amount of people, where many of them simply asked for a DISPUTED tag or 1 single intro line pointing out that there are people who disagree with the view point shown in this article, but not a single word was left, because this small group of admins is intent to keep this article biased the way it is. Elfguy 16:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutra Point of View 

message: Should there be additional information in the section "Long-term effects", after the statement about the FAA grounding, about the lack of air traffic and contrails causing detectable climate changes in the U.S. For example, Wired News has an article on it, and more sources could easily be found. --Cipherswarm 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's really interesting, but is probably more appropriate in the airliner article than here.  Climate change isn't a long-term effect of 9/11, it's a long-term effect of air travel. JDoorjam     Talk 17:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The global dimming article exists. It may (or may not) be worth a passing link where the article mentions all the planes were grounded. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAA Grounding 

message: As per the discussion about the term "terrorism" above which seemed to conclude with nobody objecting to it being a POV statement, I changed the article.
However, people are blindly reverting this without refering to the talk page. If I keep reverting it back to what was discussed here I'll be blocked under the 3RR. The people reverting it won't because there are large numbers of them.
What is the point of having a talk page if opinionated morons can overwhelm the article with pro-American POV insertions? Damburger 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refusing to discuss reverts 

message: That if there continue to be problems regarding discussion of 911, rather than discussion of the article, that interested parties do so at our discussion site, abovetopsecret.com, or more specifically our 911 Forum.  I only mention this in hopes of helping the wikipedia to avoid unwanted discussions. We also have a wikipedia ( the Tinwiki) that is perhaps more appropriate for some of the controversial aspects of these topics
Nygdan 04:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I suggest 

message: I found this link about the Pentagon, I think its worthy for inclusion  --Hamish (Talk) 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: Reaction From Morning Shows
An unlikely source of news and comfort for New Yorkers and others across the country was Howard Stern, who kept listeners constantly updated on what was happening at the Trade Center and across New York City. Several listeners and frequent guest Crazy Cabbie called in to report what they were witnessing from various parts of the city. The Stern Show kept broadcasting well beyond its normal hours until mid-afternoon, in an attempt to provide a voice of reason in the aftermath.
I am disappointed to find this was deleted from the article on Apr 21, I had to do alot of searching to find out why, all the discussion was one-sided (archived Apr 2006). I can assert that it was more than a few listeners that day, likely more than usual due to the fact many radio and television transmitters were knocked out in the attacks, leaving fewer sources of information. In addition, the west coast markets heard the broadcast live, whereas normally the show is delayed. People in dozens of cities around the country listened to observers in New York who were mere blocks away from the events of 9/11. 
Maybe it cannot be added back entirely, perhaps re-written or just linked somewhere. This broadcast was part of the history of that day, surely someone out there agrees. Barrel-rider 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard Stern media coverage 

message: On September 11, 2001 I remember watching on TV pictures taken in the middle east of people dancing and celebrating in the streets. I see no mention of those scenes in the "September 11, 2001 series of articles". Why? On some web forums I have heard these reports were false, but even if it is true that they were false it should be mentioned anyway since those pictures had a significant influence on the western public. Comments? Mieciu K 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has an article on it: Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. It covers what you're asking about, I believe. Richard G. Shewmaker 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response in the arab world 

message: * 
It is a removed site from the 9/11 conspiracy theories site.  I went ahead and WP:BB and added the site.  This is the first page I have seen with such lame ass restrictions about posting sites. Travb (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanted to add this site 

message: Great article. This is about as balanced as it can be without drifting over into the absurd by including every conspiracy theory and extreme bias known to man. To insist that there must be absolute, unassailable proof before printing anything about 9/11 is to expect the impossible. To insist that every POV be represented (from what I've read on this discussion board) for the article to be considered impartial is just plain crazy. The perpetrators' and their sympathizers' points of view simply are not valid. For example, I've yet to read a history book that says that Adolf Hitler allegedly was responsible for the Holocaust or that Germany allegedly invaded Poland in 1939. I don't recall seeing "equal time" being given to Nazi POVs on any matter. There's a good reason for this.Jlujan69 00:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must all opinions be included?? Nope! 

message: i think a terrorist attack infobox sghould be added to the article
:It's hideous, mister unsigned person. --Golbez 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This theory is CLEARLY NOTABLE as it has gotten major media attention.  It completely debunks the "official" theory (who are you going to trust?  Federal "career scientists" and so-called "professional structural engineers" or a neutral party like Oliver Stone?) and if it's not included in the article I may do something totally drastic and irrational.  Cheers,JDoorjam     Talk 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.  Make my day.  Morton devonshire 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternate theory that MUST BE INCLUDED in the MAIN ARTICLE 

message: I notice the death toll was again changed to the wrong one. Its not 2,976! Its 2,996 and this toll does not include the terrorists! Also, the real firgure is 2,948 confirmed dead, 24 reported dead and 24 reported missing, which comes to a toll of 2,996 victims. The particular website I used is cited by the White House and the IRS, which can be found on the home page of this website. The home page for this website is  and the web page were it states the correct death toll of the victims is .
:It does not cite its sources, so I fail to see why it is more reputable than the existing CNN and report sources on its face. Can you show me where the White House and IRS cite this website? --Golbez 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN was citing official New York City figures .  Though, this figure was as of 2003.  The same figure, 2976, was cited in 2004 by CBS  regarding the 9/11 compensation fund, and by the U.S. Department of Justice.   If the figure has changed since then, we need sources detailing that. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure, 2976, is also corroborated by the official Flight 93 National Memorial brochure by the National Park Service.   This brochure was published in 2002, so includes the 40 fradulent cases that were subtracted in October 2003.  Other than that, their figures match. For anything more recent, we need some other source that explains the difference between the 2004 figure and the one you cite.  Why the differences? I would be interested to know and clear up any confusion. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll look more into this tonight.  I'm not 100% sure on the figures for American Airlines Flight 11 - I've seen both 87 and 88 reported.  And for United Airlines Flight 175, I mostly see 59 reported, but also have seen 60 used as the figure.  Either way, I'm fairly confident that the numbers should add up to 2,796 (the official number reported).  But, if you find any sources indicating any official change to the number since 2004, they would be important to have here.  I'm guessing that the difference between the 2004 official count and september11victims.com may have to do with the "reported dead" and "reported missing".  Maybe some of those turned out to be fraudlent?  I can try and come up with specific names that account for the differences, between the sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, I suggest you create an account, to make it easier for people to leave messages on your talk page and work with you. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Turns out, going through a list of nearly 3,000 and crosschecking sources isn't something one can do in an evening.  I'll try and finish up with it this weekend, or possibly early next week, and provide results somewhere in my userspace.  --Aude (talk contribs) 18:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong death toll 

message: I do think that this video is well referenced. That is why others can write line by line debunks of the arguments this video makes (like ). If I want to check statements from the movie, all I need to do is google sources quoted, and read the rest of the referenced story. Although I do agree it should be in the 911 conspiracy article. Lakinekaki 18:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It cited Wikipedia and Metafilter. If that doesn't complete negate any positive referencing it has, nothing does. And if there are line-by-line debunks, then is it really relevant? --Golbez 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP is not about publishing only truth, but all cited information, be it true or false. Every reader will judge the arguments for him/herself.Lakinekaki 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also WP:NPOV; placing undue weight on minority views, and WP:RS, the consideration of reliable sources. What good is a source if it cites wiki? That's a bit circular, no? --Mmx1 19:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Loose Change is an adolescent, moronic bunch of junk science developed by POV pushers of nonsense. Having it in the article violates numerous policies and guidelines.--MONGO 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose Change (video) 

message: Hello there I just watch the movie "World Trade Center" and at the end it said 2,749 people were killed in the attack at the wtc. So therefore, I remember that they lowed it further from 2,752 to 2,749. So the new death toll when added up is 2,973 confirmed dead with 24 reported missing. All together its 2,997 victims and with the terrorists its 3,016.
Hello again I just updated the article with the correct death toll with 2,973 confirmed dead and with another 24 that remain listed as missing.
The death toll that CNN has at 2,973 is calculated like this.
2,749 died at the WTC.
125 died at the Pentagon.
59 died on flight 77.
40 died on flight 93.
So, therefore the total dead comes to be 2,973 .
However, September 11 Victims is also a good source as well, because if you use their firgures it still adds up to 2,973.
They have 2,948 listed as confirmed dead, but lets add one for flight 11 to make it 88 like CNN did. So the total confirmed dead will stand at 2,949 according to this site
.
They also have another 24 people reported as dead . Also, another 24 remain listed as missing .
So, the total according to September 11 Victims is 2,973 killed with another 24 that remain listed as missing to this day.
This is absolutely macabre.  The point isn't determining exactly how many people died!  This is exactly what Herbert called "the ferocious quibble over a comma."
Besides, with loss of life on this magnitude, exact casualty figures all but impossible.  That's why the military uses the classification of "Missing."
In WW1, on the first day of the Somme offense (1 SEP 1916), 20,000 British soldiers were killed in 20 minutes.  20,000 were Missing.  In fact, many of them were KIA.  They were hit by German shells and their bodies completely disintegrated.  Nothing was left to identify.  
The idea of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (a British idea) came out of this reality.  Such pettifogging exactitude marries horror with pedantry. Do you think they sit around at Yad Vashem trying to get the decimal points right?
Let us honor all the murdered, known and unknown.
PainMan 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Death toll 

message: Too many articles to check out. I found the comment do not reduce font sizes, the Wiki style sheets control presentation. That must be done manually by adding a DIV with the class references-small. Does anyone object this modification? It is custom to reduce the size of references when there are many. -- ReyBrujo 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference size 

message: Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing).  By writing only the facts, the conspiracy nutburgers are automatically refuted.
After all, the famous Czarist secret police forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion does not warrant being displayed in full next to an article on Anti-Semitism.
This is even more relevant since many of the conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks  ("Hey, guys!  Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!").  E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call?  Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."
Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.
PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, you think loose change is real, how cute --Golbez 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No conspiracy theory page 

message: I am sorry, but I cannot agree with any of theories I read during these years about the date chosen by al-Qaeda.
As European I think this is due to the youth of the U.S.A. and its lack of history.
At first we must ask ourselves what Islam says, why al-Qaeda was born, what al-Qaeda wants and who are the Heads.
The main principle of the Muslim Religion is in few words: 
"Allah is one and Mohammed is his Profhet".
The main figure in the Islam is the Caliph. The first Caliph was Adam.
The Islam overruns the conception of Indipendent States, such as Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Lybanon, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Sudan and Turkey.
al-Qaeda as radical fundamentalist Islamic group, whose name means "the base" in English", has the main purpose to establish the pure application of the Muslim Religion just under one Guide, the Caliph, and to restore the Caliphate over the whole Islamic World.  
Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are founders and senior members of al-Qaeda's shura council, and come from prominent high class families. 
"We are in a new phase of a very old war" says - at the beginning of an Islamic website -  the title of a townscape painted by Italian painter Bernardo Bellotto (Venice 1721-1780 Warsaw), called Canaletto, between 1759/1761 in Vienna in a series of 13 prospects and reproducing the exact topographical urban panorama from the Belvedere (palace) .
This perspective construction unfolds between the gardens of both the Schwarzenberg Palace and the Belvedere itself in the foreground to a row of stately Baroque palaces and churches in the middle focal plane of the painting. These buildings are evidence of the active construction "boom" in Vienna after the second Turkish siege in 1683.  
But why the Belvedere (palace)? 
The Belvedere (palace) is a baroque complex built by Prince Eugene of Savoy in the 3rd district of Vienna, south-east of the city center.
After buying the plot of land in 1697, Prince Eugene had a large park created. The Schloss Belvedere began as a suburban entertainment villa: in 1714 work began to erect what is now called the Lower Belvedere, not as a palace but as a garden villa, with an orangerie and paintings gallery, with suitable living quarters.  The architect was Johann Lukas von Hildebrandt, one of the most important architects of the Austrian Baroque, who produced in the complex of buildings his masterwork.
And who was Prince Eugene of Savoy? 
Prince Eugene of Savoy was one of the most brilliant generals in the history of the Habsburg Empire and took part in the first large-scale battle of the Habsburg-Ottoman Wars, the Battle of Vienna in 1683.
The Battle of Vienna took place on September 11, 1683.
After a mass in a Chapel in Kahlenberg at the gates of Vienna on September 11, 1683, in the morning, Jan III Sobieski King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and commander in Chief of the Christian Army of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, moved against the Muslim Armies of the Sultan Mehmed IV, commanded  by Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha, and defeated. The battle finished on September 12, 1683, about at 17 p.m.
The battle marked the turning point in the 300-year struggle between the forces of the Central European kingdoms, and the Ottoman Empire. Over the sixteen years following the battle, the Habsburgs of Austria, and their allies gradually occupied and dominated southern Hungary and Transylvania, which had been largely cleared by the Turkish forces.
The date of September 11, 2001 attacks chosen by al-Qaeda could mean the beginning and the revenge of a "very old War" against the Infidels.
     If all this was known why didn't anyone warn us about the date September 11th?
: Irrelevant. Unless you're joking, have a look at the no original research Wikipedia policy. 82.181.61.48 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why [[al-Qaeda]] chose the date of September 11 

message: Hi, 
I'm trying to find responses to 9/11 not from the media or politicians but from historians, political scientists, philsophers, sociologists etc.  It seems to be an area that would be useful to include in the article.  Does someone know of any such responses? 
--Lucaas
lol. I think your a bit of head of yourself. I think your answer lies in the 26th Century.
::For historians, perhaps not the other groups or professors in general.  But, if you we must wait till 2500, such responses being absent, keep your patience.Lucaas 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intellectual Responses 

message: Yes baby, we are going mainstream! --Striver 03:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: This mother wants you to not mention her daughter in this context. Are we legaly bound to respect that? --Striver 01:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minus one 

message: "The attacks were widely referred to as terrorism in most of the world, by the majority of people, no matter their race, nationality or faith.". Who's Line is it anyway? --Haham hanuka 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I'm not sure that these attacks should be considered terrorosm.
After all, 214,000+ people died when Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened, but the U.S. Government still denies the fact that it was terrorism, while dwelling on 9/11 airplane bombings, where less than 3,000 people died.
OK, I know that this WAS terrorism, but it doesn't compare to things like the Armenian Genocide, where 1.5 million people were brutally, sadistically killed (like setting women's hair on fire, and making their children clap & laugh), while others were tortured, and forced to walk through the desert, so hugry, that they ate droppings of camels. The worst part is that USA helps cover this up, and even fired a U.S. Ambassador for reffering to the genocide as a 'genocide'.
There have been many other tragedies - like the Indian Ocean Earthquake, which added to 275,000+ deaths, and 229,866 lost people - in non-U.S. countries, but they just don't pay too much attention.
Americans are self-centered, and (they will deny this) they don't care about deaths in any other country, because, sub-conciously or conciously, they beleive they are superior, becuase the media tells them that, and they think that because they are rich, they themselves are worth more.
"Why is this 9/11 series so incredibly huge?? It rivals WW2 articles in size. And is far larger than descriptions of many wars lasting many years and claiming incredible human victims (like Rwandan_Genocide, Darfur_conflict, Srebrenica_massacre, Algerian Civil War, Second Congo War, to name a few) Wouldnt one, or two, or three articles be quite enough for describing a single event?" --Aryah 03:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's assume good faith rather than start pointing fingers. September 11 was a modern event which captured international attention and moreover, as it was in a western nation, was well documented, especially on the internet. How much information is available on the 2004 tsunami? A magnitude less. Historical events especially so because most of the documentation is available in paper and is less accessible to the typical wiki editor than internet sources. Moreover, add the amount of conspiracy theorists trying to rewrite the article constantly and that adds to a heavy level of activity, drawing editors to this page to refute and rebuke such additions. If there were active Earthquake conspiracy theorists proclaiming it to be the result of the Halliburton Earthquake Machine (TM), you'd bet there'd be a lot of activity on those pages, too.--Mmx1 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism? 

message: Is up for review at .  Thought all of you would want to know.  Morton devonshire 21:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Conspiracy theorists 

message: I'd like to get a consensus on the addition of two links that I think are very important (I did not see either under "External links". One is Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline, which is very heavily detailed, and was turned into a book. Another is 911Timeline.net, a similar project. Are both biased? In some ways, yes. But the information contained on both sites make both links highly essential for anyone wishing to do more research on the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks.--Fightingirish 18:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Timeline 

message: Why don’t the terrorists count as deaths? Of course their death (as opposed to all others) was intentional, but after all, they are also human beings. 92.104.107.212 (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The hijackers' deaths were part of the tactics of the attacks, not a consequence of the attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? Reports on the Virginia Tech shootout included the gunman in its victim count. I think the hijackers should also be included in the death statistic. Unless, of course, we don't know how many hijackers there were. Micasta (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree, the deaths of the hijackers are still consequences of the attack. SGGH ping! 11:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The gunman case counts as significant precedent to include the attackers as deaths. Strongly Agree due to precedent. Annihilatron (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of dead