Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 17

message: I think there should be a section on the "racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks," which is pretty significant and widely publicized.--Ryz05 06:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be a good idea to put up a first draft here on the talk page for review before adding to the article. -Quasipalm 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Are there any more solid references? Those are "nice round numbers", I'm not questioning that it happened or that the numbers where large, but "nice round numbers" like that are made up numbers. Is there any source other than the nybooks people that would better address the statistics issue? Jake b 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial discriminations against muslims following the attacks 

message: Digiterata (Normal Nick):This is supposed to be a stub to summarize the arguments in the conspiracy article, not to present evidence they cite. This has been established as consensus repeatedly. Stop adding material to the article to support your POV. --Mmx1
:Mmx1 please see my post on Admin:Tom Harrison's page re:'sock puppet'. I am not Normal Nick. I don't know where you got that from, but please stop accusing me of such. As for citing evidence in a Wikipedia article, shame on me for mis-reading the NPOV policy. My interpretation of the quote below is that "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one..."
:Full Quote from Wikipedia Policy:
:"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
I dunno, how about this?  . Sure seemed like you were pointing your sig to his talk page.
My god, we've been over this countless times. Your conspiracy views are not significant. They are a minority and refuted viewpoint based on pseudoscience and we are under no obligation to include them. Not all views are equal --Mmx1 19:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken re: the links you cite. I am new to Wikipedia and did some copy/pasting since at the time I didn't know how to add my own sig. Since I was attempting to support Normal Nick's edits, I naturally copied and modified his sig. The fact that there has been this much debate about the neutrality of this article stands as evidence that there exist a significant minority who believe something other than the official story. I make no claim about their validity one way or the other, but the fact is they are held by a significant minority.   In fact, I don't buy most of them personally, but I do know that several relevant facts about the events are missing from this article, solely because they call into question the official story. While I can appreciate the sensitive nature of the topic, none of us are well-served by a one-sided account. Please have a look at Cathal comments above "Facts and Nothing But" for examples of such ommissions. And please, let's try and keep the level of discourse civil in the future please. While we may disagree on the details, we do share the common goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased article (I hope) Digiterata 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence citation in summary. 

message: If you haven't done so, please read the latter part of the above article. Cathal 17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote is for two sister pages. See my comments below under 'Criticism of Official Account' and 'Conspiracy and POV' I've tried to work within this main article, without success. What may make sense is a '9/11 Disambiguous' parent page. I don't know how to do it, but it has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is possible. --Digiterata 22:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoned Debate about what should and shouldn't be included 

message: When the attacks occured, I remember clearly that the first group of people claming responsibilty for this senseless attack was the Kashmir militants. It was on the Singapore television on Channel NewsAsia. It seems that the whole world ignored this confession soon after. Does anyone remember anything about this or am I just dreaming? Or is their confession proven to be a hoax? Should this be included in the article? This has been bugging me for nearly 5 years now and the attention has shifted fully on Osama bin Laden's involvement.  Any comments would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atta called from the airplane he was on to another hijacker on a different airplane...Atta was affiliated with Al queda and links were found that connect almost all the 19 hijackers with Al queda...the Kashmiri militants may have just wanted the notoriety.--MONGO 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kashmir militants responsible? 

message: :: This would be the Atta whose passport materialized at the feet of an FBI agent in New York, mongo? Do you have a reference for this alleged plane-to-plane telephone call made by Atta? If so, maybe you can include it in the main article with references to the indestructable passport.58.106.64.57 08:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telephone records...that's easy...get a username or do you already have one...common effort by conspiracy theorists...insult and use multiple IP's and usernames to make it look like they have strength in numbers....nice try.--MONGO 08:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  please don't spin defamatory lies about me based upon your own imaginings, MONGO. I have one computer, one IP , consistent for all of my posts here - and I leveled no insults at you. Please reference the claim about the telephone call. Saying "telephone records" and "get a user name" doesn't help anyone wanting to know the source for your claim. Here are the references for the miracle passport (cache) and for the censorship of Cleveland's astonishing testimony. (webarchive - see 2nd letter from Cleveland) 58.106.64.57 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have one ounce of proof that there was a government coverup or controlled demolition...okay, I didn't think so...next time, report your lack of findings to a blog...it's much better suited there. "Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45. Seven minutes later, Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport. They spoke for three minutes. It would be their final conversation." reference of phone call: "3.The call was placed from a pay phone in Terminal C (between the screening checkpoint and boarding gate).We presume Shehhi made the call, but we cannot be sure. Logan International Airport Aug. 15, 2003); see also FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 11)." all from 9/11 Commission Report..oh, that's right, I can't cite them...they are part of the big coverup!--MONGO 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't apologize, for I have nothing to apologize for. As far as the rest of your comment...what are you talking about?...we don't violate numerous policies in Wikipedia to report conjecture, so no, I have no plans of incorporating the things you have just mentioned in this article. They have no basis in fact. Stop reading unscientific websites that are just conspiracy theory nonsense. I think we have been through the "Jewish Plot" ridiculousness already.--MONGO 14:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything I included in my list is a referenced fact, MONGO, not "conjecture" - please see a dictionary for the plain english common useage definitions of these two words. One of my references included statements by the C-130 pilot himself (Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002), as well as a Pentagon spokeperson (Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, Daily Press, October 17, 2001), confirming 90% of the C-130 witness testimony. I am not sure how you can categorize any of the items in my list of well-documented facts that should be included in the article as "conjecture". You also infered that I was using multiple identities for my contributions in an earlier response, and as you correctly noted, you have not apologized for that defamatory slur. Appeals to ridicule, misrepresenting officialy documented facts as "speculation," and unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks don't seem to be valid reasons for omitting these well-documented facts from the article. Please reconsider. Confabulous 08:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recovered physical evidence 

message: It seems like we are starting to repeat the discussion that miraculously went away during the mediation cabal scrutiny.  Let's review some highlights:
*Buildings do not fall down by consensus.  This doesn't mean that the professional opinions of structural engineers are beyond reproach, but it does mean simply believing the collapse 'looked wrong' is not enough.
*This article is about a historical event.  There is a conventional understanding of what happened, and while challenges to that account are welcome, they will be held to a higher standard of evidence.
*Not every alternative scenario is necessarily a 'conspiracy theory', but the ones that are based on paranoia and/or errors of fact are. Peter Grey 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"Buildings do not fall down by consensus". Nicely put. --Mmx1 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Déjà Vu'' (it means "already seen") 

message: This page is for discussing changes to the article. It is not a general-purpose web board where any of us can say what he thinks about terrorism, 9/11, conspiracy theories, or each other; especially not each other. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of this page 

message: I thought it might be valuable to have a mention of the controversy surrounding the new 9/11 films, which will be first shown at the Tribeca Film Festival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aandrei (talk • contribs) 
:This main article is already too long and is just a summary of the many subarticles.  I think such discussion is more suited to the subarticle, September 11, 2001 attacks in arts and literature.  Right now, that article is mainly a list, and more discussion of the controversies and new films could add a lot to improve the subarticle. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy Surrounding New September 11th Films 

message: I have trimmed the external links section including:
* Removed broken links
* Removed wikilinks (don't belong in this section)
* Moved about.com Tribeca Film Festival link to "arts and literature" subarticle
* Consolidated 911investigations.net and september11archive.com in the main links section.
* Swapped Yahoo! link for dmoz directory link
* Replaced all the CNN video links with a single link to their Video archive, and removed redundant airdisaster.com link
* Removed book links, Naudet film link (perhaps appropriate for "arts and literature" subarticle)
* Swapped the wmv link with a link to the national geographic site.
There are a few other "photos" sites that are more personal in nature, that I think should go.  
* http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell
* http://www.internet-esq.com/worldtradecenter/index.htm
Because Wikipedia is not a link directory, we can't include all personal photo sites, and not sure if/why these two should be.  Others agree/disagree with removing these two links?  or disagree with any of the other changes above? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: take 'em out. JDoorjam     Talk 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, good work...the article needed trimming.--MONGO 03:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two photo sites are trimmed now.  The Dmoz open directory provides scores of such links, so we don't need to list them here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links trimmed 

message: Good day,
Please include on the main page:
To question the validity of these outstanding claims, an increasing number of individuals are asking for further investigation. See 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .
I'm not trying to push any one side, since personally I find both the US gov side and the other theories somewhat fishy. But I have to say that there are big holes in both sides, things that can't be explained, and things that are just not physically possible in what the Gov says or what various critics say. What I find disturbing however, is that for a clearly controversial and widely criticized topic, the article spends dozens of pages talking about the official account, and 1 paragraph on the alternate accounts, under the heading "conspiracy" and with a link to the other article. This article should either 1- keep to the facts everyone agree on (planes crashed in the buildings, the buildings collapsed, etc) and keep everything else out, or 2- present all view points with equal footing. I personally prefer the first option, since it's always best for an encyclopedia to stick to the widely accepted facts, and I suggest it be rewritten to be much smaller and much more focus on actual facts rather than the analysis of what, how and why. Elfguy 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV doesn't mean giving equal footing for minority viewpoints.  On other topics, such as Global warming, there is a minority group of people that contest it.  In no way does that article give equal footing for the dissenting viewpoint.  Rather, there is just *one* single line in the introduction that mentions "scientists that contest the view", with a link to a subarticle.  In this article, we go beyond the *single* sentence that mentions conspiracy theories and devote a paragraph to them.  That's more than adequate treatment, given the weight of evidence that supports the official account of the events. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You justified the disputed tag, by citing that there are 13 talk page archives.  I think this article has existed for nearly five years, and over that time has 13 talk page archives.  As a mere example, Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy has 25+ talk archive pages listed, though the article has only existed since the end of January.  That article has no disputed tag.  Number of talk archive pages is no justification. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've watched it, and there is no doubt in my mind that there is no evidence for any of the claims made in the video. Every assertion has been answered by experts. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The critics of global warming have *theories* in the same sense as 9/11 conpiracy theorists.  Such theories lack substance and shouldn't get equal billing in the article.   What about all the forensic evidence that accounts for AA77? the witnesses to the crash? the airplane parts on the Pentagon lawn , etc.? the cellphone calls from Barbara Olsen and other passengers reporting the hijacking?  what happened to the passengers? where are they?  It's not POV to give the conpiracy theories an entire paragraph, with a link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  I personally think an entire paragraph is more than the theories merit. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer any of the points in this particular video. Take just the phone calls. The official story says people made at least 3 cellphone calls from the planes while they were still at cruising altitude. Yet it is physically impossible to make any cellphone call at 33,000ft. It's not a theory, it's a fact. Take a cellphone, go in a plane and try it yourself. You talk about the evidence on the Pentagon ground, yet don't point to any. All the evidence I have ever seen in the media are 3 items: a ring from an engine which does not fit the right kind of plane, one part of an American Airline side window which can be carried by someone, and part of a wheel, which again is too small to be from such a large plane. About the witnesses, you can hear the actual witnesses telling what they've seen to the reporters in this movie. They all say different things. Half of them actually say they saw military planes, or a missile, and half say it was a passenger plane. So again, it's easy to say experts have prooven these theories wrong, but I have yet to see anyone point out to facts that refute any of the many such videos / theories. Again I'm not saying they are necessarily right, but they sure took tons of video footage, written text and audio testimonies, while from the FBI, as far as I know (and feel free to correct me), they released no video (all the footage we have are from the media), only 4 frames from a Pentagon security camera that was pointing right at the crash site yet don't actually show any plane. Elfguy 12:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: Someone added the following paragraph, which I have moved here to the talk page, pending further discussion:
Michael Moore implicates the Bush administration in allowing relatives of Osama bin Laden to leave the United States without being thoroughly interviewed by the FBI. In his narration in the movie, Fahrenheit_9/11 Moore states that "At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th." While private flights were still generally banned at this time, the movie does not mention that the ban on commercial flights was lifted on September 13. Moore has based this on a book by Craig Unger called House of Bush, House of Saud. Passenger lists can be found here. For more info go to Michael Moore Fahrenheit_9/11 Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy Fahrenheit 9/11½ Sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11 September 11, 2001 attacks 9/11 conspiracy theories
Since there is truth  to this, it might be worth including a sentence (not a whole paragraph and without the quotes) in this main article.  I'm undecided as to where it could fit.  Possibly at the in the "International reaction" section, with the following sentence:
:In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the U.S. government allowed six chartered flights to leave the United States, with mainly Saudis aboard. 
This might fit, if we also added some mention of the Saudi government reaction to the attacks.  On it's own, it really doesn't fit and perhaps should just be in one of the subarticles. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saudi flights 

message: Canada's waging its own War on Terrorism, Operation Apollo in Afghanistan. Should my country be added under the "Primary participants" or "Other important figures"?
 User:Raccoon Fox - Talk  21:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada and the War on Terrorism 

message: It is silly to state assumptions and theories as fact simply because the source of the assumptions and theories is credible. When the source is the government which was attacked it is even sillier to do so. I will try to address the most obvious infractions. Neutralizer 03:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Below is an edited version of the intro recently added by Marielleh I've posted it here on Talk because I thought it was quite good for its concise style and NPOV perspective. The article is getting quite verbose and I thought this was quite an improvement. It was recently reverted by another user and I wanted others to see it and comment before it was lost in the revision history. If anyone finds value in this version of the intro, please feel free to move it back to the article. 
The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11
The attacks are often referred to simply as September 11th, 9/11, or 9-11. The latter two are from the U.S. style for writing short dates, in which the month precedes the day. Both are pronounced "nine-eleven." With the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks on March 11, 2004, called "M11" or "3/11", and the Jordan Bombings on November 9, 2005 often called "11/9", the convention has been extended. The 7 July 2005 London bombings occurred on a day when the month and the day were the same so the speaker can decide if the US or European convention (day, then month) is implied. (In the UK these events are more generally referred to as the 'London bombings' or '7th July bombings' in any event.) 9-1-1 also happens to be the telephone number used in the United States and Canada to dial for emergency assistance (police, ambulance, and fire department).
 
or September 11th) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed approximately 3000 people and destroyed or damaged a number of buildings.
The attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, who hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners, crashing three into buildings. Two planes were crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in Manhattan, New York City, and within two hours both towers collapsed. A third hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon, in Arlington County, Virginia. The fourth plane crashed into a rural field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The jet fuel in the planes ignited immediately and burned long enough to cause the contents of the buildings to combust. 
Soon after the attacks, the United States accused al-Queda, a fundamentalist islamist organization, for the event. The president George W. Bush launched "War on Terrorism" in response to the attacks, including invasion of Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq. Domestically, the United States goverment created Department of Homeland Security, PATRIOT Act and generally adopted terrorism as the central theme.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Digiterata (talk • contribs) 
:Where was the discussion of what was wrong with the introduction, and the reason given for making this type of edit? patsw 05:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I checked (it's gone now) there was an automated tag stating that this article may be longer than it could be. IMHO the introduction should be clean and concise and NPOV. The rest of the article is for fleshing out the full story, but the intro should be, well an intro. I noticed the changes posted by Marielleh and thought they were quite good. When they were quickly reverted without any comment on the subject line or talk, I thought it would be appropriate to post the edit here to make sure others saw it and were able to comment. My $0.02 --Digiterata 13:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: "Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 28, 2004 states credible whitnesses claiming that black boxes were found "
Credible source, relevant issue, quickly and decisively deleted and marginalized as conspiracy theory for only one reason: it doesn't support the governments claims. It's the most recent example I could find taken from here   
Deleted with instructions to take it to save it for the Conspiracy Theories page. 
:Let's look at that report:
:
But New York City Firefighter Nicholas DeMasi has written in a book self-published by Ground Zero workers that he took federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and located three of the four. His account is backed by a well-known Ground Zero volunteer.
:A book "self-published" and he claims he did something, and there is a "well-known Ground Zero volunteer"...and this adds up to what...a self published book written without any proof the event ever happened, and no one cited that can back up his story.--MONGO 04:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Book published by a misleadingly named organization in which the person running the organization has been criticized for mishandleing money...says so right in your link. Read it.--MONGO 04:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A NYC Firefighter publishes a book describing his own account of the events following 9/11 and you want to rip this guy apart because his account doesn't mesh with the 9/11 Commission? This guy is a true hero! He is an expert in his field, and he provides a first and second hand accounts of the events from his own experience. Why is his account not credible? Because it doesn't fit the official version of events? He is exactly the kind of person you should be celebrating for his brave actions on and after the event, but you want to label him a lunatic fringe conspiracy theorist and destroy his credibility on this page, just because his memory doesn't mesh with yours or the 9/11 commisions? No one is safe from your attacks are they? -- Digiterata 10:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you're also going to slander thr Ground Zero Workers for self-publishing a book, because of a vague reference to the criticism of their accounting? Who criticized it? Did they also criticize Nicholas Demasi? Noone is safe from your wrath, not even the NYC Fire department or the Ground Zero volunteers. If you truly believe that the NYCFD and the GZ volunteers are not to be trusted, then who is, a bunch of academics and beaurcrats from the 9/11 commision who publish a report years after the events? I don't buy it. The fact that I've listed multiple factual ommissions and none of you has explained why they should not be included tells me that deep down many of you don't buy it either. -- Digiterata 10:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is a fact that was recently censored

message: From Stock Market:
"In the days leading up to the attacks, a number of suspicious trades were placed against United and American Airlines as well as Boeing. These trades resulted in a significant increase in short-selling and put option activity (bets that the price would fall) Media reports initially indicated that these trades indicated possible foreknowledge of the attacks. However, on further investigation no connection was found."
Tell me honestly, if the US Government had discovered that Al Quaeda was behind those trades, what are the chances it would be excluded? It was relevant then and it is relevant now. To censor this item just because it doesn't support the official story is blatant POV bias.
I'll stop here because my arguments fall on deaf ears, but each item I listed in my prior post is an example of such censorship. You people are bullies and your ends justify the means mindset is destroying Wikipedia. If I thought there was a chance of gaining consensus through reason and fact, I would continue to contribute, but you people are bullies and there is simply no way to reason with you. Please continue to tell yourselves that 22.1 million citations in Google for '9/11 critics' is a tiny minority of kooky conspiracy theorists. The fact that this article contains Zero criticism other than a few lines about conspiracy theorists stands as my evidence that this article is riddled with propaganda and censorship, but I'm just another tin-foil hat-wearing lunatic right? --Digiterata 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again an admin just told me that my argument has no merit or basis in fact, and after all, he is the decider, he decides  so I guess that's the final consensus on the issue. Forget everything I just said, I'm wrong; you are all right. -- Digiterata 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA--MONGO 04:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know why none of this guy's work is being included here? Looks to me like he's got a legit beef. Good references & decent points. I'd be pissed too 216.221.65.134 02:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of closed minded people roaming on all controversial wikipedia articles. Elfguy 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And another that was excluded for the same reason

message: Warning:The following message should be considered Trolling 
 Please skip this message if you would rather not hear the truth (IMHO) 
 The contents of this message may raise your blood pressure. 
I want to welcome all newcomers to the September 11 attacks article with a few words of warning. 
For those of you who wish to make edits to this page, if you feel that this article is missing relevant facts,  please consider the following. Before contributing, ask yourself whether or not your contribution supports the official account of events of 9/11. If it does not, your edits are not welcome here. Only facts that support the official account of events are acceptable. Any facts which do not are considered Conspiracy Theories and should be added to the appropriate article . 
This guiding principle applies for any and all edits which might be construed as critical of the official accounts. Wikipedia NPOV policy WP:NPOVdoes not apply to this article. 
If you are concerned that this article does not appear to be fair and balanced as it does not include any reference to criticism of an obviously contentious topic, please again, take it to Conspiracy Theories. Your contributions are not welcome here.
If you somehow believe that this message doesn't apply to your criticism and that adding your voice to the debate will make a difference. Please don't waste your time trying to resolve your issues on Talk . Take it to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories site . Your contributions are not welcome here. 
Those who provide credible references to relevant facts that dispute the mainstream viewpoint will be shot on sight. 
Again, only facts that support the mainstream view of accounts are welcome on this page. All other contributions, regardless of their relevance, credibility of sources, or factual nature are unwelcome. If you hold such views, or simply think that a fair and balanced article, particularly on an issue as controversial as this, should have some mention of the controversy, please take it to the Conspiracy Theories page - you tinfoil hat-wearing nutter! Your contributions are not welcome here.
(The previous slightly tongue-in-cheek, extremely sarcastic, comment was posted by a very frustrated former contributor who has probably said too much already) --Digiterata 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it a warning to future potential contributors who may in their naivete, assume that this is a fair and open venue ready to accept all good quality, factual submissions, even those that the good old boys of this page disagree with. Looking at my previous attempts at contributing to this article, I am appalled at the amount of time I wasted trying to employ silly tactics like reason and open dialogue. It's clear to me that those who wish to maintain the status quo are immune to my 'dirty tricks'. I just want to warn others to learn from my mistakes and not waste their effort. --Digiterata 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous and does nothing to make the article better.--MONGO 02:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you referring to the situation described above, or the description itself? — goethean ॐ 17:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Define disruptive. — goethean ॐ 19:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's made some strong points. Don't give up dude, this place needs a bit of balance. Don't give into the bullies 216.221.65.134 02:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie Welcome Message: NPOV, Consensus, and Relevant Facts 

message: Please do not reduce the font size.  The guideline is that article content not include specific font changes, and the Wiki's html generator (Cascading Style Sheets) owns formatting.  It hinders readability by people with some vision impairment to reduce the font size. See WP Manual of Style:Formatting Issues for the details. patsw 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size 

message: Amazing. The September 11 Wiki isn't even linked or listed here? Is this how disconnected the whole Wikipedia and it's sub-sites are? Seeing as I can't seem to find an article on or about the September 11 Wiki; I decided to ask a question I have about it here: what are the reviews saying about the documentary film 9/11 Eyewitness? It's probably b.s., but I was interested in finding out the reactions. Also, why is there a wiki for 9/11 (including the online Memoriam); but nothing like that for other things like, I don't know, Hurricane Katrina victims; or other "disasters" from anywhere outside of the U.S.? Wikipedia isn't an American encyclopia, is it? Another question I have (this is sort of off-topic) is whether or not the articles on Wikipedia in other foreign languages are: 1.) translated via a translator(s), 2.) translated via a program/bot/script, or 3.) completely rewritten in the new language? If it's 3, I feel it's really a waste of time and energy just to rewrite an article from the bottom up all over again per each language. THis same question applies to the Wikipedia project (yet another project/sub-site I stumbled upon) Simple English Wikipedia; shouldn't they attempt to simplify existing articles, instead of completely rewriting them in simple English? (sorry, but speaking of sub-sites and Wikipedia projects; has there been an effort to sort of gather and organize everything that has sprouted from Wikipedia [not article-wise]? I mean, it seems like everyday, I stumble upon a new project/subsite/group/etc., and it was because of luck that I found it [or else, it would never have happened]. For example, I found the 911 wikipedia, the simple english wikipedia, a group within Wikipedia that seeks to address problems; a similar group that is less "official", a "Counter-Vandalism Unit", and so on. There really needs to be an effort to group everything together, into an umbrella-article -- there are so many great "wikiprojects" out there which may never see the light of day, or can not be "advertised" or shown to the public.)
The article had nothing about the failure to find the black boxes of both planes at the World Tade Center. I added a sentence about the failure to find them (and witnesses who reported finding them), but StuffOfInterest deleted it with the terse comment that it belongs on the Conspiracy Theory page. I disagree. I think some discussion of the black boxes is quite relevant, and the article has it for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. 
More generally, editors who delete contributions fully cited to accepted sources should have to explain what they think they're doing. --JustFacts 15:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, Wikipedia--indeed all serious encyclopedias--are "biased on the side of the official story."  The entries are primarily based on the majority view of reputable published authors. That's what many of the Wikipedia guidelines discuss in detail.  Editors unwilling to accept these basic ground rules are free to create blogs and post their views elsewhere on the Internet.--Cberlet 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except when you consider the fact that the official story is a *US* story. If Wikipedia wants to promote itself as a US encyclopedia then fine, but it should be the goal of an online free encyclopedia to be about universal facts, not US based myths. In many countries around the world, not only is the official US story not believed by a majority of people, but it's actually not the official story of the current government. In fact this is just one of many articles where the US is over-represented. The general bias in this article and a couple others with strong bias editors may be due to the fact that the majority of them actually live in the US, I don't know, but the fact remain that if facts don't equal current US based government speach, then we should go with the facts. In the absence of any, and in the presence of severe discordance, both sides should be presented, or neither side. Elfguy 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a point of view that says the towers were brought down by the hand of God, in a case of direct divine intervention? How many people world-wide hold that view? Is that view perhaps expressed in main-stream non-US media? How prominently should it be featured in this article? Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with you, Peter Grey, that the "evidence that something else happened has to be fairly compelling."  See the compelling 10Mb video linked to your quote, and perhaps offer some thoughts as to why it shouldn't be referenced in the main article. I also agree with you that the perspective of the terrorists needs more space. That space could be occupied by a few quotes from page 51 of The Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New American Century. This prophetic document, with astonishing predictive prowess, described the terrorists' intentions quite nicely, and in their own words.  Confabulous 07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September11 Wiki -Memoriam (and questions I have hard time finding answers to) 

message: Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US article on featured candidate 

message: Hello - I don't have the power to make this edit, so I'm offering the suggestion to someone who does. Under "The "War on Terrorism" subsection of "Government Response," I think it would be useful to add a short additional sentance after the last paragraph: "As of March 2006, thirty-five New York City residents have died fight in the war in Iraq. Thousands more have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan and returned. Another 8,000 New Yorkers remain on active military duty." (Source: Gotham Gazette) 206.15.138.244 00:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additional detail 

message: There seems to be an overwhelming number of pictures regarding New York, but only one each of the pennslyvania and pentagon tragedies, which were as much a part of 9/11 as New York.  There needs to be a balance between them.  Thoughts?--Gephart 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your complaint - however, I would like to see people not label every imbalance as an "NPOV issue". This is a lack of attention issue, not an NPOV issue. --Golbez 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV issues with Pictures 

message: I've trimmed the intro, removing the short paragraph on the "aftermath" - War on Terrorism, ...  I really don't think it's needed in the intro, but if someone feels otherwise then go ahead and readd it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trimmed intro 

message: Good day to all,
I have recently become aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement. While I find the movement's allegations to be disturbing and hopefully untrue, as a trained social scientist I must consider the claims from an objective point of view. I have recently attempted to add Wikipedia links to 9/11 Truth Movement, Researchers Questioning the Official Account of 9/11, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth from the main 9/11 Wikipedia page. Within minutes of doing so, they have been removed. While I understand the controversial nature of this information, Wikipedia is a general information service. To delete or censor information because it is contestable is a disservice to the Wikipedia community. To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia. I ask that the individual or individuals who are deleting references to the 9/11 Truth Movement refrain from their censorship. To hide information that is controversial interferes with those of us seeking to better understand the cause and effects of the tragedy of September 11th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joetkeck (talk • contribs) .
:Most likely the links were removed because they were from unreliable sources. Wikipedia generally has quite strict standards for what can and cannot be included as links. Jefffire 15:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome. You can sign your name with four tildes(~~~~), which makes it easier to follow the discussion. Besides the three-revert rule, which I see someone has already mentioned to you, Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith. Allegations of censorship are not helpful. Assume that the rest of us, like you, are interested in writing a good encyclopedia. You might also find it informative to read through this page's archives. At this point there is not a consensus to further emphasize conspiracy theories in this article. "To seek objective truth is the primary role of Wikipedia." No, that's not the case. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Information and links that don't go along the 'official story' are suppressed in this article. That's just bias that's present in many controversial wikipedia articles. You would probably have more luck at the alternate theories article, labeled 'conspiracy theories' to make sure no one reads it, and be aware that there's another crew of trained editors there that will make sure everything you add is spined to sound unbelievable. Ok so that was harsh, but it's what I've seen so far. Elfguy 20:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appeal to pity--146.244.137.178 16:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: the word "truth" in 911 "truth" movement is a form of newspeak. There isn't realy any truth involved in the actual movement. Which really isn't a movement either. It's more of a gyration.--130.191.17.38 23:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Joetkeck, claiming that you have not bothered to read the discussion, but have an opinion is fascinating, but hardly persuasive.--Cberlet 01:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not censoring, it is editorial judgement. There is a summary and link to the page that discsses and links to the litany of conspiracy groups. --Mmx1 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am only an observer to this conversation but I have a request.  Please sign your name with ~~~~ AFTER your comments.  Not doing so makes this discussion very hard to follow. Monkeyman(talk) 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Joetkeck, what is it that you want to specifically change about the article? All you seem to be saying is that editors should allow any and all contributions to be added to the page, but wikipedia isn't about a free for all of random ideas. In fact, there is policy about original research. If you want to contribute to a wiki that has less restrictions on what constitutes fact, then I suggest you try editing this.--146.244.137.147 00:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth Movement