Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 18

message: NOw you got Iran added to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report, this page is POV, NPOV it!--Striver 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No bias there! The Iranian government's views on the events of 9/11...well alrighty then. If they think the U.S. Government was behind the attacks then it simply must be so.--MONGO 09:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not talking about "truth", im talking about POV. Further, are you saying that the 9/11 Commission was not biased?----Striver 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the 911 Commission is not biased.--MONGO 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, im sure they are not. How could a commission headed by Thomas Kean ever be biased? For starters, they wanted to appoint Henry Kissinger to lead it! --Striver 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The commission can be considered a reliable source as it's conclusion have been checked and confirmed by others.  Jefffire 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And dissagreed by others. Simply having people agreeing does not make them unbiased. --Striver 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that some people promote alternative views on the 9/11 events does not make the research commission biased. gidonb 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the fact that it was chaired by Thomas Kean makes it biased. --Striver 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did this chairperson make the inquiry comission biased in your opinion? gidonb 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: JustFacts: I did not make any speculations. The way you inserted it simply suggested that these testimonies were actually given. The new version is fine with me. The item did appear in the Inquirer. gidonb 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Am I the only one who thinks that all these images are going overboard? It seems like the very single possible picture of the towers burning has been uploaded here, might it not be better to follow the guidlines of pages like, for instance, NYC, and establish a gallery page to store excess or redundant images?
Maybe it's just my personal POV, being from nyc, seeing them collapse once is more than enough, then to have them running on the covers of every single newspaper for just about every single day for about a year. Then the 2004 election cycle where just about every other campaign comercial was filled with them, then bloomberg doing the same thing during his election.  It just doesn't seem like it actually adds anything to the article other than satisfying people's morbid need to see the towers collapsing from every single angle imaginable.--64.12.116.201 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image pharming? 

message: The fatalities section is poorly put together in my opinion, with lack of sources and true facts.  The first OFFICIAL caualty was Father Mychal Judge.  However, I think that if anything, the Israeli special forces retiree was mot likely not the 1st casuaulty, as the planes were flown into the Towers before the actual hijacking took place.  The most likely first casualty would've been a pilot or passenger on the first plane.  What do you guys think?
40oz 2 Freedom 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatalities 

message: Most of the content of this page is all lies. we should all know that bush destroyed the Twin towers through controllled demoltion. We cannot just be gullible idiots. We should change the content of this page to the truth, and nothing but the truth. 
signed, Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
--71.125.65.226 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What were the planes for then? Answer that and you get a cookie. Pacific Coast Highway blah • my tracks 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merely ask that he cites his assertion that we are all 'gullible idiots', and that we should change the content of this page to reflect a barely coherent, and quite frankly offensive, conspiracy theory MynameisRoB 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lies 

message: Anyone planning on adding a mention of the Pentagon's release of new video footage in response to conspiracy theorists? [] I would but I don't know where to put it and how to word it to avoid being reverted. 86.49.76.137 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pentagon 9/11 Footage Released 

message: *Yes SkeenaR 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to unprotect 

message: Robin Hood 1212 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with Mahmood Abbas and Ismael Haniyeh? 

message: I would say both the United States and the United Kingdom are Primary Participants for one reason, both countries have sent the largest armies and the bulk of force to each event that has happened since - Afghanistan and Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.221.164 (talk • contribs) .
I second that!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.60.199.37 (talk • contribs) .
--Chili14 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user box will break soon as the 9/11 wiki is finally being deleted. -Quasipalm 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another primary participant in the War on Terror 

message: The image labeled with the caption "Taken from the 2001 Osama bin Laden confession video." is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the confession video was faked (by saying that the man in the picture looks nothing like Bin Laden) and I feel the the only reason it was included here was to perpetuate this myth. For this reason I believe it should be removed.
look here for more information on the photo: http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html --TeN 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden Confession Image 

message: Has anyone seen this provocative documentary? It's well done. I think it would be a good addition to the multi-media section:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848 
I like how it uses Wikipedia. Watch the whole thing for some Wikipedia close ups.
64.121.40.153 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a whole article on it here: Loose Change (video) -- MisterHand 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary on 9/11 

message: I find that in order to better tell the truth of 9-11 names such as terrorist and al-queada should be left out. In other words: NO fingers should be pointed to anybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamisamanou (talk • contribs) 
That's silly. A weak argument could be made for the word "terrorist", but there is no reason not to call Al-Qaeda, "Al-Qaeda".--DCAnderson 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The notion that one can't be NPoV and say 9/11 was a terrorist act by Al Qaeda is absurd, to say the least.--Rosicrucian 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You think you've seen edit wars before, go ahead and try it.  Bin Laden admitted again, two days ago, that he did it.  Morton devonshire 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding the two sides 

message: This article has been stripped of a lot of valid, factual evidence, which does not support the government position.  This presents an unbalanced prepresentation of facts to the reader.  Is our goal to present the government position, or the truth, and let the chips fall where they may?  Relegating dissenting voices to "Conspiracy Theories", especially when they are factual, is Orwellian, and un-American.  The government's version of events is, after all, a so-called "conspiracy theory" itself, with Osama behind it.  We surely don't want to remove any mention of Osama from this page, do we?
I shall begin a programme of re-introducing facts which are at variance with the government position.  If we relegate the government's conspiracy theory to the Conspiracy Theories page, we shall to strip a lot of information from the page, and have little help in interpreting it left.  A much more even-handed, NPOV method would be to restrict this page to factual assertions, and more speculative conspiracy theories to the "Conspiracy Theories" page.  Some of the factual information that has been left out:
* The Nov. 2001 Osama Bin Laden tape does not look like Bin Laden.  His face is wider, he smiles a lot, he wears a wedding ring, which is forbidden in Islam, and he appears darker complected.
* Of the four known videos of Flight 175 hitting the South tower, all show a flash of light just before the South Tower was hit, and of the one known video of the plane hitting the North Tower, there is a flash of light just where this plane hit.
* There is a very good image of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower from CNN, in which what looks to be very probably a missle, is fired at the tower just before impact.  This video needs to have a link from here, and be mentioned, if we want the readers to have a balanced presentation of the facts.
* There is a video where squibs can plainly be seen chasing up the side of WTC7, before it came down.  Enquiring minds should be informed.  Several squib-like ejecta can be seen in nearly all films of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 before they fall.  These should be pointed out.
* Kevin Ryan, who certified the steel used for the WTC for Underwriter's Labs, wrote a letter early on, saying that fire should NOT have caused the steel to melt.
* There are a number of very well documented examples of government proir knowledge of the attacks, and of government lying about this fact.  Factual evidence that can support this idea clearly should not be off-topic.  Although its bulk could be covered elsewhere, the reader should not be deprived of a balanced representation of this evidence in this article.
Really!  Haven't any of you people seen "Loose Change"?  Let's get with the program, and not reject factual data because it disagrees with the government's POV.  To include these, and say, "it proves this or that theory" could possibly be construed as POV.  To not include these, rejects valid, factual data, and is itself very POV.  I am not suggesting that questionable or marginal videos be allowed here, but when their evidential value seems reasonably clear and important, shall we censor them from main pages?  If there is anything to the claims that the government knew it was going to happen, allowed it to happen, or even assisted its happening, then we risk aiding the rise of tyranny in our midst by hiding up vital and valid facts concerning the cirucmstances of the attack.  Shall the Wikipedia display only government announcements prominently, or is the Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia where the people and the hackers can speak the truth in spite of government censorship?
--ThaThinker 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! I think the article you are looking for (that already contains many of the points you want to make) is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I hope this is helpful. -- MisterHand 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Many "facts" cited by 9/11 Truth Movement members are either unsubstantiated or thoroughly refuted, yet are still repeated by a plethora of sites, from personal pages to 9/11 "Truth" organizations. Thus, as unverified or even falsified information, they do not belong in this central article. I am making this statement while being as objective as possible. -- Huysmantalk 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Right! Thank you for pointing out a common fallacy. -- Huysmantalk 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to convey that, "If it is demonstrably false" it does not belong in this article. -- Huysmantalk 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is Stupid: Highly Government POV! 

message: Personal opinions aside, "Alternate Theories" is infinitely less POV than "conspiracy theories".--the Dannycas 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps--"conspiracy theories" could be (mis)construed as prejudicial--but these views are by definition conspiracy theories. -- Huysmantalk 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please be more intellectually responsible than that; calling the government's account a conspiracy theory is misusing the term as widely understood. Regardless, many critics of 9/11 conspiracism have demonstrated that the government's account best matches the available evidence and that the facts do not fit the positions of 9/11 "alternate" theorists (e.g. pod plane, WTC demolition, no Flight 77, remote control, foreknowledge, etc.). I was a 9/11 conspiracist for about 20 months before realizing my error; believe me, you do not have to lecture me about 9/11 "alternate theory" sites because I have seen them all. -- Huysmantalk 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What are some examples of "well-verifiable events that don't fit the government theory?" It would be good to hear/discuss/address some specific issues. -- Huysmantalk 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loose Change is an extremely unreliable video, containing an abundance of misinformation. 1 2 3 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no “missiles” being launched from the Boeings that hit the Twin Towers. 1 9/11 conspiracists have misinterpreted reports of “explosions” in the WTC. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There are good reasons to reject conspiratorial explanations of so-called “molten” steel. 1 2 3 4 5 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The “squibs” are not from controlled demolition. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not researched Able Danger nearly enough to come to a conclusion. -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the links. After viewing the information I will let you know my thoughts and its bearing on the article. -- Huysmantalk 00:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes the conspiracy in the conspiracy theory is the improbable claim that thousands of people officially involved in the examination of the 9/11 evidence have been able to keep a complex set of lies consistent for almost 5 years and managed to hide all the evidence of government foreknowledge or complicity — and for no apparent motive. patsw 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Mike Williams's article at http://911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html demonstrates the patent absurdity of a government conspiracy. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Case closed. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the discussion of the "evidence" is too involved for this page, I directed you to websites which thoroughly refute the claims of Loose Change and 9/11 conspiracists. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You can direct your concerns regarding Able Danger to the talk page of that article and also do what Tom Harrison said. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No; take it to 9/11 conspiracy theories and stop crufting up this talk page with loose-change links. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Theories 

message: I aim at collecting information regarding the wikipedia users view of this article. Please read this --Striver 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really fine as it is; don't fret over it. Also remember that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- Huysmantalk 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also remember Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight and giving "equal validity". -- MisterHand 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but we can't cite any of that stuff here.  Violates Wikipedia policy:  See Dubious Sources: From WP:RS  "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and  blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications."    Morton devonshire 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Have they all been official verified as him? Was wondering for the validity of the captions.
The third one, in military uniform seems particularly odd, in that Bin Laden (on his Wiki page) is clearly described as a left hander, yet this photo shows him gesticulating in right hand dominant manner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebob (talk • contribs) 
:In, for example, the December 2001 confession video by bin Laden and al Qaeda associates, higher resolution shots show that that the video indeed shows Osama bin Laden. On bin Laden's righthandedness or lefthandedness see bin Laden Right Handed? by Mike Williams of 911Myths.com. -- 
Huysmantalk 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of Bin Laden 

message: Last week Bin Laden admitted his role in the attacks, but denied that Moussaoui had participated -- shouldn't this fact be in the article somewhere?  Responsibility section?  Morton devonshire 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden's Recent Admission 

message: I believe this article is unbalanced and frankly ridiculous.  I'm in the UK and we get very different news here... ;-)
In order to be at all scientific about this, we ought to:
* State the BARE facts (see Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks#summary. above)
* Give a BRIEF account of different POVs that attempt to explain why these events occurred
* Link to EXTERNAL sites that support these different POVs
If you'd like my POV (I bet you wouldn't, but hey...), the reason I believe Orwell was thankfully wrong is that he didn't forsee the proletariat becoming such a sophisticated and intellectually independent bunch as we are.  But in order to prove him wrong we need to grow up...simply documenting the American news reports in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as an objective factbase on the event is just plain silly, guys.  I mean come on... (LD)
:In other words, the American reports are biased?--MONGO 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. --Striver 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the news is very different in the UK. The BBC and a few other outlets published a few discredited reports that the hijackers were alive. There's always bias, no matter the source. The current setup of this central article and 9/11 conspiracy theories is perfectly OK. -- Huysmantalk 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surely this is simple? 

message: Does this date have any significance in the Muslim calendar?
:It doesn't exist in the Muslim calendar, "September 11" occurs at a different Muslim date each year. --Golbez 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic date? 

message: Editing the main article, Tarage wrote:
::(diff) (hist) . . September 11 attacks‎; 06:49 . . (-2) . . Tarage (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 263717783 by Kaelfischer (talk) I don't believe that this is the only 'War on Terror' that has occured.)
...
I think you are mistaken, there. We've had a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs (Poverty and Drugs won). We don't usually "declare" war on abstractions.  The closest thing to the 'War on Terror' I'm aware of was called the War on Poland. Himmler and his subordinates sent troops into Poland, covertly, to fire into Germany and dressed a guy named Honionk in a Polish uniform, murdered him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz on the last day of October, 1939. The next morning, thousands of German tanks rolled into Poland to defend the Fatherland (Motherland? Parentland?) from further such terrorism. Well, I'll leave the "a" or "the" to other editors to figure out.
..
By the way, Tarage, how old are you? 
...
Wowest (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking my age is reliant how? --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper word is relevant. -69.124.55.254 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The onlie true war on terrorism