Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 31

message: Since we seem to field the same questions over, and over, again (and the archives are getting huge) it might be a sensible idea to write a FAQ for this page, like the one at Talk:Evolution.  Anyone agree? --Haemo 21:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the FAQ really help there?  do people actually read it? or do they still get the same questions time and again? --Aude (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask them!  --Haemo 21:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I share Aude's concern, but I think that if we write an FAQ then we can dismiss the endless questions by responding, "Read the FAQ."  I think that writing an FAQ is an awesome idea.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a very good idea.  Some organization to the archives, perhaps in the form of a faq as suggested, would make it easier to see what are the reasons for all the conclusions regarding the outcomes of this article.  Place some note at the top of the page recommending people read the faq before posing new questions. Kevin77v 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They seem to agree with this idea, in general, and have found it to be useful.  I guess the hard part will be finding some definitive discussions in the archives to put in it.  Perhaps, if anyone can remember them off, they could link them below?  --Haemo 04:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to pitch in, you can check out my current revision here: User:Haemo/Examples.  Feel free to edit it.  --Haemo 07:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: In order to address the problems raised, it might be a good idea to follow the pattern established at Talk:Intelligent design: have an archive where topics are filed by category. The "FAQ" then becomes an index into the archive, and if someone raises question X, you can look at (or direct them to) the page labelled X in the archives. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ? 

message: According to the US government, there is clear and irrefutable evidence to link Al Qaeda and bin laden to the semptember 11 attacks, but there doesn't seem to be an explanation for why he hasn't been indited for his involvement, despite his common perception as the head master of the event, and even so-called confession tapes of him decribing his involvement.
The article says little about the why this is so, and it seems to only leave the door open for conspiracy theories,especially when bin laden initially denied involvement. Rodrigue 17:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indictment is a legal proceeding.  Often, specific indictments for crimes cannot be handed down with the suspect being in custody, because jurisdictional problems prevent bringing specific types of evidence to bear.  To be quite frank, the FBI hasn't charged him because they don't feel it is of any benefit to charge him until they have him in custody.  This is a very common tactic, especially for high-value and elusive targets, since it betrays less information about what the FBI knows about him.  Any conspiracy theory which relies on this is prima facie hopeless, since if the US government had the gall to set him up, then why on earth would they stop short of indicting him?  --Haemo 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, what to what end?  Any conspiracy theory which used this fact would have to not only overlook standard procedure, but would be forced to apply schitzophrenic rationales to the US government.  They are willing to, what, fake his involvement in the most notable terrorist attack in history but are not willing to use indict him for that involvement?  That doesn't make any sense; it seems to follow the typical "you always find the right crumbs" logic for poor theories. --Haemo 21:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The lead is made up of beliefs rather than facts, not a good way to write an encyclopaedic article.The reason bin Laden has not been indicted is, according to the FBI themselves, because there is no evidence linking him to 9/11. None, nada, zip. That the hijackers were linked to al Qaeda is also supposition as the identities of the hijackers are unknown because they used alias's. I believe al Qaeda is responsible but without evidence I can't say that and neither should the article without qualifying the claims. Is it any wonder there are CT's around when the facts are omitted because they dont mesh with the popular belief? Wayne 16:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama bin laden 

message: diff
=== re: 9/11 was executed prophetically ===
I would like to avoid such reactions  (above) to our article, and am proposing we make it more balanced, as we will not agree on the final truth. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off topic rant removed 

message: I would like to avoid such reactions  (above) to our article, and am proposing we make it more balanced, as we will not agree on the final truth. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: 9/11 was executed prophetically 

message: A lot of wikipedians above are, unawares, violating the  Neutral Point of View consensus directive. I quote from it:
:If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
One can do so: As "conspiracy views" on 911 have been repeatedly uttered, and never revoked, by former Ministers of Britain and Germany — both economic superpowers — Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow, I do not feel it is fair to refer to such theories as 'fringe'. They may be wrong, but they are not fringe.
As I assume there is about a 1/3 - 2/3 distribution on critics versus believers in the official version which is currently portrayed in the article, I propose we will agree to adopt a 20-80 percentage for giving weight WP:NPOV#Undue weight to facts and views regarding this debate, hoping to reach consensus on this; and change the article accordingly. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many structural engineers can you name that support those theories?  what portion of reliable sources adhere to those theories.  The way the article is currently, with a section provided for those theories and link to the subarticle, more than suffices, given how those theories are viewed by the nearly all majority of reliable sources, structural engineers, etc.  I think it may even violate undue weight by giving too much space to those theories.  Just a link in the "see also" section in the bottom would be sufficient. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Since you ask, I'll INSERT this into the discussion.
Here is a list of 149 professional architects and structural engineers
who dispute the Official Bush Regime Conspiracy Theory:
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Wowest 05:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: COMMENT
O.K.  HERE is a list including   
   110+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, 
	and Government Officials
   190+ Engineers and Architects
    50+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
   150+ Professors Question 9/11
   180+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
    90+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
There is probably some overlap with the other list in the Engineer and
Architect section.  Of course, many people in all of these categories
haven't given it a thought. They just believed what Corporate Mainstream
Media broadcast. This is no "fringe" phenomenon.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Wowest 05:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment How many structural engineers I can name is not relevant; it suffices to name any prominent adherents to make the minority view worth describing in the article. Your opinion is that we should treat the minority views in sub-articles only, AND refer to those articles as less as possible. I disagree with both.<BR>I am not really into the subject, but I can point you to a physics professor, Steven Jones, previously not controversial; and the leading demolitions expert in the Netherlands, when interviewed on TV, immediately assumed controlled demolition from the sight of the WTC7-collapse. I do not know about the sound. But again, I'm not debating whether these people are right or wrong, I am just debating the allocation of space. And we should definitely mention these views proportionally in the article, or else we need to throw-away or overhaul our guidelines on NPOV. — Xiutwel (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do mention those views in this article, in an appropriate amount of detail per WP:SUMMARY and link to the subarticle.  There are numerous articles about various aspects of the attacks, but we can only have small sections about some of these aspects in the main article (e.g. only two sentences about the 9/11 Commission, short section on rescue and recovery, etc).  Given that those conspiracy theory views are by and large rejected by reliable sources (with good fact checking), there is no reason to give them undue weight here.  The section we have suffices and is consistent with how we handle subarticles. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Aude. There are plenty of other articles which document conspiracy theories and other notions regarding this event.MONGO 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: NPOV does not mean putting reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Most of the dissenting "viewpoints" are demonstrably incorrect. Peter Grey 16:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, uh, who wants to help out on the FAQ, so we can just say "See the FAQ" ;) --Haemo 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Haemo, I feel a FAQ would be more useful when there is consensus. Consensus is defined as: editors may still disagree, but all abide by a compromise which best serves everybody's needs. There is, to my knowledge, no such compromise. In stead there is a majority viewpoint, defended succesfully by means of edit warring, not by debate(Editors who have debated well, excluded ofcourse). — Xiutwel ♫☻♥♪ (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll have to coin the phrase "there is no debating with the insane." The only ones who edit war are you and the minority. The majority are quite satisfied with this article. --Tarage 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV guideline violation / and proposal to move forward 

message: I'm not sure if I was seeing things or not... but just in case be on the lookout for a refrence named watson. Somehow it got stuck into the article for a few minutes, then vanished as I was trying to hunt it down. It links to a typical "Question 9/11" webpage. Clearly the act of a desperate troll... --Tarage 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no shortage of them.--MONGO 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elementary my dear Watson 

message: President Bush says, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." (President George W. Bush) Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People Bin Laden says the White House is "hiding the Truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)."   
Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated that politicians are lying to the American people about the terrorists' motives, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live. And there's a huge burden of guilt to be laid at Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, both parties for simply lying to the American people." Lou Dobbs CNN  
During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004  
Jason Burke, author of Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, makes the point that, "Bin Laden is an activist with a very clear sense of what he wants and how he hopes to achieve it. Those means may be far outside the norms of political activity as we usually understand it, but his agenda is a basically political one, though it is couched, of course, in religious language and imagery." He says bin Laden's aim is "to end the repression of the Islamic world by the hypocrite governments and the 'Crusader-Zionist' alliance supporting and manipulating them." 
Counter-terrorism expert Richard A. Clarke, says to understand why America was targeted we need to remember foreign policies of the last 25 years. Policies of "confronting Moscow in Afghanistan, inserting the U.S. military in the Persian Gulf," and "strengthening Israel as a base for a southern flank against the Soviets."
 
THAT is all well wrirten and sourced! You claim (see above): "I recently re-wrote the "motive" section of the article, because it had turned into a poorly sourced, and poorly formatted quote farm." and that simply isn't true. Tel555 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, we specifically explain that the explanations of Al Qaeda were supported by the 9/11 report.  Why does it matter if an FBI agent says the same thing?  I mean, right now, the article says basically "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report".  You want to add in a new section that makes it say "al-Qaeda claims that its motives are X, Y and Z, as supported by the 9/11 Commission report.  Also, an FBI agent who testified before the guys who made the 9/11 Commission report also says their motives are X, Y and Z."  What's the point?   As I said, redundant -- the material which was poorly sourced referred to another part of the edit.  --Haemo 01:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tel555 has been blocked for WP:3RR.  This article is on my watch list, so I blocked.  The 4th revert was after the warning.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by others

message: The article presents as fact numerous presumptions which have not been proven and as such they simply might not be true.  In short, from the missing Boeing 757 at the Pentagon to the blantant demolition of the WTC Building 7, the story presented in the article here is overtly biased.  
This article violates the NPOV, it fails to "represent[] fairly and without bias all significant views" of people speaking up here and numerous authorities on 9/11, many of whom hold credentials which make them "reliable sources". Bofors7715 03:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Questioned previously and overwhelmingly rejected.  I suppose you can bring it up again, if you want to.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The operative word in WP:NPOV is "signifigant".  Please read about undue weight to  understand why there is only a small mention on this page, and then an entire article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Haemo 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question the neutrality of this article.

message: Are there any security cameras around Pentagon, can someone post a video or a picture of a plane hiting the Pentagon building? Mkashifafzal 11:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN video - Old, old story.  Also the #1 hit when doing a Google search on "pentagon plane camera".  Does your question have something to do with improving the article? --StuffOfInterest 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some screenshots of the video - User:Aude/Pentagon, with links to videos and other information. --Aude (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't you think it will improve the article currently poised in favor of US Govt.'s story? some 3000 were killed in US and some hundreds of thousands in afghanistan just lost their lives because US thought it was their fault, I wonder how a question be an "old story" if not answered, i am searching on net to find more clips and pictures of that crash, from other cameras showing an aircraft flying in and not a cruise missile flying low, your posted links of CNN are not working :P, thanks for your concern.Mkashifafzal 11:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone know how come it took several years and even lawsuits to get those blurry images released? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck trying to find out the answer to that mystery! It could take years to get any information out of those government bureaucrats, and even then you'd probably have to file... oh wait. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Question 

message: How many Wikipedia editors here think 9/11 was an inside job? If so, why are we using the mainstream theory, which nobody believes anymore? Come on guys, we all know that Cheney gave the stand-down orders for NORAD. This article needs some serious revision.
:We already have a 'crazy theories bin' for that. --Tarage 00:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another question 

message: Here is what i suggest for it
"The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by terrorist[2], suspected by US Government as Islamic extremists on that date upon the United States of America." Is it OK.
Here's a reply I've been working on for questions and suggestions of this nature:
===The article isn't neutral (or "why do you not mention...")===
Another common question that is asked about the article is why certain theories are not mentioned, or why the manner in which the article is written uses definite language (i.e. "is" instead of "presumably is", "were" instead of "believed to be", etc.).  This is rooted in our neutral point of view policy — specifically, in the idea that while we are bound to explain information fairly, and neutrally, and the amount of space, text, and context, devoted to any particular view needs to be weighted by how much credence qualified, reliable sources give them.  This is especially critical when we are talking about pages which discuss a general topic, like this one, and are segmented into subpages.
An understanding of what this entails is rooted in summary style — that is, a Wikipedia article is composed of sections, which are in turn pages as they expand and grow.  Any given fact, opinion, or viewpoint has a "size" or degree of scope based on its coverage and acceptance in reliable sources who are generally accepted to be qualified about the subject.  For example, the flight number of the plane which struck the South Tower (175) is a very important, and relevant fact to an article about the attacks.  However, the original pilot of Flight 175 (Victor Saracini) is not that relevant — so, he does not appear on the 9/11 attacks page.  However, instead he appears on United Airlines Flight 175, and further gets a whole biography on the September 11 Wiki.
This same process applies to opinions, and theories, in an analogous way.  For example, there has long been theories that Adolf Hitler survived the invasion of Berlin in 1945, and fled to Argentina; there have been books on the subject, and picture purportedly of him.  However, if you read the article, it doesn't mention any of these; they plainly say that Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide in their bunker.  This plain, direct, statement of fact has been disputed -- however, it does not violate neutrality guidelines to make it; rather, neutrality guidelines support it.  The concept here is undue weight — that is, giving too much space, credence, or weight to viewpoints which are not accepted by reliable sources who are qualified experts on the subject.  To qualify the entire article, and the entire story of Hitler's life, based on a fringe theory violates neutral point of view.
This does not, however, mean that it is always inappropriate.  Continuing the Hitler example, above — although talking about the theories surrounding Hitler's death on the main article is inappropriate, there is an entire article called "Death of Adolf Hitler" which discusses the theories and speculation surrounding his death.  The theory, which has not very much mainstream credence, is removed to a subpage; much like the name of the Flight 175 pilot is removed, as well.
The analogy is then clear for the 9/11 article; there are numerous theories surrounding who carried out the attacks, whether they had inside support, what planes hit which buildings, whether they were planes at all, whether the Jews had anything to do with it, whether the towers where dynamited, etc.  The list is endless, and ongoing.  However, the simple fact remains that an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources, both in and outside of the government, disagree with them; they are fringe theories, in the same way that Hitler escaping his death is a fringe theory.  A good way to put it is that there are many questions about the 9/11 attacks which have not been answered; however, the major narrative of the attacks is not challenged by any of the most credible question.  This article follows neutral point of view and gives conspiracy theories a short section, and then an entire sub-article at 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, following undue weight guidelines this article does not compromise the overall structure of the article — in the same way Hitler doesn't talk about him as if he escaped death, this article uses definite wording, and definite phrasing to explain the view outlined and supported by reliable sources who hold expert credentials on the subject.
::All I am able to extract from your note above is that since the RELIABLE SOURCE is only US Government, so the article shall say what US Government says. All world media has been floating stories delivered in press releases by US Govt. spokesmen, if they reprint those stories, do the stories become mainstream beliefs?
::As you mentioned several questions are not answered, I believe this incident has been the higly obscured incident ever happened in modern worlds history, to cover such an incident in an encyclopedia, just a few years after the incident when the details of the same are not clear, should be in a manner of using not definitive terms please.
::I wonder where would US citizen stand if even a single conspiracy theory begins to be considered mainstream belief, they have supported their government to murder 700,000 humans in retaliation. It is something that will never be let to happen, thanks to CIA.
::Refering your example, if we were living in 1948 or even in 1958, I would be of the opinion to put the event of Hitlers suicide in indefinitive terms, and LET TIME REVEAL THE TRUTH Mkashifafzal 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... if you honestly think that the US is that powerful in it's ability to 'hide the truth', then nothing I say to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise because you could always simply say I was a government plant. So, I'll save the effort for someone who isn't completly batshit insane. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for revealing the truth about your ethics Mkashifafzal 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything for you crazy. --Tarage 10:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I have the consensus to modify the first paragraph as suggested above?Mkashifafzal 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't. Why would I say "you are crazy" and then say "go ahead and add your crazy theories". Either you read into that way too much(Like you probably do with everything else 9/11 related), or you are as crazy as I claim. Either way, no. --Tarage 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference no 2 added, is UN's press release, this reference contradicts with the immediate the blunt quote afterwards which says "Islamic Terrorists", there is no referal to any such term in UN Press release, so either a reference should be added, (though not necessary) or the suggestion on top should be opted, and i want someone else to do that edit.203.81.196.100 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your work on this, Haemo. It is a good starting point for a consensus FAQ for 911. (Though, at this moment, I am not happy with the 911 article) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't know if we need an FAQ on the main page... maybe at the top of the talk page... as for consensus, you'll find that most of us are already AT consensus. It is only people like Mkashifafzal who think the US government is the most evil entity in existance and Bush is clearly Satan who have serious gripes with this article. Most sane people, including yourself, accept that it probably isn't a conspiricy, and just want to debate about choise wording. I hope atleast. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tarage, as a liberal who thinks that Bush is evil but still believes that he and the rest of the government had nothing to do with 9/11, I wish you'd stop with the repeated hostile language; the way that you consistently refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories as "liberal", or make references to the liberal nature of the people who believe them, is akin to saying that the terrorists were "Muslims".  While it is likely true, it unfairly demonizes a large majority of people who would use that label.  That's why we say "radical Islam" when discussing terrorists, to distinguish between the terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims.  I am asking you to refrain from such broad generalizations; as an actual survivor of 9/11 who is also a liberal, I find it very off-putting to come on here and find that the two sides are "batshit crazy people" and "people who are very good at retorting the batshit crazy people, but are also bashing liberals."  It seems as if your repeated liberal bashing is unneccessary and has no relevance or place in these conversations. 64.95.27.5 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article will remain disputed for decades may be, there is no need for it to be specific, let wikipedia to be unbiased, by keeping articles of this nature deviate from normal wikipedia styles of using definitive terms. Mkashifafzal 10:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid, yet people (like Tarage) do settle on this statement that "Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false." but forget that upon lack of evidence we can not convict the accused. A big mistake has been committed by Bush administration, immediately after the attacks they launched an International Justice program, even a bigger mistake is to try to defend that mistake.Mkashifafzal 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid." You either need to cite this, or step asside. The fact is, it is NOT a widespread belief. Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way. Mkashifafzal, you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened. --Tarage 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For citation of above quote, read all of this talk page, all I understand is that there are two opinions, even though I do not mean to mention any theory on the main article, yet the first paragraph (this is where i started) should be written by giving weight to the Dispute and the difference of opinnion, the way that is to be indeffinate in saying blah blah. That Adolf Hitler example quoted above is an appropriate one, regardless of what happened to him, here in 21st centure it is ok to say he died, but imagin living in 1950 and say that he died, dont you expect more people to oppose you, will they all be crazy? why at that point is it not approproate to show uncertainity at a platform like an encyclopedia to give weight to the difference of opinionsMkashifafzal 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About first paragraph 

message: Another common question that is asked about the article is why certain theories are not mentioned, or why the manner in which the article is written uses definite language (i.e. "is" instead of "presumably is", "were" instead of "believed to be", etc.).  This is rooted in our neutral point of view policy — specifically, in the idea that while we are bound to explain information fairly, and neutrally, and the amount of space, text, and context, devoted to any particular view needs to be weighted by how much credence qualified, reliable sources give them.  This is especially critical when we are talking about pages which discuss a general topic, like this one, and are segmented into subpages.
An understanding of what this entails is rooted in summary style — that is, a Wikipedia article is composed of sections, which are in turn pages as they expand and grow.  Any given fact, opinion, or viewpoint has a "size" or degree of scope based on its coverage and acceptance in reliable sources who are generally accepted to be qualified about the subject.  For example, the flight number of the plane which struck the South Tower (175) is a very important, and relevant fact to an article about the attacks.  However, the original pilot of Flight 175 (Victor Saracini) is not that relevant — so, he does not appear on the 9/11 attacks page.  However, instead he appears on United Airlines Flight 175, and further gets a whole biography on the September 11 Wiki.
This same process applies to opinions, and theories, in an analogous way.  For example, there has long been theories that Adolf Hitler survived the invasion of Berlin in 1945, and fled to Argentina; there have been books on the subject, and picture purportedly of him.  However, if you read the article, it doesn't mention any of these; they plainly say that Hitler and Eva Braun committed suicide in their bunker.  This plain, direct, statement of fact has been disputed -- however, it does not violate neutrality guidelines to make it; rather, neutrality guidelines support it.  The concept here is undue weight — that is, giving too much space, credence, or weight to viewpoints which are not accepted by reliable sources who are qualified experts on the subject.  To qualify the entire article, and the entire story of Hitler's life, based on a fringe theory violates neutral point of view.
This does not, however, mean that it is always inappropriate.  Continuing the Hitler example, above — although talking about the theories surrounding Hitler's death on the main article is inappropriate, there is an entire article called "Death of Adolf Hitler" which discusses the theories and speculation surrounding his death.  The theory, which has not very much mainstream credence, is removed to a subpage; much like the name of the Flight 175 pilot is removed, as well.
The analogy is then clear for the 9/11 article; there are numerous theories surrounding who carried out the attacks, whether they had inside support, what planes hit which buildings, whether they were planes at all, whether the Jews had anything to do with it, whether the towers where dynamited, etc.  The list is endless, and ongoing.  However, the simple fact remains that an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources, both in and outside of the government, disagree with them; they are fringe theories, in the same way that Hitler escaping his death is a fringe theory.  A good way to put it is that there are many questions about the 9/11 attacks which have not been answered; however, the major narrative of the attacks is not challenged by any of the most credible question.  This article follows neutral point of view and gives conspiracy theories a short section, and then an entire sub-article at 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, following undue weight guidelines this article does not compromise the overall structure of the article — in the same way Hitler doesn't talk about him as if he escaped death, this article uses definite wording, and definite phrasing to explain the view outlined and supported by reliable sources who hold expert credentials on the subject.
::All I am able to extract from your note above is that since the RELIABLE SOURCE is only US Government, so the article shall say what US Government says. All world media has been floating stories delivered in press releases by US Govt. spokesmen, if they reprint those stories, do the stories become mainstream beliefs?
::As you mentioned several questions are not answered, I believe this incident has been the higly obscured incident ever happened in modern worlds history, to cover such an incident in an encyclopedia, just a few years after the incident when the details of the same are not clear, should be in a manner of using not definitive terms please.
::I wonder where would US citizen stand if even a single conspiracy theory begins to be considered mainstream belief, they have supported their government to murder 700,000 humans in retaliation. It is something that will never be let to happen, thanks to CIA.
::Refering your example, if we were living in 1948 or even in 1958, I would be of the opinion to put the event of Hitlers suicide in indefinitive terms, and LET TIME REVEAL THE TRUTH Mkashifafzal 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow... if you honestly think that the US is that powerful in it's ability to 'hide the truth', then nothing I say to the contrary will ever convince you otherwise because you could always simply say I was a government plant. So, I'll save the effort for someone who isn't completly batshit insane. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for revealing the truth about your ethics Mkashifafzal 09:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything for you crazy. --Tarage 10:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I have the consensus to modify the first paragraph as suggested above?Mkashifafzal 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't. Why would I say "you are crazy" and then say "go ahead and add your crazy theories". Either you read into that way too much(Like you probably do with everything else 9/11 related), or you are as crazy as I claim. Either way, no. --Tarage 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference no 2 added, is UN's press release, this reference contradicts with the immediate the blunt quote afterwards which says "Islamic Terrorists", there is no referal to any such term in UN Press release, so either a reference should be added, (though not necessary) or the suggestion on top should be opted, and i want someone else to do that edit.203.81.196.100 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV|The article isn't neutral]] (or "why do you not mention...")

message: *The use of "allegedly"
*Asymmetrical POV
*Conspiracy & POV
*Disputes
*More disputes
*NPOV?
*Reducing 9/11 Disputes: A Possible Way Forward
See if it answers your question.  --Haemo 20:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your work on this, Haemo. It is a good starting point for a consensus FAQ for 911. (Though, at this moment, I am not happy with the 911 article) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't know if we need an FAQ on the main page... maybe at the top of the talk page... as for consensus, you'll find that most of us are already AT consensus. It is only people like Mkashifafzal who think the US government is the most evil entity in existance and Bush is clearly Satan who have serious gripes with this article. Most sane people, including yourself, accept that it probably isn't a conspiricy, and just want to debate about choise wording. I hope atleast. --Tarage 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tarage, as a liberal who thinks that Bush is evil but still believes that he and the rest of the government had nothing to do with 9/11, I wish you'd stop with the repeated hostile language; the way that you consistently refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories as "liberal", or make references to the liberal nature of the people who believe them, is akin to saying that the terrorists were "Muslims".  While it is likely true, it unfairly demonizes a large majority of people who would use that label.  That's why we say "radical Islam" when discussing terrorists, to distinguish between the terrorists and the vast majority of Muslims.  I am asking you to refrain from such broad generalizations; as an actual survivor of 9/11 who is also a liberal, I find it very off-putting to come on here and find that the two sides are "batshit crazy people" and "people who are very good at retorting the batshit crazy people, but are also bashing liberals."  It seems as if your repeated liberal bashing is unneccessary and has no relevance or place in these conversations. 64.95.27.5 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article will remain disputed for decades may be, there is no need for it to be specific, let wikipedia to be unbiased, by keeping articles of this nature deviate from normal wikipedia styles of using definitive terms. Mkashifafzal 10:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid, yet people (like Tarage) do settle on this statement that "Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false." but forget that upon lack of evidence we can not convict the accused. A big mistake has been committed by Bush administration, immediately after the attacks they launched an International Justice program, even a bigger mistake is to try to defend that mistake.Mkashifafzal 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "It is widespread belief that several answers and evidences given are not solid." You either need to cite this, or step asside. The fact is, it is NOT a widespread belief. Many many experts in many many feilds have concluded that what was documented by the 9/11 comission, as well as the Bush administration is what actually occured that way. Mkashifafzal, you can argue till you are blue in the face, but the fact remains that islamic extremists flew jets into buildings on 9/11. You may not LIKE that, but it IS what happened. --Tarage 17:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For citation of above quote, read all of this talk page, all I understand is that there are two opinions, even though I do not mean to mention any theory on the main article, yet the first paragraph (this is where i started) should be written by giving weight to the Dispute and the difference of opinnion, the way that is to be indeffinate in saying blah blah. That Adolf Hitler example quoted above is an appropriate one, regardless of what happened to him, here in 21st centure it is ok to say he died, but imagin living in 1950 and say that he died, dont you expect more people to oppose you, will they all be crazy? why at that point is it not approproate to show uncertainity at a platform like an encyclopedia to give weight to the difference of opinionsMkashifafzal 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related archives

message: I get called a vandal for adding a link the The Complete 9/11timeline, which is a timeline with links to 3355 articles from mainstream media sites. 
Blah42 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's super, but maybe you'll change your view when you read our external linking guidelines; specifically, point 12 under "what should be avoided".  --Haemo 00:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We also talked about this at great length a while back and there was consensus that it not be added. See archive 26 I think. There are multiple problems with it. RxS 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: So... the longer the argument, the better it is? You need to take some debate classes my friend. --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You completely lost the debate when you called me a vandal for adding a link that is linked to on numerous other Wiki pages. Blah42 21:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you randomly add a link without any sort of consensus, yes, that is valdalism. But I am in awe of your ability to determine when a debate is won and lost. I wasn't aware I was in the presence of a deity. --Tarage 23:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The straw poll was over whether or not it violated guidelines, and should be included.  I would point to the open wiki nature of the project to back up that point.  --Haemo 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, it's still linked to by some Wiki pages, which makes sense, because no one has made an equivalent timeline.  I think that edits have to be approved by the project manager, Paul Thompson. He has a book on Amazon, so he's not just some anonymous guy. Blah42 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem like an angry fellow. Perhaps you should take a break from editing, and come back when you have a cool head? --Tarage 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've re-added the link. I think it is a disgrace to not link to a wikipedia article because the content doesn't suit you? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with linking the the Complete 9/11 Timeline? 

message: Is it really necessary to link September 11 and 2001 in the bold part of the lead sentence? I find it makes the lead uglier without adding much.-Wafulz 18:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, per WP:DATE, the date should always be linked so a user's date preferences are displayed. Dave101→talk  09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: I am moving/have moved this entire section to Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center#Reminder/firefighter . — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: I'm sorry, I'm certain there's a lot of work behind it, but this article appears to be in a very poor state. Why isn’t it updated accordingly to the new or some extremely old data? I've just took a look at the some of discussions, so forgive me if you went through this already, but neither here or at the sibling articles I've found any reference or mention of that FOIA request which showed that there were no Arabs on Flight 77. How come? 
I'd guess that official FOIA documents are valid references? Are they?
 Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77 78.0.67.12 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those documents say is that the coroner did not autopsy anyone with an Arabic name.  There were also no Arabic names on the original flight list.  Why is this important?  Who knows?  Instead, we have basically a non-notable online blog trying to make news by speculating about what this implies.  It has no bearing on the 9/11 attacks at all; at best it might be footnote on 9/11 conspiracies. --Haemo 03:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haemo, if the Arabs hijacked the planes, and there are no Arabic names on the flight list, and we know the names of the other casualties, could you please tell me under which non-Arab names the hijackers have boarded the planes? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, perhaps said Arabs were simply not autopsied by the coroner?  The article Flight 77 amply covers the evidence that these people did, indeed board the plane and flew it into the pentagon.  --Haemo 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no, I am not talking about autopsy now, just passenger lists. If you suggest the Arabs were there, but not autopsied, I'd expect them to be on a passenger list, either under an Arab or a non-Arab name. Correct? I do not know. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because it's simply not true; most of the "passenger lists" obtained omitted the terrorists in the first place.  Reconstructions of the seating, as the Boston Globe did for Flight 11, give complete seating charts -- including the terrorists.  In fact, Flight 77 has even stronger evidence, with one of the hijackers caught on film both boarding the plane, and being searched by security prior to entry.  Regardless, I don't see what any of this has to do with the article.  --Haemo 04:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: has to do with the article. Well: If the article claims there were Arabs on board, it should explain why they are not on the passenger lists. (Reconstructions are no help. Anyone can reconstruct that IF they were on board, they had to sit somewhere.) Please provide a RS for their omission. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, they are.  Printed transcripts, obtain by the Boston Post and other sites online pinpoint the exact seats -- the Globe even did a graphic for Flight 11.  The fact that some people are confused about this is totally immaterial to this article -- if anything, it would be a minor footnote on Flight 77, or a related article.  --Haemo 05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please be willing to provide such a minor footnote? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an editor on that page; you should probably discuss it with the editors there.  --Haemo 05:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: They are example: Flight 11. but please remember: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.  RxS 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the manifest! I am afraid I would rather have a real one, i.e. where terrorists are not in bold, but a simple passenger list. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are available if you request them; for instance these guys have a copy.  However, I would just like to reiterate that this has pretty much nothing to do with this page and we should really not be discussing it.  Haemo 05:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that conspiracy theorists like to confuse two things: passenger lists and victim lists. A whole bunch of conspiracy theories have been created based on not understanding that terrorists aren't victims. Looks like there is a new variant of that scam: equating passenger list and autopsy list. Weregerbil 06:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Haemo and Weregerbil. I see there is a lot of confusion about it. But surely, 6 years later, the names under which the terrorists boarded are known? What are those 19 names? Thx — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After 20 seconds of googling: . Also the 9/11 Commission Report. We should drop this discussion though; talk pages are for article maintenance. Weregerbil 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: those are official documents obtained through FOIA, one can hardly find more valid reference than that… the fact is the autopsy showed no Arabs on Flight 77, that is officially, and there is no official explanation for such discrepancy. So where is the problem? Just say it as it is, officially, there were no Arabs on Flight 77. 89.172.46.93 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOIA no Arabs on Flight 77 

message: The end part of the lead section of 9/11 article says:
"Rebuilding the World Trade Center site has proven more difficult, with controversy over possible designs as well as the pace of construction. Construction delays, revised cost estimates, security concerns, and public criticism have all led to changes and delays to the final plans in rebuilding the complex to this day."
I don't think it is appropriate to mention what is written above. I've replaced it with:
"The rebuilding process has started on the World Trade Center site. In 2006 a new office tower was completed on the site of 7 World Trade Center. The Freedom Tower is currently under construction at the site and at 1,776 ft (541 m) upon completion in 2011, will become the one of the tallest buildings in North America. Three more towers are expected to be built between 2007 and 2012 on the site."
I believe it is important to mention about Freedom Tower on the lead section, and also about the recent progresses regarding the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site. AdjustShift (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section of 9/11 article