Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 29

message: This article provides no discussion of questions to the official story of the September the 11th attacks excepting a simple reference to their existence.  It seems unwise to dismiss arguments that are shared by millions of Americans and huge portions of the international population.  If wikipedia is to be the free and open forum of the people, it certainly should not engage in suppressing dissenting opinion.  It seems reasonable that at least a brief overview of fundamental challenges to the veracity of the 9/11 account should be given in the main article.
:Indeed.  This article is constantly monitored to ensure that conspiracy theories do not get mentioned.  Nothing that even slightly opposes the official point of view makes it into this article.  This is despite the fact that a large and growing number of people are demanding a new investigation into the events.  As an example, by reading the discussion pages you can see that even the mere suggestion that something be said about the activies of the top US officials during the attacks is deemed to be conspiracy theory and not relevant to this article.  That is only a single example of many.  Anything even close to hinting a possible conspiracy, whether it directly implies it or not, is relegated to a separate article.  Wikipedia's goal is NPOV?  Has it succeeded?  Not in this article.  Wikipedia is a great resource.  However, this article is a testiment to its shortcomings. Kevin77v 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes one wonder, how fragile must your own point of view be if you will not begrudge even the suggestion that there is another point of view? Oneismany 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ignores 'conspiracy theories' 

message: I seen an episode of a new show on the FUSE netowkr called The Whitest Kids You Know.  In a segment named Trevor talks to kids, there is a 15 second part where the character, 'Trevor', implies to the kids in a classroom that the 911 attacks was a conspiracy and that President Bush worships satan.  I am very outraged that this was brought up being 911 is nothing to joke about.  There was a news article mentioning about the segment and people upset and angry over it.  This sketch comedy group is way over the top.  I figured it would be a good addition to this article.  Maybe help them get off the air. --gchsbus 13:42, 05 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you raise the issue with the producers. Peter Grey 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's so much fuss about conspiracies now, imagine what it would be like for your children's generation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? That's an argumentum ad populum "a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." Mieciu K 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 Spoof in new sketch comedy show 

message: Wondering if at the bottom of the article we include any links or info to David Hicks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.138.170 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Off topic. Peter Grey 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: uh, no.--Beguiled 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion into info box? 

message: "NIST's implication that total and complete structural collapse and the destruction of the entire building following "collapse initiation" is unsupported by the laws of physics, logic, history, data, calculations, science of any kind, computer models, or physical models." 
The Request for Correction --Lovelight 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confusing "researchers" opinions with facts. Opinions are like, well you know...everyones got one. These opinions are better suited in the conspiracy theories article if they belong anywhere (which they don't really). RxS 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, to put it as vaguely as possible, those obviously misleading and deliberately misconstrued opinions of "researches" (whose work is in doubt) are OK, while the opinions of those who are asking for clarification are not. Have you read through the Request? It deserves a section you know, not to say that it goes along with that other "newly acquired" data, that is, those blueprints which leaked earlier this month. All of this is related, there is a whole wealth of new information. So, why wouldn’t we, for a change, start to improve this article? Anyway, I'm not sure why it needs to be pointed out, but you are confusing the issue here, "facts" are challenged (for a very long time now), so let's recognize that challenge, with regards to the NPOV and all that. Lovelight 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could find its way into Collapse of WTC article, but I doubt it will reach consensus. If NIST responds to this (hell they should), then it automatically gets there. Anyway, it's amazing how some give infinite belief to "opinions" by NIST researches and give no credence to other scientists who investigated the issue (those would be: [..]This Request for Correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.). Their words are more than "opinions". Appeal to authority fallacy at work. Anyone to point exactly where is something wrong with the discussed document? SalvNaut 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it been published by a neutral third party source? Didn't Steven Jones get removed from his teaching position due to his unsubstantiated allegations?--MONGO 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, let's get this clear: Steven Jones did not get removed because of his scientific work. Secondly, this document can be attributed to a group of respectable scientists, some with great scientific account. This document could serve as a representation of the fact that not all scientists agree (a few does) with NIST report on scientific background. I doubt it will on Wikipedia. SalvNaut 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends on how you define respectable, in any case this represents a tiny minority of opinion (much of which is held by people working outside their field of expertise) and is not mainstream nor notible enough for inclusion here. The conspiracy theories article is a good spot maybe. RxS 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please, could you point me to a paragraph, where you do not agree with this document? Because if you find one, I can at least be sure that you have looked into it and have think about it. Then, we could discuss why do you call this type of document "opinion". SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohoo muchacho, some folks should ease down on that Occam, heavy stuff ;)… I'd suggest you use good old Organon instead. Say, RxS, SalvNaut already pointed to expertise, read it… I'm interested, this tiny minority of opinions? You are well aware of public polls, check the history of this talk page if you are uncertain, not to talk about petitions, there are countless petitions out there, would you like to see some? As for your point, we may move this to the controlled demolition article, but it won't end up in conspiracy. Decent folks who are asking serious and disturbing questions are not conspiracy theorists. We are talking about the concerned citizens here. The official take on events is disputed questioned & challenged. It's time for this article to reflect that fact. Lovelight 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, we agree that gathering of the evidence was defective. What is exactly the basis for your conclusion that temperature and fire was the main cause for the collapse? "Ockam knife"? You have a random sample from a distribution you have no idea about and you claim that through Ockham razor you are able to identify its peak?? SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The fallacy of your reasoning comes from the fact that you attribute infinitely low probability to an event (collapse because of some other factors than plane hit and fire) without any justification (apart from the one in your head, in your beliefs, of course). SalvNaut 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If an encyclopedia and a propaganda video contradict each other, why do people suggest the encyclopedia is the one that's wrong? Peter Grey 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You're at the wrong article, the one you want is 9/11 conspiracy theories--Mbc362 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Come back when you learn the meaning of the terms "reliable source of information" and "photomontage". Mieciu K 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't? It has a large conspiracy theory section with a large number of attendant articles. It has more than enough 'representation'. No, there's no proof whatsoever that there's a setup. There might be circumstantial evidence, but so far, the only proof I have is that some planes flew into some buildings and then they fell down. --Golbez 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There are both serious and frivolous questions regarding the September 11 attacks.  The serious questions are important, but none of them challenge the fundamentals of the narrative. Peter Grey 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Request for Correction

message: 1. In the "Investigations" section, should not the paragraph about the 9/11 Commission precede the material about NIST and the collapse of the buildings? The latter is a more specific area of interest than the general investigation conducted by the 9/11 Commission, the lead investigative body appointed by the president and Congress. 
2. I've added the review conducted by the CIA's IG (see talk page above). 
3. There was also a FEMA investigation, which I think should be briefly mentioned and linked to here. --NYCJosh 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US Goverment Investigations

message: How about a section or article on how different TV shows(e.g. The Daily Show) handled the attacks, because I always wondered did they ignore it, did they make fun of the President, what did they say and maybe what changed in the format of the shows, for example did they pause to remember the dead or did different advertisers stop showing ads on shows related to 9/11 because of fear that they would get associated with the negative stuff. I think this could make a good and worthy article. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone mentioned this to me and I didn't believe. However I checked the FBI's web page and they only list him as responisble for attacks against a U.S. Facility in the Middle East in 1998. Is there any particular reason he isn't listed as responsible for the 9/11 attack? Zachariahskylab 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TV shows handling of the attacks

message: 1.5 hour documentary convincingly arguing that the towers were demolished - worth watching (maybe :)
http://educatedearth.net/video.php?id=2834
:Well, yes, the towers were demolished. By planes. I just took a quick gander through that and it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever. A convincing argument? Sure, if you're convinced by nothing. Like the bit at .. 28:10. The plane hit high, but the glass shattered low. Does that mean the controlled demolition was already happening? What? If it was, then why did the tower stand for another hour? Really, people, think. You've seen it, so please tell me the timestamp where it explains who installed explosives in 280 stories of office tower, and when it was performed. --Golbez 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - convincingly is not the right word - anyway here is the critique to that film : http://www.911mysteriesguide.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Ubik (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is not - plz remove the warning (which is very vague indeed) The Ubik 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No way to argue the logic of a relevant piece of material? Just add some FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and hope that scares most people away. Honestly Peter, somehow I expected better. I guess I should lower my expectations. Shame on you. (If I'm wrong, please provide a specific link) 65.94.183.246 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to new public domain documentary 

message: I'd like to interlink 9/11: Press for Truth to see also section, apparently there are some issues with such contribution. Please, state your concerns. Lovelight 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not relevant to the Sept 11 attacks.  Just as Flat Earth Society isn't a "See Also" link on Ferdinand Magellan's page.  Feel free to add it to a conspiracy theorytruther page.  --Tbeatty 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "9/11: Press for Truth is a 2006 documentary film about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, directed by the American filmmaker Ray Nowosielski." There is not a single word about conspiracy there. So why would you won't to construct the conspiracy where there is none? I'm sorry but your allegory is extremely misplaced. Lovelight 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flat earthers "document" the fallacy of the mainstream account of the round earth theory.  It's just not relevant. I replaced conspiracy with truther if that's objectionable.  --Tbeatty 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just realized, we are actually experiencing déjà vu… Well, I'd say that movie speaks of 9/11 attacks as well as of "Monitoring and criticising the 9/11 Commission", therefore it belongs here; it definitely doesn’t belong to the article about conspiracies. Decent people who are questioning 911 events are not conspiracy theorists (or truthers). If you would kindly point to this fallacy you've recognized with regards to the documentary? What exactly is wrong with asking questions and demanding factual answers? Not to say that the articles are already interlinked, just not on both sides. Please, elaborate your reasons with focus on this dispute, let's leave these notions about "flat earth" out of this. Lovelight 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's pretty clear that it's a "truther" movie.  Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow but not relevant to the 9/11 attacks.  --Tbeatty 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow"? Perhaps you meant disturbing and relevant? "Truther"? That one is a bit new, at least to me… do we have an article about these truthers? Perhaps you have a valid point? Would you define a truther? Lovelight 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Its already there, we have a section on commission right here; I'm not certain why would one object to such tiny contribution? Especially so if you take a look at see also section as whole. What would be the reasoning behind the inclusion of Path to 9/11 or Freedom Tower or that Twin Towers stub? The link is applicable here and there, it serves as a descriptor of "mentioned" criticism, and we definitely need some balance here. btw, among other subjects, movie questions NORAD's performance as well as the fall of the towers, and I'm glad that you don’t see these issues as "usual conspiracy nonsense." Lovelight 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain why would one object[s]: the part about "9/11: Press for Truth is not about the attacks". More clutter will not benefit the article. Peter Grey 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please, do provide some finer arguments, of course that press for truth is closely related to attacks, much closer than half of the links already provided in that section. We won't clutter anything with such itsy bitsy addition, if this is the reason for dispute, how are we to deal with more serious issues? Lovelight 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey Golbez, did you ravage through talk page once again? Why are you removing valid edits? Why are you removing edits from new contributors? Get a grip, control yourself. Lovelight 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[9/11: Press for Truth]] 

message: I believe we should a section dealing specifically with the charities ,esspecially international ones, should be added, such as Canadad Helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.131.241.8 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International charities 

message: I've looked through archive discussion and found no clear consensus on this topic. Since NIST is indicating that their scenario is only a hypothesis and they're investigating "hypothetical blast scenarios" (those not necessairly being blasts from controlled demolition), and since NIST is the strongest and most recent source on the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, the version proposed by Lovelight seems most appropriate. This version is also in agreement with section of Collapse of the World Trade Center. SalvNaut 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of the collapse of WTC 7 

message: YouTube video:
:"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things - that they did it in a controlled fashion."
I don't know how to approach this. It is a very disturbing statement from a known politician. However, he is not an expert. And the statement is secured with "I think" clause. SalvNaut 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus he was responding to a hypothetical; he did not acknowledge that demolition was actually what happened. Peter Grey 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought he meant they handled the evacuation of the building and the area around it in a controlled fashion. But that makes me some kind of crazy person. --Golbez 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it" Lovelight 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it means nothing at all? Thanks for bringing this to our attention then, SalvNaut! --Golbez 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it means whole lot of things… for example; it means that people need to be better informed, especially some senators, it appears there is huge gap in knowledge… imo it’s a bit early to jump on this one, but as that quote suggest there is a high probability that we'll discuss this in future. Fact is, he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion" (clear statement and popular opinion these days); but we need to wait since he says he'll need to find out about it, he doesn't know enough about it"… it's a bit like NIST's progress report, actually;)… Lovelight 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion"  Wrong.  He said that if there had been a deliberate demolition, that it would have been a responsible action since the building was already in danger of collapse.  He was asked a hypothetical question, his answer is therefore an opinion without factual basis.  He also explicitly repudiated the premise of the question.  All it means is that John Kerry responded gracefully and non-commitally to a dishonest question. Peter Grey 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, again, he said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it"; please, don't mistake a comment (as imo) for argument. Lovelight 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't mistake a comment...for argument Obviously this is comment - hence it does not contribute to the article. Peter Grey 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry about WTC 7: "...they did it in a controlled fashion". 

message: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lovelight. I'd like if some people would endorse or respond to this. --Golbez 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To simply say that WTC7 was in danger of collapse must be verifeid by evidence showing a building in a state of near collapse. There is none. There is no evidence at all showing this building was in a state of near collapse. Therefore the statement appears to have been made to deliberately mislead. The building (WTC7) collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance at free fall speed. There has never been a plausible explanation to this event other than controlled demolition. Any person knowing that the controlled demolition was about to be initiated would say "the building is in danger of collapsing" knowing full well that demolition would soon follow. 203.97.127.35 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  Video shows that a large part of the penthouse of WTC7 collapsed into the building about 20 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed.  The building also had fires on several, if not every floor.  There was heavy structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower.  The reason the article does not mention any of the things you write is because they are not true.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: The truth is now mainstream according to Michael Chertoff. --Striver - talk 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth that "we" are at war with al-Qaeda?  I see nothing "conspiratorist" in that article.  There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's great Chertoff has clued in.  It's been mainstream for everyone else since 11 September 2001. Peter Grey 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like nothing more than Chertoff trying to smear Brzezinski by attempting to link him to conspiracy theorists. Nothing that Brzezinski has ever said has ever been remotely close to such conspiracies. "There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand" yep.--Jersey Devil 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream 

message: I want to thank my friend Lovelight for one very important thing -- he is an excellent source for citations to refute the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  I say, give credit where credit is due -- thanks for this NIST site which easily dispels some of the common CT theories.  Cheers.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories Easily Refuted 

message: Where is the article about President Bush and other adminstrations actions on 9/11? (like President Bush sitting in the schoolroom and flying around, and VP Cheney) There must be 100 links in this article, and I couldn't see one. Why is this info so hard to find? Thank you kindly. Babalooo 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See 9/11 conspiracy theories for pet goats and more.  </font>  MortonDevonshire  Yo  ·  05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Morton is expressing a consensus view. A number of interesting facts about the day of 9/11 (such as the response of GWB and his flights around the country) have come to be associated with "conspiracy theories" and relegated to articles that deal with "myths". It's too bad, and some of us are working on it. You can always try to include a section on the movements of Airforce One or the role of Dick Cheney on that day and see what happens. I'm afraid it will be difficult. Some of us are trying to change that, but we have not been very successful so far.--Thomas Basboll 06:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actions of President Bush and VP Cheney on 9/11 were part of a bad conspiracy Mr. Devonshire? Is that what you say? You and others must think so since you are trying to hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 by without having an article. I think they were only incompetent, not part of a plot so I am a better American and supporter than you and I'm not even American! The truth will set you free Mr. Devonshire. Don't hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 under the rug. Babalooo 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you seen this Mr. Devonshire? It's all documented.  What about President Bush saying he watches the plane hit the tower on TV? What about him sitting in the chair for so long while America was being attacked? Mr. Baseball, could I start an article about 'Actions of top US officials on 9/11 and the next few days'? Babalooo 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on the car that Atta rentaled but not on the actions of top US officials on 9/11!  That is funny. Babalooo 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article you propose is in order. Like I say, be prepared for some rather tough (to my mind excessive) opposition. I think the title better read "Defense operations on 9/11" or something of that order. If that gets to be too big, we can always spin articles out later. You may want to start something in your sandbox (drop me a link and I'll gladly have a look at it). The facts you mention can, as far as I know, easily be documented in accordance with WP policy. Because of the tone here, I'm staying out of article space these days. BTW, it's Basboll but, yes, I get that all the time. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not defense operations, but actions of top USA officials on 9/11 and the difference between what happened and what they say that happened. Do you know Mr. Andy Card and others said that President Bush left the room as soon as they told him about the attack? He said this too many times. The teacher said that too. Why would they lie like that? They must not have knew that there was the videotape of President Bush sitting in the chair for ever and longer while his country was being attacked. It's like Pat Tillman. Too many lies. Babalooo 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how this can be related to conspiracy theories; if Bush wasn't ready, then he clearly wasn't part of any conspiracy.  And certainly there's no ignoring Bush's wholesale inability to cope with the single most fundamental responsibility of his job. Peter Grey 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the government response to 9/11 (including Bush's first moments) doesn't belong in a "conspiracy theory" article, that just makes no sense. However, don't we have a timeline article with this information in detail? --Golbez 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the relevant facts are mentioned in the time line in passing. But that doesn't mean we can't write a bit of prose to explain the issue to a reader that doesn't have time to read through the whole thing.--Thomas Basboll 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would just like to request that User:Babalooo stop inserting this material into the leads of articles related to this topic.  Not only is it disruptive, and violates WP:NPOV to insert such material into the lead, but virtually all of your mainspace edits have consisted of this.  We understand you have an opinion, but this is not the place to be pushing it.  --Haemo 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start an article as soon, but these things are too important to not be in the article on 9/11 attacks, like President Bush reading and talking and making pictures for 12 to 18 minutes while people were dying and jumping 100 floors and burning to death. And then the lies by top administrations one year later lying that he left the room right away as soon as they told him. These are lies.  Proved lies. He sat and talked and made pictures for 12 to 18 minutes. These lies are a conspiracy to make him seem better. Calling this proofs "nonsense" and I think you are a conspiracy theorist for President Bush and his partners.  Where should these proofs go until I make the article? Thank you to not insult me again. Babalooo 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be two extreme viewpoints which both strike me as excessive. The introduction is clearly not appropriate for this item, and editorial comment is really not necessary. However, the major actions taken (or inacation in this case), which are mostly spelled out at September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks, are maybe a little too understated in this article. Little George's deer-in-the-headlights moment (I know 7 minutes is confirmed, there may be sources supporting a longer duration) certainly qualifies as notable reaction. Peter Grey 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He didn't insult you in the first place, and what article will you be making? As for where it goes, I don't know, find a place, but certainly not the intro. --Golbez 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You claim that it took Bush took 12-18 minutes to leave the room.  That's wrong, it took seven minutes.  If the people who claim Bush left the room right away are liars, what does that make you?  Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong too. Look here. It has all the proofs.  President Bush after the reading  about the goats talked to many children also the teacher and the headmistress and reporters more before going to the room with the other top officials. I will make my own article. You may not worry about this one. Babalooo 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make an article containing the information on that page to which you linked I will just edit the page so that it contains none of that garbage.  Remember, we should be providing facts.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this is super - first of all, it's good that you're going to start an article about this, and put this material there; perhaps some of the other, already existing, articles might welcome it.  However, that still doesn't excuse adding this material to the lead of other articles - that violates WP:NPOV, and is disruptive.  Furthermore, I would ask that you restrain yourself and cease the name-calling.  First of all, I never called what you said "nonsense", nor did I insult you.  I have been entirely civil here, and I don't appreciate being accused of things I didn't do.  On the other hand, you have leveled baseless charges of being uncivil at me, and proceeded to call me a "conspiracy theorist for President Bush", despite having no evidence of that.  That's not civil, nor it is it in good faith, and so, I would like you to cease this name-calling entirely.  If you're not willing to discuss this reasonably, I don't think we can work together on this topic.  --Haemo 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will make my own article on 'actions and lies of top USA officials on 9/11 and later'. You may not worry from me with this on this attack article for now. I am sorry if you were not the person who called me nonsense. It was maybe one of the others who called me it. I am sorry if you are not a conspiracy theorist and coverup for President Bush like the others. Babalooo 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your apology - I would be happy to help you with your article, when you make it.  Just post here to tell us about it.  --Haemo 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where? 

message: The neutral point of view	 
	 
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 should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be 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. 	 
	 
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. 	 
	 
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
</blockquote>
Extract from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--Geir 07:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of the neutral point of view 

message: :It's important to distinguish actual facts from disinformation and conclusions.  Clearly there was a defence failure, at least one official (Condoleeza Rice) is known to have been at least negligent, and Bush and Cheney did obstruct subsequent investigations.  The problem is the leap to implicating Little George and/or others in spectacular crimes defying logic, common sense, the evidence, physics, and the alleged motives.  Facts may or may not be suitable in the article, hysterical superstition definitely is not. Peter Grey 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's important to distinguish facts from their interpretations. In my post I felt entitled to defend my stance, when attacked. I feel uncomfortable with my post serving here as an example, so I'll move it back on it's place. SalvNaut 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts versus conspiracy theories 

message: Hi. A discussion elsewhere has raised the possibility that this article could and should have a slightly better summary of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. I am interested in the possibility of drafting such. Of course, I know how controversial this will be, and so I am putting it up here so we can discuss it. Depending on the reaction I may work on a suggested draft in the section below. Meantime if anyone else feels they can come up with a form of words that will satisfy policy and consensus, please feel free to suggest. --Guinnog 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pablo and Mongo, that is a good idea if you want to stress that your point of view (POV) is the correct one. If you want to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV), I would have choosen other words.  --Geir 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no objective analysis of facts that leads to anything other than the official version.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked your userpage Pablo -it looks like you hava an agenda against alternativ points of view (APOV) on this subjeckt. Right? Geir 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My userpage doesn't say anything about conspiracy theories.  The only "agenda" I have is that I like to keep people from inserting cruft into articles.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much my sentiments overall...I figure once they have an inch, they'll want a mile. If it is mentioned in more detail, it needs to be made pretty clear that the issues have zero basis in facts.--MONGO 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your "camels nose in the tent"-consern. But until the editors here comprehend that the people questioning the mainstream-version are not few, this articel will fail to provide balanced information for the readers.  Geir 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let us hope after reading this article, they'll become better educated.--MONGO 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories 

message: Comments? --Guinnog 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Pablo and Mongo, that is a good idea if you want to stress that your point of view (POV) is the correct one. If you want to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV), I would have choosen other words.  --Geir 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no objective analysis of facts that leads to anything other than the official version.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked your userpage Pablo -it looks like you hava an agenda against alternativ points of view (APOV) on this subjeckt. Right? Geir 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My userpage doesn't say anything about conspiracy theories.  The only "agenda" I have is that I like to keep people from inserting cruft into articles.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much my sentiments overall...I figure once they have an inch, they'll want a mile. If it is mentioned in more detail, it needs to be made pretty clear that the issues have zero basis in facts.--MONGO 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your "camels nose in the tent"-consern. But until the editors here comprehend that the people questioning the mainstream-version are not few, this articel will fail to provide balanced information for the readers.  Geir 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then let us hope after reading this article, they'll become better educated.--MONGO 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments - draft conspiracy theories paragraph

message: I take Guinnog's citations of his sources as true, though I will verify them later.
Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account, which typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press. On page 3 Bazant and Verdure write "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows..." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers reject this hypothesis.Interim report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and updates 
Thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing about this version is it is alluding to the LIHOP (Let it happen theory)...but some conspiracy theorists believe in that the MIHOP (Make it happen) theory...so I tried to eliminate both and just say that the government was involved according to CTer's. I didn't mention shawdoy figures in association with the government since we are still talking about the governement having foreknowledge or involvement in some way or another  as a central believe of the majority of the CTer's...few if any CTer's believe that there wasn't government involvement at some level. I prefer to see no more than what we have since I think once we start adding more about this, then that won't be enough...in time the article will have more and more CT stuff. The daughter articles is the best place to put all but a short intro about that stuff.--MONGO 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Review my most recent change, which presents the fact that conspiracy theorists believe in both Let and Made it happen, but actually shortens the paragraph. I would oppose any addition past this "see also" section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup...better...maybe simply..."that the government of the United States knew of or planned the attacks."--MONGO 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fine, aside from the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement...I see no reason to give THAT group more publicity over other CTer's.--MONGO 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't realize it was a specific group, I thought it was the movement as a whole - I've removed it from my draft.--Mbc362 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Truth-movment is not a specific group  Geir 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Too long in my view, but more importantly, solely is a very strong statement that is probably excessive. A lot of conspiracy theory 'logic' is based on the leap from 'someone could have done better' to 'US government 100% responsible'. Plus it seems the meaning is carried out by Al Qaeda operatives, a little different from responsibility. Peter Grey 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That is good Mr. Mongo. Qué Chévere! 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer my suggested "concluded" in place of "determined", as I think it sounds more scientific, rather than the legalistic sound of "determined", which makes me think of the health warning on tobacco products in the U.S. Overall though, I am very pleased with the progress here, and I thank Hipocrite, both for suggesting this improvement and for implementing a reasonably NPOV and consensus version of it. The article is incrementally improved by the work done. Thanks to all who contributed. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, nice improvements. Though I still miss the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement-article, which is a broad aproach to this phenomenon. And I agree with the "concluded" choice above. Geir 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe. Would you and Tbeatty be able to discuss your changes here, as I think a consensus was reached on the wording of that paragraph? Thanks. --Guinnog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did that above.  Got consensus to change it.  --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Where? --Guinnog 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see the removal of "Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition.", but I am struggling to see the consensus for the removal. --Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my edit reflects the consensus above, which is heavily qualified. I think too that my comment about journalists was not addressed before the change was made to the article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got no problem with Tom's edit, but Tbeatty's is unacceptable in my opinion.--Mbc362 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only difference was Tom's addition of the U.S. government knowledge.  This doesn't take into account conspiracy theories that accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks.  Here's the diff   --Tbeatty 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you, but I am well aware of the differences.  Your version introduced the section with "Various conspiracy theories have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. Typically they suggest that various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks," which is basically stating the obvious - of course various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks, 9/11 didn't happen by accident.  That's the problem I have with your edit; you made it so broad that even Al Qaida would fit in the definition.--Mbc362 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern was limiting to U.S. government as there are conspiracy theories involving most western coutries as well as Israel.  --Tbeatty 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have (again) made the opening sentence so broad that not only is it useless, but its logically incorrect.  If the official story is that Al Qaida planned and carried out the attacks, every theory that someone else was behind it or allowed it to happen would be a conspiracy theory.  Therefore, its pointless to say "various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of or planned the attacks."  The word "typically" was included originally so that the reader would know that not all CTs involved the US gov.  Its illogical to say that the CTs typically involve other groups than Al Qaida, as every CT must involve other groups than Al Qaida.  The CT that the US gov. was being the attack was included because it is by far the most prevalent theory; CTs about Israel are far less common, and CTs about other governments are practically nonexistent.--Mbc362 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the ME, most of the conspiracy theories center on Israel.  There is certainly one of those that was popular here when it was circulated that a numer of jewish people called in sick.  No conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other so discounting some or favoring others shouln't happen in this article.  Put it in the conspiracy article.  --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You know very little about these particular conspiracy theories, and you speak with such confidence about them - it is not polite, nor it is wise. The story you mention is soo old and was since then debunked mostly by people from the Truth Movemnt. Maybe you should do some research on the topic before? Here, please read this article published in a Jewish magazine - it might give you some introduction. Also take a look at this Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization. And your statement is quite nutty: no conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other - well in very definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. SalvNaut 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not going to be a messageboard for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are numerous conspiracy theories regarding these events is well established.--MONGO 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the theories have been debunked.  Heck, half of the theorists accuse the other theorists of being involved in the conspiracy asa false flag operation.  If we are only going to list the non-debunked Conspiracy Theories, we would have no section at all.  But the reality is that if you ask the people of the world whose primary source of news is Al Jazeera, they will implicate Israel in the attacks.  That conspiracy theory belief is probably held by more total persons than any of the U.S. centric theories.   --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a poor edit, a really silly thing to say, and I still don't see the consensus you said you established for it. --Guinnog 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most prevalent in what sense?  There are no experts that hold the views of any conspiracy theories so "most prevalent" is without meaning.  There is a whole article that explores the various conspiracy theories.  There is no reason to single any of them out.  Controlled Demolition isn't any more likely or scientific than energy weapons or alien attack.  The theories implicating the U.S. government aren't any more credible than the theories that implicate France or Israel.  Therefore the statement in this article should be short and without prejudice.  You can explore the U.S. Government theories as well as the controlled demolition theories in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.  That is the appropriate place to explore who holds what beliefs and why.  --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbeatty, please do not edit the comments of other users. Where was that consensus you said you had established? --Guinnog 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal attacks.  If you cannot see the consensus, then no answer I provide can help you.  --Tbeatty 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbeatty, you have been asked not to edit the comments of other users, please heed this request.  Furthermore, as the comment was directed solely at your edit, not at you personally, it does not constitute a personal attack.  If you refuse to show us where the consensus is for your edit, I see no reason why I should let it stand.--Mbc362 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Tbeatty I think, there are lot's of different theories, there's no reason to imply that there is only one group that CT'ers single out...RxS 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised draft 

message: # What you say they think is true. Proof is the secret paper President Bush read in Texas. The USA Government knew some attacks were on the way soon with airplanes maybe. Is there an article on that paper? It was on Aug 6? Is that paper told about in this article? Qué Chévere! 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, this isn't the place for this.  We're talking about this section - how does your comment have any relevance to this, at all? --Haemo 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks"</I>   <B>"Bin Laden determined to strike in US"</B> They did know. That is why. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop making disruptive edits in this section.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing I write is disruptive. You just change one  word and the proof is true. The words are bad. <I>" individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and forgot to act on that knowledge."</I> He should change that part. Qué Chévere! 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let people know, Que Chevere is Babalooo. --Golbez 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said so. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you kindly not do this?  It's very disruptive, and doesn't help at all.  --Haemo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you writing of? The words are not so good to me Qué Chévere! 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  We are talking about writing a new paragraph for this section.  You are talking about unrelated matters, which don't have to do with the paragraph, or how it is written.  This is disruptive, since it doesn't add anything to the discussion.  Now, do you have anything to say about the paragraph?  --Haemo 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people had some information - that much has been known for a long time independently of conspiracy theory speculation.  It takes more than isolated bits of truth slipping out to validate the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon. Note "forgot" is really hard to prove but is included under negligence.  Peter Grey 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we're not discussing this, nor are we trying to "discredit" anyone.  We're talking about adding a short paragraph to flesh out this section.  However, some people appear to have taken this as an invitation to air whatever views they think even remotely relate to this topic.  It's not helping, and it's not productive.  Please stop, or get back on topic.  This isn't an "aside" since we're not arguing about this.  I'm not arguing about this, and no one else is - only some people have decided to bring this up.  This isn't relevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into this.  I also object to refactoring this talk page discussion in this way. --Haemo 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what I think is better. <I>"individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew exactly all the plans of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge in a plot".</I> I write this for <I>"individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks"</I> is perfectly all true not a conspiracy theory so it should not be written into the conspiracy theory. When it is others can think this <I>"individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew nothing at all  of the impending attacks"</I> Qué Chévere! 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is more relevant - but you're pushing a particular point of view, which should be argued on the linked article, not here.  We're just trying to give a brief summary of the other article's lead here - we leave the serious content discussion for the other article's talk page. --Haemo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why you move what I write. They were about Guinnogs words. Qué Chévere! 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't understand this either.  This is a discussion about the new section - it's not a new section, and we've been able to get back on track here, after a short disagreement.  It's just confusing to move it like this.  --Haemo 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new section 

message: im sure someone somewhere has explained this, it may even be in the article, but im a busy man and dont have time to read it 18 times (every time its changed). what was the explanation for the pools of molten metal that stayed super-hot for days or weeks after the attacks underground? i thought that the steel wouldnt melt in the fires, due to the fact that the burning temperature of the jet fuel/ paper was not hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it melted and very hot for weeks afterwards...one more thing - the largest support beams, according to some people should not have been wasted all the way to the ground...they should have been still standing, at least partially, from what i understand. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have questions like this, they probably belong at the reference desk WP:RD. RxS 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we're not really all that good at fielding questions, because that would be really, really time consuming and take away from our editing.  But there are resources for it, if you want to ask.  --Haemo 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  molten metal 

message: Contrary to all wikipedia precdents, wikipedia rules and basic logic, the word 'terrorist' still appears in the lead-in. Given that the term has no universally agreed upon definition, its nothing more than an insult. You may as well be calling al qaeda "pooh pooh heads".
Furthermore, the official story is given almost universal coverage whilst alternative theories are deliberately sidelined. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong from the perspective of wikipedia - in fact determining such would be original research. The fact is that very significant minority (and in some countries, a majority) consider the official explaination to be wrong. Despite the opinions of the US conservatives camping on this article, these views deserve more than a paragraphs recognition.
Drop your opinions. Look at other articles related to 'terrorism' and I think you will understand how horrificly slanted this article is. Damburger 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't just have a paragraph (and are not deliberately sidelined), they have whole articles devoted to them. And re: US conservatives, you couldn't be any more wrong. I for one am quite liberal and view the Bush administration with comtempt. But unlike other POV pushers that want to push crap into these articles, I (and others) resist attempts by those  with thinly veiled political agendas that try to dilute articles with nonsense. And the word terrorist is used by media outlets all over the world...RxS 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the original statement, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually quite agree with the removal of "terrorist" into just "attacks" however the problem is that you are here to promote a viewpoint not to try and make the article more encyclopedic. If you want to promote a view, please consider doing so on other websites. Again, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not here to promote a political agenda. I'm here to promote a little objectivity and sanity that is sadly lacking in most of the people editing this article. Damburger 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear from your original statement that you want to promote an "inside job" theory. That is all fine and good, however Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content with regards to their respective articles not to promote views. Please refrain from doing so if you wish for your opinions to be taken seriously with regards to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd appreciate it if you did not assume things about my intentions. Your reaction is typical of the problem around here - anybody asking for an objective treatment of the incident is seen as pushing an alternative theory, or supporting terrorism somehow. Damburger 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we agree that the hijackers were enagaged in acts of terrorism.--MONGO 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Damburger's claim that we objectively analyze the "incident."  However, an objective analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion--the so-called "official version."  Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article still an embarrasment to wikipedia 

message: This must be some form of black humor, as I can't believe so many people are so convinced that 9/11 was anything except for what is presented in this article. If it wasn't so horibly morbid, it could pass as halarious. I'm going to assume this will be deleted, but I just HAD to mention something after spending so much of my time reading these theories. Hate makes the heart grow fonder... Tarage 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, you revert-warred to get a valid (in terms of 'about improving the article', not in terms of 'correct') entry on a talk page. It had nothing to do with the validity of the theory. --Golbez 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadly Amusing 

message: i noticed that the box "Attacks by al-Qaeda" is on the right hand side (near top of the page). Can someone move to the bottom of the page, as is the usual norm. Else, i can also do the same unless some has an objection for the same. Kalyan 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor format edit reqd. 

message: * This article says that "An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" while The Falling Man claims over 250. --Cravendekere 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but 200 is an estimate of 250?--Tarage 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The number on this page is sourced; the number on The Falling Man is unsourced.  I'd stay with 200 people.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumper estimates 

message: I'm sure this article has gone through many naming discussions, but wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME suggest this article be titled "September 11 attacks." I've never seen it referred to with the year, or at least very rarely, and I don't think any of the references do either. This article uses it only once in the article (in the intro). September 11 attacks appears a bit more often and is most likely the more common name. ~ UBeR 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I reckon, that specifying 2001 precludes any other attack on September 11.  --Haemo 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any others. ~ UBeR 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The English Wikipedia is a hybrid of many styles and naming conventions.  There doesn't seem to be a perfect name that suits everyone. Peter Grey 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all it is not even "attacks", we should change it to "crimes" or "accidents" at least.--Shoons 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: uhm... accidents? Those poor folks didn't mean to fly their airliners into the towers? What? --Golbez 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry I was wrong. It should be "Case", "Occurrence" or "event" at least, shouldn’t it?  At least, "attacks" is not appropriate for the event or because the title of this article states "attacks", this article can be like this and can have bias. Then it would make sence. --Shoons 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it not an attack? A recognized militant group used weapons to cause dammage to, at the very least, buildings and people. That sounds like very definition as defined by Wikipedia: "Attack is a word meaning to strike out at an opponent, among other definitions." Unless this is a backdoor way of trying to premote yet another conspiricy theory, which I'm betting it is...--Tarage 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right! From POV of so called "conspiricy theory",  they were not attacks. "Attack"="to strike out at an opponent...". If it was internal job, it was not "attack"(, though "heart attack" does not have any opponet). Anyway what I am saying is this article can be with bias because the title tells so. It concludes that my arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks does not make sense because of this title, thus it can have bias, first of all.--Shoons 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article has a strong bias towards the consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources,  while giving fair room to far fetched theories to be known thus giving them the chance of being investigated and substantiated to become at some point in the future the new consensus. If you wish these theories to have the main room here, take them and work on until they reach consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources. Then come back and you will be welcome (and in the process you will probably earn a Pulitzer prize).--Igor21 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Anyway we should make another article with title of "September 11, 2001 crimes". I just want to have articles dedicated to facts, not to fiction or to theories.--Shoons 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly what you would be doing by renaming it to crimes. Regardless of you who believe was behind it, they're still attacks. ~ UBeR 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! "they're still attacks" made me clear. This page should not have bias, then. This article shows only one side and it is against Wikipedia guideline.--Shoons 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it shows any side. To not show any side, the article would just have to present the facts as they're stated by reliable sources in a neutral manner. We obviously shouldn't give the attacking any sympathy. Likewise, we should not give the attacked side any sympathy. Value judgments should be made by the reader, not the writer. ~ UBeR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of this artcle