Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 13

message: *Hijackers Talk
*Casualties Talk *US governmental response Talk 
*Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/Title & comma archive (Some felt the title should be changed, as it is grammatically incorrect. Others wanted the title to stay as-is. Consensus was not reached.)
*Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/"Terrorist" archive
Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.
Please keep this notice at the top of the page, right here, so people will see it more easily. A sitewide policy on the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is under discussion at Wikipedia:Use of the word terrorism (policy development). There is a truce on the words for this article. For details, see Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/"Terrorist" archive. Maurreen 
:Clarification: The truce terms are roughly this: Keep the word "terrorist" in the first paragraph to give immediate concise information, leave in the couple of general references to "terrorist" (or variations of the word) and don't add any further description or labeling of the attacks or attackers as terrorist. Maurreen
Maurreen, It looks like the truce has been broken. The word terrorist is nowhere to be seen. Seriously, are there actually people who don't think the 9/11 attacks were terrorism?
:I noticed it was changed on the 24th. I didn't know there was a truce. I have changed it back from operative to terrorist. Tom Harrison (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Just clicked on this article and the first line reads...
The September 11, 2001 attacks were a series of hilarious attacks carried out against the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
Can someone please rectify this, I'm not sure how the article got to be this way but I wouldn't describe the attacks as hilarious.
<addendum>
This article needs to be seriously edited... the titles of each section have all been changed to terms of racism.
: There has been a lot of vandalism on this page today, it was reverted many times but somehow the bit about the 'hilarious attacks' was in one of the versions that others reverted to. This has been fixed, and the page has been locked now, so it will be protected against vandalism. --JoanneB 14:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I imagine there's also unreverted vandalism in the "Public response around the world" section, that's empty (I don't have time right now to check the article's history to see what it was like). RodC 14:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That section seems to have always been empty. I'll remove it.-gadfium 20:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hilarious attacks? 

message: To the about three thousand folks, sixteen palm trees (in the Winter Garden), countless other living things, etc., that perished on 9/11/2001, I dedicate this section in your memory. Amen.  — Rickyrab | Talk 20:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Memorium

message: I thought that this article was supposed to be locked against edits? Nick L. 21:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing lock? 

message: There are two sides to every story and discerning, and writing, the truth takes great effort, but on reading this article my impression is that it falls disappointingly short of the judicious, evolved, balanced presentation of facts and theories that is the hallmark of a good article.  
Are people scared off by the controversy, by fear of the conspiracy theory label?  There is no shortage of wild, easily debunked conspiracy theories out there, just as there is an abundance of disturbing, persistent questions about the official narrative.
In brief, it didn't satisfy my search, sparked by reading a controversial article, and wondering "hmmm, what does good old Wikipedia have to say about this?".
: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
: You might look at 9/11 conspiracy theories before adding conspiracy theories on this page (which would undoubtably be reverted immediatley).  I disagree that this page isn't balanced -- the truth is that none of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 tie together the known events as well as the "official" version.  However, I encourage you to check out 9/11 conspiracy theories for a discussion of alternate theories, from the absurd to the mildly absurd.  ;-)  --Quasipalm 16:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disappointing article for Wikipedia 

message: I have removed :Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif because:
# Animation is inconsistent with Wikipedia Image use policy.
# The image lacks Image copyright tags. --Aude 00:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:WTC7-B4-Colaps.gif]] 

message: I have removed the newly added sentence saying that the fourth plane was shot down by the USAF and moved this claim to the 9/11 conspiracy page.  There is not enough support, proof, or even murmer to add it to this main article.  If it has not support at all it might be removed from the conspiracy page as well. - Tεxτurε 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth Plane shot down theory 

message: "There has been much speculation on the 'performance' of the Twin Towers after the impacts, and the reasons for the collapse are under active debate by structural engineers, architects and the relevant U.S. government agencies." 
Probably it is too much of a speculation (hence I have not edited anything yet), but since I read lots of reliable (!) technical information about this event, the main reason for the collapse ought to be fairly clear actually:
HEAT. If you expose a steel construction to several thousand degrees celsius of heat emitted by that engine, even robust steel can fluidize and get a chemical consistency like lava.
-andy
80.129.100.99 00:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this debate quite a bit on other pages.  Actually, jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough for steel to melt -- however, steel doesn't actually have to melt to cause the buildings to weaken enough to collapse.  So, in short, it was the initial impact damage (which some speculate blasted away fire-proofing on the steel supports), mixed with fuel and debris burning hot enough to weaken the surrounding structure until it finally gave way.  There are sources on this on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page under in the links section that are skeptical of con. theories.  (Some people actually think that the buildings were destroyed with explosives.)  --Quasipalm 02:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse theories 

message: In the History Channel program "Grounded on 9/11" (which detailed the Air Traffic Control and United Airlines flight dispatcher involvement in the day's events, from the initial hijackings through the grounding of all commercial aircraft in U.S. airspace) there was mention of United flight 23 originating in Newark, which returned to the terminal before takeoff when the pilot was notified of the other hijackings. Several "unruly" men of middle-eastern appearance rushed off the aircraft, abandoning their baggage, which was later found to contain "Al Qaeda materials". Use of falsified IDs prevented their being identified.
More details appear in an account of United dispatcher Ed Ballinger's actions that day:
...Kirk is adamant that Ballinger did save the passengers and crew of United Flight 23, which on Sept. 11 was about to depart from Newark, N.J., to Los Angeles. Kirk believes Flight 23 was going to be commandeered.
Thanks to Ballinger's quick call, the flight crew told passengers it had a mechanical problem and immediately returned to the gate.
Later, Ballinger was told six men initially wouldn't get off the plane. Later, when they did, they disappeared into the crowd, never to return. Later, authorities checked their luggage and found copies of the Qu'ran and al-Qaida instruction sheets.
See also this entry from the "complete 9/11 timeline".
Can anyone provide further details and references for this "fifth plane" that appears to have been an aborted hijack? It should probably go in the main article if it can be confirmed...
-- Jhardin@impsec 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just watched that program. They talked about Delta flight 1989, which took off from Logan at the same time as American 11 and United 175.  Delta 1989 crossed paths with United 93 in Cleveland airspace, at the moment when the transponder for United 93 was turned off and a suspicious transmission was heard by air traffic controllers.  ATC was unable to determine which plane the transmission originated from.  The pilot of Delta 1989 then requested an emergency landing in Cleveland, raising the suspicions of officials.  Delta 1989 eventually landed in Cleveland with SWAT units on scene.   According to the history channel program, the "unruly" passenger turned out to be a man refusing to turn off his cell phone.  That's the best I can do from memory. PK9 08:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, that's not what I was referring to - note the before takeoff. I saw the show again and wrote down more of the admittedly sparse details this time, and have done some web searches. See the edits I made above...  -- Jhardin@impsec 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  They also mentioned a Singapore Airlines 747 jet in Alaska which apparently reported a hijack and was eventually escorted to a small airport in Canada by F16s. PK9 08:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth plane? 

message: I don't like the assertion in the Alternative Theories section that "[t]here is a strong linkage between radical anti-Bush...sentiment and belief in alternative theories..." Wording of this is perjorative and not at all NPOV. It seems to imply by proximity that staunch opponents of the Bush administration are likely to believe unsubstantiated theories. I'm therefore removing that sentence.
-- Sacxpert 09:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti-Bush sentiment? 

message: I would like to remind User:Truth in our time, User:Lamrock, User:Jimmywalter of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule.  If you continue to restore your additions despite being reverted by multiple other users you can be blocked.  Please use this talk page to make your case and gain consensus for your changes. - Tεxτurε 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See also James W. Walter...sockpuppet accounts may or may not be same as person in article, but the message is the same.--MONGO 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know this James W. Walter person and do not see how his message is the same as mine. Truth in our time 09:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: fyi, 'Jimmy Walter' is a person in the 9/11 truth movement who, although perhaps with good intentions, tends to try to insert extremist claims, such as nuclear radiation being found at the site of the WTC, without scientific merit.  Unfortunately, he has a great deal of money.Bov 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule]] - Truth in our time 

message: Neither of the two versions are complete, we should set up a temp page, craft a consensus version, and then move to the main page.
Stirling Newberry  16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert war 

message: When it's written:
These theories generally rest on evidence which has been contested by most experts in the scientific, engineering, and journalistic community.
is not clear what the writer is referring to (what kind of evidence???). I think someone who knows what it is referred to should attach some explanation.
--Pokipsy76 18:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations and alternative theories 

message: There used to be a page that archived the television coverage of 9/11. You could just choose a channel and watch the news. Do you have any idea where it has gone? Lapinmies 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Television Archive 

message: This section kind of makes a lot of assumptions - where is the proof of all this? simon 22:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th hijacker 

message: I see there is some protocall for editing this page, so I hope it's ok that I made this change to the article.  The reference to 343 firefighters dying in the attack on the WTC is a commonly misquoted figure.  It is actually 343 New York City firefighters because the figure does not include Kieth Roma, a member of New York City Fire Patrol who also died in responding to the attack.  Fire Patrol, which predates the official fire department is an independant org sponsored by insurance companies.  They have (I believe) three firehouses in NYC, including two in Manhattan.  The following is the text that I have changed to make this correction, with additions marked here in brackets:  "including 343 [New York City] firefighters, 23 New York City police officers, 37 Port Authority police officers, [and one member of New York City Fire Patrol], in the WTC;" EGregory 14:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  343 NYC Firefighters plus one 

message: * I have added  because controlled demolition is no longer a claim, it is a widely accepted view that should be listed as a fact. If you can prove how a building can fall in 8.4 seconds without the use of explosives then YOU WILL get ONE MILLION US DOLLARS: http://reopen911.org/Contest.htm
* This should, in my view, be enough to argue the current version on the page is disputed. If you can prove that controlled demolition should not be given as the explanation for how the buildings fell, then you will not only prove this article is not disputed, you will also get one million dollars. But I bet you can't, now can you?
*http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051026163300114
*http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html
*http://www.terrorize.dk/911/#wtc.1.demolition
*http://www.terrorize.dk/911/#wtc.2.demolition
::This is so outlandish that it is a shame that it requires a response. None of the sites listed have any credibility in the real world. Serious researchers do not try to prove a negative because it is not possible. It is a trick of false logic. The "reward" is similar to a classic huckster con game. Since it is not possible to prove a negative, there is no chance the reward will be given unless you take the matter into civil court. 
::Arguing with a conpspiracy theorist is like trying to toilet train a badger. It annoys the badger, and you get covered in crap. --Cberlet 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Cberlet's comments.--MONGO 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Mongo's seconds.  --Quasipalm 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic, I just reverted a conspiracy theory related edit by User:142.179.143.133.  I'm surprised it went undetected for 4 whole minutes as I'm not really that quick on the draw.  Keep an eye out for repeated interjections of theory on this article, as they may stem from the same source. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled Demolition as a "claim" 

message: The article has two sections covering the same general topic "Collapse of Towers" and "Collapse of World Trade Center."  This should be consolidated into one section.  I simply do not have the time to do it now.  Can we get someone to take that on? RonCram 16:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine sections 

message: Someone should look at this edit  by an anon. I don't know it it's true also check the figure on List of wars and disasters by death toll and in the info box on the page. I don't know which number is right. More people should be keeping an eye on such a high profile article. Broken S 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Death count

message: I don't know if this was mentioned anywhere... but we have a dedicated a September 11 wiki: sep11:In Memoriam. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11 Wiki 

message: Curious as to if anyone knows the exact number of fatalities...this edit  indicates that the number mention includes the number of hijackers in the total, yet I always thought that the number listed traditionally as the total included everyone except the terrorists.--MONGO 00:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total killed 

message: I'm a lazy ass, but damn the placement of images in this article is a disservice to the entire Wiki...can somebody please use gallery view, left-based thumbs, anything and everything to clean them up?  I would love you forever.
Fondly yours, Sherurcij 08:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: I have a photo of a "Demonic Creature" seen in the smoke and derbis when one of the planes hit the WTC. This was either a UPI or AP photo. A LOT of people reported spotting the bizarre formation.
A lot of the print media carried this photo.Martial Law 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the article needs a section with the title Hoaxes for those Photoshopped images. patsw 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that this used to be talked about under Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks.  However, if memory serves, that page was merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories.  This pissed off the people who believe in "alternate" theories about 9/11 because suddenly their theories were listed back to back with "smoke demons" and that photoshopped guy on the rooftop, so slowly they were removed.  I'm not sure where the smoke demon belongs (maybe not in wikipedia at all) but if you do add it I would not put it on the main 9/11 page because it's pretty absurd.  --Quasipalm 18:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre 

message: Peter comes close to getting it right with the word usage terrorist 'serves to show the bias of the user'.  When you read 'bias of the user' to mean 'point of view', that is what the Wikipedia is about: describing points of view, identifying adherents and citing points of view -- in this one article on one thing and one thing alone: the September 11, 2001 attacks.  The point of view of the United States is that these attacks on the United States were terrorist and I'm still waiting to learn who believes that these attacks on the United States were not terrorism. patsw 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the 9/11 attacks were "terrorism" in and of themselves. Terrorism involves some sort of coercion or intimidation, not a direct attack against a military target (Pentagon and World Trade Globalization Towers). President Bush associated coercion and intimidation with the attacks, but that makes him the fear-monger, not al-Qaeda. --Peter McConaughey 03:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV policy requires that we not give undue weight to highly eccentric views. Mirror Vax 13:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Neither the WTC nor the White House or Capitol building (either one may have been the target of the plane that crashed in Shanksville) were military targets.  Even though the Pentagon is a military center, the attack on it was by nonuniformed agents not acting on behalf of a government, so the attack can still be feasibly argued to have been terrorism.  If you don't see how the 9/11 attacks were intimidating, then you're missing something very obvious. --Mr. Billion 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any type of war is intimidating, but not necessarily coercive in nature. The violent reduction of the military capability of an opponent is an act of conventional warfare. --Peter McConaughey 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Close to getting it right

message: I believe we should have a section in the External links dedicated to religous commentary of the 9/11 attacks. The question of how do these events fit in with God is a question that many have and I believe it would be appropriate for this article. Perhaps like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Religious_Commentary_on_Schiavo.2C_Disability_Issues --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any links in particular you think should be in there? --Mr. Billion 06:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the article itself addresses anything about various religious responses.  In general, external links should be relevant to the specific content of the article, and not go off on a tangent.  And the number of external links in an article needs to be limited to a useful number (to the reader), and to only the most directly pertinent.  Maybe religious responses can instead be covered in a sub-article "daughter"? --Aude 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Religous commentary in External links

message: I have weeded out a few external links that are not so notable to be included:
* 9-11 Quotations
** Might belong on Wikiquote, but not here.
*MAHOPA.de - 'The world after September 11'
** Personal essay.
*Pictures 9 11, New York City
** If anywhere, this might go in the photos subheading and not the main external links heading.
*9-11 Predictions and PHOTOS 
** Personal blog, not appropriate.
*9-11Heroes.us - '9-11 Heroes: Four years after: We remember the events and victims of September 11 2001: In Memory to all those who gave their lives on 9-11-2001'
** Very few google backward links .
--Aude 12:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links removed 

message: I did the following revert  primarily due to the fact that the 9/11 report doesn't refer to Al Qaeda as Sunni islamists and that it is important to note that Osamas denial of the leadership of the attacks (as provided with citation) then must also have the statement that his denial is essentially not considered factual by the western world.--MONGO 15:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are assuming that the western world believes the 9/11 Commission Report. --Peter McConaughey 15:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are...I support using sources that are outside of the federal opinion...you know, those sources I cited earlier...the ones that are from even relatively liberal medias--MONGO 16:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I'm conservative, that isn't very tempting. --Peter McConaughey 16:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV push 

message: It looks like all the NPOV disputes are solved. You are all invited over to Sarah's house for pizza. --Peter McConaughey 00:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: Two-thirds of Americans hold false views about 9/11, such as the view that Iraq was behind 9/11 (Univ of Maryland, PIPES survey), and the more television news Americans watch the more likely they are to hold such false views, according to the PIPES survey.
I wasn't able to quickly verify this.  In fact, google of "univ of maryland" "pipes survey" turned up zero hits. 
Could we have a proper citation, tie the so-called "false view" to the actual survey question, and when this survery happened? patsw 21:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the current article version.  I did some quick google searches and found the Pipa, not PIPES, survey report by the University of Maryland.  I copyedited the statement and moved to "War on Terrorism" section, and eliminated any specific numbers (e.g. two-thirds), as they mention many different polls conducted with varying figures.  I think the anon. user is valid in adding this particular point (See: Don't Bite the Newcomers), but needs to better understand how to cite sources and the Manual of Style.  --Aude 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though, many of this user's other edits seem suspect to me and POV... --Aude 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify "two thirds hold false views" 

message: there has not been concrete proof that he [bin Laden] either is still alive or in hiding.
* What in the opinion of Bobblewik would constitute "concrete proof"?
* Why should his point of view denying this undefined "concrete proof" exists be presented as fact in the article?
patsw 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete proof of a point of view 

message: In response to the increasing number of people using the 9/11 articles as a platform for wild theories, I created a watchlist so we can keep track of these attempts. Please visit User:Rhobite/9/11 watchlist. You can use the "recent changes" link to view recent edits to the articles listed. Feel free to add any other relevant articles. Rhobite 23:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa...good job!--MONGO 07:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for creating the watchlist.  I'll definitely keep my eye on those.  For my own vandalism/pov/linkspam watchlist of more general current events, politics, history (these get vandalized a lot), or otherwise controversial topics, I have User:Kmf164/Vandalism_watchlist and don't mind if others add suggestions to my list too.  --Aude 04:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What happened to the passengers aboard the plane that this video says never hit the Pentagon?...did the evil U.S. government send then to Gitmo?--MONGO 10:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 watchlist 

message: Oh boy.. Where to start?
It seems current events have outdated this page.
By now it is pretty certain the Pentagon was NOT hit by an airplane.
Now, I know it hurts, to change this piece of information, but shouldnt wikipedia just resemble the facts?
I cant find any prove of a plane hitting it. Anywhere. I can find lots and lots of documents describing that the debries was from a different type of plane and that the pentagon was struck by either a missile or a bomb. Not an airplane....
I can even find a document in which Rumsfeld HIMSELF apparently says it is a missile.
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Missile-Not-Flight-77.html
http://membrane.com/news/Pentagon_911.html
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero14/missile/temoins_en.htm
:See 9/11 conspiracy theories. It's already covered there. As MONGO asked above, where exactly did the U.S. government murder the passengers of flight 77? What did they do with the plane? Rhobite 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely...Devil's Triangle now extends over a much bigger area.--MONGO 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a LOT of information.. 

message: I intend to add this to September 11, 2001 attacks at the end of the second paragraph:
Bin Laden categorically denied involvement in two 2001 statements , before admitting in a taped statement a direct link to the attacks, saying 
While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women.
For the full text of the video, see wikisource:Text of 2004 Osama bin Laden videotape. Osama bin Laden's current whereabouts are unknown.
Tom Harrison (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the intro 

message: A relatively small minority reject the view that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, often citing the CIA, Mossad, or pro-Zionist elements as the likely perpetrators. Others, while accepting Al-Qaeda's culpability, allege that members of the American government withheld foreknowledge of the attacks, silently sanctioning them.
Can the minority and the others be identified and cited?
If they cannot be, then this will be deleted as unverified. patsw 03:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give it 24 hours and if no one can provide a proper citation, then I say remove it.--MONGO 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a lead in to the conspiracy article, which has a veritable flood of citations and identifications by the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd... should we just pick a few at random? Ronabop 06:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attribute opinion 

message: Claims like "although the legitimacy of this video has been hotly disputed" just drive me nuts -- the only people disputing the veracity of the Bin Laden tape are people that actively and willfully disregard the overwhelming evidence of the Al Queda/Bin Laden responsibility for 911.  They don't really believe these assertions, but advance them because they are blinded by their hatred of Israel and the US.  There are people on this planet who also believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that their POV is valid or even worth describing on Wikipedia -- it should be edited out completely.  This should not be a place for the nutburgers that believe that the US or Israel planned the attacks on the WTC.  Morton devonshire 17:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And those that hide behind anonymous IPs.  Morton devonshire 19:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I was looking at that "legitimacy" word myself as unattributed POV.  This article is full of "disputes" and "allegations" where the disputer or allegator is not identified.  If a writer cannot identify who disputes or who alleges then it is a POV from nowhere and should be attributed and cited or deleted. patsw 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat Earth Society

message: How about splitting off the "Arts and literature" section into a separate article?  There are just three mentioned (a play, a novel, an upcoming film), while I'm sure there are others, such as 9/11 (film) that aren't mentioned.  I don't really think that these are central to the article, and would be more suitable as a separate article, linked from here in the "See also" section. --Aude 14:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea; That's going to grow over time. Include music too if you want.Tom Harrison (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arts and Literature section 

message: when you search for "september 11, 2001" it redirects you to "September 11, 2001 attacks", it should not do that, for other things happened on september 11 2001 besides the attacks.WikiJake 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Full dates are never used for general purposes in Wikipedia. Events are listed either as 11 September or under 2001. Nothing else significant happened on this day (most of the world were watching these events). josh (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirect 

message: I particularly remember the indirect effect the attacks had on the Internet. Due to the sheer level of traffic, many sites took extraordinarily long times to respond, and often timed out. Should a mention be made of that, provided a source can be found?--Drat (Talk) 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on Internet. 

message: The figure reported in the article is inaccurate. While at first it was thought and also reported that approx. 200 people did jump to their deaths from the WTC, after analysis of the hundreds of hours of videotape by news sources and law enforcement, it was later determined that the number was lower, approx. 50. I will edit to reflect that, as the attacks and deaths were horrific enough and don't need any extra embellishments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.200.240.19 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you; Please inculde a citation. Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the 200 estimate back in the article; that estimate is from USA Today . If you have a more up to date reference, please cite it. Rhobite 22:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate figure for number of people who jumped from the WTC 

message: though a few people prefer "nine-one-one" (the same as the telephone number for emergency services in the U.S., 9-1-1). Some people dislike the use of "nine-one-one" due to the similarity to "9-1-1" (which implies a call for help) and the obvious practical point - that this would be far more confusing and potentially ambiguous, and prefer to state the date as "September 11th"; this is also the preferred form in academic writing. Nonetheless, "nine-eleven" is the most common form.
What is this all about?  Where does it come from? I've never seen or heard the September 11, 2001 attacks referred to as "nine-one-one".
It's vague. (i.e. few and some and the obvious practical point)
Is there a cite for the "nine-one-one" reference? If not, this section should be removed as unverifiable. patsw 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An annecdote is not evidence.  Please discuss its verification here. patsw 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (This is possibly true of the London attacks but not of Madrid. There is a long tradition of similar abbreviations being applied to significant events in Spain, notably the coup attempt of February 23, 1981)
Tom Harrison Talk 04:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nine-one-one 

message: This recently added section makes little sense to me.  It discusses what didn't happen. Does anyone besides it author see relevance, significance, etc.? 
I would also strike this as being irrelevant and insignificant:
A high volume of put option purchases,  and other unusual market activity  occurred in the days and weeks before 9/11, prompting international investigations into alleged insider trading.
No connection to 9/11: so what is it doing here? patsw 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11.  

message: Anon added the identification of the hijackers as Arab.  Is that accurate and relevant? patsw 01:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the next paragraph, they added "Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, and one each came from Egypt and Lebanon.".  That's more specific and I think suffices.  I don't think we need to say "Arab hijackers" in the first paragraph. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's a poorly produced movie with a list of quotes from names. I find it amusing that so many civilians in the Pentagon area know what a missile sounds like. Occam's razor: Where's the 757? --Golbez 14:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A 757 flying at 200 feet above the ground would hit the pentagon before anyone heard it at the pentagon. The explosion sound would be there before the sound of the incoming plane would. This is true of missles as well oftentimes. Yes, where is the 757, and the passengers as well.--MONGO 02:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of the hijackers as Arab. 

message: >event in which a total of nineteen Arab hijackers simultaneously took control of four U.S. domestic commercial airliners
This is not a fact, just a theory, no matter how likely. There can never be mathematically exact proof of this, since all the planes were destroyed beyond recognition. The fact that those five young jews were detained by police while dancing in the streets when the WTC, which they have been filming for hours, suddenly got struck will always leave the little doubt that the 19 either were not the perpetrators, or they were not alone, possibly serving as mere puppets onboard. Anyhow, you cannot state it as a matter of fact the above quoted sentence. If you state this then you are racist, because you always apply presumption innocence when dealing with caucasian master races, but pig arabs and followers of dog prophpet Muhammad are assumed guilty by default. 195.70.32.136 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please desist from making such comments. This is obviously another 'israel/jews' did it theory.. A lot of people celebrated on 9/11 but it doesn't make them guilty of or associated with it. Also it is still in the balance whether that U.S government (and client state Israel) may have known of the plan and let the event happen. But this does not mean it was perpetrated or organised by those 2 countries. -- max rspct leave a message  15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTC was a target since 1993 when they tried to blow it up with the van in the underground garage...the government of the U.S. also had some knowledge that was of only a very low credibility that hijacked planes may be employed as missles prior to the attack. That there was any coverup or that there was any credible evidence that this was going to happen and the government of the U.S. failed to act is completely incorrect. No event of this scale goes completely unnoticed while in the planning stages...but leads do not in themselves warrant the level of suspicions they oftentimes should. The lack of imagination of those in positions of decision making rarely exceed that of advisors and investigators who know how to put the pieces together as that is the fundemental focus of their occupation. Did investigators bring forth evidence that planes would be hijacked...yes they did. Was the evidence more convincing than other evidences of other possibilities...probably not. I'm not convinced a lot of people celebrated on 9/11 aside from those in the Muslim world...and I can forgive them for that due to the view by some that the U.S. is evil and antiMuslim. As far as the rest of the world, if they found anything comical or celebratory about the events of 9/11, then they must be sick.--MONGO 02:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally POV beginning of the article 

message: This article is still too long.  It has seven subpages, which is admirable, but the text in this article that accompanies a reference to each subpage varies from non-existant to bulky.  I suggest that the bulky text accompanying subpage references has major potential for reduction in size w/o loss of overall quality.  It is just a matter of moving the less-important references in such sections as "conspiracy theories", "war on terrorism" and "responsibility" can be moved down to their corresponding subpages and properly summarizing the most important, historic reults of these subpages (just like we have now mostly done with the lead section).  How about it, guys?  We can still make this a featured article, but you have to be willing sensational items that, historically, are merely line-items, get moved down to the subpages. -- Pinktulip 06:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with that in principle; the trouble will be in the details. It should be possible to make the improvements you describe if it's done slowly. Maybe add the details elsewhere first, then take them away from this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the bulge 

message: * "The September 11th attacks are among the most significant events to have occurred so far in the 21st century in terms of the profound (effects)..."  I find "in terms of" to be weak language.  I also find having "most significant" and "profound" in the same sentance to be tiresome.  You already told me that this thing is Important.  Do you think that the reader is going to assume that the effects were trivial or mild?  Please folks: only one intensifier per sentance.  Reasonable guideline?  -- Pinktulip 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Millions of TV viewers watched..." I'm undecided on this. I've already had to AdBlock several of the images on this page because they're too horrifying to look at every morning. On the other hand, I agree that the media coverage was significant. As a terrorist, lots of violent death on national TV was part of bin Laden's goal. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two details in lead section 

message: Building seven was standing about block away from the towers. And was not hit by a plane. 
Those two facts are of relevance, and we should be able to include these in the article. Honestly I dont see how including this lead to the assumption that the building was demolished. Whatever conclusions one may or may not draw from facts is irrelevant to writing a encyclopedia. 
And as long as the, to me (it seems to be pure speculation and can never be verified for sure), rather farfetched discussion about what silverstein meant or not when he said pull it, gets so much attention (I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished) is included in a lot of articles there is no consistancy in omitting simple facts about the location and situation of building seven. --EyesAllMine 13:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got any PROOF that there was controlled demolition, other than the allusions and misrepresentations of comments by the likes of Silverstein? I am really looking forward to proof...did the controlled demolition experts all die too? Your comment, "(I mean this could really be suggestive of the building being demolished)" is simply just that...suggestive and is not encyclopedic, as it cannot be backed up by any facts that there was controlled demolition. I'm waiting for facts that would stand up in a court of law under cross examination. We're not going to dally in speculations or allusions here.--MONGO 13:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts about building seven