Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 27

message: *I would like to suggest that perhaps this discussion is not going anywhere, and perhaps there are some possibilities for compromise that, at the least, could be raised for discussion.  If the problem for some people is simply labelling something as "terrorism", that could be altered provided some very strong statement as to perception as terrorism is made.  This would, undoubtedly, actually further emphasize the terrorist character of the attacks, but would satisfy the semantic concerns that have been raised.  Peter Grey 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listening to the tone of the debate here, I do not believe such a strong (read convincing) argument could be put forward. I might as well go back in time and try to convince people that having two wash basins, one for Negroes and one for Whites is a bad idea.  Why am I even saying "go back in time"?!? Terrorism is one thing, but the fact that no one here seems to give a hoot that the term Islamic is used in the first paragraph is beyond me. This argument seems subtle, it seems not to matter, irrelevant... "it's just a word". It's a marker, a line drawn in the sand by people who think their opinion is irrefutable and accepted. The same people who might lock a supposedly global encyclopaedic web page to prevent anything but the stench of their own opinion from seeping out. It's a butterfly flapping its fragile wings, another ripple capable of destroying two gigantic towers, and perhaps much more. --Angryjames 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any chance of compromise

message: Is the noun, "terrorist," defined as "one that engages in acts or an act of terrorism ," appropriately used in the September 11th attacks article?  Abe Froman 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll: Terrorist

message: Agree
#Islamic terrorist is specific & captures reality.--Patchouli 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically that is the current name of the article, but it shouldn't be.--Sefringle 07:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll: [[Islamic terrorism|Islamic terrorist]] 

message: A while back we had suggestions about enlisting notable individuals who are well aware of 911 inconsistencies. Apart from www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306googlecensoring.htm famous]-Bravo Charlie! interview, in which Sheen send his regards to our fine conspiratorial editors here, pointing clearly what is a civilized perspective on commissioned edits: "It's like they want to pigeonhole all of us into conspiracy nutbags when we're not debating things that are related to UFO's bringing down the towers or Building 7 or the Pentagon and so its feels like there's things in there that we’re not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," or in other words: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets: that feels like a conspiracy theory." We should certainly mention David Lynch who recently also said it decently (& non-conspiratorially) well, while describing 911 as: "event which has many questions, and no answers." Or how about pointing to well placed statements of Barbara Streisand, she had to endure quite a lot of vicious attacks from official conspiracy nuts you know? Same goes for James Brolin who once again pointed that we all know it. Then there's Sean Penn who's recent speech does strike at the heart of the matter. Anyway to avoid further "linkspam", Acebrock already did some excellent work on these and other missing topics, and my only concern with such well intended edit is whether these calls should be addressed in section about conspiracy theories… To clarify, if we backpedal a little, we may recall that in the root of truth movement and probably every other truth related site is (nothing else but a) call for new and independent investigation (so we would finally seize to conspire so ludicrously), yet this call is nowhere to be mentioned? Perhaps we could find a valid and unbiased formulation which will address these  notable concerns from notable individuals without making conspiracy circus out of it? Preferably in a new section which would also reflect current public opinions… if you would kindly share your perspectives… Lovelight 14:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is about a number of unanswered, not investigated questions (foreknowledge being among easy ones).     Who would be "qualified experts" on this issue of unanswered questions? Mainstream media which most of them support goverment on its issues? Those voices mentioned by Lovelight are definitely notable. To the Lovelight's list I would add Gore Vidal, Peter Dale Scott, Robert M. Bowman (who got 44% votes in Florida and new 9/11 investigation is one of his main issues).... more to come. SalvNaut 18:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A celebrities opinion doesn't carry any more weight then any of us when it comes to conspiracy theories. If Sean Penn's opinion can be added, then I want my opinion added also. If he has something to say about acting or movies that might be a different thing. Rx StrangeLove 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a difference between unanswered questions, and speculation as to the reasons for unanswered questions.  Question X remains unanswered raises a valid issue; Question X remains unanswered because any investigation would reveal ridiculously implausible crimes is conspiracy theory nonsense, and hurts good-faith investigation. Peter Grey 19:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that problem here is whether to include Sean Penn's particular opinion or not but whether a paragraph about unanswered questions, unresting voices from general public and celebrities, has its rudiments. I think that it has, or at least the paragraph about 9/11 conspiracy theories should be enlarged. Now, here, you won't find information about those difficult questions raised, other than short CT paragraph. This is very POV. SalvNaut 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly, and recognizing that difference would be a step towards valid and unbiased formulation… Emphasis should certainly rest on notable demand for answers. I'm sorry if I've pointed that too vaguely. Lovelight 20:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There already exists a page for 911 conspiracy theories.  No need to litter this page with repeats from that parent.  Abe Froman 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have it backwards, this is the parent article, hence it should mention breifly however items that are in 9/11 conspiract theories. --NuclearZer0 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really.  Other than a single link to the 911 conspiracy theories saying there are conspiracy theories, I don't see any need whatsoever to add the theories themselves to the parent article.  Separation between fact and likely fiction should be maintained.  Abe Froman 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its kinda the norm when it comes to parent articles, the sub articles get minor mentions in it to point people toward the articles that spawned from the parent, see: Iraq War, Operation Gladio, etc. --NuclearZer0 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now who is backwards :-) Abe Froman 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've asked politely, let's try and avoid any such circus. This discussion has nothing to do with term conspiracy. I'd suggest you drop such link (or spin, if you prefer such terminology). We are talking about demand for independent investigation. Apart from vox populi, we have voices of celebrity and I honestly see no importance whether these are scientists, researchers, politicians, free artists… Perks have no importance here… Once again, valid questions about unanswered questions and calls for independent investigation don’t belong to the realm of conspiracy. Lovelight 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is exactly why the talk pages have repeatedly asked people to distinguish between unanswered questions and questions certain people don't like the answers to.  It shouldn't be hard - the conspiracy theories are not exactly subtle with their suspension of disbelief. Peter Grey 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering the demand for indy investigation has lead to the creation of the 9/11 commission its surely ntoable enough to make its own section into the article. Not only did it spawn that but it also spawned an investigation by the New York State Attorney Generals Office, which is another, but on a smaller scale. So I agree, the indy investigation isnt about conspiracy theories, just about a non governmental investigation and its quite notable to have its own section, good job Lovelight. --NuclearZer0 20:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 911 commission is linked in the 911 attacks article, already.  Abe Froman 20:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As well it should, as part of a larger section is what people are stating, its also highly notable as I believe there is a study citing over 40% of people wanted a new investigation. --NuclearZer0 21:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then feel free to add what people are stating to the 911 conspiracy theories article, which exists for speculation surrounding the September 11th attacks.  Abe Froman 21:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start writing the section, thank you for your input however. It just seems like we are not understanding one another. Lovelight, I will try to get somethnig to you this weekend to look over and let me know what you think before I add it. --NuclearZer0 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Lovelight 13:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great. You might find these polls useful. SalvNaut 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And make sure any additions have consensus! Rx StrangeLove 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You mentioned only two among so many. Isn't your opinion already there? SalvNaut 01:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calls for independent investigations 

message: The Motive section seems to have an odd presentation.  It starts with "According to official U.S. government sources..." - weasel words - before explaining the 1998 fatwa, which is the only really comprehensive claim of responsibility.  Then the 9/11 Commission findings, which have some special credibility issues, and then Little George's inane "hatred of the freedom" nonsense.  The findings of qualified experts appear last. Peter Grey 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't want to add it and start an edit war, but Osama bin laden answered the 'why' question himself in his often glossed-over letter to the American people. It can be found at http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2002/021120-ubl.htm and as far as I'm aware it isn't on Wikipedia Whoblitzell 08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Osama bin laden has answered why clearly for years before 9/11 in interviews, declarations, messages and conversations. The purported "bin Laden letter" that you refer to has not been authenticated as coming from bin Laden. Information was provided in this Wikipedia article at one time that debunked the letter. The letter appeared on the Internet in Arabic a year after 9/11. It was reported in a November 24 ,2002 article in The Observer , in an article that cites no intelligence-agency estimates about the likelihood of its authenticity, only using journalists' beliefs that it is really a letter from bin Laden explaining the motivations for the attacks.
Reasons to question the authenticity of this particular letter include:
* a style different from all the interviews
* a strange intro to the letter that acts like the motives have not been stated before.
* lack of any other source that includes as motives either
* "debauchery of Western Civilization " or
* a "call for conversion to Islam of the infidels."
The letter has other obvious problems that indicate it is a fabrication which at point is extremely amateurish. Does anyone take the following seriously?: "Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?" Who ever actually wrote the letter got carried away. And what is this Islam that the writer of the letter "calls us to" "And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language. " But Bin Laden is a fundamentalist Islamic, this letter talks about "total equality" "without regard" to even sex? Who ever wrote the letter was really having fun at that point. The letter, in an outline format that bin Laden has never used, supposedly asks us to do in numbered several things and now "stop supporting Israel" is pushed down to number 4? Come on. The whole style of the letter is a different from everything that is known to have actually come from bin Laden. 69.114.77.59 08:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak exposition of motives 

message: Many have expressed concern over the use of the word terrorist in the article.  What about the term Islamic Jihadist?  Eh?  Nobody should argue that one, imho.  Could anyone say that the hijackers weren't that?--SweetNeo85 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the article is Islamist terrorism. Changing that name can be discussed on that article's talk page, or at requested moves. Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headline (first paragraph) of the Sep 11 page now uses the phrase Islamic extremists. But no doubt other pages use equally offensive terms in titles and headlines. --Angryjames 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Jihadist? 

message: Can an admin delete all of the links to a picture that does not exist in the article?  It makes the page take a long time to load. --BenWhitey 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was fast. Already done. --BenWhitey 19:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: right|200px|thumb|Windsor Tower at 12:06 p.m. on February 13, 2005. Quite charred, as one can see.
 
..sustained in Feb of 2005 sustained a 20 hour fire without much damage to its steel frame? Was that a hoax? Are Spaniards worldclass engineers that such building withstood complete burnout with fire leaving only frames behind. Or is it the other way around with World trade centers... I still don't see any reason that a single aeroplane would be given the power to take down such building, that was according to documental archive built just (and only) for withstanding terrorist attacks. And I doubt it that Spanish are better engineers, quite the opposite... --195.210.230.226 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand the planes did not strike that far into the center, which is why the elevators remained working throughout. There was a documentary on WB11 some time back that had a middle eastern guy talking about how the plane hit the building on the floor/side he was on and he was able to still get out.--NuclearZer0 22:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the elevators in either tower above the points of imapct were working after either plane hit each building. In fact, many elevators had their cables snapped causing them to crash to their lowest normal service floors. Naturally, one would have hoped for more survivors, but to cite one example of someone who managed to eascape from a near death situation is not a good example that explains why all the others perished. The aviation fuel even sent a fireball down to the concourse level in the south tower, probably via an elevator shaft. The only reason anyone escaped from the south tower above the point of impact is because that aircraft hit the southeast side of the building, leaving the northwest stairway only partially damaged. All the elevators and stairwells were located in the central core of each building.--MONGO 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes little sense, if the plane penetrated the building into the center the elevators would not have worked at all, not simply not worked above a certain floor. But you also believe that all WTC buildings collapsed because of a fire, which defies history.  --NuclearZer0 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The elevators were staged...they didn't all go from the top to the bottom of the building. Each building was essentially three buildings in one and persons needing to go the uppermost floors would ride at least three different elevators to get to the uppermost floors. I never said the buildings collapsed just due to fire...they were also hit by wide body jets going at speeds near to and over 500 mph. Have you read anything produced by the National Institute of Science and Technology?--MONGO 22:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats normal, if you worked in an office building you would be aware that staged elevators are common. I ride 2 elevators to get to the floor I work on and that is only the 36th floor. You dont get points for stating the obvious. --NuclearZer0 12:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Building collapse is a question of structural engineering, not history.  And no-one thinks fire was a factor in 4 WTC. Peter Grey 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So true I am sure there is a logical reason its just never happened before and happens to the building specifically made for it not to happen rofl, gg no re. --NuclearZer0 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real engineers know that every building is designed not to fall down. And it's not like Madrid Windsor Tower was salvageable. Peter Grey 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you say? Wow I am flabbergasted at this revelation. Perhaps I should have been clearer since you didn't get the implication. I was reffering to the "made to withstand a plane collision" issue. --NuclearZer0 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: * WP:V is your friend. How many reliable sources support these "alternative theories"? If your answer is more than zero, go back and read WP:RS.  Anyone who wants to remove the more obviously delusional posts from here will have little opposition from me Guy (Help!) 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase so people dont need to get some WP:TEA. Mr. Guy I happily disagree with you, your concept of "delusional" does not share reality with polls from Gallup etc. which state that the majority of Americans at least do not agree with the account presented on this article space. I find it quite in a negative light when an admin makes a decision on a page that they have a personal opinion regarding, but that is why we often do not meet in the middle it seems. Well good chap good day and have a jolly old fun extended weekend if you are located here in the states. Perhaps we will meet one day on the slopes. --NuclearZer0 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In each tower, only one elevator went almost the entire distance from the base to the top floors. All other elevator were staged. The express elevator in the south tower would allow access directly non-stop to the observation area at the top of the building, and the one in the north tower went to the windows of the world restaurant at the top of that building. In the north tower, the uppermost stage was hit. There were over 100 elevators in each building, counting freight elevators. (97 passenger and 6 freight) . In the south tower, the aircraft struck right at the dividing point between the middle section and the upper section of the building. See the 4th diagram on the right and the section titled elevators like subways in this link. There were reports of elevator failures which resulted in the elevators plunging to the lowest level they would normally service.--MONGO 07:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were lots of reports remember, you said we cant rely on news from that day. Lets not cherry pick, are reports from that day, immediatly following the attack credible? --NuclearZer0 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I can see, I do not see any Boeing aircraft inside Windsor Tower.  The fire it sustained was from other causes.  Comparing it to the WTC fire is simply apples and oranges.  Abe Froman 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct there was less fire dmg to the WTC when it fell and it seems no real proof of structural damage, however the building was made to take the impact of a larger plane then actually hit it. WTC 7 was it that is said to have fallen due to fire dmg alone? --NuclearZer0 03:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 1 WTC took out 7 WTC - that's hardly "mostly into their own footprint".  No-one cares what the "Bush White House" says on technical issues.  If there's a "more reliable source", please identify it, and it may possibly contribute to the article.  But bear in mind a source is not "more reliable" simply because it says what you think it should say.  We've had the engineering vs intuition discussion before. Peter Grey 12:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure you can find pictures but being someone who passed ground zero and actually worked 2 blocks down as a messenger for some time before it fell, I can tell you it did fallinto its own footprint. The issue you seem to not understand is that even if it feel straight down ther eis still the issue of all that concrete and it was enough to splatter across the street. For instance make a tower of sound and then squish it straight down, its going to expand at the base outward ... Do you realize how close the buildings were geographically? --NuclearZer0 12:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's video showing how the buildings really collapsed.  Unless by 'into its own footprint' you mean the unremarkable observation that things fall vertically. Peter Grey 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes vertically, now make a pile of something and knock out one side, does it fall straight down? If the arguement is that it was damaged beyond being able to stabalize on one side only, then it really should no thave fallen straight down. The arguement for the elevators is that only one side was hit really badly, then it goes back to being that it was dmg all around so it fell straight down. Tell me something, why do they hire people to knock down buildings if all you have to do it put it on fire and let it crumble? 3 buildings fell straight down due to fire, first defying the idea that towers can fall from fire dmg, havent so far, then defying the idea of ever needing professionals to demolish a building. I guess its a coincidence or just dumb luck that NYC skyscrappers will always fall straight down, bad luck that fire will take them down though =/ Lucky I start a new position next month where I should be on the ground floor. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to read Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_collapse_mechanism. Apparently the WTC towers had some load balancing trusses on top. Quite useful to ensure the building continues standing if only few structural support elements fail but something which will probably cause catastrophic failure of all structural elements if enough of them fail since the load is constantly transfered to the remaining. If you need a more intuitive example, imagine a bicycle wheel. You can continue to ride if a spoke cracks since the load is distributed to the remaining ones. If you'd continue to ride long enough more and more spokes would crack over time due to the increased and asymmetric load and then you would suddenly have a catastrophic failure of the remaining spokes and land on the street (actually you wouldn't be able to continue to ride such long as the lateral deformation of the wheel would stop you before). Something similar probably happened at WTC and didn't happen at the Windsor tower so both events are not comparable. Note I'm a layman concerning mechanical engineering but you also don't seem to cite experts. Uups, forgot to sign. MBP 18:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right, but there is no point in using this page to argue the merits of 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are forums for that. Tom Harrison Talk 14:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? This is the 9/11 article talk page. The point is to talk about editing of the article. Discussions of conspiracy theories are germane to the article because the causes of 9/11 are relevant to the topic of 9/11 itself, and thus the discussion of conspiracy theories about 9/11 is relevant to the editing of this article.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, I am Spaniard and this issue was broadly commented here. I was also curious so I listen carefully. The two key differences between WTC towers and Windsor tower were 1) the temperature of the fire was much lower in Spanish building since only furnitures and carpets fed it (instead of jet fuel) and 2)not any support was damaged by any impact so not any column was forced to support nothing that did not support before the fire started. Apart from that, the concrete around the steel (I do not know the correct english word for the steel inside concrete columns) was much thicker in Windsor. I heard a full interview with one of the architects of WTC and he said that they have been aware of the risk of a fire so each column in each floor had a fire estinguishing device aimed to reduce temperature of the columns. Unfortunately the whole system was damaged by the planes so it did not worked on 9/11. The combination of high temperatures on the steel plus the lack of some elements of support caused the collapse. Just as to round the question, I also saw in Scientifican American a report about conclusions of 9/11 for future towers to be built, specially in Pacific Rim were many are planned or under way. The conclusion was that in the same case of a plane full of fuel crashing the towers, there was no way to make the building last much more than the time that the WTC lasted. So the strategy will be to create evacuation procedures using reinforced emergency elevators that allow the building to be abandoned by everybody in half an hour. Thus, the towers that are going to be built from now on would have a requirement of being able to resist any fire -on foot and with enough elevators working- until are empty.  So the behaviour of WTC towers was not only outstanding for his time but dificult to improve even now with all the new materials and computer simulations available.--Igor21 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Windsor Tower]] 

message: Why is this talk page semiprotected? This is nuts.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am requesting a merger of the new page with this parent page, now that the new page's purpose has ended.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: weren't you the one who semi-protected this page MONGO? and didn't you semi-protect it because someone you permabanned out of process was posting as an anon? I'm prepared to rekindle the POV debate sometime in the near future, because the more I look the more the evidence points to conspiracy theories. Also this article is far from neutral. I'm putting an unprotection request up right now--Acebrock 10:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't remember if I semiprotected it or not, Acebrock. As far as being nuetral, if the conspiracy theory people think they will succeed in adding their misinformation to this article, they have been mislead. In fact, if there are more pieces of misinformation that are nothing but disruption and harassment as was the case until it was semiprotected, then it will be immediately removed. The person I permabanned out of process...oh, you mean Cplot? What was out of process was that he already had two 3RR blocks leading up to that and was doing nothing but attacking everyone...get your facts straight before you make loud misrepresenations about my actions.--MONGO 14:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I see, that I didn't ever once protect or semi-protect this talkpage.....--MONGO 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was Naconkantari's fault, and he or she has also apparently picked now, of all times, to go on a wikibreak.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi...either add discussion that is designed to make this article better or your misrepresentations about myself and other editors will be removed in the future.--MONGO 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection of a talk page? 

message: Wow, all of this nonsense about conspiracy theories and planned demolitions. Yes, it's unusual for skyscrapers made from steel to collapse from fire. However, this was a very hot couple of fires. Furthermore, folks who were IN the danged Towers reported having seen no demolition work going on, whereas had explosives been planted beforehand some would've seen something unususual - after all, the Towers were supported by their side walls, and many folks had offices by those walls. Thus, someone's office would likely have been disturbed by the drilling or by the planting of explosives. Yes, I agree that 9/11 was a Bad Thing, and I even agree that it was a conspiracy that did it - after all, four planes don't crash for nothing - but this was a case in which skyscrapers literally burned to the ground, unlikely as it seems. I suppose those Conspiracy Theories are quite a Silly Thing indeed, and maybe their proposers should head over to Hastings and take a break - with "1066 and All That", of course.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Not soapbox. Also the fires aren't 2000 degrees, which would melt the steel, but 1400, which would make them slightly rubbery--Acebrock 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if you ever worked in a building like the Twin Towers but there is construction going on almost every day, everytime a tenant moves out contruction comes in to redo the layout of the floor. Movers come in and out of the building constantly as well. Anyone saying they didnt hear commotion is either not near it, or lying. --NuclearZer0 17:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, people would've known something was going on - at least some of them. Construction workers get seen. Furthermore, since the 1993 bombing, security was beefed up at the WTC, so if there was an inside job, it would've had to involve someone on security (explosives in massive quantities are harder to sneak through than the box cutters that Al Qaeda used on the airplanes).  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 and All That 

message: Just wondering why the multimedia link that used to be on this page located at http://ia300233.us.archive.org/3/items/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline/20041102-Last-Chance-911-Timeline-44min.mpg was removed. I think it is highly valuable material, and I have no agenda.
I understand that people might think this guy was agenda driven in producing this video, but it's the only one I've found that so effectively places the coverage from so many outlets together.  I'd be very interested to know why this link might have been removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K-lit (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split screen 9/11 

message: *Naconkantari
*MONGO
*NuclearUmpf
*Abe.Froman
*Tom Harrison
*ItsAProphetThing
*Acebrock
*Peter Grey
*Cplot - banned user that may be sockpuppeting and which may have triggered Naconkantari's semiprotection (user talk page is protected)
*Rickyrab - since I wound up commenting and asking around after discovering this semiprotection of a talk page, I guess I'm involved, too. 
Note: There may be others involved in this; it is a complicated discussion and I waded into the middle of it.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involved parties 

message: There is a situation of semi-protection of Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, which is making it practically impossible for anons to submit requests for edits to the main article. It is there because people supporting conspiracy theories and people feeling that the talk page should not contain discussion of conspiracy theories are arguing with one another, and some users (I am uncertain about this) may have been banned and may be using sockpuppets. Nonetheless, I am concerned that good-faith anons are being censored by this semi-protection. Furthermore, I wonder if a ban on users excessively discussing conspiracy theories and their IPs is a good idea or not. My POV is that a) conspiracy theories are relevant to discussing the cause of 9/11, b) the discussion of conspiracy theories often disintegrates badly into soapboxing and even "whining", c)blocking all anons from editing a TALK page over the edits of a few is ridiculous, and d) the situation needs sysop help.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Rickyrab|Rickyrab]] 

message: The image of the lightpole on the cab it covering the text, I tried to fix it but I can't see the anything about the image when I click edit page...sorry I'm a bit of a wiki noob. Patmagroin1289 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Covering Text 

message: I wish to bring up the issue of al-Qaeda taking part in attacks. There is no reference as to evidence of al-Qaeda being affiliated with the attacks. I believe that we should only have hijackers in the article and no mention of al-Qaeda actually doing it. There can be the theory of al-Qaeda doing it, but not saying that they actually did it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soten355 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bin Laden said he picked the people, this is referenced in the article. --NuclearZer0 17:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. That is sufficient evidence to back up "who dunnit". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soten355 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affiliated with al-Qaeda 

message: I think it would be good to have in the main article other possible hypothesis than the ones expressed in the 9/11 Comission. For example in the case of the Madrid bombings of March 11, in the Spanish Wikipedia , there is room for different studies, backed up with sources.
--165.138.169.33 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there going to be an attack this weekend in Salt Lake and San Antonio? 68.89.131.146 21:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide other hypothesis in main article 

message: The sentence at issue is:
 The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt, as billions of dollars worth of office space was  
 damaged or destroyed.
The question is "what was destroyed."
Office space was destroyed.
That's rather a strangely constructed sentence, when you look at it.
Looking further, what does it mean? Billions to construct? No. Billions to rent? For how long? Billions to replace? That might better.
 The economy of Lower Manhattan ground to a halt. Office space which would cost billions of
 dollars to replace was damaged or destroyed.
That's my suggestion.
Wowest (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Billions of dollars in office space" and "Office space worth billions of dollars" seem to mean the same thing in comfortable English, and might equate to something like "Office space that would be appraised at billions of dollars" in more laboured English. Despite the fact that office space was destroyed, however, neither "office space" nor "destroyed" are syntactically important components of the sentence. The subject of the sentence is "billions" (both "of dollars" and "in office space" are prepositional phrases--the grammatical equivalent of junk DNA, if I may offer a metaphor) and the corresponding verb is the auxiliary verb, "were." Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Here's an example for comparison: "Members of al-Qaeda hijack the planes." "Al-Qaeda" is more semantically interesting than "members," but "members" is more syntactically important because it is the subject of the sentence, whereas "of al-Qaeda" is a prepositional phrase, set off by the preposition, "of." So the infinitive of the verb, "to hijack," must be conjugated to correspond with "members" (hence "hijack") rather than with "al-Qaeda" (in which case it would be "hijacks," at least in American English). You can insert as many prepositional phrases (PP) and relative clauses (RC) as you'd like, and still the subject will be plural: "Members of al-Qaeda [PP] from Jupiter [PP] with thirty toes [PP], who play Scrabble [RC] with kangaroos [PP] that eat ice cream [RC] hijack the planes." "Ice cream" may be singular, but all that matters is that the subject of the sentence is plural. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Harrison versus CosmicLatte