Talk:September 11 attacks

Destruction of the WTC complex

Perhaps the following addition to the lead might be informative:

The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours, and the debris from the collapse destroyed all the other buildings in the complex.

It seems to be a widely held misconception amongst "conspiracy theorists" that only three of the buildings were destroyed, and a widely held misconception elsewhere that no other buildings surrounding the towers were destroyed. Adding this information to the lead may highlight a fact which seems to have been overlooked. At the same time, I am not sure whether this information is important enough to merit inclusion in the lead; Wikipedia isn't really about "writing for an audience", is it. What do you think? Narssarssuaq (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support including it because the destruction of those buildings caused hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in property damage at the very least (and I believe a few people died in them). Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. --Tarage (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Antandrus (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The debris destroyed all the other buildings in the complex...then in the article adding...A half dozen other buildings suffered major structural damage.[2]--MONGO 07:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose as this wording is not even close to correct. With the exception of the 7 World Trade Center all of the other buildings at WTC were taken down by demolition crews to make way for reconstruction. I think saying "debris from the collapse destroyed" any building is quite inappropriate in this context. Even WTC7 was concluded to have collapsed as a result of fires so to say it was "destroyed" by the debris is rather misleading.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

None of the structures at the complex were usable after the attacks including the adjacent Marriot. "Not even close to correct"...huh?

In this image, 7WTC is at far left, 6WTC is just to the right of that with a massive hole which destroyed 80% of its roof, 5WTC at upper showing massive damage to the side and roof, the two towers and near the red crane at lower right, the completely destroyed Marriott

That was the old WTC complex and it was completely destroyed.--MONGO 18:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That image is misleading.

WTC6 is looking very not destroyed

WTC5 has lots of debris on the roof and has some holes but was definitely not destroyed.

The Marriot WTC got severely damaged, but is still very much not destroyed.

WTC4 got badly hit, but still looks very much like it was not destroyed.

Saying these buildings were "destroyed" by the debris is an unhelpful exaggeration. I think maybe you could substitute "severely damaged" for "destroyed", but I am not sure why we would need to mention this in the lede of the article at all. Relative to the other aspects of the attacks, the damage caused to surrounding buildings is not important enough to mention in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, every image looks very destroyed to me, unless you count "destroyed" as only a smoking crater in the ground. Acroterion (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't see how there could be so much destruction without the complex being destroyed. I tend to favor something like the proposed wording, but am open to other ideas. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

@TDA...Not an exaggeration in the least...your side view of 6WTC doesn't show that the center of the building, including 80% of the roof was crushed all the way to below street level. The Marriott image shows only the bottom few floors...it used to be a 22 storey building! None of the buildings survived the attacks...they were all either already collapsed or in danger of doing so and HAD to be removed...are you arguing just to be contrary or unable to properly examine even basic photographic documentation?--MONGO 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How about the Deutsche Bank Building which was 200 feet south of WTC2 yet was subsequently demolished after suffering massive damage to its north side

Just word to be general - something like - "The 'aftermath from fires and collapsed towers damaged the surrounding complex of buildings extensively. This lead to them being demolish over time."20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Words matter people. Connotation matters. Saying the buildings were "destroyed" by debris is vague and could mislead readers into thinking the buildings were all reduced to rubble by falling debris like in some sort of Kaiju film when this is not the case. As I am sure a number of you are interested in seeing this article regain GA status, you should consider that there is nothing "clear" in saying the WTC buildings were "destroyed" by debris.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am with TDA here. I think that the word "destroy" conveys an insufficient amount of detail. It would only take a sentence to give an overview of the damage.--Adam in MO Talk 20:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How about "Damaged beyond repair"? 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.73.51 (talk)

• Support the OP's original point: The lede should address the fact that more than three buildings of the WTC complex were lost in the attacks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The four other buildings were demolished months later to make way for reconstruction. None of them were "lost in the attacks" so the lede shouldn't say that. If we note what happened to those other buildings in the lede it should be in the context of the reconstruction as that is where it is most pertinent to an introduction to the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Two commercial airliners were hijacked, and each was flown into one of the two 110-story towers. The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building. As the towers collapsed, massive debris clouds consisting of crushed and broken building components fell onto and blew into surrounding structures, causing extensive collateral damage and, in some cases, igniting fires and causing additional collapses. In total, 10 major buildings experienced partial or total collapse and approximately 30 million square feet of commercial office space was removed from service, of which 12 million belonged to the WTC Complex. — Executive Summary, FEMA 403

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be including the twin towers and WTC 7 so "total collapse" would most likely refer to those buildings and the others suffered "partial collapse", which is not sufficiently descriptive and does not fit with saying they were "lost in the attacks" as that implies more than a partial collapse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

We can easily avoid "most likely" by going to the sources...

Properties in and around the WTC Complex that sustained full collapse, partial collapse or major damage as a result of the 2001 WTC attacks.

# Building Damage Square Feet 1 WTC 1 (North Tower) Full collapse 4,761,716 2 WTC 2 (South Tower) Full collapse 4,761, 716 3 WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) Full collapse 584,600 4 WTC 4 (South East Plaza) Partial collapse 576,000 5 WTC 5 (North East Plaza) Partial collapse 783,520 6 WTC 6 (Custom House) Partial collapse 537,693 7 WTC 7 Full collapse 2,000,000 8 Greek Orthodox Church (155 Cedar Street) Full collapse 1,232 9 North Bridge (from Winter Garden to WTC 1) Full collapse 8,000 10 2 WFC Tower B (125 West St.) Major Damage 2,591,244 11 3 WFC Tower C (200 Vessey St.) Major Damage 2,263,855 12 Winter Garden Building (201 Vessey St.) Major Damage 54,000 13 1 Bankers Trust Plaza (130 Liberty St.) Major Damage 1,415,086 14 120 Cedar St. Major Damage 18,319 15 Engineering Building (114 Liberty St.) Major Damage 69,000 16 130 Cedar St. Major Damage 135,000 17 90 West St. Major Damage 350,000 18 140 West St. (Verizon) Major Damage 1,171,540 19 45 Park Place Major Damage 75,000 20 30 West Broadway Major Damage 381,000

Where...

a collapse or partial collapse of a building represents a 100% damage ratio, while moderate damage would be an approximately 20% damage ratio.[p.8]...Overall, property damage in the devastation zone surrounding the WTC complex totals $22.7 billion.[p.9]
— Source: Grossi, P. (2009). "Property Damage and Insured Losses from the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks" (PDF). Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. 15 (2). doi:10.2202/1554-8597.1163.

In sum: At least nine buildings in and around the WTC Complex were destroyed in the attacks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"Partially collapsed" is not the same as "destroyed" and the "full collapse" description is not really a precise description for the WTC3, though it definitely suffered the worst damage of the four other buildings in the WTC complex. We should only mention something in the lede if it is significant to the subject and we should make sure our words do not mislead. I do not see anything to suggest that the damage other buildings suffered during the attacks is really significant to the subject of the attacks. So far the only rationale presented has been some desire to nitpick conspiracy theorists, which is not an appropriate basis for adding content to the lede of this article. Using such vague language would be even more of a disservice.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal(s)

Proposal A

The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Debris from the collapse of the towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex and major damage to ten other major structures in the area.

Other suggestions, corrections, or tweaks are, of course, more than welcome. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is just too much information for the lede and quite unnecessary. Aside from the collapse of the towers, the collapse of WTC 7 is the only somewhat noteworthy event in the context of the attacks. Your suggestion would actually give more space to the damage caused by the collapse than the collapse itself. I believe we could make a minor addition to say something to the effect that "and the debris caused substantial damage to the surrounding buildings" with WTC 7 possibly noted briefly as having collapsed and then expanding the sentence on the cleanup to mention buildings being demolished due to extensive damage. As it stands the lede is not a succinct summary of the article so it would be better to avoid detailing these minors aspects the way you have here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad, but needs to be trimmed. It isn't entirely accurate though since we know one landing gear actually landed on the roof of a building 300 feet north of the south tower and fell through at least 3 floors....so not all the damage was from the towers collapsing. I'd prefer the version that was mentioned a couple weeks back.--MONGO 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Good catch Mongo. I'll correct that (unfortunately it does make the already bloated sentance a bit longer). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How about...Debris from the collapsing towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex. Debris also caused major damage to ten other large structures in the immediate area.--MONGO 03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is still too much detail for the lede for such a minor aspect of the attacks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm good with that. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Done. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Revert of minor changes

A number of minor changes I made to the article have been reverted. The changes in question are as follows:

• [3] - Changed "on that Tuesday morning" to "early that morning" in response to an objection regarding a different change to the same material.
• [4] - Changed "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture in general" to "The 9/11 attacks have had a significant impact on society and culture" in response to an objection to a previous variant that used the term "political arena" in place of the "geopolitics" term.
• [5] - Diminishing the proseline appearance of the article.

I am finding it particularly difficult to understand why the last two edits were reverted. At best I can see maybe two changes that may not be phrased just right, but that does not justify a wholesale revert. Perhaps the individuals who have been reverting these changes can be more clear about their objections or someone uninvolved could weigh in on the edits above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The politics/geopolitics or similar wording probably is best left out altogether...as I've tried numerous times before but have failed to properly convey, this article would be a lot better if we focused mostly on the event of that day, with a lead in on some precursers, and some following paragraphs on the aftermath such as the war, the cleanup, health effects and investigations all in one section under maybe 4 subsections of a paragraph each.MONGO 12:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree to an extent. Maybe not quite as short as what you suggest, but I definitely think those sections should be shorter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying disambiguation hatnotes

OK, my edit aiming at simplifying the disambiguation hatnotes was reverted with the message "removal of legitimate DAB links [...], needs discussion on Talk" so let there be discussion.

I think hatnotes should be kept as short as possible, without breaking their navigational purpose of course. Here we have ""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For the attacks in Chile in 1973, see 1973 Chilean coup d'état. For the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya in 2012, see U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).". Five page suggestions; I find that long and quite confusing, especially for people having to go through the four "For..." sentences to find something on the disambiguation page; and on a smartphone, all that takes a big portion of the screen, quite frustrating when you just loaded the article.

I suggested ""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).". The idea was that 1973 Chilean coup d'état and U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi are two possibilities listed on 911 (disambiguation), so users arriving on that page looking for one of them would be guided to that disambiguation page where they would find the article they were looking for.

What's wrong with that? - Cos-fr (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Improve first introductory paragraph

Ok, my edit aiming at improving the first introductory paragraph was reverted with the message "PoV edits; needs discussion on Talk", so let there be discussion.

Reading #Destruction of the WTC complex above on this talk page, I understand that I had reduced too much the level of detail about destruction/fires/collapses and such around the WTC; still I think that the current sentences are too wordy, and with too much details, for the first paragraph of the lead section of the article (there's plenty space later on to give more details). But okay for that error, is there anything else wrong in what I suggested? What is the PoV in my edit ?

Thanks - Cos-fr (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I made an attempt to shorten this and was reverted on the basis that it removed mention of the fires. However, the debris causing damage would include fires and the fires are only considered important with respect to one building other than the towers. Since the discussion above was simply about clearing up that the collapse was not uniform given the debris damaging other buildings, I do not think this is important enough to mention. Remember, this article is about the attacks. We have an article about the collapse that does mention this in some detail. I think the best course it to restore the shortened version I presented and wikilink to the collapse article in the lede. Seems to me that there really should be such a link and it would serve readers better than front-loading this article with all the gritty details.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya in 2012, see U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi

Who made the determination that when some people go to September 11 attacks, they are looking for an attack at the American consulate in Benghazi and not the well known terrorist attack that killed 2,996 people? I think the link to that article has to be removed. It's unnecessary. It's only on here because it's a recent event. If it was never added here, 2 years later it would still not be added. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, the embassy attacks happened on September 11th and were attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the link. --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

without being rude, where is the 2996 number from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.69 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

2,977 victims plus the 19 hijackers. Victims include the 292 people on the planes, the 2,606 people inside the buildings (WTC complex + Pentagon) at time of collapse, and 292 people that were outside the towers but were killed by debris and/or falling bodies from WTC 1 and 2. At least 6,000 other people were injured due to the attacks and a bomb-sniffing dog was killed, but is obviously not included in either total. The death total is gaining periodically due to deaths linked to exposure to dust from the WTC, so it is plausible that the total could at some point surpass 3,000. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

False flag

I would like to propose that the term "false flag" be introduced into this article and discussed as separate from "conspiracy theories" as there is now substantial scientific evidence to support the controlled demolition theory in relation to building 7 and it does Wikipedia a dis-service to have this page written purely as a POV, albeit a POV that is supported by the US Government. Wikipedia must serve the world, not the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.49.190 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories has that generally covered.

No it doesn't, I am proposing that the title of this page be changed to include the term "September 11 false flag attacks"

Is there anything new from reliable sources that would affect the articles? I'd also note that you're mixing theories: the whole 9/11 event has been proposed as a false flag event, while the purported demolition of WTC 7 is proposed as more of a cover-up, with the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 possibly serving to cover up the coverup. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, Wikipedia relies on facts or what are regarded as facts, and 9/11 conspiracy theories are soundly rejected by academia and by people knowledgeable in any of the topic areas involved (engineering, building collapses, physics, etc.). The idea that 9/11 was a false-flag operation flies in the face of all evidence in the topic and is nothing more than nonsense promoted by a lunatic fringe. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia. There is a substantive case for new evidence as NIST has recognized the WTC 7 free fall for the first 2.25 seconds. This could only be achieved under a controlled demolition with all of the columns demolished simultaneously. By admitting to WTC 7 being a controlled demolition the review of towers one and two being brought down in a controlled demolition hence forth puts the official conspiracy theory in total doubt. 122.57.49.190 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be as polite as I can. You need to bring reliable sources to overturn the consensus. You say that there is now "substantial scientific evidence". Cite it. If you cannot provide reliable sources, I'm afraid your edit request will be ignored. --Tarage (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, NIST did not admit WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. In fact, the free fall portion of the collapse was only the north face of the building, and only for part of its collapse. See this link, and I'll quote the relevant portion behind a cut. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail. To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky. The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf). The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse: Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall). Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall) Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Neutrality

I just checked this article out for the first time the other day. I was very saddened to how some parties have hijacked Wikipedia articles to advance what is easily recognized as propaganda by most people. It's so one-sided that I don't believe this was written by private citizens. This page is a black stain on Wikipedia's credibility. --User:J3wishVulcan

It's not "one-sided", unless you count logic and evidence, and its negation, being two sides. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Like the above poster, I must request reliable sources. If you cannot provide them to back up your opinion, I will close this discussion thread for soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I could show you a thousand things right now, but I won't bother wasting my time because I know the operatives who have hijacked this page will just re-hash their pre-scripted name calling routine. You may want to be more subtle. This page is easily recognized cartoon-level propaganda. It's so obvious my cousin who's in 6th grade showed it to me and said I would get good laugh out of this sad propaganda effort. J3wishVulcan (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, the reality is that most people don't believe the official story on 9/11. The fact the editors of this page have made such a deliberate and concerted effort to suppress any information that goes against the official story, is a major "red flag" for most people. It's clear the editors of this page are presenting a drastically skewed version of "mainstream" beliefs. "Mainstream" means what most people believe. The government and its corporate conglomerate media would love to be able to wave a magic wand and tell most people what they believe, but only the most gullible of individuals actually falls for such tricks. The fact that you have tried to hide my comments in addition to closing the thread...I mean seriously who would go so far as to hide comments they didn't agree with, unless they had a special interest in the outcome. It's absolutely laughable. You're not doing yourselves any favours with this either. I wonder how many people have been awakened just by seeing this article and seeing how deliberately skewed it is. People aren't that stupid. J3wishVulcan (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the operatives who controls this page, we can't let you speak because we have all the sheeple fooled. One post from you threatens to expose the conspiracy to the entire world, and our cover-up would come falling down like a deck of cards. But rest assured, the black helicopters have been dispatched. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Most people know the truth, and that's why this page is all the more ridiculous for its attempts to dictate reality in a manner that can only be classified on Wikipedia as "POV." Most normal people have better things to do on a Sunday afternoon than suppressing truther comments on a Wikipedia Talk Page. What else could you be besides an operative? --J3wishVulcan (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)