Talk:September 11 attacks

Article Neutrality in Question

Stating as fact that 19 Al-Qaida terrorists attacked on 9/11 is against the ideals of neutrality of Wikipedia.

Many influential people around the globe assert that the US government and the CIA, not Arab terrorists, demolished the 3 towers; people such as Fujita Yukihisa, member of the Japanese Diet (Parliament).

Therefore, all statements on this page should be phrased "It is asserted that..." "The official belief is that..."

Until this article is worded correctly, Wikipedia will be known as a CIA propaganda tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.118.1.51 (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 06:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything different than the "official" story is called a conspiracy theory. I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page. Reliable to whom? Nothing to get mad over though, If "it" were me , you could bet your ass I wouldn't let anything but my truth appear on a site owned and ran by civilians I ruled over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.53.3 (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

"I wonder how many times "reliable source" was mentioned on this page." Apparently, not enough. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The time has come to give up the separate versions of "reality." We now have a reliable source (peer reviewed, outside the 9/11 Truth community, professional in its technical discipline) concluding the article with this sentence: “… we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” Does this belong in the conspiracy theory version, or the "what really happened version"? (The source is the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009)Lookunderneath (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Lookunderneath, thie article you cite is not from outside the 9/11 truth community. It was co-authored by Niels Harrit of scholars for truth and Gregg Roberts from Architects and engingeers for 9/11 truth among others. It also concludes by thanking David Ray Griffin who is not a scientist, but simply a leader of the 9/11 Truth community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.149 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly. There is no criteria that demands that anyone has to be "outside the 911 truth community". Thats a logical fallacy and pure intellectual dishonesty as well as just plain old common dishonesty. Just supposing anyone held a critical view, they would be banded together with the 911 truth movement anyway. But the crux of the dishonesty is pretending that a label, any label somehow disqualifies _anyone_ from presenting evidence. Nunamiut (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with the essential analytical expertise, and access to the necessary equipment and untampered WTC dust samples, can corroborate the results presented in this journal document. This is unlike the NIST computer modeling results, where the modeling parameters are kept secret. Hence, this journal document is more verifiable and reliable than the official account, in terms of putting forward evidence for the possible cause of collapse. It's time for Wikipedia to allow verifiable documentation to be put forward, instead of holding the topic hostage to hypotheses which can only be taken on faith. At the very least, it stands as another reason to note that the article's neutrality is in dispute. The Original Wildbear (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not wikipedia's place to try to prove that something other than the official report is true. If and when a preponderance of reliable sources question the official story, then you've got something. Until then, it's fringe theory. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Only idiots are stupid enough to think the WTC was blown up by explosives.--MONGO 03:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have citations for that claim? And no fair citing this page. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO, may I suggest taking a pause to review Wikipedia:Etiquette. It's something we all should do from time to time. Especially when editing on contentious topics like this one. The Original Wildbear (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, wikipedia version is the one from the Official Comission that investigated the attacks. Why nowhere is mentioned that the 60% of the commission declared publicly that the investigation was a fraude, and that the Pentagon adn the White House worked actively to obstruct the investigation? Is that what this zelous editors are trying to save here? It's passed the time wikipedia content is freed from the hands of CIA.Echofloripa (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What you see as a "CIA propaganda tool" I see as a factual, reliably sourced article that has survived repeated attempts by morons to compromise its integrity in favor of their preferred conspiracy theory. The reason this article is a good one is because of the hard work of several editors. Go away, you are not wanted here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Typical answer: moron/conspiracy theory, bla bla bla bla. "Go away, you are not wanted here". You can't just want to take the ownership of a public content, on which a lot of people based their understanding on. let's keep to facts.

If neutrality is to be maintained then I think "and by the community of civil engineers" should be redacted from the following statement:

"This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the community of civil engineers, who, after their research, both concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Twin Towers.

I'm not sure what "community of civil engineers" is being referred to here, but clearly the most visible, organized, and vocal set of professional civil engineers who are expressing an opinion on this subject are members of AE911Truth. The web site is here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ and there are literally hundreds of degreed, certified, and well experienced CEs who are willing to provide their names and their credentials. Thus there is no need to refer to some vague and anonymonus "community of civil engineers" in this matter. It amazes me that nowhere in this supposedly impartial article is this web site listed.

In the name of neutrality the main article should provide a pointer to http://www.ae911truth.org/, even if it resides in the conspiracy theory section. This is not the article trying to make any statements for or against conspiracy thinking, it is simply acknowledging that conspiracy investigators are out there and where they can be found. On that site you will also find a documented admission that the NIST investigation never considered the possibility of an inside job and thus they did not look for evidence of it. Thus I find the mention of the NIST conclusion used as a mechanism to refute the conspiracy investigator's conclusions a bit disingenuous. We all know it is embarassing to have to admit that Bush's henchmen laid the thermite charges which brought down not only the 2 buildings hit by air craft but also a 3rd building which was not hit by aircraft (WTC7). But Wiki is supposed to be neutral and if there are people saying he did it and offering verifiable proof to the fact that nobody has been able to refute to date, just report the facts as they exist, no more, no less. Let the people do their own research after a pointer is provided.

If Wiki cannot be fair and neutral in these sorts of matters I fear for the future of this otherwise very fine and usable public resource. You simply can't fool all the people all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck’s sake… do you twoofer idiots even read what you type? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~ My, that was a well thought out response. Who are you and what right have you to respond like that on this forum? Where is a moderator when it comes to this sort of thing? Is that the only way you can respond to requests that Wiki live up to its neutrality commitment? Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks. We are all just trying to make Wiki a better global information resource. Of course if there is some intent to hide aspects of the truth then let's discuss why that seems to be so important to some on this thread. All I am suggesting is that the article is clearly NOT neutral in that it makes statements that are clearly inaccurate as I outlined above. I even suggested some changes that I thought would remedy the situation. I really don't think profanity is appropriate in this forum. Try to elevate yourself, please. 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk)

This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away. --Tarage (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, you’re right. You’re new here, so I should give you a chance.

I’ll give you a bit of advice too: Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not conspiracy theories and innuendo. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being too kind to people who do not come here in good faith. Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about reliable sources. AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be. Hence, "This is not a forum, no one cares what you think, go away." --Tarage (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Kidding...it was the giaant squid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.92 (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about verifiable facts" I know that. Its what makes Wiki so valuable. But AE911Truth is full of verifiable facts and just because some profane fool writes "AE911T is not a reliable source, and never will be" does not change the fact. Those guys even used electron scanning microscopes to VERIFY the presence of unburned micrograin thermite. It is a fact that this substance does not occur naturally in big cities. Where is the counter proof that AE911Truth is not credible? They came up with the electron scanning microscope data so I really don't think it neutral to simply dismiss that as "not reliable". What, in fact, WOULD serve as reliable proof? Only things that agree with your way of thinking, it appears. And I may be new here on this discussion forum but I suspect I have been around a good deal more than many people posting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm.... You know thermite is just rust and metal shavings, right? Where oh where would we find rust and shaved metal on an old metal building that has been blown to hell and back by the impact of a multiple ton aircraft full of jet fuel? Saying you found thermite there, and using it as proof that it was detonated manually, is like saying you found burn marks, and they were proof that it was detonated manually. That's not even to mention how implausible it is to demolish a building using thermite, since thermite is a slow burn, not a fast pop like you'd want to destroy support columns. I want source that this magical thermite exists. The "nanotechnology thermite" that is incredibly effective, burns hot and fast enough to take down a building cleanly, and yet has never been used since on any demolition, much less commonly enough for anyone to even know what the hell it is outside of wtc debates. I want source, and I want the source to NOT come from a wtc truth supporter website, since I'm pretty sure creating a website, then sourcing that website on wikipedia to support your views, is against everything this site stands for. 72.95.110.27 (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nano-thermite is not created accidentally in a building collapse.  Cs32en  15:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

{{disputed}}; if fullerenes can be created accidentally in a low-temperature fire, why not nano-thermite (as long as temperature never reaches the flash point). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions like this are exactly the reason why a new and credible investigation is needed. Such an investigation must include independent scientists and engineers who can examine the evidence and answer such questions in a believable and scientifically verifiable manner. Wildbear (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fullerene is a configuration that represents a local energy minimum at high temperatures, nano-thermite is not.  Cs32en  23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Hut 8.5 20:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that treating conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories is an unreasonable statement. I mean, the writers of this wiki nor anyone that I know of nor me have the truth about what happened; but, what's the meaning of verifiable? I have a master in physics and looking at the evidence that the official commission presented I can say that there are affirmations that ARE NOT verifiable; the less verifiable is the strange theory about the building 7. I will say to you one more thing: I live in Argentina; I don't know about anyone, not just one single person, that believes that the government is not implied in the "attacks". I have to say that average argentinian is not a conspiracy fanatic. So, what's the meaning of verifiable? why I an average reader of wikipedia have to read statements presented as truth if that statements are not based on verifiable evidence? at least we have to add "the government/official version" somewhere. josemiotto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.75.146 (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Existence of WMD

In the lead section of the article, on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I've amended the phrase "later it was discovered that there were none" to "no such weapons have been found". While I'm personally of the view (probably shared by most people by now) that the whole WMD scenario was cooked up to provide an excuse for a military incursion already decided on, the problem Iraq had at the start is the same problem we have now: you can't prove the non-existence of something.

In other words, unless someone knows better and can correct me, we have no conclusive way to prove or discover that there were no WMD, but have no evidence to suppose that there were. - Laterensis (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Whether or not it can be proven in a theoretically absolute sense, the non-existence of WMD is the verifiable conclusion of authoritative sources. Peter Grey (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, since as I said you can't prove the non-existence of something, this still amounts to the adoption of the most likely conclusion by those sources (a conclusion I would agree with, albeit as a private citizen with only news reports to go on). So I still maintain the view that "no such weapons have been found" is more factually accurate than "it was discovered that there were none". - Laterensis (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article. Are Iraq's WMDs mentioned in the article? I don't see it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The reference to WMD in the lead (which was added yesterday) should be removed, because the article barely mentions the invasion of Iraq, apart from a sentence saying that the attacks contributed to public support for the invasion. --Hut 8.5 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Edits

Dear all,

Yesterday I proposed changes to this article in light of research undertaken for the delivery of a university course that I teach. The edits were reversed and it was suggested I posted my reasoning for the changes to the discussion page. I have no affiliation to any 9/11 truth organisation, have been to no meeting in support or against 9/11. I have corresponded with only two people active in posting on the subject (one against conspiracy theories, one in favour of them). My proposed contribution to the article is the result of independent research after reading many reports and articles, and reviewing six documentaries produced in both the US and UK. You can check my credentials at http://www.shu.ac.uk/sbs/research/organisational-development/sp_rory_ridley_duff.html and Marquis's Who's Who in the World 2009.

Below is text (approximate) I added to the talkpage of editors who reversed my changes, or supported the reversal.

"Thank you for your comment on my contribution to the September 11 Attacks article. I'm a senior lecturer at a university in the UK. I include a lecture on 9/11 as part of a philosophy course I give to doctoral students (i.e. those studying for a PhD) to illustrate the contested and constructed nature of knowledge and truth. I am well aware of the key issues raised by 9/11, and the contested nature of 'truth' on this subject.

The current Wikipedia article does not provide balanced coverage of key claims about 9/11. It is the lack of awareness about the contested nature of events on September 11 that makes the current article weak. It falls outside Wikipedia's own guidelines for neutrality and censors views that have been accepted into parts of the academic community, and networks of people who have conducted extensive research into 9/11 issues. One of my concerns is that 'facts' are accepted on the basis of news reports, while other contributions based on peer-reviewed journal articles (albeit not of the highest quality), and good quality documentaries from the BBC and independent documentary makers, are rejected.

One criticism of my contribution is that the views expressed in the article are already 'mainstream', and that the proposed additions would be controversial. I refute both these claims as detailed below. By 2006, at least 1/3 of the US population believed the US government played a conscious role in the 9/11 attacks (see http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/12137). Worldwide, there are countries in which almost one-third of the population believe that either Israel or the US government were as likely, or more likely, than Al Quaida to have perpetrated the attacks (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35417520080910). For Wikipedia to be 'balanced', it must include these views in any article on the September 11th attacks and acknowledge international views and research into this matter.

The proposed changes, therefore, counter obvious bias in the September 11th Attack article and ensure that the opinions of large numbers or people, including many credible engineers, physicists, academics, politicians and eye-witnesses, are represented. The proposed changes did not remove any existing material to ensure that the views already expressed remain (there was no attempt to censor others points of view, only an attempt to provide the necessary balance to the article overall). The counter perspectives are well-documented and supported by evidence (including two court cases). Other claims are based on active debates amongst academics. These debates are likely to be closer to the 'truth' that bulletins from news channels and should be included in the article.

There is no 'bias' or 'controversy' in reporting that there are ongoing court cases, mass movements and academic debates that question the version of truth presented in the current article. These are matters of fact, not opinion, and it distorts understanding of the subject to omit these facts from the article. It gives the impression that the statements in the article are uncontested. This is clearly untrue so the omission breaches Wikipedia guidelines to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I added no judgement as to which version of the truth is more 'true' - the edits simply balanced the debate."

To the above, I would like to add the follow. In the university sector we discuss the use of Wikipedia by students often. The main weakness of Wikipedia (as viewed by universities) is that its editors are insufficiently schooled in both philosophy and research skills. As a consequence, many struggle to differentiate between issues of editing and censorship. The result is many Wikipedia articles are based on popular prejudices (or popular opinion) rather than evidence-based research. For this reason, many lecturers ban the use of Wikipedia. I'm not one of these lecturers - I make relevant contributions on matters that I have researched or regular give lectures at post-graduate level. I encourage students to use Wikipedia, but also to check out the quality of the sources on which the articles are based. I support the Wikipedia project but do worry about the level of censorship when matters move outside 'popular prejudice' and enter the realm of academic debate.

Providing contributions are backed by credible evidence, editors should always seek to include them and provide guidance to ensure the overall article is balanced. An awareness of 'credible' show encompass knowledge created using varied scientific traditions. This means checking out the sources behind contributions before removing them (too often they are removed instantly without checking the credibility of the sources). It also means that editors need to ensure that debates and controversies are managed not excluded.

At present, this article is heavily biased towards one politicised view rooted in a narrow section of US/UK opinion. At present, this brings Wikipedia itself into international disrepute. The claims made in the article are not backed by a standard of evidence that would warrant their inclusion as 'fact'. For this reason, the article should reflect the alleged nature of matters where they have not been conclusively proved one way or the other (or where there is no consensus). Key issues of academic debate and contested issues in the legal domain are not currently addressed.

Overall, it is my view the article must be amended to stay within Wikipedia's own editing guidelines.

I will leave it one day before restoring the contributions suggested to the article and sincerely hope that editors will ensure the changes remain.

Best wishes

User:Roryridleyduff Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At least one of the "on-going court cases" was dismissed and withdrawn by the plaintiff; apparently the attorney filed the case without getting the plaintiff's consent. I don't think there are any present court cases, but I could easily be wrong.

Your "1/3" above refers to those who think the US government is not telling the whole truth, not those who think the US government was involved in the attack or a cover-up. Read the polls.

Your comment about "research", international or otherwise, appears (I was going to select a milder word, but none adequately coveys the facts) bogus.

It's possible that some of your proposed additions are notable and adequately sourced, but much of your rant above is not accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are not checking the source I've given. Other polls put the numbers thinking people are not telling the whole truth at 80%. In the quoted article, those believing the US government was in some way complicit was 36% (the question is clear - read the report). I am, therefore, not 'ranting' as you put it - I'm trying to provide properly sources and balanced reports of this matter.

The court cases, incidentally, are ongoing - I checked with a source directly involved in reporting the cases before posting this information.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above edit) This article is written according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you don't like these policies and guidelines you can try to get them changed, but you can't do that here, and if you are going to edit you will have to abide by them. The view of September 11 given in this article is supported by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, and as such (per WP:UNDUE, please read that link, it is actually part of the NPOV policy) it is the perspective given by the article. The number of Americans (or any other nationality) who accept an idea is irrelevant. As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article.

In your edit you added the following claims:

• The "Journal of 9/11 studies" is a reliable academic publication. In fact it is a forum for conspiracy theorists to publish their ideas where they are reviewed by other conspiracy theorists. It has no reputation for accuracy or credible review processes, and so it fails Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
• A reference to two court cases. Contrary to what you said above the court cases in question are not "ongoing", they were both dismissed. [2] The lawsuits alleged that no planes struck the Twin Towers, and that the collapses were in fact caused by "directed energy weapons", an idea that is considered fringe even in the 9/11 Truth movement.
• Claims that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and that the coroner found no bodies. This is simply wrong.[3] --Hut 8.5 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think issuing ultimatums is the best way to get your message across. And, just as a note, there is no academic debate about the attacks. The attacks and damage are pretty well understood and almost universally accepted by those who have studied the issue and by those who have the expert knowledge to speak authoritively about it. There is no controversy among mainstream and reliable sources worldwide. There is no evidence based research by experts working in their fields that support any of the theories. There's a lot of unverified and false claims, bad science and outright lies but nothing that would pass muster in a real scientific environment. RxS (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Response ----

At the time of the above posting I had read one article rejected by the 9/11 journal and one accepted. The accepted article seemed solid, the other did not. Following your comments, I have read other articles published there. While I appreciate that the standard of peer-review (and academic theorisation) is less than I would expect in academic journals to which I've contributed, it still appears to be better than journalistic sources that are not subject to any peer-review.

I do not know the current state of the legal case by Dr Morgan Reynolds other than that the initial case was dismissed. As for the legal case by Dr Judy Wood, I checked with the person who issues her press releases in the UK (who works in the Open Univeristy) whether the case would go forward. The response was that an appeal is being considered now. The legal ruling (available at www.drjudywood.com) gives Judy Wood permission to resubmit the case after revisions that would ensure it complies with Fraud Act. The ground for dismissing the case (officially, at least) are that the claim is not set out in the way the Fraud Act requires - the cases have not yet even got to the point of considering any evidence. While the court expressed a lack of sympathy regarding resubmission, it made clear that a decision on resubmission would be for the District Court. The case, therefore, remains open for the time being.

"As such it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to give conspiracy theories anything other than minimal coverage in this article."

The official Wikipedia NPOV policy requires that 'significant minority point of view' are included in articles. The edits ensure that these 'significant minority' views are added to the article.

On this point, you are making a basic epistemological error. The 'official story' is itself a conspiracy theory (it is a theory - unverified - that a group of people conspired to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon). Even the most basic evidence is contradictory (such as the alleged hijackers names not being on flight manifest, and the fires burned for over a month at temperatures that could not possible be due to jet fuel). It is not 'neutral' to suppress contradictions that are available through published thermal scans of the area, eye-witnesses, scientific reports (including government reports).

You are making basic epistemological errors by assuming that 'official' (i.e. government) sources are reliable while academic and professional sources are not. In all 'proper' research, it is necessary to remain sceptical of official (managerial) sources: they are not considered reliable much of the time because of the effects of power within organisational cultures and political systems. A reliable source is one that make evidence-based claims after using a reliable methodology for its investigative process. It can also be based on the application of logic or established theory to known 'facts' using a 'correspondence' theory of truth. Much of the controversy derives from a failure of known facts to correspond with known scientific theory. To be balanced, the article must acknowledge the scale of scientific evidence that the official story is contradictory (not 'false' but contradictory - does not accord to known scientific theory and available evidence).

On the issue of evidencing the scale of the 'significant minority' point of view, see http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469. By 2006, it was reported in the New York Times (following a major poll on many issues that I obtained in full) that 81% of the US public question the official story on some level (either withholding or lying). 28% of people (almost 1/3 of the population) believing the government is proactively lying. Only 16% now believe the government is telling the truth.

The Wikipedia guideline require that the views of these significant minorities are included in the article. By omitting them, you are contravening the Wikipedia guidelines. It remains my view - as a neutral academic who is not involved in the 9/11 Truth movement, that the article must be revised to remain within the NPOV guidelines.

The problems in the current article is ones of epistemology (standards and criteria of truth and knowledge), and breach of the Wikipedia guidelines.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 15:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you studied Business, not Science or Engineering, I’ll take your evaluations of publications' reliability with a grain of salt. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides, original research is not permitted. Peter Grey (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My god this one is wordy. I guess the old saying is true, when you have nothing important to say, say as much as you can and hope people don't notice. This is the same frivolous and pointless dribble we're used to. Nothing new, nothing different, therefor nothing will change. Moving along... --Tarage (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "significant minority view", it's a "tiny minority view", for the reasons noted by RxS above. Academic sources (i.e. proper peer-reviewed journals) are reliable and nobody here has claimed otherwise. The mainstream view is not presented just because it is the view given by the U.S. government. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

--- Rebuttal of false information given above ---

I have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices). These are easily as relevant to the discussion of 9/11 any knowledge of the physical sciences. Nevertheless, I should point out that I previously qualified as a Microsoft Certified Professional (in the field of software engineering) and won a Department of Industry SMART Award in 2002 (for database design). I have therefore, specialist knowledge in more than one area of science. You should not assume to understand a person on the basis of their current occupation and qualifications as this reveal your propensity to be prejudiced.

On the issue at hand, a 'tiny minority view' is not the finding of the New York Times study. By 2006, the 'official' view in this article to have less fullsome support than the 'unofficial' view you seek to censor (16% believe officials are "telling the truth" v 28% believing officials are "mostly lying"). This is a substantial change from 2002, and this article needs updating to reflect shifts in opinion.

I make the comments on this article mainly on the basis of expertise leading a course on research philosophy. This is a course that teaches PhD researchers how to establish valid criteria for claiming scientific 'truth' in their writing. This article does not provide the kind of quality peer-reviewed sources needed to claim the government's conspiracy theory as 'fact'. Nor is there any reflection on the link between various philosophical/political interests and the different theories that have emerged regarding the September 11 Attacks. This can only be added once there is acknowledgment of other credible theories about the events of September 11. The article remains too narrowly defined and heavily biased toward one political/ideological perspective. I presume this is for political reasons, and not reasons of education or enlightenment on the subject at hand. If you were seeking to enlighten, you would review all credible theories.

For the sake of clarify, I state again - to observe the NPOV policy of Wikipedia the article must include all credible and substantial minority theories and explanations regarding the 9/11 Attacks.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The amount of weight to give to views is not calculated based on opinion polls of the general population. There is no academic controversy about the theories you discuss, for the reasons given by RxS above. Hut 8.5 11:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 11 folklore is not the subject matter of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, public opinion is only a measure of what is a majority or minority opinion - this is an issue in Wikipedia guidelines if we can to include 'substantial minority' points of view. If we turn to academic opinion, then the presence and size of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth network must be taken into account alongside the size and scale of the Engineers for 9/11 Truth network. I'm not aware of any academic network in support of the 'official' story, but I would be delighted to learn of one because I've search for one to provide balancing opinions on my courses. There are occasional academic articles refered to in various documentaries. What I do consistently detect, however, is an unstated coalition of government and media interests (within NIST, FEMA, the court system, Fox News, New Corporation sources) who are struggling to maintain control over the 'truth' of events surrounding September 11. People allied to these interests are in a constant battle with academics and professional groups who question their right to control determination of 'truth' regarding these events. This 'battle' (if that is the right word) extent to every sphere, including Wikipedia. As an academic, I naturally want to eliminate censorship of views so they can be debated properly in a sober and systematic way. Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 20:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. No, I don't think an organization calling themselves "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" needs to be taken into account as an scholarly source without further verification. Perhaps some of them are scholars, perhaps not. There is still at most one scholarly paper in a real peer-reviewed journal (that is, not one where the "peers" are also Truthers, or one where the editorial policy denies the validity of peer review) which questions the NIST findings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to again state that on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if you 'have a PhD in a business related area (organisation cultures / governance practices)' or you are some random monkey pounding his fists into a keyboard. Please cease to fill your statements with needless fluff. Not only does it make what you are trying to say incredibly hard to derive, but it it makes you come across as a fool, especially when you can't even be bothered to sign your posts or spell words like 'organisation' and 'refered' correctly. I'll be as brief as I possibly can: You're arguments are recycled, you have yet to provide a single reliable source outside of polls, and you still refuse to go read these talk page archives to see that not only have other people presented the same flawed POV argument before, but that it has been soundly rejected over and over again, as it will this time. The mountain of reliable sources against you is so staggering that I would not even dare to attempt to climb it. So please, stop wasting your time, my time, and every other editor who visits these article's time. We will not insert your POV, we will not dance around the issue, and we will not tolerate any more mindless dribble. Do you understand? Or am we in store for another round of fluff filled nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "Organisation" is correctly spelled according to British English. "Refered" may not be, but then neither is your "You're", Tarage. From this I hope you will gather that it is always better to concentrate on the content of an editor's contributions, rather than the form or making comments that risk showing one's own ignorance. And since your arguments are sound, why not adopt a more collegial tone, to go along with them? --Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have seen far too many editors come in here and completely disregard all of the work put in to maintaining and balancing this article, and push their own POV. Call me ignorant, call me rude, but I have had enough of editors who do not even show good faith by ignoring the archives, ignoring the notices, ignoring the consensus, and even ignoring the Wikipedia standards and practices. I refuse to tolerate such blatant disregard of everything we hold dear. If someone has an issue with me, they are welcome to call me a 'meanie' on my talk page. Roryridleyduff is nothing more than a blowhard. He talks a lot, he says a lot, but in the end, his words mean nothing. He isn't a new editor, he isn't confused, he simply isn't willing to show the rest of us the proper respect, so I will not show him said respect either. That is my stance. --Tarage (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. Therefore opinion polls are irrelevant. The reason for this should be obvious - there are plenty of polls out there in which large numbers of Americans express support for discredited notions such as geocentricism or astrology. More than 40% of Americans believe in creationism, but this idea is not given serious consideration in science articles here because it has no scientific support. If Wikipedia gave weight to all these ideas it would rapidly become a laughing stock. Proposing a conspiracy of reliable sources to deny recognition to certain opinions is not going to help you either. Hut 8.5 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can an admin please return the page to semi-protected? A bot got rid of it, and you're seeing the results first hand.

I attempted to do it myself but... well... you can see my failure first hand as well. --Tarage (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:RFPP. Hut 8.5 08:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I got it protected for a year... though I'd love to have it longer... --Tarage (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This article should remain unprotected until the bias in the writing has been addressed by its Wikipedia editors. It is against the interests of public knowledge and education if people with no credible expertise in knowledge creation continue to censor changes (and challenges) to their article by those that do have such expertise.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff (talk • contribs)

I'm now positive you are completely off your rocker, or you have absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. Just go away. --Tarage (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Creating" knowledge is WP:NOT what an encyclopaedia is for. Peter Grey (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, then all this "official" nonsense about planes causing the destruction of the three buildings is not encyclopaedic! It's not like anything on this page outside of the inadequate conspiracy link coverage to the true story at 9-11 conspiracy theories is actually factual. The vast majority of this article is patent nonsense. But majority rules on wikipedia. I'll just go away now. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your decision to go away. Way to be the bigger (wo)man! Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Tarage (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for introducing a new term

In the interest of NPOV, I believe we should refer to the mainstream theory with regard to the September 11th Attacks as the "official conspiracy theory". This is completely accurate, the theory is official and it proposes that a conspiracy (Al-Queda) executed the attacks. People attempt to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to marginalize alternative arguments, but the term can also be applied to the mainstream theory. The majority of people believe in the official conspiracy theory, but it is still a POV to describe it in one way while describing alternative views in another way, using a term with a negative connotation. Adding the term 'Official' shows that the government backs this particular conspiracy theory, so it adds information while using the same term to neutrally describe different views, without taking the POV that one theory is 'true'. Just because the government and mainstream media choose to be biased on this issue doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Mr. Quickling (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty awkward, and no reliable sources use the term. This has been talked about multiple times and would be WP:OR to use the term. RxS (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the "alternative views" you mention are usually described as "conspiracy theories" the same is not the case for the mainstream view (indeed about the only people who use this term are those promoting "alternative views"). In addition the mainstream view doesn't necessarily meet the definition of "conspiracy theory". Hut 8.5 09:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you are upset with us using reliable sources, when this is in fact how Wikipedia runs. I suggest you go read up more before proposing more biased changes. That's right, it would actually BE biased to call it an "official conspiracy theory", rather than the other way around. Then again you would know this if you read the talk archives. So all around, go read more. --Tarage (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing 'official' about the mainstream account, and no-one would care if there were. Peter Grey (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it's (as far as I know, permanently) semi-protected. Only registered editors can alter it. This measure was enacted to stem the flow of vandalism and the insertion of baseless conspiracy cruft into the article without discussion - most of it has already been addressed, but there are always newcomers who are either unaware or willfully ignorant of previous discussions. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you becoem a registered editor? 12.54.125.181 (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to Special:CreateAccount (or click "log in / create account" at the top right). If you want to edit semiprotected pages like this one, your account needs to have been registered for four days and have ten edits. If there's a specific edit you want to make to this page you can just post it here, and if it's appropriate someone will make the edit for you. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 12.54.125.181 (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Muslims and controversies}} template

We wouldn't write in the text of the article that 9/11 would be related to the persecution of homosexuals in Iran or to the indignation and outrage in Islamic countries about pictures that ridiculed Muhammed. So we shouldn't have a template in the article that creates exactly this impression. A smaller template, and one that is focused on terrorism, not on "controversies", would be acceptable. If we want to have links to Islam in general, we would need a general template, not a "controversies" template that gives a biased perspective on the topic.  Cs32en  00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Khalid Sheik Mohammed

There is no evidence that KSM was anything more than a minor recruiter for the 911 attack. For a man to "mastermind" a massive mission that defeated the entire US fighter jet coverage and all intelligence agencies, there has to be some evidence that he drew up the aerial tactical plan while providing logistical and financial support to 19 separate individuals who entered the US without being detected. Without the use of a legal proceeding, this entire article is nothing more than fancy hearsay from third hand sources that were never cross-examined. In this so-called confession, it has been determined that KSM, a man with no aviation or tactical planning history, was brutally tortured while submitting this "testimony." None of his testimony or confessions would hold up in traffic court but wikipedia has determined that he was the mastermind. Msy2fla (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (and I don't think it is), we couldn't use it for editing the article unless some reliable source agreed with you. I don't recall any such source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are tipping your "right" hand when you italicize the word "is"? This article quotes an Al Jazeera interview as proof that KSM was the “mastermind.” Just because a nut wants to take credit for the greatest attack against America, doesn’t deem him guilty of anything. No one has produced evidence of his capabilities as a tactical planner, as a logistical genius or an aviation expert which were all required to pull off the attack. The al Jazeera reporter was certainly not qualified to judge his capabilities or cross-examine his claim. Again, in the biggest criminal act against America, we see a media conviction while KSM sits 100 miles from the US border, recovering from 183 trips to the waterboard. The solution is bringing KSM to trial in the US so he can “confess” to a judge or jury but in order for his “confession” to stand, he must provide the volumes of missing information to explain his enormous victory over every element of US national security. This was a criminal act perpetrated on US soil. Usually, the US will charge then prosecute such individuals. Msy2fla (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msy2fla (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources please. This is not a forum. --Tarage (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This article on KSM presents the false impression that he has been convicted. I suggest the following addition in order to present a more balanced and truthful account:

Several questions remain in regard to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s role in the 911 plot. He has not been afforded a criminal trial and therefore has not been convicted of any crimes against the United States. The 911 Commission’s final report stated that KSM admitted that he lied in a interview with Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda, that a post-capture claim “may be pure bravado” and that “KSM has provided inconsistent information” about an alleged conversation with Osama bin Laden, who has not been charged with involvement in the 9/11 plot.

While being held by US intelligence agents at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, it has been widely reported that KSM was a victim of a prolonged series of severe torture and was waterboarded at least 183 times. During this incarceration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to his interrogators that he was responsible for the 911 plot “from A to Z” and to 31 other terrorist plots around the world. Although the 911 Commission raised concerns about KSM’s credibility, they nonetheless decided to base the majority of the 9/11 plot on his unverified statements given under duress. The Commission published the following disclaimer that preceded statements attributed to KSM:

“Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. . . . Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses . . . is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.“

The 911 Commission investigation has been criticized by its two co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in a co-authored book entitled “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. ISBN 9780307276636 In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the Pentagon and FAA officials. Both men claimed that the 911 Commission was “designed to fail.”

The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also raised doubts to claims by some U.S. intelligence agents that KSM was the mastermind of the attacks: “Neither the CIA or FBI has been able to confirm that KSM traveled to the U.S. or that he sent recruits to the U.S. prior to 9/11.” The heavily redacted report detailed a different group of suspects in their report. These suspects were affiliated with the Saudi Arabian government and there was no mention of KSM being in contact with Omar al-Bayoumi who was determined to be aiding at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Mr. al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Aviation Ministry, denied knowing KSM.

added by msy2fla

"Mastermind" probably would be overstating his role, but the article quotes the 9/11 Commission Report, which labels Mohammed "principal architect." Peter Grey (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia determines nothing. Wikipedia only states what reliable sources state. I invite you to bring some or "get out". --Tarage (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

number of deaths

the intro and the info box give 2 confusing figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.221 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The figure in the infobox (3017) includes 24 "presumed dead", if you discount these then you get the number in the intro (2993). Hut 8.5 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

hijackers included?

Why are the deaths of the hijackers included? Does the gov. count their deaths as well?Jlujan69 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't they die? -Jordgette (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just read on CNN.com: 3031 deaths... than which one is true? pls answer on my talk page --Mdönci (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Prewarnings of a Terrorist Attack upon The United States

It is a fact that there were indications as far back as June 2001, that a terrorist plot was in the works to attack The United States. Even though there was plenty of viaable indicators from various U.S., Foreign Agencies, and reputable public-private officials, most information was dismissed and/or not taken seriously. One of the failures that lead to 9/11, was various communications breakdowns, the lack of agency inter-sharing between various departments. The reports of vague or not giving enough details as to an absolute time, place, or location. Some U.S. and Foreign officials have complained later, that there were enough indicators to issue an advisory. For the record, a possible threat brief was issued to The White House in as early as a month before the eventual incident. It was reported that approximately 72 hours before the 9/11 incident, a scattered number of U.S. Naval ships and submarines were given orders to re-deploy in various areas, expecting something, but giving no clear indication as to why they were re-deployed for a possible attack. This and other communications breakdowns occured before, during, and after 9/11, that should have been considered normal operational protocol. There was no true indication of a conspiracy, but a series of breakdowns that futher confused and diverted vital backups toward national defences. Though it was investigated later that additional 9/11 plots were aborted that day, many agree that the executed events of what we call 9/11 could have been futher prevented if all involved also thought "Outside The Box". Aedwardmoch (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Do you have a suggestion for improving the article? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was concluded in the investigations by the 911 Commission that a series of breakdowns of communications were a major conributing factor before, during, and after 9/11 in various degrees. I think this should be clearly mentioned in the main article as well. Aedwardmoch (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)AedwardmochAedwardmoch (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Might wanna save it for later. Today is going to be a busy day. --Tarage (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

guesss sooo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.80.207 (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 

National Day Of Service And Rememberance

I believe it's relevant to mention (in the Memorial section and in the article summary) the fact that 9/11 has been declared a National Day Of Service and Rememberance by Congress, and the President. Although there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of this action, this is nevertheless the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.115.178 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation for Number of Injured

I'm wondering what the source is for the "6291+ injured" claim in the info box.

Thanks.66.131.197.203 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of fatalities

"In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks." Second info paragraph says.

Infobox says 2,995 including the 19 hijackers.

I know its a minor discrepancy, but I'm just curious what the sources are for the separate figures. Technically, both of those should read "confirmed" deaths, yes? The exact figure can never realistically be figured out, so perhaps they should both "approximately ####". 72.145.228.108 (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Eight years and more unanswered questions - world media narrative

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. This is not the place to decide whether what happened was what we saw or something else. Fell free to continue this, but I will report it. –túrianpatois 02:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Eight years after 9/11, it seems to me that the narrative of September 11 attacks is shifting a bit in media. I'd like to include a paragraph or two about multiple questions unanswered by mainstream narrative to this day and source it with these articles from media around the world: Asia Times Online: Fifty questions on 9/11 RussiaToday: 8 years after 9/11 Americans have many questions unanswered RussiaToday: 911 Reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job Silicon Valley's MetroActive: Explosive Theory WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas... (this one is a comment from AE911truth approved as interesting and published by WAN on their website) What are your opinions on these sources and on general idea of adding a paragraph or section about unanswered questions? salVNaut (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC) This is an article that actually condenses the content of many sub-articles. So in my view, information that is introduced here should be covered in the subarticles first. There is information that has been reported by numerous media, in many countries. (Asia Times and Russia Today are of course a specific segment of the media.) At this moment, the alternative views do not receive due weight in this article. They should receive more weight because (a) they are a viewpoint held by a significant minority (b) their existence is an important social phenomenon related to the September 11 attacks. The starting point should be an expansion of the existing section, with information that has been reported by multiple media (such as the BBC, Financial Times, the New York Times, European TV channels, and other media such as Russia Today and Asia Times, of course).  Cs32en  20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I looked into the first source (Fifty Questions), and found it bizarrely mis-informed. As an example, it claimed that none of the black boxes had been found, when in fact, the CVR tapes have been played for the surviving families. The other sources seem to be no better, repeating free-fall myths, uncollapsable steel buildings, and other bogus claims. These belong in the conspiracy theories article, not this one. Ronabop (talk) Prove that the black boxes were played for the families. Why did so many of them say they haven't heard them. Free=fall myths? uncollapsable buildings. Bogus? You're blatantly stating your own POV. Anyone can equally claim that "fire's caused the collapse" is bogus, based on scientific facts, or call out "7 collapsed because of debris" as patent nonsense. Ignoring the hundreds of reports of a "giant fireball in the air" when the plane went down in PA could be considered to be pushing a blatant fallacy. Please tone your comments to a more neutral sense. If you are unable to remain neutral, please refrain from posting on wikipedia; which does not allow POV to shape articles. This article is already rife with pro-government propaganda and government-related sources. Is adding a little MAJOR-minority take really going to be the end of the world. PEW and NOPI both have released reports in the last year stating that over 70% of Americans believe that they were not told the entire story about 9/11 and that over 40% believe the entire government story to be a fallacy. Such reports need to be addressed. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Feel free to add it to the conspiracy articles, but it would be ridiculous to add it to this article. –túrianpatois 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Please read the FAQ. Ronabop (talk) You can also add Salon.comto that list. The fact is that more and more news organizations are finding a more balanced approach. World Architecture News "While it would be easy to dismiss Gage’s opinion, that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was in fact caused by controlled demolition techniques, as nothing more than conspiracy theory, the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration." The Guardian UK "But here's something I really don't understand: when did it become uncool to ask questions? When did questioners become imbeciles? Who gets to hand out the tinfoil hats? When did it become cool to believe what we're told? In the words of Mr Hicks, did I miss a meeting? When did so many of the cynics and sceptics, so many of the sharpest brains I know (hello Charlie Brooker!) think that the cool thing to do is mock the questioners, and defend the party line. How stratospherically uncool is that?" Tony0937 (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Sigh. Welcome, young ones, to Wikipedia, where one of our core policies for inclusion is "verifiability, not truth" but "reliable sources" are required to be "credible" and "trustworthy." Where mainstream news and government propaganda are considered to be reliable, but any claims that contradict them must cite "exceptional sources." Where "notability" is based on reputation, but "fringe theories" cannot be given undue weight. So, even though the 9/11 Commission Report is provably misleading and incomplete, it is accepted as reliable because it is mainstream; but none of your scientific evidence that explosives were used to demolish the Twin Towers will ever be included in this article, because the sources for it are ridiculed as "fringe." Oneismany (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Oneismany, please think about the style of your comment, which may be perceived as condescending. Wikipedia is reporting on relevant views, if their existence can be verified by reliable sources. It's not necessary that these views are correct or "true". We also attribute relevant views to their proponents, so we are just saying: "It's verifiable that XY says Z," we're not saying "Z is true".  Cs32en  03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Oneismany is simply pointing out the fact that has been covered time and again, wikipedia is not a collection of "facts" in the strictest sense, but a collection of verifiable quotes. Lostinlodos (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I love how the of the 'new sources' is a youtube video. Rich. Let's move on now, there is clearly nothing important to discuss here. --Tarage (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC) This has been suggested many, many times before and has always been rejected. A short-term minor increase in coverage on the anniversary, even without discussing the quality of the sources, does not mean that the conspiracy theories are no longer fringe. There is no need to have the same discussion again. Hut 8.5 12:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC) They are fringe because the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor and what little reporting is done is no better (as noted above). It's the anniversary of the attacks and there's a small increase of coverage (as always happens in these situations). It'll go back to normal soon, nothing's changed. If you don't like how we handle sources then perhaps Wikipedia isn't for you. There are many forums you can visit which are full of people treating facts with a little more...flexibility. But keep the fringe BS out of here please. RxS (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I would not call that statement NPOV. Tony0937 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) This isn't an article, this is a talk page. There's a help page around somewhere that can help you with the difference. RxS (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC) So you feel free to call what is reported in RS "fringe BS" and say "the "science" behind them is ridiculously poor" and it should be accepted the only possible interpretation? I don't agree.Tony0937 (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Your opinion is noted. Thank you. RxS (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC) The conspiracy theories that surround what happened on 9/11 are going to perpetuate ad nauseum because for some people, it's simply easier to believe in fiction than it is to know facts when you see them. There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books and going to high priced "seminars". But such is the fortune of misinformation and 9/11 CTers aren't alone in their efforts to capitalize on innuendo and fantasy...much money has also been made by those that have "proof" that bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's as well.--MONGO 04:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC) "There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books"... Unlike government officials, who only stand to win if people lose trust in them.   Cs32en  04:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I can't see how government officials win if people don't trust them...least not in a democratic society...they'll be more likely to lose elections if they're not trusted.--MONGO 04:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) The information is not going in. So WP:GETOVERIT. Harsh but stop arguing as it will get you no where. –túrianpatois 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Interesting opinion 75.155.87.25 (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Most people have already given reasons as to why it will not be admitted into the article. Care to say why it won't? –túrianpatois Sadly the message doesn't always sink in. Every so often single purpose accounts get all excited and start jumping up and down, we have to go over everything once again...rinse and repeat. and when did people get the idea that the US government could keep a secret about anything? RxS (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with your view on this, Mongo. That's exactly why government officials - following their institutional interests - are generally not supporting a new investigation.  Cs32en  05:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC) MONGO, I'm reminded of a specific incident, from long ago, where a "downed aircraft" with "an advanced flexible metal" and other odd technology spurned many years of crazy UFO theory crap. We now know know that it was a high altitude weather balloon (the aircraft bit), with silver mylar reflective material lenses (the flexible metal bit, see a balloon shop), designed to sample radiation bursts in the atmosphere during the cold war. The crazies hold on to the old theories, because they're invested in being right. Sometimes literally invested. Ronabop (talk) LIkewise, and oddly, I took a picture of a cormorant yesterday in the water and noticed it looked almost exactly what was long passed off as a long range image of Nessie...--MONGO 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I believe in facts and logic not UFO's or bigfoot nor do I have any questions about landing on the moon, but even NIST understands what free fall means: As Shyam Sunder of NIST said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" Since explosive are one way to achieve this in the event of building 7's destruction I have not dismissed the possibility that they were the cause. I do not say it was the cause. However NIST does not demonstrate that this could be achieved via their simulation. Their model is at does not provide an explanation for free fall. So you can understand why am unconvinced that explosives were not used. That does not make me a kook or a nutbar that make me a skeptic. When WAN provides members of ae911truth with a venue to present their case I can understand why they would do so. I can also understand that someone might want to see things differently but I don't ignore facts simply because they don't make me comfortable. Tony0937 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Al-Qaeda?

I think we all know 9/11 was a conspiracy and the media played a vital role in it, no plane what so ever crashed into the buildings, for example the nose of the plane came out of the other side of the building, very strange. I think this needs to be more developed in the article. 90.194.14.181 (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what you're looking for. 9/11 conspiracy theories RxS (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait… the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the building is proof that there was no plane? I don’t get it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "no-planers" argue that the images of planes hitting the building are really created by CGI, and that the nose sticking out of the other side of the building is a mistake that was made while the images were being generated. And to answer your next question--yes, there are people who are that stupid. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New and independent investigation

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. We won't be needing this anymore –túrianpatois 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) There is a simple choice upon us; 'in a last minute decision', Reuters carried the news wire which states that the New York City Coalition for Accountability successfully delivered submission which secures 'referendum for a new 9/11 investigation before the voters of New York City this November'.[4] Now, we will either put this 'mainstreamed info' straight into this article along with clear explanation of why are the 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors, along with free people around the globe calling for new investigation or we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go. Choose. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Hi Tachyonbursts! This your new account is it? --Tarage (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Hmm, your first edit is to your user page and your second references ArbCom. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that you're not new here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, I'm afraid you didn't get it right, and your first post is personal question, while you should have stated your opinion, if any? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Lots of people have this article on their watchlist and they work hard to remove unreliably referenced junk science...but no one owns the article.--MONGO 02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I've noticed your arguments above; it was a motivation of a sort, if you would try to pull such stunt on 'free grounds' you'd get such feedback as this unfortunate fellow here. Perhaps you could provide some support? Certainly unusual, but it seems he has a really hard time defending his views. Well, lets get back to issue at hand, is there any objection for adding the section about 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks'? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) "...we're going straight to ArbCom to deal with the editors who 'own this article' and refuse to let go." That kind of attitude will get you nowhere. And demands are not going to get you anywhere a little bit faster. Now, where were we? (See what incivility does to a discussion?) I think it is possible for a subsection to be placed within the Investigations section; however, if more information appears (the referendum passes), then it could be its own page. –túrianpatois 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No need to add it at the moment, if it passes we can add something...but right now it's just a petition. RxS (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC) It's a bit more than a petition I'm afraid, it is the mainstream. [5]. Let's see if there are more turians out there, before we take this to 'galactic council'. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No, still just a petition. If it passes we can add something. Not sure what Charlie Sheen has to do with it...we're not required to add everything that appears in the mainstream. And many times we don't. 80,000 people are a tiny minority...RxS (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Charlie Sheen is an actor...not an expert on anything related to the events of 9/11. I'm not sure what else will be discussed at any further 9/11 inquiries...I haven't seen any new information which refutes the known evidence. Sounds like it will be the same old arguments which will be laughed out of any reasonable court of inquiry.--MONGO 03:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) What are you folks doing here, exactly? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Refuting inaccuracies. Hehe, the caption under Sheen's image is comical..."Truthers make Birthers look like Rhodes Scholars."--MONGO 03:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I'm more amused by that feedback I've pointed out. It's a blast, isn't it? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Look, there is more,[6]: 'Lost in the media noise about the resignation is the reality that Obama is not living up to his promises of transparency, and the raw fact we have never had a credible, independent investigation of the 9/11 attacks.' What are you folks doing here, exactly? You speak about hard work, perhaps you should retire, this place obviously needs some fresh blood. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC) You want to source something to a press release? This belongs in articles about the 9/11 truth movement or 9/11 conspiracy theories (if anywhere), not here. Note the NYC CAN petition isn't going to go on the ballot yet. Hut 8.5 09:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I wasn't clear, we are discussing addition of the section about the 'Calls for new investigation into 9/11 attacks', please consider all sources provided and restrain from making suggestions of redirection to the non-related articles. Thanks. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) There are two main reasons why the suggestions you have made can't be implemented, leaving aside sourcing issues. Firstly 9/11 is a huge topic, and the amount of encyclopedic information is huge. All this information cannot possibly go in this article, because it would quickly become so large nobody would read it. Therefore we have a summary of the topic in this article, and leave the details to sub-articles. To get this material in this article you have to show that it is one of the most important pieces of information relating to 9/11. Right now it is a petition which, if approved, will go on a ballot paper, and if passed, will create a new investigation. This does not make it significant. If this investigation is actually created then it will probably be worth a few lines here. (Note the 9/11 Commission report only gets a short paragraph.) Secondly the content relates to conspiracy theories, which are fringe views (this has been established here many times). Wikipedia cannot give a particular view undue weight, and since the conspiracy theories are a tiny minority view, they cannot get more than a tiny amount of coverage in this article. They can be (and are) covered in more depth in sub-articles. The fact that an actor has publicly supported the theories does not make them mainstream. Hut 8.5 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I've been watching this discussion for few years now, these two arguments are... I'll stay polite. You fellows have a huge fault, I think it is the fault you've deliberately choose to make and it is silly to expect that people will not point this out, since articles like this one allow folks to refer to Wikipedia as to the Ministry of Truth. - The failure of initial 9/11 investigation and resulting call for another one should be one of the corner stones of this article, yet it is marginalised and omitted to the point of vanquishing. This cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, I expect a decent explanation for such omission as I restrain to call it as it is. - The conspiracy talk defence mechanism is broken, when you say that 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors who are calling for the new investigation on the ground of 'unanswered questions' are conspiracy theorists, you fellows are hitting the rock bottom. Failure to distinguish between conspiracy theories and unanswered question cannot be misjudgement on behalf of the editors involved, as I restrain from calling it as it is, I doubt that any of you 'regulars' here can explain such fault. Prove me wrong. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Immediate military response

I don't see anything on the immediate military response to the hijacking in the article. Without any coverage of this, the article creates the impression that the US military would have done nothing during the time the planes were in the air, which was not the case. In my view, something about 500-800 characters (not including sources) would be appropriate.  Cs32en  03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. –túrian^patois 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an article...maybe we just need a quick link under a heading somewhere...see: U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks--MONGO 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding that I think that article was branched off to keep this one from getting too long.--MONGO 03:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We already do have a link in the Immediate response section...[7]--MONGO 03:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But we know why there was no immediate military response to the hijackings, it's because NORAD stood down and then lied to the 9/11 Commission and to the American people, here, a quick link for you hard working boys. Is this information referenced in the article MONGO? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to write (It's a complex subject to boil down into 800 characters, but it wouldn't be out of place. U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is a long article about the subject. The second paragraph could be the basis of something. But it needs to be a very who what where type of thing without introducing CT stand down claims), but the last thing we need is another lever to add CT crap (see above comment). The current link to U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is fine, if you want to highlight it somehow that'd be fine. But otherwise, no. RxS (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We would need a "main article" link and a short summary. It should not be in the section "Aftermath", as it's about the response during the attacks. Remark: This is article is probably not the appropriate place for WP:SOFIXIT, WP:BOLD, WP:IAR etc. ;-) And well, yes, they could certainly have done more, but they actually DID do quite a lot of things.  Cs32en  04:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you folks doing here? RxS did you just called former senator conspiracy theorist? It will not look good in front of 'galactic council' you know. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

K - we'll see ya there...WP:SPA--MONGO 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph of U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks is rather odd as a lead section paragraph. It's probably best to write a decent lead section for that article first.  Cs32en  04:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bit of a mess. RxS (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These are serious issues, who is responsible for such mess? Oh, look, a set of documents about the referral of false statements by FAA and NORAD officials. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd also need a link to United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001.  Cs32en  04:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why, that's just a page about operations already in process with nothing to do with responses to the attacks. RxS (talk) 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because these operations and exercises have interfered with the procedures taken as a response to the hijackings.  Cs32en  05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Look> Zelikow Memo about Referral of False Statements by NORAD and FAA Officials, with timetables. MisprisionofTreason (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Able Danger

Could someone please explain why the article about Able Danger is not linked here? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 would probably be the the primary article that we should link to.  Cs32en  04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I got that wrong. The intelligence stuff is not my specialty. -- We currently have a large section "Attackers and their motivation". Much of that content should be moved to a subarticle (or to several sub-articles), and a sentence to intelligence activities related to Al Qaida (including a link to Able Danger) should be inserted there.  Cs32en  04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it, why? Is it because there is no room to link here? Why the article about Able Danger fails to state that alleged hijackers were staying across the NSA headquarters?

[(These) hijackers (were staying) just across the highway, basically (from NSA headquarters). And the NSA is not going the extra step and telling anybody where they are….]

You know, I'm amazed, what in the world are you boys doing here? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that article needs a lot of improvement, once factually accurate, it should go in the section about Cover up, where is that section? MisprisionofTreason (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The sock has been blocked, I recommend archiving and moving on. --Tarage (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we consider the idea of adding Able Danger, the PDB (you know which one), and other "warnings" to the article, as it would help give some back-story, BUT (and it's a big "but") this is text that would likely require some serious hashing out in the community of editors working on the topic. Ronabop (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue. No. --Tarage (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue. Yes. Giving credence to the "we had no idea, no warnings, it just happened" line seems just as broken as giving credence to the "we knew it was going to happen, and did nothing" line... I tend to think both are flawed perspectives, especially on something as complex as this issue. Ronabop (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean it doesn't belong on this page. It'd be find on a 'build up to Sept 11th' page, which I believe it already is. Otherwise it's too much detail for an article on just the event. --Tarage (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if there wasn't so much stuff in the article that is not about just the event.  Cs32en  21:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of deaths, again

The first infobox says that 2 993 people died (including the 19 hijackers) while the second infobox (under the section Casualties) says that 2 976 people died (excluding the hijackers).

2 993 - 19 = 2 974 ≠ 2 976, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.103.70 (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. –túrian^patois 15:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN.com says 3031 deaths were that day. or did they miscalculate? they have the list of victims. pls reply on my talk page --Mdönci (talk) 09:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bin Laden

I added a note which I believe is highly notable, that Bin Laden is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, which someone would assume reading the main artible on bin laden.Echofloripa (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 On the F.B.I.’s Most Wanted list, Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 9/11.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 

Why the change has been reverted, isn't it highly relevant, taking in a account the involvement of Bin Laden on the attacks is the main reason, according to the Bush regime, that EUA is for 8 years on this war on Afghanistan?

Looks like original research, since you're drawing conclusions from the fact that a source doesn't mention something. If you want the article to say that the FBI does not want bin Laden, you need to provide a source which explicitly says this. Hut 8.5 13:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's not how the Most Wanted List works. Peter Grey (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is: They don't want bin laden for the attack to the twin towers. I'm not making this up. If he was really responsible for the attacks, why it doesn't mention any of that on the FBI page? This is not original research. If he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, he is not wanted for the 9/11 attacks, just be logical.

Bin Laden was already "most wanted" before the September 11 attacks. He can't become any more wanted than that. Peter Grey (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

There should be a reference to the War in Iraq

In the fourth paragraph where the writer asserts that the United States launched a "war on terrorism" and went into Afghanistan....there is no mention that the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and used now discredited information in order to do so.

I have never commented on anything prior so I don't know how this works. I just feel there should be a reference to this and you can easily footnote it with the information we now know from congressional and other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzeravl (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Iraq War was not a consequence of the September 11 attacks. Peter Grey (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is much too long.

If you edit the article, you get the message:

"This page is 129 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

See also WP:SIZERULE.

While each individual section may not be too long, as Turian said in his edit summaries, it's the large amount of such sections that make the article too long. In addition, some subarticle get much more coverage in this article than others. As we have subarticles for almost every section and subsection of this article, shortening is rather easy. We may also check whether the information is actually present in the sub-article (which is of course a prerequisite for being included here), and possibly transfer information to the respective sub-article.  Cs32en  22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Then we can remove the conspiracy section in just put it in a See Also section. I never really liked the size rule, because the content of some requires the massive length, even with subarticles. –túrian^patois 23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're worried about how long it is, the solution isn't to shorten one section and lengthen another (which is what you just did). I reset it, please suggest better ways to lessen your concerns. RxS (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed about 1000 bytes and added about 400, so a net shortening of about 600 bytes. There are four other sections that can be shortened easily. I agree that this article should possibly not be shortened to 60 KB, but 90 KB would be a reasonable size. And of course, we need some flexibility to be able to present the content of sub-articles in a coherent way. Yet, there are a number of details in the sections that can just be dropped without losing the coherence of the text.  Cs32en  23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed [8] content from the planning section and added [9] content to the Conspiracy theories section (a topic you edit almost to the exclusion of all others). Hardly a consensual way to shorten the article, plus Wikipedia:Article size is only a guideline. RxS (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Conspiracy theories section is one of the shortest sections, many other sections, including the one I have shortened, are four times as large, or even larger. And guidelines are supposed to be followed, aren't they?  Cs32en  00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories or even a See Also link. This is a serious article about a serious historical topic. 9/11 conspiracy theories are nothing more than trivia within this context. If the article's too long, this is an obvious candidate for removal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we actually have to cut the article down. Though the raw article content is over 120kb, more than half of that is references. In terms of text the reader will actually read the article is only about 55 kb, which isn't that problematic. (Note that "readable prose" is what WP:SIZE actually counts.) This is a very big topic and an article which is slightly longer than normal can be justified. We could remove the conspiracy section, and I can see several comparable articles which have done this, but I would recommend leaving a see also link instead. Hut 8.5 10:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to remove the conspiracy section en entre are BPOV, and violate neutrality. HOWEVER; I would suggest breaking every section, including the "conspiracy" section into separate articles. This article could be more of a base index and background for all the various subsections. If done correctly, it would also re-establish neutrality to this currently lopsided point-of-view riddled article. Lostinlodos (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

They already all have their own articles. See the main article notes on each section. RxS (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Section "Planning of the attacks"

The following sentences can be dropped, as they are not essential to the coherence of the text:

• "At that point, Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were in a period of transition, having just relocated back to Afghanistan from Sudan." (The significance of this information is not explained in the text anyway.)

• "In late 1998 or early 1999, bin Laden gave approval for Mohammed to go forward with organizing the plot." (Bin Laden's role is already covered elsewhere.)

• "Hazmi and Mihdhar arrived in the United States in mid-January 2000, after traveling to Malaysia to attend the Kuala Lumpur al-Qaeda Summit." (The significance of the information is unclear, unless you click on the links.)

• "New recruits were routinely screened for special skills" (Does that contribute to the understanding?)

• "Hanjour arrived in San Diego on December 8, 2000, joining Hazmi. They soon left for Arizona, where Hanjour took refresher training." (Why is it significant that Hanjour arrived in San Diego, and not Kansas?)

• "Binalshibh also passed along Bin Laden's wish for the attacks to be carried out as soon as possible." (Without any reason given for Bin Laden's instruction, this does not contribute to the reader's understanding of the topic.)

  Cs32en  23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

air defense?

how comes this article has no info about inactivity of air defense on that day? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is documented in Wikipedia's article U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks. Evidently, the military response is not deemed very important to the 9/11 topic; as it has only received a wikilink in the article, and nothing more. By contrast, the Attackers and their motivation section comprises more than 15000 bytes of text. Wildbear (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

...is not deemed very important... but my question is by whom? why doens't it deserve a single sentence at least in this article? i think it is a fundamental question, how there were no military jets intercepting even one of these hijacked plains, even after they started hitting buildings, one by one, with decent time passing between the crashes? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Prosecution

Were the bodies of the hijackers found? Were they prosecuted posthumously? If not, aren't they innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What are the implications of that on this article?? JiminezWaldorf 02:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From Newsweek, January 3, 2009: "...scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified."(ref) Were the hijackers prosecuted posthumously? I don't know. Implications for the article? More references would be needed to establish notability. Interestingly, Wikipedia's Flight 11 article only mentions the remains of two hijackers being found, and the Flight 175 article mentions none. This probably needs updating, as the Newsweek article mentions finding the remains of four of the New York hijackers. Wildbear (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)