Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

ADD A SECTION TITLED "Generation 9/11"

The term "Generation 9/11" is commonly used to refer to young adults who were between the ages of 13 and 25 on September 11, 2001. This group could be said to have previously had no defining event in their lives. Many social researchers believe that the terrorist attacks that occurred on that date caused significant shifts in the attitudes of this group; changes which will one day have dramatic effects on politics, economics and social policy.

Where are you getting this? And next time, place new comments on the bottom. bibliomaniac15 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC) PS: I might not be part of "Generation 9/11", but it affects me because it's my birthday.

Fatalities

I'm finding the section on fatalities choppy -- the paragraph about schools closing, etc. almost seems like it doesn't fit under fatalities, except for the part about many people being from certain towns. Could the school closings be moved to another section (is there something about NYC area response / reaction??) -- Anyway, I think that at least the paragraph of school closings could be bumped down a paragraph or two to the end of that section -- it seems the paragraph about the city identifying people/bodies is better flow-wise....

Anyway, I didn't want to change it w/o running it by here. KBecks 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I just removed some text with the word 'bullshit' as it was hurtful to the event. - Anthony Timberlake

Who called bullshit and what did he/she call it on? NRen2k5 02:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How did someone typing 'bullshit' here hurt an event that happend almost five years ago!?! --Slipgrid 18:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for the assertion that WTC7 was "heavily damaged" before it's collapse. I am unable to locate any. - Justin Keogh

Freefall

Ah yes, policies and guidelines… Mechanics you say? How about this, we stop using popular mechanics, and we include good old laws of physic: http://www.stlouisrams.net/911/freefall.htm (quite witty in my humble opinion). It would help… otherwise someone might just feel the need to share his perspective on freefall:), and turn this into, oh my, an open and free discussion! Mechanics you say? Any honest mechanic would state the same; it is now far beyond the repair… Such sad guidelines here, right? Talk page with no talk allowed? Must admit, this whole thing is very consistent in terms of insanity and indecency… 1984? Press restart to continue?

Reference: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/archive20#Credible_Academic_Sources --Lovelight 3:33 PM, 29 August 2006 (CET)

In the link, objects are assumed to fall but not accelerate, and glass is assumed to be elastic, so it offers no insight into the real world. Peter Grey 18:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And Peter, you have to understand that pancake theory is nothing but an insult. Honestly. http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6.pdf#search=%22911%20collapse%20pdf%22.However, I am willing to let that go (for now) because I simply find such discussion utterly, wholly, completely… absurdum & insane… --Lovelight

Peter, as a good Wikipedian I always make an effort to assume good faith, but in this case I can't help but wonder if you either didn't read the article, or perhaps you're attempting to spread some FUD just for the hell of it. That was probably the clearest and most concise explanation of why "The Pancake Theory" and it's kissing cousin "Global Progressive Collapse." previously discussed right here on this page by Ed the Engineer, are physically impossible. [[1]]

Remember, you can break the law, but you can't break the laws of physics.

Digiterata 22:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearest, most concise, and yet wrong. The article presents an analogy, not scientific reasoning, starting with assumptions that are pure fantasy. Hence the conclusions won't apply in the real world. Peter Grey 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

User:EngineerEd was a strawman account of User:TruthSeeker1234...[2], so what EngineerEd had to say on the matter is a mute point.--MONGO 22:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, I wasn't aware of the sockpuppeteering. I will admit to being somewhat suspicious of User:EngineerEd from the start, but I just checked into the Sockpuppet history. Never would have expected that one. [[3]]

Still, it's always bothered me that the Verifiable and extremely Notable observation of the near freefall collapse times of the three WTC buildings has never been included in this page. Please state your objections to my proposal to include a line referencing this. Digiterata 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can forget about that, it would imply the American government is capabel of killing people and then lie about it, and the majority of wikipedians can not belive that would be the case. --Striver 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the majority of wikipedians are in fact American, I am willing to believe that. But the rest of the world does not have such unwavering faith in the US government's good will. That aside, on a more scientific note, this conspiracy theory about explosives being planted in the towers being the only explanation for their near freefall-speed collapse is a bit ridiculous, and smacks of rudimentary high-school physics knowledge. The collapse of each successive floor, combined with the intense heat of a full tank of jet fuel burning, could have caused the destruction of the support structures of the floors immediately under the collapsing floor BEFORE the bulk of the upper collapsing floor arrived, meaning that there would be no "glass pane" to break through by the time the upper floor arrived. But even this is conjecture. The collapse of such a structure is a massively complicated event, and a few basic physics equations, which are based on a scenario simplified for school textbooks, cannot be used as the basis for a serious discussion. --Daniel, 23:30 3 September 2006 (NZT)

This is a place to confirm facts, not peoples illusions about their government. We can't hold back the clear facts in an attempt to comfort people. --Slipgrid 18:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, while I find information added here quite interesting (a brave new perspective on wiki world indeed), I sincerely couldn’t find it relevant. Whether wikipedians choose to ignore facts and continue to dream about freefall whose fundamental flaw is showed in very means and ways it is engineered… fact remains that AOL is a part of WWW and that same goes for Wiki… As straightforward as it sounds, you can get that link (which just fueled more nonsense here, and which I find to be very sad from many standpoints) with simple query to Google. As a matter of a fact, if one uses Google search engine to seek for truth he will get far better results then those displayed here or "disgusted" in the article. It will hit you right there on the first page, and first 11 slaps will show you all the material one needs… Of course, you have to understand that Google was forced to omit relevant pages for such a long time that I will commend their determination to come clean out of all this in same manner in which I will congratulate to Simpsons, who incredibly as it sounds managed to be so clairvoyant that they actually illustrated the state of the world today (season 3, if I can recall it correctly, very precise, along with twins, and monorails and so on…). Now, if one put's all that aside and just submerges under this lucid surface into the free and crystal clear depths of P2P he will see true numbers (it's about seeds & peers after all). One will know that war waged on these pages is now over and that only place where combat still rages is in the mind of Mongo and his kin… With your actions here, you fuel very dangerous form of dissent, that's all. Whatever doctrine single mind chooses to justify freefall the outcome will be such to restore the balance. It is very simple actually, you know, Coke-Pepsi, Nvidia-Ati, Intel-AMD & so on… You see this view of freefall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_effect is worth nothing to us all, while this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect, well this one is worth everything... I will not stand for fear & terror, my course is peace & love (in Texas people call me terrorist when I say that:), there's no prison facility in the world (http://www.roadtoguantanamomovie.com/; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) which will change that.

Finally, if you would just ponder on what's happening here (in the history of this page), you would conclude that there are people willing to fight against:

  1. Freedom of speech and expression
  2. Freedom of every person to worship God in his own way
  3. Freedom from want — individual economic security
  4. Freedom from fear — world disarmament to the point that wars of aggression are impossible.

In other words, some of you fight against: a state in which somebody is able to act and live as he or she chooses, without being subject to any undue restraints or restrictions.

Consider this to be well intended digression from popular mechanics, you can remove it, or you can just admit that you are on one way street with the dead end. http://youtube.com/watch?v=5l5bSxpCKEI. --Lovelight 7:27 AM, 30 August 2006 (CET)

Not sure what to say...I guess...gee, I'm convinced...the thousands of scientists that haven't agreed to your beliefs must all be inept.--MONGO 06:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Which scientists? These? http://www2.nea.org/he/heta05/images/2005pg119.pdf#search=%22911%20academics%22

Mongo on your user page you are posing in front of those towers like a peacock, that role suit's you well… -- Lovelight 8:33 AM, 30 August 2006 (CET)

Glad you like it.--MONGO 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You've made your thoughts clear Lovelight. Everybody already knows what Mongos thoughts are concerning the matter. Now that you two have broken the ice, I see some nice harmonious editing on the horizon. Notable, reliably sourced, verifiable information for any would-be content additions or changes. I'm sure we can all agree on that? SkeenaR 06:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We,ve seen all that and it's not going in this article.--MONGO 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If something is notable, reliably sourced and verifiable, then what exactly is the problem? SkeenaR 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is anything brought up in this section notable, reliably sourced, and verifiable? Domino effect? Butterfly effect? --Mmx1 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Never mind those effects; well intended digression caused by the moment of passion, that's all… Fact remains that simple physics are utterly neglected in main article and I'm still waiting for a word from our fine administrators… hopefully we may hear some valid reasons why such information's cannot be included? -- Lovelight 11:53 PM, 30 August 2006 (CET)

becaucse it isn't true http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf .Geni 22:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry but if you would be so kind and simulate another presentation? It could be that I missed it somehow, but I don’t see any reference about building 7? You know, the one which was http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329 "pulled" down? Here's another clip: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4322650841860671469. As I said I find this to be far more modest and far more honest explanation: http://www.stlouisrams.net/911/freefall.htm, think that this one is OK to: http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml or this one: http://911truestory.com/, or this one: http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall/ or… I could go on, but mongo already whooped me for lesser misconduct… Perhaps we should share other perspectives of freefall after all? --Lovelight 12:48 PM, 31 August 2006 (CET)

building 7? yes I belive that has been covered http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html .Geni 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you could have covered a bit more, you offer me myth, and I offer you the world? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=building+7&btnG=Search... It just doesn’t seem right, you know? -- Lovelight bedtime

Remember, you can break the law, but you can't break the laws of physics.

No, I was pointing out that article editing would be more constructive than arguing on the talk page. And that we are supposed to include information that is notable, reliably sourced and verifiable. Digiterata also pointed this out. I will try and do this myself when I have some time. Also wondering what the problem is with including such material. SkeenaR 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Best Seller Book online (independant investigation) here: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-01-06/discussion.cgi.56.html

It's funny how sometimes, when reading these discussions, I don't even notice sliding down the rabbit hole, and other times it tickles a little. Levi P. 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And analogies like that one make it still more interesting. SkeenaR 23:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, perspectives, perspectives… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_mcgee%27s_alice... --Lovelight around bedtime

Nice book, you should read it before, he is 5 stars in amazon.com and amazon.co.uk.

Junk science, but since Aljazeera likes it, it's got to be a fact-filled account, for sure. The author of the book isn't a doctor even...it;s just his pen-name. Please stop using this page as a measageboard...this is an encyclopedia project, not a blog.--MONGO 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Mongo, could you explain (as policy holder here) policies and guidelines concerning notable, reliably sourced, and verifiable information's. The reason I ask? Well, every time one queries Google for something related to 911 the first page spit's out approximately 10/10 results which are to be dismissed here as junk science? Take this for illustration: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=controlled+demolition+911&btnG=Google+Search. So just clarify to us all… why are these sources neglected in spite the fact that they are obviously done by vast (notable) variety of World Wide Web users? Your statement from above: "We,ve seen all that and it's not going in this article.--MONGO 11:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)" is deeply disturbing. If you are biased on this matter, which you just said there yourself and which is more then obvious to anyone who visited your user page or took a look at your correspondence in last few months, then you are also against everything stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_guidelines. --Lovelight 2:16 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

PS.If you need a reminder on how Google works, you may find it here: http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

I'm not the policy holder here and I don't appreciate you saying I'm biased. I sdupport what is documaented by fact based evidence, not a bunch of home propaganda videos and other nonsense. Google rankings mean notablility, and have zero to do with reliability.--MONGO 12:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of sources in the main article doesn’t exist, look at previous discussions, every reference can be easily dismissed http://www.911truth.org/. You are eager and ready to enlist Fox as a reliable source? Knowing who: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch is? On other hand you are all vigorous when it comes to dismissing independent research of the subject? Just take a review of things you wrote to SkeenaR and others who were on this page asking for change… I find comments like this to be more then valid: http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry62.htm, and I always won't second opinion. That warning you just send to my talk page is intended for you, not for me… you folks are keeping this status quo for years now. Is that constructive? Constructive obstruction of wikipedia editors? And please don't speak to me about insults; you locked me out as soon as I tried to step in? Remember!? --Lovelight 2:55 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

You have produced nothing but blogs and links to websites and silly google videos that have no basis in fact. Where were you "locked out"...were you banned from editing here before?--MONGO 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I was quite happy until that CSI fodder came to my TV. I wasn’t interested in the politics and I didn't care about 911 (however, I did keep my eye on it, very closely; my work implies ability to see and understand numerous perspectives…). But then this fear and terror thing is unsustainable (dumb to be honest), years are wasted (not to mention lives) and I choose to act. You can see my contributions in article about Starforce which is in some ways related to this madness. I have never been locked out before, and I dropped a note concerning that lock out. Here is the summary of that massage: "I will be free to write politely and speak kindly what ever I wish, when ever I wish, and on any level of my conciseness…". Anyway, I'm quite consistent in matters of truth, love, peace and understanding, in other words, to current American administration I would be worst nightmare, the highest sort of terrorist. It is enough, I see kids dissent in most desperate ways, they play GTA games and I have to watch how US throw's another big one but through conventional means (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ - quite close to that Nagasaki score, you know?), people around the world see that as another episode of CSI? Patriot Acts? Freedom of speech? Well enough is enough… --Lovelight 2:57 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

Two planes hit the WTC: 'an attack' or 'attacks'?

I've noticed a few places in various articles where references are made to the "attack on the WTC" and to the "attacks on the WTC". Are both planes hitting the WTC considered a single attack, or do they represent multiple attacks? The name of this article does not provide enough reference for clarification, as it categorically includes the plane in PA and the Pentagon.

Example of the problem from Windows on the World:

Windows of the World was destroyed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. At the time of the attack, the restaurant was hosting regular breakfast patrons and the Waters Financial Technology Congress. In addition to 73 restaurant staff who were present at the time, 16 Waters employees perished as well as all 71 conference guests. Noone, who was present in these rooms at the time of the attacks survived.

Sdr 03:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. Probably a non-plural attack for a few reasons. Since the towers were part of one complex, the WTC complex, and the planes were a part of the same operation, it would be singular. If "attack" was always used instead of "attacks", it will also remove any ambiguity in other places as to whether the statement also refers to the '93 bombing. I guess the way that word is used actually does make a difference. Still though, it might not be quite that clear cut, since there was the Pentagon attack as well. That could make it Sept 11 "attacks". I think the best way is for the WTC to be an "attack", and Sept 11 to be "attacks". I do know of one outfit that persistently refers to the WTC attack as a plural, and that would be the lawyers trying to collect insurance money on the towers. It turns out they would get double the amount for two attacks instead of one. They said each plane was a seperate attack . That's in the Larry Silverstein article. SkeenaR 03:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3682671.stm --Lovelight)

If you really want a reference on whether to use "attack" or "attacks" -- look at Pearl Harbor. While we generally consider it to be one attack - but in actually, the Japanese used multiple attack waves in their plan by sending planes to fly over the base from multiple directions. Likewise for 9/11, we have multiple planes used to attack multiple targets; but directed at two different cities but all in the same day; for this, it is September 11 Attacks. As far as the World Trade Center is concerned, it is considered to be one facility - and therefore, one target. Thus, on the World Trade Center, it was one attack despite the use of two planes. KyuuA4 08:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreknowledge

Let's build our foreknowledge now… this is what we know to be undisputed and true: http://911readingroom.org/bib/; feel free to dispute those facts.

This: http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html is a place where you'll meet some of the people who forged our reality, and if you fallow the tracks you're bound to learn about their connection to 911 attacks and such wars as one in Afghanistan, Iraq… You'll also learn a lot about trading that took place just before 911 events. That link is of the top, search for "Carlyle Group" if you won't to know more. What is important is the source of information http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=insiderTrading, which (for most part) came directly from press agencies such as associated press, Reuters, and so on. In other words all this knowledge is valid and at our disposal. Feel free to use Google to clarify things. Everything about inside trading that took place before 911 can be easily verified in any newspaper archive timed in the days following 911 (for those with short memories) events. This route (perspective) will lead reader way back into the history; it will provide a good foundation for understanding economic, social & military background of 911 events. Also, please do take a moment to learn about the interests of US administration, those former and/or current one: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bush_family_911.html. Finally if this page would serve its purpose, then we would be free to discuss all sort's of things. Here is an example taken from another (not moderated) public forum (http://www.topix.net/forum/news/george-bush): "The 911 attacks were attributed to osama bin laden from the onset. Let's just say for the bushies it wasn't an attack by our own. With the conspiracy theories aside let's look at the "undisputable facts". On Sept 11 2001 there was a meeting in NY of the board of directors and the major investors of the Carlyle Group, a Saudi owned energy firm boasting the biggest profits of any company in world history. Now also in attendance of these meetings was george bush sr. who at the time was on the board of directors and financial advisor of the Carlyle Group. The bushes are also among the largest investor in this company with apx. 78% of their net worth invested in the Carlyle group. Now the largest investors are the Bin laden family and the Saudi royals. No less than 26 members of the bin laden family were attending this meeting along with the Saudi royals on the morning of 911. After the attacks the only people allowed to take to the skies were the Saudi royals and the binladens"… --Lovelight 4:05 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

All thses points have been address...all I see are links to conspriacy theory websites with popups. Show me some peer reviewed proof that the mainstream version is wrong.--MONGO 14:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So you say that mainstream agencies are worthless (could agree on that one)? Honestly, I don't care who gathered resources… I already stated that all those links provide valid and undisputed facts. If you click those links, you'll see that you just said how associated press, Reuters, Washington Post and so on... are not valid sources. Read what is provided, I haven’t addressed these issues, and I won't let go… Conspiracy is not a code word here, code word is TRUTH! --Lovelight 4:55 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

What truth? Show me something that is a reliable source that the proven evidence about what happened on 9/11 is wrong. All you're doing is linking us to blogs and websites that are controlled by one or a few websmasters and they have editorial control over what they have there...that's not science...it's science fiction.--MONGO 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, these locations provide a gathering place for all willing or unwilling mistakes that were made by mainstream media. Look, go here: http://911readingroom.org/bib/ and click on foreknowledge… every document there is provided by AP, New York Times, Reuters and so on… --Lovelight 5:14 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

It's all because that conspiracy nonsense, conspiracy has nothing to do with that, I would provide you with the direct link, but that website is designed to be navigated, not disputed right there in the lobby… --Lovelight 5:17 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

Great, Cynthia McKinney [4] 9/11 links and other links to conspiracy theory websites...there's nothing to any of that worth the time of day.--MONGO 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no point is spamming this page with conspiracist essays. I'm going to start removing stuff that would be better on blogspot. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to remove valid sources, I'll have to dig up every single document in his original form… and then we'll have ZOO. Please, do catch you breath and check what is provided… --Lovelight 5:01 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

Please be more specific, there is no sense is presenting a large volume of documentation and throwing out a challenge to verify it all. And even verifiable facts are inappropriate if they have the effect (or intention) of misleading Wikipedia readers. Plus the word "truth" gets abused so much the discussion frequently doesn't even make sense. There are many speculations, with varying degrees of plausibility and evidence. Checking the link at 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC), there are no new facts, although to its credit the site declares its bias up front. Peter Grey 15:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but I've been mistreated here for no reason whatsoever… and I had to stop good old Tom there from acting hasty and robustly… This section is named foreknowledge. Links that are provided need to be navigated and I can help that, whether you find that particular website biased or not, it is not of an issue. When you enter that lobby click on section called foreknowledge and see documentation provided there… It is good tool to find mainstream articles about 911 events which illustrate need for further discussion. As I said, one can provide all that data link by link, but such things are called entropy. Plus the word "conspiracy" gets abused so much the discussion frequently doesn't even make sense. --Lovelight 5:41 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

I checked a few of the "foreknowledge" articles. Seems like they seem to agree that terrorist organizations are suspected of planning acts of terrorism and there are occasional reports about that. Most are false alarms, some are investigated further and found to be false alarms, some are real plans that are caught in time, sometimes one gets through. Is there an actual point to all of this "foreknowledge"? Here is some more foreknowledge: Al Qaeda guys are planning terrorism right now and will strike some time in the future. Whatchagonnadooabootit? Weregerbil 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "building foreknowledge" anyway? Is there a specific deficiency with the article, not previously discussed, that would make Wikipedia better? Peter Grey 18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, thank you for pointing that out. It is about new perspectives, which are becoming clearer because more and more information is available. If you take a look at this: http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01; you will meet the chaos of that day from military perspective. If you know where most of US forces were playing that day (in spite clear and present foreknowledge), you may have to ask yourself about reasons for such colossal ineptitude. People need to be aware that documents such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwood, do carry certain weight. Post 911 world is very sad place, we know where it all started, and we should investigate. Official story is very poorly presented… It would be very narrow-minded to extract this event from global picture. After all it did serve as a false cause for invasion of Iraq. The man who is supposedly guilty is somewhere enjoying his frozen margaritas and world is trembling in unnatural state of fear & terror. We have to ask ourselves why American people stand for all that, why they don't act when they know that it was a lie from beginning.http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ohiostatusrept1505.pdf#search=%22ohio%20hearings%20pdf%22; http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&lr=&q=clint%20curtis%20testimony&btnG=Search&sa=N&tab=wv; or to be on the target here, why is this particular discussion under surveillance, or what ever did that funny banner show that other day? --Lovelight 9:05 PM 31 August 2006 (CET)

Well, I found a good solid link too...it evokes a spirit of understanding beyond which I could ever have hoped would happen....[5]--MONGO 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Constructive Mongo, not destructive. Remember? Hate, anger and fear are the most destructive ways, try to find opposite values. That aside, part of building our foreknowledge is in understanding who and what Osama is. It is already taken in account with links above, so you just have to recall how it all started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan#US_involvement_in_Afghanistan, then you use Google with queries like this one> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=osama+cia&btnG=Search; or this one: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Osama+Bin+laden+medical+treatment+&btnG=Search or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=osama+cia+pdf&btnG=Search & so on… there is a root of all this fear & terror nonsense and it is not so hard to find. It will hurt some… but what is there to do… sit back while someone ravages through Lebanon http://www.amnesty.org/ in most callous way? Anyway I won't post zounds of links here, feel free to add whatever you think is important. And please, do keep in mind that the only way to write this (any) article properly and decently is logos. History is a good tool, Wikipedia is not the best place to check for facts connected to 911 events. Take this page for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_laden, at one point you'll see fact's there, at other you'll see poorly and deliberately drawled lies. It's about editing wars, it's healthy but it leads of the path… --Lovelight 12:11 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

It is about new perspectives. More information becomes available, but also more disinformation. Genuinely new perspectives might well improve Wikipedia, although new does not necessarily imply it will qualify as encyclopedic. In the absence, however, of new perspectives or new information this discussion does not contribute anything to the article. Peter Grey 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it so? If new perspectives are new (or to be quite honest, hundreds of years old) then how may we discuss them without a discussion? This is not a child play, let me illustrate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCaBCdJWOyM. --Lovelight 5:20 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

New to the article, obviously. I assume if you challenge people to spend their valuable time following dozens of links, then you've read all 20 archived talk pages yourself, right? Peter Grey 15:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, at least good part of it… but visitors didn’t. Why would I throw more links here? You neglected thousands of them already… Anyway, what I'm trying to say, it is important to relate this discussion to current events; it is a contemporary talk about the past events? We cannot be just technical when we speak of our present or future. You may insist to keep this event frozen in time, but then you would loose the touch with reality http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5305024.stm. If wikipedia chooses to ignore the current facts, then you say so clearly… I'm not in the hurry… & nope, not new to the article. Didn't like it in first place… simply not interested in false information's. --Lovelight 5:51 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

Ok but in order to stay more objective, we should set all the hypotheseis discussed including: CIA, Israel, Russia implication and Naom Shomsky; David Duke opinions, ....why to avoid those probabilities thanks.

Noam Chomsky? He's a giant, just for his contributions to computer science. --Slipgrid 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Secondary Explosions

I don't see any info about secondary explosions in this article. These were widely reported by first responders and workers at the World Trade Center. Why this is allowed to be only mentioned in the conspiracy theory section only leads to more believing there's a true conspiracy.

Video of Firefights reacting to a secondary explosion... note the loud boom that causes the Firefighers to jump and make comments.

Police officials tell MSNBC reporter of explosive devices found at WTC

Firefighter tells of eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions

Here's someone's play list, with links to many clips that give evidence of secondary explosions

Why doesn't this article mention the evidence of secondary explosions? Slipgrid 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, article should reflect these facts; Wikipedia is independent source of our knowledge. Whether someone likes or dislikes certain facts is not an issue here. Such essentials simply need to be referenced. First reports and eyewitness accounts are more than numerous, everything can be easily verified through mainstream media, whether we talk about video streams or hard copies of newspaper. --Lovelight 12:00 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

Ok, we have a section called "Investigations." Under that heading, we have "The collapse of the World Trade Center" and "9/11 Commission Report," though the former section seems like it is part of the later. That is, "The Collapse of the World Trade Center" should be called "The collapse of the World Trade Center According to the 9/11 Commission." So, I would think the first thing to do is to change this heading. Then, since this is not a place for the 9/11 Commission Report to be reprinted, that section should be removed, or rewritten to reflect objective reality. That is, I didn't come to this page to see what the 9/11 Commission said happened, I came here to see what actually happened. Then, this new section needs to detail what actually happend, including the evidence. I think the video evidence of eyewitness accounts and the secondary explosions stands on it's own, and should be part of this page.Slipgrid 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You would be wrong. The evidence of 'secondary explosions' means nothing. Also, I will not look at YouTube stuff at work - can you transcribe the bit about 'explosive devices found'? By the way, since when did professional demolition use explosive devices? That seems to me to imply a self-contained bomb, with timer and fuse. Professional demolition doesn't work that way. I love tearing down this theory, it's so fun. --Golbez 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is clear. Secondary explosions happened. How can you imagine that these do not factor into the falling of this building? --Slipgrid 00:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you explain that rezoning to me please? YouTube video clips? These streams are taken from TV stations, news stations and so on. Just use your logic, please. For example explain to me that tremendous heat that melts, pardon, cuts steel? While you and I and anyone who was shocked that day saw people standing in those holes. Listen to do fireman reports, they talk about isolated pockets of fire, they can take them out… free stairway… yet those towers fell? What exactly are you tearing down here? Eyewitness testimonies? Ridiculous, with your reasoning it is no wonder that this page is in such state… http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm; I will provide more about this later. --Lovelight 10:42 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

My reasoning was simple - I won't watch a video at work. I don't think my boss appreciates it. And I didn't want to wait til I got home. Basically, you have to do one thing, and one thing only, to convince me that controlled demolition brought down the towers - give me evidence that the explosives were planted. Not found - planted. Tell me who wired 270 floors of office tower to collapse, and when they did it. It's quite simple. If you can't, then move on - there's a lot stronger evidence a hundred floors up of what caused the collapse than what you can give. Jeez, it's not like we haven't spent the last half decade dealing with this stuff, I'd've thought you people would have given up on this article by now and gone back to your poorly-designed blogs and the Conspiracy article, which exists just for you! So have fun with it! But leave the main article alone. It's for fact only. Facts: Planes crashed into towers, towers collapsed. Conjecture: That anything else happened. This article is not for conjecture. --Golbez 20:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Convince you? Who are you? Is your opinion higher then mine? Please answer my questions, if you can. I don’t care what you people have done in last five years. I asked you a question; explain to me how can someone live in thousands of Fahrenheit's? Another freefall nonsense? Tell me why the firemen who were right there in the middle of inferno didn’t scream in terror? You have done nothing in last half of decade, nothing but silent consent to murder, pain & suffering. I'll answer your question, when you answer mine. --Lovelight 11:07 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

Frankly, yes, it is, because it is correct. I will not answer your questions because I will not be suckered in to a fight with you. This will not be put into this article, that is final. --Golbez 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And what is this? Beg your pardon, but I find that remark quite personal. Would it be impolite if I would smack you with the ruler? Here have a gift instead: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/ so that we may stand as equal and have same "Organon". If you have any personal remarks, we can share them on our talk pages… --Lovelight

PS. http://www.apfn.org/APFN/WTC_questions.htm

Very well, it is just the sort of information control I'm talking about… thank you for making it clear. Here is another youtube clip… don’t worry it's the last one, very clear one, you should see it:)… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKa8VE7ILI --Lovelight 11:42 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

Wah wah censorship. Yes, we censor crackpots. Something to be proud of. And that trailer, I thought you were trying to make a point. A movie trailer. Wow. Yeah, that did it. --Golbez 21:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Christ, I just watched the video about 'police find bomb'. It was described second-hand as a SUSPICIOUS DEVICE. There are dozens of suspicious devices found every day, and very very rarely are they bombs. Sigh. Try to think, please. And then we have "reason to believe some of the explosions may have been caused by a van". Wow, two waffles - 'reason to believe' and 'may have been caused'. Similes, not statements of fact. If the police said "one of the explosions was caused by a van", THEN we're in business. But no. You have similes and .. movie trailers. Grand job. --Golbez 21:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, please don't post here if you do not look at all the info referenced. Did you watch the video where the bomb goes off? The evidence is clear, and you are on the border of being a troll --Slipgrid 00:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear Goblez, I am a person of classical education, I find your logic poor and dim… I would like to present this page to the mainstream media around the world now. Hope you won't mind… nor vandalize. --Lovelight 11:53 PM 1 September 2006 (CET)

As long as you don't present similes as facts. --Golbez 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, it is about you choosing to ridicule and dismiss very serious discussion… but so did Mongo, and Peter and so on… Nothing to worry here, it is just decent and honest insight about poor state of our Wikipedia. --Lovelight 12:01 AM 1 September 2006 (CET)

No, it will not be included in this article. That's it. Morton devonshire 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

… and Morton:), good night & good luck... --Lovelight 12:20 PM 2 September 2006 (CET)

Ah, the 5th of September, ehh? Are you my friend the "Che Vandal"?[6] Morton devonshire 22:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's both cute and pathetic, really. He makes these statements, I hit them at their weakest point, and suddenly we're satans or draculas, or possibly zombie draculas. I used independent thought, now it's your turn. --Golbez 22:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, your willingness, or unwillingness, to watch the clear evidence of secondary explosions, does not mean they didn't happen! Such remarks about being able or unable, willing or unwilling, to watch clear video evidence, does not belong on this page! --Slipgrid 00:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Slipgrid, out of curiosity, why are you surprised by secondary explosions in a buiding collapse or fire? werent there cars parked in the WTC and the usual assortment of gas lines, boilers, airconditioners and janitorial supplies? Mrdthree 01:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised by secondary explosions before the buildings collapsed. Here's some reasons. Seismic data shows very larges explosions. Most of the jet fuel burned outside the building. This is evident by seeing people standing at the holes in the buildings. You don't get large explosions like this at other building fires. The media reported on the secondary explosions once, never redacted their stories, but never talked of them again. Those, and many more reasons caused me to be surprised.--Slipgrid 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

About that seismic data: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=911+seismic+data&btnG=Search --Lovelight 10:41 AM 2 September 2006 (CET)

The unfortunate reality is that an enormous body of folklore, and outright disinformation, has appeared surrounding this subject matter. Hence new material is assessed critically (and in general reasonably fairly). These suggested improvements are rejected because they lack supporting evidence and/or scientific accuracy. Peter Grey 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The objective reality is in the videos I linked.--Slipgrid 03:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then your objective reality is made up of similes and plot holes. --Golbez 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

They only provide evidence of sounds similar to explosions - an unremarkable occurrence in a structurally-compromised building. Peter Grey 04:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Morning fellows, do focus on building 7, would you? It is as frail as house of cards. Here's one link: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/. Before you dismiss it in your wise and polite manner, please notice that fine disclaimer: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/re911/disclaimer.html; think it is written with you on mind. Then go here: http://www.wtc7.net/ and check the highlights with full speed, then break a little and read what's written here: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html. After you done, come share your illogical reasons to neglect those facts… Soon we may also talk about those passports: http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html, which is just.., oh what a poor, poor movie. And that cleanup? Lovely, isn’t it? Let's take all the evidence and quickly incinerate them in China… Thieves in the night… --Lovelight 10:35 AM 2 September 2006 (CET)

PS. Here, picture what will happen when we start to talk about other serious issues: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon+911+pictures&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title

Lovelight, you should be aware that your claim of seismic data proving controlled demolition of the twin towers has been debunked on numerous websites. Popular Mechanics did a story about this-- [7]-- the "sharp spikes are only on graphs that have a time scale of half an hour. Graphs of the same data over a period of a few minutes show no sharp spikes that correspond to explosives. In fact this claim has even been refuted by many within the "9/11 Truth Movement" ([8]). There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you should be open to all the facts. Bonus Onus 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't noticed this one and haven’t talked about spikes… just provided a link there to illustrate discussion… Since Peter and others are with you taking that lovely picture down there, could you be the one who will explain to me why this reference cannot be presented in the article; obviously being the best current illustration of long term effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.131.108.73 (talk • contribs) .

The preceding unassigned comment was singed by me… --Lovelight 7:07 AM 6 September 2006 (CET)

Well i don't think that link necessarily shows the effects of 9/11 because we need to remember that just because things happen after an event does not mean that they happened because of the event. certainly some of the things in that chart are a direct result of 9/11, but others represent many other factors that affect the issue, so its really just a better illustration of how things have changed after 9/11-- not necessarily because of it. Bonus Onus 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Attacks in popular culture

Most articles have a section about an event in popular culture. Can somebody please add it? I am aware that some may contributores may find this inappropriate for such a tragic event, but I do not find this a good reason because it is also there for other tragic event such as the Jonestown and I am not aware of any policy forbidding this. Thanks in advance. Andries 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean if this is refused in this article for stated reasons then I think the same reason should apply for several other articles as well. Andries 13:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Sections_.22In_popular_culture.22_for_tragic_events Andries 14:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks in arts and literature is linked from this article, I think in the "memorials" section. Maybe it ought to be linked in a different spot, but it's there. This material was once here in the main article, but due to its length was split into a separate subarticle. There is also List of films about September 11, 2001, which is tagged to be merged with the other article. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Andries 18:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While this sort of addendum might sooth some, in my humble opinion it will do as much good as first walk on the moon did. So let's take a look at tragedy of that day. Tragedy that reoccurred more than once and it threats to reoccur on the daily basis with incredibly prudent and sane statements of US president, who is very clear and persistent in fueling that very interesting (and never before heard of) islamo-nazi doctrine. So let us all just sing dim, dumb da dumb while we cross the event horizon? Well good ladies and gentleman it won't be the case here, no tin foils, no lemmings and no nonsense from my part. I won't be blinded in front of the firing squad. In my time, I've seen pictures of presidents in schools, and they have right to be there in same manner as burning cross or devastated statues of Buddha. I was million miles away but I did cry that day, wonder what some of you did? Loosed your logos in awe and amazement? This being another digression, I apologies as I get back to popular culture. So here, have another very clear, very insightful illustration. This event need to be related to historical perspective (which is a bit different approach then popular culture), then you may noticed that person who speak in the name of God (any god) deserves to be answered in same manner. Overgrown brutes who with their interpretation of divine wisdom cause event such as this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_massacre (another heavily disputed article there), will get same sort of fundamental (which is fundamentally flawed, but in some cases rather necessary) answers: http://www.systemofadownonline.com/lyrics/0101.htm. And please do understand that this is an illustration, not my point of view. More about popular culture in form of multimedia will be available on my user page. More movies about 911 can be found here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=911&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wv --Lovelight 11:00 PM 3 September 2006 (CET)

Intro

What is with the "... acording to the official story" line at the end of the introduction. It seems a bit POV to me.

Already corrected. Peter Grey 00:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I find the conclusiveness with which the statements are made in the introduction to be unwarranted. If this were not such a politically charged situation, the traditional Anglo-American values of "innocent until proven guilty" would prevail. In discussions elsewhere I have asked for solid evidence that the 19 men named as perpetrators were indeed the culprits. Such evidence has never been forthcoming. Indeed, the FBI doesn't even list bin Laden as a suspect in the 9/11 attacks. This fact is addressed here: FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” I will observe that Tomb gave a more equivocal statement to the Washington Post a month later. Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

"The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists [NB the inane pejorative] who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain."

But the statement that "Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings." Is simply not supported by the evidence. If you believe that I am wrong about this matter, then show me the evidence!.

Is wikipedia more than propaganda tool for the military-industrial complex? How would the Gulf of Tonkin or USS Liberty incidents be treated if they were current events today? History screams to us that we must hold the Government suspect, and demand compelling evidence supporting any claim of consequence promulgated by our public servants. Indeed, our Founding Fathers demanded this of us. The Internet gives us a chance to get it right. Let's not blow it by continuing down the same well trodden corridor of generations passed.

It is apparent to me that the uncritical acceptance of the accusations against the men named as perpetrators in the 9/11 attacks is due to religious and ethnic bigotry, and not due to evidence presented. The images found on pages linked from the FBI's 9/11 Investigation (PENTTBOM) page in conjunction with the accusations against these men contained therein constitute a crime of defamation of character. That crime is motivated by racial and religious bigotry of the basest nature, and therefore constitutes a hate crime. I do not believe "hate crime" legislation is proper, but the statutes exist and are loudly proclaimed as of primary importance by the FBI. Hetware 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another stirring rhetorical exercise! Job well done. We will all surely note that you believe something called...um..."PrisonPlanet" is a reputable source, yet you disparage the Washington Post. Makes sense to me! Levi P. 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not trust any source without reservation. I try very hard to cross verify any questionable assertions, regardless of the source. The New York Times and Washington Post have proven to be unreliable on many crucial issues. Take for example their original reporting on Hurricane Katrina in which both newspapers asserted the NOLA levees broke after midnight of the night following landfall.

I have read the relevant sections of the NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower as well as the World Trade Center Building Performance Study by FEMA, and the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition. I have also carefully considered what Steven E. Jones presents in Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. I have read the sections in university textbooks on the theory of blackbody radiation, as well as researched the emissivity and refectivity characteristics of aluminum and iron under relevant physical conditions. I have examined the videos allegedly of Osama bin Laden taking credit for the 9/11 attacks. I have investigated the characteristics of the aircraft involved, as well as the witness accounts and available flight data from the aircraft.

On the basis of my research I have concluded the official conspiracy theory is a fraud. When I asked for evidence I was presented with inane innuendo. I will take that as further evidence of the rightness of my conclusions.Hetware 13:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, "innane innuedo" was the overall tenor I was aiming for. Congratulations on having "read the sections in university textbooks." Do keep up the good work. Levi P. 05:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on challengers to provide credible evidence that the article contains errors. And if by "official theory" you refer to the "9/11 Commission", that has its own article.Peter Grey 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It is all nonsense Peter, right there from the freefall, or controlled demolition or whatever you wont to call it… so what exactly are we doing here? Neglecting logic, ridicule laws of physics, dismissing well elaborated and deeply researched subjects and so on… It is not upon the challengers, facts speak for them self. In last week none of the keepers answered single question. You just kept pointing in other directions, directions which are quite far from our focal point of interest… --Lovelight 8:44 PM 5 September 2006 (CET)

What are you calling "nonsense"? The scientific analyses of professional structural engineers, or the personal intuition of amateurs that contradicts them? Recall this familiar link, which as previously pointed out is not even based on real-word physics. (That writer apparently does not even realize that gravity is an acceleration, not a velocity.) Peter Grey 19:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Think I wrote way up there what I sense about such discussion… --Lovelight 11:00 AM 5 September 2006 (CET)

What on Earth does the acceleration of gravity have to do with evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11? I asked for evidence implicating the accused to the crimes. So far the only "evidence" I've seen are the accusations leveled by the US Government, the extraordinarily dubious presence of passports allegedly found at the crash sites, the aircraft manuals allegedly found in vehicles used by the accused, and the clearly fraudulent Osame bin Laden "confession" videos. You have not shown one shred of evidence that the 19 alleged hijackers committed these acts. Just a little effort on your part will lead you to BBC articles claiming that several of the alleged suicide hijackers were still alive after 9/11/01. If you believe that Hani Hanjour executed the extraordinary final maneuver of AA77 just before it hit the Pentagon, I have to conclude that you are impervious to rational argument founded on available evidence.Hetware 20:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence requested is here. Obviously. Peter Grey 02:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The evidence has been assessed, vetted, discussed etc. (see the many archives). "Uncritical acceptance" of any source is not helpful. Peter Grey 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

FOX? --Lovelight

Another of those arguments where you have an argument without argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower)? Whatever, I would like to reference this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/5305868.stm, any reservation? If not, any of established users who would be so kind… --Lovelight 11:45 PM 4 September 2006 (CET)

There is an article to discuss the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Peter Grey 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is also a section called "Long-term effects" here, so why would we go there? --Lovelight 1:15 AM 5 September 2006 (CET)

Memorial

Is there any plans that any of the Wikipedia Adiministrators would make a memorial page for the events of that tragic day? Also will this be able to be a permanent memorial online? --82.47.145.146 21:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There already is one, http://sep11.wikipedia.org but it's in constant danger of being removed. --Golbez 19:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Living at 8th St & Broadway, highest point between Empire State Building and WTC, photos we took from the rooftop, Ground Zero, Union Square and Washington Sq Park are at newyorkpix.com, added the link for a first hand view from the frozen zone. Nymichael 08:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Top Photo

Is this image the best we can do? It seems to be pretty poor quality with a lot of digital interference. I assume the only reason we are using it as the top image on this article is because it is public domain. However, we don't even actually know that it is a public domain image. It comes from the website of the US Embassy in Tanzania. It is therefore entirely possible that this photo was placed on that website with out it being in the public domain. I contend that we should find a better image to feature on this article. Bonus Onus 20:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the top photo is probably not a public domain work, of a U.S. government employee. I can think of some options for photos:

I'm quite stringent with the issue of fair use, but I think a single image (screenshot) from CNN or other news outlet may qualify as fair use in this case?
1. Under WP:FU#Images, it says "Film and television screen shots. For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Arguably, the "television" is the broadcast of the 9/11 attacks and this entire article "discusses" it.
2. {{HistoricPhoto}} fair use tag could also apply here, as it covers "non-reproducible historic event, and no free alternative exists or can be created".
Another possibilty is to explore what's on Flickr, such as this gallery. This photographer tagged his photos with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, which is incompatible with Wikipedia. However, he indicates a willingness to "share it with others"; If asked, he (or someone other photographer) might grant use of one image to Wikipedia, under a compatible license.
A third source is FEMA's photo library, which documents their response in NYC and at the Pentagon. Since it covers the aftermath, I don't think there is anything comparable to the first two options for the lead photo. Though, there may be something useful here for the elsewhere in the article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support using an image in the public domain and will search for one now.--MONGO 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Format and layout

I briefly added Template:Sep11dead, in place of the table of fatalities. I thought we might do better with a more horizontal format, and one we can hide. It turned out that the reference tags didn't work, as I should have expected. I could hard-code the notes into the template, but then we would have a second set of footnotes just for that section. I'm also not sure about transcluding content with a template. Possibly we could do something like we do with Portal:Engineering, if that's allowed in article space. Any thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is allowed in the article, article won't budge… if you won't to improve the article answer some of the questions above. --Lovelight^Talk 2:20 AM 7 September 2006 (CET)

In the section 'Other potential hijackers' this sentence is included: "Plans to include Moussaoui were allegedly never completed because the al-Qaeda hierarchy allegedly had doubts about his reliability." One instance of the word 'allegedly' should be removed. Additionally, in the same section this sentence: "On May 3, 2006, a federal jury rejected the death penalty and sentenced Moussaoui to 6 life terms in prison without parole.." should have one dot removed. Mdagre 14:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

An editor here, please

Just for this minor typo in the section "Other possible hijackers": In a an video tape released in... Thanks.

My apologies but now is the time to put that banner which shows that neutrality of this article is disputed. Would you please be so kind?... Thanks. -- Lovelight 00:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No. --Golbez 01:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not an admin, but we now have polls that now say 43% dispute the official story. Yesterday, NPR's Talk of the Nation featured the Popular Mechanics guys, who just published a book, trying and failing to debunk the alternative theories of the September 11, 2001 events. WaPo, just published a story on disbelievers. This article only reflects the views of one commission. Almost all media organizations are now carrying stories of disbelief. The neutrality of this article is now widely disputed. --Slipgrid 01:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As the "saddam did 9/11" polls show us, facts are not dictated by democracy. The article has dealt with slings and arrows for five years, and it has received nary a dent; that either means we're draconian in maintaining it, or the arrows are ultimately weak. --Golbez 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll." Golbez, quit with your ct! Fact is this artile is under dispute, not only by the American people, but people all accross the world! Fact are clear that people dispute this story!--Slipgrid 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Polls or facts? Golbez vs US Senate? -- Lovelight 10:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You misread my statement, but that's okay. It's not like I expected an actual response. (ps - i think the people who think saddam did 9/11 are wrong, because they are, because the facts say they are. polls might say people dispute the official story but that does not make the official story false) You need something better, and you aren't going to find it. Just go to the conspiracy theory page, we have tents set up there for you. --Golbez 10:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my statement? Have you read those documents? Please read what is provided… It doesn't matter what people thought yesterday… few days ago people thought there were no secret CIA prison facilities, today they are outraged by their existence… What you need to do now, is to form another Al-Qaeda for yourself... Article is not just disputed, article is on the top of the building and it is getting ready for some freefall jumping… as you and I know there is no resistance in freefall, no resistance whatsoever. -- Lovelight 10:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

uh huh... --Golbez 11:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things clear, here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm are some new facts which surfaced yesterday… this new data is sourced here: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf. Until relevance of these new findings is reflected in this (and other related articles), article should stand as disputed . -- Lovelight 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What does the war in Iraq have to do with this article?--MONGO 11:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Golly, I can find some links too...let's see....[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [[15]], [[16]] and for a good google video, try this one...[[17]]...go forth and seek the truth.--MONGO 11:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's say (outrages as it may sound) you won't to present pure facts and improve this article. In the interest of historical accuracy you need to mention how: "US president has again and again tried to connect the war (in Iraq), which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation." These are very small setbacks from current wiki policy on this page… Article simply needs update; article needs neutrality and independence. If we wage your links and mine, you'll see that we need to balance things a bit. As you refuse, I refuse too that my point of few should be in any way related to the word "conspiracy". Go forth and seek the truth… so to say… -- Lovelight 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lovelight...I just got through cleaning up every single one of the external links in this article, so indeed, it is rather insulting that you would assume I wouldn't want to present verifiable evidence from reliable sources...surely in the ten minutes since I posted my links, you couldn't have refuted them all....I think this article dallies too much into things that have nothing to do with the events of the day of the attacks...and in keeping with summary style, I believe it is important to emphasize the scope of the events of the attacks and marginalize the after effects...maybe arguments about the war in Iraq should be taken to Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda or Iraq War articles, or something along those lines.--MONGO 11:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed how article is extremely careful in regards to Iraq. However, as you see in example above it would be a very simple, one would say, very small sentence. Perhaps related source and reference prove importance? Anyway, I see your point, and you have my apologies for those insinuations (triggered by our history on this page:), external links are cleared up indeed. Thank you. Here are few suggestions regarding that section. There is alternative (current) BBC link, and there is also an interactive insight in NORAD activates here. In my opinion article should recall whereabouts of US military on that day (closely related facts there). I've posted those "no link" links on some related pages, and Tom was also very kind and pointed in same direction… -- Lovelight 12:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions re/in survey=

I have to question the quality of the questions asked. Are we to believe there was a single question which asked: Did federal officials assist in the 9/11 terrorist attacks OR take no action to stop them SO THAT the United States could go to war in the Middle East?, and to which more than a third answered 'YES'? --JimWae 18:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the question is to the dispute of the story on this page. "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll." This article does not mention the possibility that the Federal Goverment let it happen or made it happen, so this article is disputed, for many reason, by a large amount of the population. --Slipgrid 19:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Then direct them here for an education.--MONGO 20:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And there you go again Mongo… Say, what's with those links I provided? NORAD tapes for multimedia section? BBC contemporary link? That long term effects link? Small sentence about years of Bush's rhetoric's in which he justified war in Iraq with 911 attacks? How about those facts illustrated here in section called foreknowledge? Not to mention freefalls & missing planes and resurrected hijackers here… As I said article lacks neutrality, it is heavily disputed, I asked you for a very small change, why are these small improvements neglected time and again? You can't have only those facts which suit's you (I'm not saying that article didn’t improve in last few days, but nevertheless); you can't marginalize vital information which is proven to be true… And those dwarf stars for keeping the official misinterpretation? Half of you have one? What is that? Please restrain from such magna cum nada honors… It just leaves the impression that editors here act as employees of the US government (especially so in retrospective and revision of this talk pages), the more you resist the more obvious that fact is… There is a whole lot of inter-linked articles here, but one shouldn’t care what's written around, readers who come here to inform themselves about the facts, won't go further & they surly won't get facts. -- Lovelight 09:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jumpers

No I am not talking about a piece of clothing... I am thinking a section about the people jumping out of the windows above the section the planes hit to escape the toxic fumes and to have there "prefered way of death" should be added, as discussed in depth in the TV programme "The Falling Man" and shown in the infamous "Falling Man" Picture shown here [18] the problem is that many people do not want to beleve this is true because some people see this as commiting suicide and most religions say if you commit suicide then you go to "hell" or the religions equivilant. SKRIBUL 09:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a link from USATODAY in regards to the estimated number of folks that choose death by jumping over death by smoke an fire.--MONGO 11:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

Link - I think this is important to add in the Responsibility section. I did add it, but someone removed it, please discuss as to why it should not be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.70.98 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 September 2006

Considering that Al-Jazeera recently aired the tape of bin Laden meeting with the hijackers, I think it's fair to say the two were connected. The Lizard Wizard 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)/The Lizard Wizard

Is there a credible source describing the quote in context? It appears, if it wasn't a simple mistake (or a misquote), that 'hard evidence' is being used in its technical meaning in police procedures. No-one thinks Osama bin Laden was one of the hijackers. It doesn't the diminish the body of evidence indicating his involvement. Peter Grey 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you link a video of UBL with the hijackers, or someone like the FBI confirming the video? Thanks. I mean, if the FBI says that they have no hard evidence, then I doubt that the Wiki does, but I'm not sure. Also, a transcript of the video would be nice. --Slipgrid 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Just a quick note: I don't think the video of UBL with the alleged hijackers debunks the shadow government theory. --Slipgrid 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The following is my reply to the anonymous user's comment above, which he also copy/pasted into the Osama bin Laden discussion page:

The link and the meme don't belong because the link is to a guy ranting about his conspiracy theory that the 9/11 attacks were the work of the U.S. government. He takes an out-of-context quote from Rex Tomb, and builds a case that the world's media are being controlled by some shadowy source within the U.S. government. He might be interested to find out what else Rex Tomb has to say about why 9/11 isn't mentioned on OBL's Wanted poster. Well, why isn't it?

| The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list.

| The absence has also provided fodder for conspiracy theorists who think the U.S. government or another power was behind the Sept. 11 hijackings. From this point of view, the lack of a Sept. 11 reference suggests that the connection to al-Qaeda is uncertain.

Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

The 9/11 case against bin Laden hasn't gone to court yet, so the FBI doesn't list it. The "muckraker" blog is making a ridiculous argument: The U.S. shadow government, which cunningly deceived and continues to deceive the world by painting bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 attacks, has somehow consistently forgotten to add 9/11 to bin Laden's FBI poster--even after "truth seekers" and "muckrakers" have pointed out the absence.

Regardless, as a thoroughly biased piece, this blog link does not belong in this article. It might fit in 9/11 conspiracy theories, though. --Mr. Billion 00:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article indicates a lot from one side, and neglects a lot from the other… -- Lovelight 09:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The "other side" you mention is not credible. The patron saint of the movement, Steven Jones, is now on paid administrative leave because of the lack of credible research and evidence for his claims. Morton devonshire 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant; Usama hasn't been put on trial for the other things listed under his name either. They haven't had a grand jury indite him yet, and the reason for that seems to be lack of hard evidence. This doesn't mean there is NO evidence he did it, but it seems to me that 9/11 was kind of important and if they could indite him, they would, given they did in fact indite him for the attacks on the ebassies in Africa. Of course, they could suspect that they'll never catch him so putting 9/11 under his name would be an unnecessary cost. Conversely, though, I do think it is significant that the FBI does not have hard evidence conneecting him, and has stated such. However, the context should be clear. Titanium Dragon 09:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If they have the osama trial, they'll have to have another trial for the 1.3 billion muslims who, thru their silence, have supported and encouraged him.

What you say is just not true -- they do have hard evidence connecting OBL to 9/11. You just took one quote out of context. Morton devonshire 17:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that Usama Bin Laden has not been indicted for the 9/11 attacks; it is absolutely true that Usama's FBI wanted page does NOT list 9/11 amongst the incidents he is wanted for. Titanium Dragon 20:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But the additional claims beyond that (that this is evidence that the US government, not OBL, was behind the attacks) are not true. I've already provided the explanation for why 9/11 isn't on the FBI's OBL Wanted page yet. --Mr. Billion 16:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything for the families?

OK, under effects of 9/11 in the sidebar table of contents thingy, there's an item for "audiovisual entertainment" of tv and movies that were changed or postponed, etc. because of the attacks, but I see no reference in the article to the effects on the families of those who have died, etc.

The paragraph about schools closing that I mentioned below seems to fit that topic..... I'm suggesting that a section about the effects on families and the grief perhaps be added. Or is that just too sappy? Is there any article out there on the 9/11 widows (and all the other folks who had lost family and friends in the attacks???) I'm still pretty new so I don't know all the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works, thanks. KBecks 19:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Bereavement is universal; we don't have a section for that on every war and disaster since what people feel is pretty much the same in every case, and we already have a general article for that. If you mean particular actions taken by relatives in this specific case, then I think it would work; remember you can start it yourself!--cloviz 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can add something about the 36 children whose fathers died that day, even as they (the kids) were still in their mothers' wombs. Cerebral Warrior 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

As of this writing the article is vandalized. I am newly registered so I can't fix it. Someone please do. Might be agood idea to completely lock it, at least for today.

It was a cache issue, the current article was quickly reverted. Purged the server cache, that should hopefully resolve it.--Mmx1 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing is in really poor taste. Seriously. Djsonik 22:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply signed on to add- thanks for this. People are going to look at this page today (duh) and many of them don't want to be reminded of the blind silliness that some people engage in in their free time.--Arynknight 07:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks

I am going to make it plain and simple. Do not add "terrorist" to the lead back. It will only be removed. --Cat out 09:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is not better description of the action. Their actions were ones of terrorism.--MONGO 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[19]--MONGO 09:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with MONGO. The term, "terrorism" is appropriate in this case. It's been used by Kofi Annan of the United Nations, and major news media in the U.K., France, Germany, China, Canada, and the list could go on... There is wide agreement among countless reliable sources that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. This has been discussed before, with consensus to leave the word terrorism in the intro. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly in the archives. Since this page is linked from the Main Page, it ought not be protected except for extreme circumstances. As such, I will summarily block anyone who chooses to edit war on this page until 12 September. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think semi-protection will definitely be needed. Just wait, please watch the page, and you will see that. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this article was fully protected for much of the day last year. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 10:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got the history window open right here, refreshing every few minutes. There will undoubtedly be others through the day. Protection will be applied as needed. --bainer (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the word 'terrorist' has to go. I don't case what discussion, polls ect have previosuly ocurred. It is not neutral and thus violates our non-negotiable WP:NPOV. End of story. 'Terrorist' is a value judgement not a neutral description, it is thus an inherently unencyclopedic word. No doubt the UN (rightly IMO) would also describe the attacks as 'outrage' 'inhuman' 'offensive' 'criminal' 'obscene' and generally 'a Bad Thing' (and who'd disagree) but those aren't words you'd expect to find in an encyclopedic description).--Doc 10:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit...if even the usually anti-American Kofi Annan can state unequivcally that the acts were ones of terrorism, then there is no reason, on this day to start fighting about changing it! --MONGO 10:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh heavens. The UN also describe the Israeli occupation of the west bank as 'illegal' - shall we begin the articles with on the West bank by stating that is is (fact) 'illegally occupied by Israel'. Of course not. Kofi has also said that the Iraq war was irregal. Shall we state as a fact that 'The 2004 US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal war'. Again of course not. Wikipedia does not do value judgements, no matter how widely they are shared. --Doc 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is non-negotiable. Value judgements are never neutral. --Doc 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What is done in that article is not of concern to me...on this day, it's a bad day to pick a fight about the word that fully complies with the undue weight clause of NPOV. You know the link.--MONGO 10:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that argument does not apply. Sure, it would be a minority who'd reject the judgement that the attacks were terrorist, and we don't give undue weight to that. But that does not alter the fact that the label is a value judgement and not a fact. Wikipedia does not do value judgements. Although we can recored it is the value judgement of the majority. In any case, it isn't just Islamic extermists who'd reject the label, many who abhore 9-11 would recognise that 'terrorism' is a slipper and subjective term. --Doc 11:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense! The governments of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, Pakistan, Bahrain and even Libya, all called the events acts of terrorism...publically and officially...so are they making "value judgements"? That's ludicrus.--MONGO 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They'd also all call it 'evil', shall we use that then as a factual description in the introduction?--Doc 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

They may have used that term as well, but the point is that the terms Terrorism and Terrorists were used officially by even countries that are predominently Moslem.--MONGO 11:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt, but it is still a value judement. It isn't a neutral description. --Doc 12:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that terrorist has problems with NPOV, but to describe it as unencyclopedic does not seem to be plausible or accurate, considering even Britannica calls the hijackers terrorists and the event a terrorist attack. Kotepho 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how the murder of 3000 innocent people can NOT be called "terrorist." Please, today is 9/11. Let us pray for the souls of the deceased instead of insulting their memory by not terming those who so cruelly killed thousands of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, as terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 11:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a fallacy; note that the Iraq War with more than 50,000 innocent deaths and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with 215,000 are not called terrorisrm.--cloviz 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Japan attacked the US first? Haven't you heard of Pearl Harbor? Don't you know the war crimes they committed against American and British soldiers? Don't you know the Allies dropped warned the Japanese that if they failed to surrender, the US would bomb them? Don't you know that Iraq was under the rule of a Moslem dictator who was committing genocide against his own people? Don't you see the coalition troops (American, British, Canadian, Australian et al) laying down their lives to free the Iraqi people? How can you compare Iraq and Nagasaki with mindless Islamist barbarism? Cerebral Warrior 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I made my point clear; I didn't say that those are terrorist attacks, I said that your argument was a fallacy. The murder of innocent people doesn't make something a terrorist attack. Besides that I think you should read well about the necessity of the nuclear attack against Japan; there are some interesting opinions (even from people you could admire) here. I'm glad you enjoy the fairy tales you are being told, yet I must warn you that subjective concepts like that of good and evil aren't suitable for politics; they are used by totalitarian governments to support their cause. I find ironic that you defend your government's cause with the same simple ideas used by your enemies.--cloviz 16:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not from the USA. Cerebral Warrior 16:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, sorry for that...and I think I was a bit aggresive, I'm sorry for that too. We just think different and this is no place for personal dicussions anyway.--cloviz 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

An unwarned attack against the civilian population of a country not in a state of war is pretty much the dictionary definition of terrorism, isn't it? Guy 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources call the acts terrorism. Calling them anything else would give undue weight to an extreme minority opinion. If there are reliable sources calling the acts something else, let's cite them and quote them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Even if any reliable source calls this incident of massmurder as any thing other than terrorism, we should not include that in the article, atleast today. How do you think some widowed lady and her (fatherless) children would feel if the Moslems who murdered her husband for the "crime" of being Christian would feel if they saw that in the article? Cerebral Warrior 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to be mawkish to sustain an accepted idea.--cloviz 13:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If Cool Cat is intent on removing this text every time it is entered, then I will simply block him for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Guy 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to a direct quote from the UN ref given. I hope that will be an acceptable compromise for everybody. --Guinnog 13:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

POV on the word terorism? You have got to be kidding me. That is some of the biggest nonsense that I have heard regarding 9/11. Want proof that it was terrorism? Terrorism's goal is to cause fear. This scared the crap out of millions of people. End of story.

Look at it this way- if today was Holocaust Memorial Day, would you guys be insisting that a Holocaust denial theory proposed by some Moslem dictator be included in the article about the Holocaust? No, you wouldn't because that would be an insult to the 7 million people who died in Nazi gas chambers. Well, today is a day when we remember the 3000 innocent men, women and children whose lifes were snuffed out by a new breed of fascists-Islamofascists. Referring to their murders as anything other than "terrorists" would be an insult to the deceased, who do not deserve to be mocked simply because they were Americans. If you are an anti-American, that's your wish, but please don't insult the departed. Cerebral Warrior 13:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. And remember, please, that Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it exclusively an American publication. Quibbling about the wording of the lead of this article does not amount to direspecting U.S. casualties. I think we are right to call it terrorism, hence my post above and my compromise in the article, but disagreeing with this would not make one anti-American, let alone be regarded as insulting the dead. Yuor comparison with the Holocaust is grossly inappropriate, in my view. Anyway, let's stick to writing an encyclopedia article here; it's what we do. --Guinnog 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust victims were murdered by the Nazis for being Jews. The 9/11 victims were murdered by Islamofascists because they were not Moslem. What's the difference? Cerebral Warrior 13:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked you to take it easy. The Holocaust killed over a thousand times more people and went on for many years. 9/11 killed far fewer and was over in a day. There are two differences for you. Let's stick, please, to discussing ways to improve the article from now on, as that is what this page is for. Thanks. --Guinnog 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am taking it easy and am sorry if it appears otherwise. I just don't like the idea of Islamists putting their warped ideologies into the article. Cerebral Warrior 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism is ultimatley a subjective pejorative adjective. There is no agreed definition. Most people would describe these attacks as terrorist. Indeed to say they are 'not terrorist' is IMO offensive and morally indefensible. It is akin to saying that they are 'not evil', 'not wrong' or 'not unjustifiable'. However, these are all moral value judgements which an encyclopedia should not make (no matter how universally others make them). I believe Nazism was 'a bad thing', the holocaust was 'evil', and apartheid was 'inhumane'. But I don't think we want articles saying 'Hitler was a bad man', and I'm not defending Hitler in saying that. 9-11 was dreadful, and I could use 100 perjorative adjectives to describe it (none, actually, do it justice), but there really is not need. Let the facts speak for themselves without moral value-judgements. Describe what happened, record that most people condemn it, and it is almost universally called 'terrorist'. Sane people will draw their own conclusions, and NPOV will be upheld. And yes, my sympathy and prayers to those who mourn this day.--Doc 14:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole civilised world calls these attacks "terrorists". I respect your intentions to be perfectly neutral, but there are times when being neutral is being insensitive. The things Al-Qaeda and other Islamofascists have to say about 9/11 need not be put in the article because if bin-Laden and his lot don't like this encyclopedia stating universally accepted facts, they are welcome to resume reading the Coron in their free time. Your intentions are doubtless good but I am saddened by the fact that Wikipedia is not doing enough to mourn this day- including not even mentioning the fifth anniversary on the mainpage. Cerebral Warrior 14:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also why did you guys delete the memorial an Australian gentleman put up for his mother who died that day? Please don't be so cruel. How would you feel if some Islamobarbarian killed your mom just because she refused to wear a headscarf? Spare a thought for those whose lives were torn apart that day. Cerebral Warrior 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not intended as a memorial. The anniversary is very prominently mentioned on the main page though, under "on this day". --Guinnog 14:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc, if someone says they were not terrorists, or that the act was something other than terrorism, I want a citation to a reliable source. I want to know who says, and what exactly they say. Absent that, I think we go with what the sources do say. The attackers were terrorists; everyone knows it; almost all reliable sources say it. Substituting our own preferred terminology is not neutrality; it is at best original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

While the events were sad, as was the loss of live (although loss of live occurs every day, much of it is partially or completely the result of human action), you might want to read up a bit before making up bullshit. There is little evidence to suggest the terrorists were inspired by the religious background of their victims. Indeed, a number of muslims were killed in the attacks (as victims) and there is a fair chance at least one of them wore a headscarf. As long as people like you continue to make up bullshit rather the read the facts, there is little hope for 'victory' in the fight against terrorism (of course this concept is itself problematic). Nil Einne 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't inflame the situation. This is a sensitive topic, especially on the fifth anniversary of the event. While I agree with your substantive point about it not being primarily a religiously motivated attack (indeed the article doesn't say it is either), we need to avoid terms like "make up bullshit" please. --Guinnog 14:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I didn't notice the mainpage mention-that was my fault. It should be more of a memorial rather than a factual statement though. As for Nil Einne, it is a fact that Al-Qaeda and other Islamobarbian groups have declared fatwas and dhimmis against "non-believers" in the religion of "peace". The number of Moslems killed on 9/11 was negligible compared to the number of Christian casualties. Cerebral Warrior 15:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be getting off track here. First you were arguing that the motivation for the attacks was to kill non-Muslims. Now you are arguing that various Muslims want to kill non-Muslims (just as various Christians want to kill non-Christians, various whites want to kill non-whites etc). This is completely irrelevant to the issue of the movitation of the people involved in the attacks. If a white supremist gets drunk and kills a black man in an accident while driving, this doesn't make that a hate crime, unless it wasn't an accident or he purposely took a route taking him into a 'black' neighbourhood or whatever. I have seen suggestions the number of Muslims killed may have been up to 300. While I have no doubt the number of Christians killed was higher, this doesn't change the fact that a number of Muslims were killed which would seem odd if the primary motivation was to kill non-Muslims. Perhaps the biggest nail in your coffin though is that the targets chosen and the nature of the attacks suggest the number of casulties was not the sole consideration. The targets and nature of the attacks strongly suggest a degree of symbolism was just as important. As for the memorial, this has already been address before (wikipedia is not a memorial). In any case, if we want to have a memorial, how about for the millions of slaves mistreated and killed? Or for the millions of people dying of disease, hunger etc? Or for the 1000+ Lebanese civilians killed recently? Etc etc... Finally, I make no apologies for my statements. While I try to be sensitive, you have to consider my feelings as well. People who make up bullshit highly infuriate me. I do think I was quite clear in my response I was not defending the terrorists or saying the attacks weren't wrong or anything of that sort. I was simply taking issue with the non-sense claims which are not supported by any of the facts. In any case, I will be leaving this talk page and not re-visting for a while. There is nothing more for me to say... Nil Einne 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, go read the Coran for a while. Cerebral Warrior 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are reffering to the "Qu'ran". What did you hope to achieve with this statement? A wikipedia user makes a clear and detailed argument about how they are trying to uphold wiki policy, but you happen to disagree with them but resort to making a frankly stupid and ignorant comment. I really find it hard to take your arguments seriously when you make such reckless and simplistic attacks on your opponents when they make a good point against you. --Tilmitt 21:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't worship 786 so I'm not very sure about the spelling of that thing. Anyway it's a proper noun so I doubt if the spelling matters. Cerebral Warrior 08:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You moral relativists have lost your goddamned minds if you think 9/11 cannot objectively be called terrorism.

(replying to various points). I'm not a moral relativist - I condemn these attacks in the strongest possible way - as do all right thinking people. I'm uninterested in what Bin Laden, his cronies, or those who would attempt to justify them think. I'm sure 99.5% of people would judge these acts as 'terrorist' - and the rest are a minority to discount (or record in a later paragraph). But my point remains that wikipedia should not make value judgements even when 99% of people do. This is not because we want to be sensitive to the minority (in this case, to hell with them), but because an encyclopedia records facts, and records opinions, it does not make judgements and pronounce opinions, no matter how universally those judgements or opinions may be held. We don't call Hitler 'evil', flat-earth theories 'wrong', or the holocaust 'inhumane', even if we ALL agree that those statements would be true. In actual fact, insisting that we need judgemental term in articles like this is almost to trivialise the subject - the facts, if properly recorded, speak for themselves. --Doc 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The logic here is backwards. "Terrrorism" is an objective term. Not using 'terrorist' to describe people engaging in terrorism would be imposing a PoV. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary: Terrorism: 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.) Peter Grey 20:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit.--MONGO 20:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, that's hardly a constructive contribution. --Doc 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when some wish to pick today as a day to fight over wording in this article that is so widely used that it definitely falls into a neutral point of view, but insist for wide-eyed reasons that it doesn't, then there really isn't any better way to sum up what is just a bunch of bullshit. If Britannica can state it's a terrorist act, if the UN, and the majority of Moslem countries offcial declare it is a terrorists act, if every major news media can call the event an act of terrorism, then it definitely is a neutral term...except to those that decided to make today the best day to start arguing about this bullshit. I find arguments declaring such wording as a proper descriptive definition of what happened to be against our NPOV policy to be not constructive either. So, yeah, bullshit.--MONGO 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your view of neutrality; but until your latest interjections, I'd have characterised this as a civil discussion and not a 'fight'. However if civility isn't possible for you, and you are so hostile to alternative perspectives that don't fall into you own black and white view of the objectivity of language, that you are going to characterise my views as 'bullshit', then really there is really little point in continuing this discussion. I'm unwatching this page now - I'll not trouble you with debate any longer. Spin it your way. --Doc 22:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'll spin it the UN way.--MONGO 04:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this whole thing is Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.'s fault. Personally they should have left Osama bin Laden alone. He didn't do anything to us and he wasn't bothering us. So Bush Sr. should have kept that big-ass mouth of his shut because when he made that speech about looking for bin Laden and invading Iraq, bin Laden marked the time and date to get that sick skinny bastard back. Then sure enough, a few years later, we lost about 1/25 of our US population because bin Laden went back out for revenge.

Al-Jazeera referred to the attacks as "terror attacks" http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4615A330-9544-42B0-A3CF-E308F0172EA8.htm If they are biased, it certainly isn't towards the American view. --Citicat 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't do anything to us? He orchestrated acts of terrorism that date back way before Bush Sr. said anything about him. Take a look at bin Laden's history before you say things like that.

First off, the Americans need to seriously chill. I mean, sure, it was bad for the 3,500 who died and their families, but to say stuff like "Please, today is 9/11. Let us pray for the souls of the deceased instead of insulting their memory by not terming those who so cruelly killed thousands of fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends, as terrorists." is getting a bit out of hand. The body count would be ignored if this had happened to Mauritanians or Eritreans. 400,000 have died in Darfur already, a million were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide, 9,000 people die of AIDS every day: yet somehow one never hears such emotional pleas. In any case, the EU defines terrorism as "serious offences against persons and property which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: seriously intimidating a population; or unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act; or seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation." which was obviously what Al-Qa'ida did, so I see no problem in the usage of "terrorist" here. EamonnPKeane 09:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as the comments such you quote were on the talk page and not in the article, what's it to ya? If someone evokes a heartfelt comment on the situations in those other locations you mentioned, do you think us "Americans" would be telling them to "chill out"? Being that this is the one the worst events to happen to the English speaking world since WWII and this is the English version of wikipedia, no doubt the lack of editors on articles such as events in the other lands you mentioned are underrepresented to the point that heartfelt comments, perhaps made by someone who may have suffered directly from said events, would be rare, but should be welcome and understood. Surely had a similar event happened in Ireland or elsewhere, I wouldn't be marching into an article about that event and providing them with comparative analogies designed to belittle their suffering and emotion.--MONGO 10:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not an American, I am, quite frankly confounded by the way people compare things like AIDS deaths or Hiroshima to 9/11. AIDS is an STD, Hiroshima was a result of Japanese aggression during WW2 (in any case Germany killed way, way more people than the US did in Hiroshima, why don't you guys use that to justify Germans being killed?). 9/11 was an act of unprovoked, brutal Islamofascism. That's the difference. Please try to understand. Cerebral Warrior 12:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"an act of unprovoked, brutal Islamofascism"? I direct you to September 11, 2001 attacks#Motive. Like most people, I don't know enough about this to say whether there was any tangible justification or not, but you can't pretend it's only a simple matter of some crazy Arabs who "hate freedom". EamonnPKeane 16:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know enough about it, then why belittle others who probably do? My guess is that America supports the state of Israel, so to much of the Moslem world, America is evil because Israel is evil. The United States supports Israel because it is a democracy, and that is the main reason we support them.--MONGO 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

'Terrorist' is a POV term used to describe violence committed by others you judge to be immoral. I am not going to delete it as the consensus is to keep. The fact that a consensus exists to retain a subjective adjective with no agreed meaning is a clear indication of systemic bias in Wikipedia WP:BIAS, in this case in favour of an American worldview. Curtains99 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. Terrorism describes violence, without military objective, intended to achieve political goals through fear and intimidation. The term is objective, with precise definitions in criminal law. Peter Grey 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the definitions are precise, then which one is correct? Have a look at Definition of terrorism to see how this word means something different to everyone. Curtains99 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The September 11th attacks fall under all of the definitions. Peter Grey 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Helicopter rescue

"In any case, thick smoke and intense heat prevented rescue helicopters from landing." I flagged this as needing a citation; it may be that is better to just delete it as irrelevant, but I thought I'd raise it here first. --Guinnog 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Found a reference for it.--MONGO 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. Good ref too. --Guinnog 12:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

New section

How about creating for example Popular culture (or Social impact) section? --Brand спойт 13:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sep 11 wiki link

I couldn't find a link to the September 11, 2001 wiki, so I added it under "memorials". If there's been discussion about this link that I missed, please feel free to revert. --ESP 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead link

The lead link is currently to the U.N. I think that this like is acceptably broad and authoritative for the first sentence. Recently, someone tried to add a retrospective link (looking back after 5 years) to the middle of that sentence. Wouldn't it be better to move this link down somewhere into the body of the article, footnoting some summary of the ramifications? -Harmil 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying, like you and everyone else, to make improvements to the article, addressing peopl's concerns about "terrorism" by attributing it it to cited sources. It might be useful if my changes, and the links I cite, could stay up at least long enough for someone to read them. I'm sure you are familiar with the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I've reverted your work ONCE, and I left you a note on your talk page, suggesting that you re-add it, should you feel the need. HOWEVER, we are in the midst of a massive rush of vandalism (to the tune of 3-5 per min at peak), so don't be shocked if someone reverts your edit with what seems like haste. It's not personal, it's just what it is right now. Your edit was questionable IMHO (that's not an attack, just my feeling), but you seemed like an upstanding editor, so I went to lengths to bring it up for discussion. I invite others to share their opinions. Thanks, and happy editing! -Harmil 17:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: With respect to the 3RR, I have not violated that policy, and have no intention of even getting close. I have reverted "suspect" edits once and then left them alone (none have returned, yet, save yours), and I have reverted outright vandalism (not covered by the 3RR) MANY times today. Your edit was not vandalism, and thus I did not revert it a second time, though I do wish you would respond to my points, above. The U.N. link covers that whole sentence quite comprehensively, and I'd find it difficult to justify saying that the Guardian is a more authoritative source for either the first or second half of the sentence. -Harmil 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, in my haste, I didn't notice that you moved the link down. Nice job. I think that's a fine place for it. -Harmil 17:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

And now we have a second editor actually moving the U.N. link out of the first paragraph! [20] Can we please, decided specifically, what link we want to lead this article? IMHO it needs to be one that authoritatively addresses one of the two core assertions of the article: that the attacks happened or that they were acts of terrorism. Both are addressed by the U.N. link, so why do people not want to lead with that? -Harmil 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Giving up

I've been asking for sprotection on this page on #wikipedia for a while now. No one seems to be available. I'm going to stop reverting, and let others take over for a while. The vandalism continues apace, and is making editing by reasonable users (such as Tom, above) difficult at best. sprotection would solve this. Someone, please take notice. Thanks. -Harmil 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The unprotecting admin cited the 10-15 minute recommendation on the length of sprotects, but come on, this is nuts. It's pretty clear this article should be sprotected for the next 24 hours.--Mmx1 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Potential Terrorists, I mean, Hijackers

The section about other potential terrorists (ok, hijackers) is quite long, and is given more attention than is probably needed in this main article. Anyone have a good idea for breaking this off into its own article and then shortening the section? If survivors and the hijackers sections are so small.... the potential hijackers section requires even less space, IMO. Thank you! KBecks 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Oh and if it's too difficult to edit today, I understand! KBecks 18:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

(I put this on top of the list yesterday when it should have been down here at the bottom --- still learning my way around Wiki...)KBecks 18:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding the section on fatalities choppy -- the paragraph about schools closing, etc. almost seems like it doesn't fit under fatalities, except for the part about many people being from certain towns. Could the school closings be moved to another section (is there something about NYC area response / reaction??) -- Anyway, I think that at least the paragraph of school closings could be bumped down a paragraph or two to the end of that section -- it seems the paragraph about the city identifying people/bodies is better flow-wise....

Anyway, I didn't want to change it w/o running it by here. KBecks 18:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Other hijackers - Moussaui (sp?)

It seems like the part about the Moussaui (sp??) trial under other hijackers is getting way off-topic about 9/11. This content probably belongs under Moussaui's own biography entry, and doesn't make sense in the 9/11 article. I find it very distracting and off-topic to the article..... Probably best not to edit today because of all the crazy changes going on, but I wanted to point it out. Would someone please help with this when there's a chance? Thanks. KBecks 18:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Need to re-order paragraphs under Reaction

I think that the Public Response section should come first, then International Reaction.. (logically starting with the reactions closest to the tragedy, then the rest of the world).

The paragraph about Guantanamo Bay under International Reaction is more appropriate to the next section about U.S. Government Response -- it should fit in there somewhere...probably under War on Terrorism.

I also feel that the Alternate Theories blurb (listed under Reaction), might better fit under the Motive section.

Not editing today because of all the traffic, but wanted to note these suggestions. KBecks 18:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I would wait until tomorrow for major work on the article. The number of vandal edits means that we're going to need to go through this article with a fine-toothed comb tomorrow to make sure nothing snuck through. A major section re-org would just make that harder. -Harmil 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This would be a poorly chosen time to try to work out any difficult issues. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE THE TITLE PICTURE

The picture on this article must be removed now. Read if for some deities sake, its telling people to call 911 and hold the phone.

Sprotection by MONGO

Given the amount of vandalism, I think sprotection is warranted for now. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage or not, the vandalism rate was unacceptable.--MONGO 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Which is why I posted the above... way unacceptable. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you boys had a rough day, take a breath now, we'll have to discuss things all over, and over again… Mongo, in the meantime please reconsider that NORAD tape link; I see no harm in presenting it? Tom? Peter? Morton? Others? -- Lovelight 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll wait for one more day and put that link in article under multimedia section… if you know of any reason why "NORAD interactive" shouldn’t be enlisted, please say so… -- Lovelight 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists

I think the use of terrorists in the first paragraph should be changed to hijackers or such, as terrorist is an extremly derogatory and POV term. I realise it may be controversial to change though, so I thought I should ask first. Pauric 22:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that terrorists can be a POV term, was not this a terrorist act? I'm sure that this has been debated here before and so I do not think that it will be changed. I do not personally believe it should be changed (as it has in many articles) and therefore if I had to cast a vote, I would vote NAY!!!The great kawa 00:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Where a difference of opinion exists about a subject, Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) requires that 'all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one'. Now we know that there is a difference of opinion about this subject depending on what country you live in: here is a paper detailing public opinion in five Islamic countries including the question 'Would you label the World Trade Center attacks 9/11 a terrorist event? The results range from 22% (Palestine) to 73% (Lebanon). So we have significant and differing published viewpoints and that means that the prevailing American belief cannot be present as NPOV. It's that simple. Curtains99 23:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to write that most Palestinians do not think it was terrorism, I have no objection (thought this may not be the article in which to do it). I would be interested to know what 78% of them think it was. Maybe we can quote some Palestinian leaders, or get some pictures of rallies. But again, choose the appropriate page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The top image

Keeps being changed. It shifts from color to black and white. The North and South tower reverse foreground and background. If you change the photo, please rewrite the cutline correctly.--Cberlet 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

-Don't edit the caption on the image, the North tower is on the right, and the South tower is on the left. The North Tower was hit higher up, (which is one reason why it was last to fall) and was hit first. The South Tower was hit lower than the North Tower, and was hit second. This is a satellite of the towers: [21] It is from the NE looking SW. You can clearly see the antenna on the north tower. [22] -This image shows the North Tower on the right, you can see it is burning from an area closer to its roof, and you can see it's antenna very plainly in the upper right hand part of the image. [23] -Here is a picture of the north tower, you can clearly see the North Tower is the building on the right hand side of the original image. [24] -That is a picture of the North Tower burning, while the plane is about to strike the south tower at a location lower on the tower. [25] -Another angle on the same side as the original image. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. The North Tower is on the right hand side, and the South tower is on the left. --KCMODevin 11 September 2006

Whether right or left depends on the direction the picture was taken from, and the various pictures are from different angles. Like Cberlet pointed out, a change in the image requires (sometimes) a change to the caption. As of 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC), the image is the view from the West, 1 WTC is in the foreground, 2 WTC the background (with neither clearly left or right of the other). Peter Grey 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically confusing

From the "Other potential attacks" section:

According to Mohammed Afroze, a planned simultaneous attack in London on the Palace of Westminster and Tower Bridge was aborted at the last minute when the would-be hijackers, waiting to board the planes they were to hijack, saw the damage in the U.S., panicked, and fled.

I'm not entirely sure what this is saying, but it seems a bit odd; "simultaneous" and "still hanging around in the boarding lounge near a TV set when the main attack happened" don't quite seem to suggest the same thing. I've marked it as needing a source; hopefully a direct quote or two will help clear up the ambiguity. Shimgray | talk | 23:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, requesting a source is a good thing, however, the use of the word "simultaneous" should be read with a grain of salt. It would be VERY difficult to arrange timing that was within an hour, even, given that you are dealing with the U.K., where it would have been something like 3-4AM I think. Recall that not any old plane would do, the hijackers were looking for large amounts of unused fuel, which means that a large plane, on an international or trans-contiental flight would be needed. That the hijackers in Europe were still on the ground within an hour or two of the planes in the U.S. taking off is not surprising. -Harmil 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Something isn't showing right

In "The attacks" sections it says (should say) "Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed into a field near..." However, the photo is covering some of the text so that it looks like "Soon afterward, the aircraft crashed field near." Not a major issue, but still confusing anyways, and, I think this subject derserves perfection, don't you? Thanks. Wolfie001 00:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

National Mall fire

There were reports during the morning of September 11 that there was a fire in the National Mall in D.C. Does anyone know what the cause of this was? Should it be mentioned anywhere in the article (or one of the articles in the 9/11 series). 69.40.247.238 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that could be cited? -Harmil 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was watching the reports from the day on [26]. They talked about it for awhile but it seemed to have gotten pushed aside as the more important events unfolded that day. What I want to know is, does anyone know if there was actually a fire? 69.40.243.125 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So far as I know, no, just as there was no car bomb at the State Department. It was a weird day where a lot of reports were being made. --Golbez 23:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over Image caption

Okay, can we chill on the caption? The original image with an orange fireball was quickly determined to be a copyrighted AP photo, and speedily deleted; hence the deletion tag. In its place was placed the current gray pic with lots of smoke. There may be some issues with cache, but I just purged the page, so that should be gone. In any case, if you see orange, you're seeing an old picture. There is no explosion in either building, but the antenna is clearly visible in the RIGHT FOREGROUND tower. --Mmx1 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no antenna visible. --Golbez 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a cache issue. --Golbez 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright

The image that is now in the lead section is the old, copyrighted, image which has been re-uploaded by someone claiming to have released it to the public domain. This is obviously questionable, given that there is no information given about the location, time or identity of the photographer (Image:Wtcsouthhit911.JPG).

HOWEVER, rather than simply removing this image (as it rightly was from commons), and since it is so iconic, and there is no way to replace it with any free image of that particular moment in time (see WP:FAIR), I suggest that we instead nail down the ownership and copyright info on this particular image and make a reasonable claim to fair use. Does anyone have the original source handy? -Harmil 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted a note to User:Sarahjohnson22 since she uploaded the image. Antonrojo 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks being used for two purposes

I honestly don't know what the right course of action here is, because it's kind of a mess, but I have noticed that the timeline article Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks is being used for two completely different purposes, probably because the word 'Aftermath' suggested 'Effects' to someone. That article is being used for:

A generic 'Effects of the September 11 attacks', which is the entire first half of the article. There is no such 'generic' article linked in the infobox, but that's what it's being used for.
'The timeline of the attacks from November 1, 2001, onward', which is the entire second half of the article. From a logical standpoint, that's what the infobox suggests it should be, but my guess is it probably should be named 'Timeline of the September 11 attacks after October', or something, so the article's purpose is clear.

I don't know if what is needed here is a merger of the 'Aftermath' effects into this article, or going the other way to say 'Main article: Effects of the attacks' in this article, and moving what effects are here to that location, or what...but it's a mess. What I am certain of is that there are two relatively complete articles wedged into one place, and I don't know of a good way to pull them apart. Input or action appreciated. Skybunny 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Youngest victim - I don't think that this is correct

The page states that the youngest victim was 17, but I have read that really the youngest victim was 2. "Christine Hanson, 2, of Groton, Mass., was the youngest. She and her parents were aboard the plane that crashed into the south tower." http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/08/911/911__45_Questions.shtml

This can be confirmed by the relevant NY Times' article and at the list at the September 11 Victims site. Richard G. Shewmaker 03:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Marsh consultant losses

A consultant, John Lozowsky, is missing from the Marsh Memorial at http://memorial.mmc.com. I'm providing the following as supporting documentation. I sent an email (via their site's inquiry form, so no copy) asking about this and received the following on September 7, 2006:

"Thank you for contacting us with this information. All of the names that appear on the MMC Memorial site have permission from the families to be posted there; if a name does not appear, that is because there was not consent to do so.

"Jessica Zimny Associate, Corporate Social Responsibility & Philanthropic Programs Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc."

I removed material irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Richard G. Shewmaker 02:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image caption wrong

The page is locked, so I can't edit it, but the top image's caption has the towers mislabeled. The South tower, the second to be hit, hit by Flight 175, in the background, is on the left.

Mohamed Atta's name

The article at Mohamed Atta al-Sayed was recently moved to Muhammad `Ata as-Sayyid. There's discussion here on whether this was the right thing to do or not. Any input would be appreciated. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

North WTC tower had the antenna, not the South tower

The North tower had the antenna shown. No antenna of the size shown in the article's first illustration was on the South tower. The illustation's caption is incorrect. --CliffC 17:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed the caption myself. I thought the article was still locked. --CliffC 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hay foot / straw foot

The subject is moot if the new replacement image of the Towers "sticks", but the "left" > < "right" word switch by User:Peter_Grey has put the caption exactly backward again. See above talk subject "North WTC tower had the antenna, not the South tower". --CliffC 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

This section of links is anemic at best, and incredibly impartial, though how could it be given the title. What would be the argument for not including actual, notable, conspiracy theory links? Aside from the obvious personal reasons. Viswamitra 07:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What links would you recommend? What "personal" reasons are supposedly obvious? Peter Grey 11:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I think that whole section should be removed ASAP or I'll be forced to put some weight in there, just to balance things a bit… I won't to hear good reasons for those blogs and if you put that Time articles I'll put some contemporary links from BBC which are (in my opinion) far more objective… Anyway, some good reasoning or I'll remove that all together or throw some alternatives in there… give an explanation for agenda behind those links, there are zillions available on "the other side"… it would be decent and prudent if we resolve this particular issue today. -- Lovelight 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this project expects from us to be objective and unbiased on this matter I'll remove whole section now. If someone wishes to revert that action, please do explain your choices and reasoning… we can discuss all quid pro quo links and arguments here… -- Lovelight 14:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Balance" is not necessarily what we are looking for. I think some clarification of the original criticism is needed. Peter Grey 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you mean, but all those related articles wouldn’t be needed when we could all agree to clarify and improve this one. For example, mentioning how US administration tried to link 911 to war in Iraq would be deeply appreciated; it is closely related after all, and it would be a very short sentence. Then a few words about foreknowledge and so on… We should also be far more careful while naming things… there is a difference between conspiracy theories, official stories, and truth based on facts. I sincerely hope that we are here to present (and determine) the latter. Anyway, I agree, it is not necessary about balance, but we need to establish some objectivity. Time is offering different picture then BBC…. -- Lovelight 19:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid fictions and partisan, religious and racial hate have no place beside factual articles (implementation of this by the Drive By media would mean its self-immolation; hardly a bad thing). By writing only the facts, the conspiracy "theorists" are automatically refuted.

After all, the crackpot theories of Holocaust deniers do not warrant being placed in full next to an article on the Shoah.

Given the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, and sadly, even amongst far Left-wing (and not so "far") Americans, excluding this propaganda is even more relevant since many of the so-called conspiracies "theories" revolve around the Mossad's having perpetrated the terror attacks ("Hey, guys! Let's attack our best ally, biggest financial supporter and main supplier of weapons and all to make terrorists look bad!"). E.g., "All of the Jews stayed home from work" or "All of the Jews were secretly warned (how? conference call? Mass email?) to stay away from the WTC on 9/11."

Listing such garbage on an equal footing with the facts only dignifies it.

PainMan 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoever removed this comment of mine had no right do so (even if he or she had the "power"). You can't make ideas you don't like go away by simply deleting them.

PainMan 20:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

New external link

I moved the link from the Congressional report on 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission Report page to here. --Sloane (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)