Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Bin Laden probably didn't admit involvement

Bin laden has yet to confirm his involvement. He praised the attacks. and those who understood what he was saying on that tape after 911 knew that he was not claiming any involvement but did say america had it coming. yet put this point aside, sadam condemned the attacks with immediate reponce and offered a helping hand in catching the culprits so why was he attacked in return for this. I still remember till this day when he said this on live t.v. 1 trillion dollar air military system failed in 9/11/01 to make things easy for terrorists. its like leaving cheese on a mouse trap without setting the trap. building 7 collapses out of sympathy, all buildings fall vertically in a demolitioned manner and yet to this day not a single person in the building demolition business has disputed that it wasn't demolitioned, out of the many hundred cctv footages only one shown for the pentagon attack and later another one which is even poorer quality wise. all survivors heard explotions yet the commission report failed to mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.171.173 (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.the7thfire.com/9-11/many_faces_of_osama_bin_laden.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowest (talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary answer: check the pictures on this website. I don't recommend checking anything else on this website, as it seems somewhat insane, overall, but I'm prejudiced. I'll be back later. Wowest

You haven't linked a website — and I'm not sure how we can incorporate a "somewhat insane" website into article, but I'll with-hold judgment until I can actually see it. --Haemo 02:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes -- I forgot the link at first. Now it's there. I'm not saying that we should incorporate much (or anything) in the actual article, but we seem to have two firmly-held, disparate opinions going on in here about what really happened. We need some kind of compromise or, at least, recognition of what the differences in opinion are. Wowest 02:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why we require reliable sources. The firmness of a belief is not an indicator of tis truth or correctness. This talk page focuses on the article, and thus must conform to our guidelines for sourcing. --Haemo 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Agree? Wowest 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And when a source can be classified as "somewhat insane" and contains pictures like this on the page suggested to be used as a source ]we don't use it at all. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Looking at that link I think it's pretty clear that it's neither trustworthy or authoritative. So since you admit that it doesn't belong here there's not much to discuss. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean they get a mention here. RxS 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; the sentence you quote is in reference to reliable sources — something this is clearly not. --Haemo 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Beauty(and "trustworthy") is in the eye of the beholder. How many people today believe that the White House with its "Saddam has WMDs and is seeking uranium in Niger" type "intelligence" is a "trustworthy" source? I'm obviously not endorsing Wowest's source, but it's absurd,in my view, to continue with the charade of pretending that information coming from government sources(whether they be Iran,USA or the UK,Russia) which is then parroted by global media networks too lazy to do their own reporting, are any more "trustworthy". All I'm trying to say is, let's look at the log in our own eyes before we start throwing stones. Mr.grantevans2 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why we have a reliable sources noticeboard so the community can decide these kinds of things if there's contention. However, since nobody seems to think this is even remotely reliable, I don't really know why we're still discussing it. --Haemo 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt by Wowest to slowly pick appart this article till it matches his beliefs. Can we archive this yet? We're saying the same things over and over again... --Tarage 08:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't object to archiving now. Mr.grantevans2 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Tarage, you don't have a clue as to either what I'm "attempt[ing]" or what I believe, do you? Wowest 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I am sure it is a waste of our time, thats for sure... Repeated arguments are never useful. --Tarage 08:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

osama actually denied involvement. that is good enough for me, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1539468.stm and http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/ and it makes sense, since he had absolutely nothing to gain from the attacks. giving the us the perfect excuse to place more troops in the middle east is not a big win for him.

Bin Laden initially denied his involvement, while still praising them. He later admitted the role his organization played in them — and US troops in the region is a huge win for him. Bin Laden's chief goals are political; he wants to see a popular Muslim revolution in the region, throwing off secularist governments and their US/Imperialist support. However, without a popular revolution, he can't achieve this — thus, he needs them to "react" against the "evils" of these governments and forces. By attacking the United States, he not only damages them directly, but hopes to provoke them into a struggle by which his political ends can be achieved — something the Iraq War arguably fits quite nicely. This is all summarized in Peter Bergen's book on the subject. I think we quote it in the article somewhere. --Haemo (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Bergen?? Now that's a flakey and unreliable source if ever there was one; with the intentionally unkept hair to give the air of urgency, glasses hung low on the nose in psuedo-scientific mode, and void of any non-speculative content whatsoever; give me a break. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like Bergen, you can quote any of the innumerable articles on the subject; bibliographies are a wonderful thing. --Haemo (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It just occurred to me,in re-reading Haemo's analysis above(supported by Peter Bergen's book), that if the adversaries are reversed, then that anaysis sounds strikingly similar to what others in this discussion are referring to as conspiracy theory (I hope Haemo won't mind my using his anaysis for this purpose, I only mean it as a way to perhaps add some context for the minority view in this discussion);

• Here goes: "and al Queda's attack on 9/11 was a huge win for the Bush admin.'s foreign policy goals. The Neocons' chief goals are geopolitical; they wanted to see a US led invasion of the region, throwing off Sadam as well as muslim governments and their Islamic fundamentalist support. However, without a major attack on the USA, they couldn't achieve this(US led invasion) — thus, they needed 9/11 to "react" against the "evils" of these Islamic fanatics and their forces. By facilitating/allowing the 9/11 attacks, the Neocons not only justified engaging the "terrorists" more aggressively, but hoped to provoke them into an expanding struggle by which Neocon expansionist political ends can be achieved — something the Iraq War arguably fits quite nicely."

What I just wrote could well be termed a "conspiracy theory" by many who use that strawman label; yet when the adversaries are reversed, most of us seem to be willing to accept equally imagined scenarios as reasonable and plausible. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is that you're not "reversing the tables" in all respects — the analysis presented above is just a re-arrangement of my words. My explanation never implied that Al Qaeda assisted the United States directly in the Iraq War — at most, they hoped to provoke a reaction. Al Qaeda was not seeking the Iraq War, persay — what they were looking for was a demonstration of what they believe to be the United State's "true character"; that of an imperialist aggressor. By attacking the United States, they sought to try and threaten US power, and thereby expose their imperialism to the Muslim world. The subsequent invasions did that — however, the underlying goal was never to get them to invade, nor did they "facilitate" the invasion in any direct way. The symmetrical re-arrangement would be to have the United States intervene in Iraq to try and provoke a reaction from Al Qaeda, not directly assist them in a terrorist attack. I don't think anyone would disagree that some neocons feel that 9/11 was a vindication of their worldview, and presents an assertive pillar of their foreign policy — that's why conspiracy theories have some plausibility to them. Furthermore, Al Qaeda has been extremely open about their goals, and objectives — that's partially why it's not much of a "conspiracy". They know what they want, and have used the media quite effectively to explain it to the Arab-speaking world — which by and large agrees with them. Anyways, this has nothing to do with the article, so I think we should not discuss it here. I just felt you deserved a reply. --Haemo (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In a videotape released just on on November 29th believed to be from Bin Laden he claimed sole responsibility for the attacks and denied the Taliban and the Afghan government or people had any prior knowledge of the attacks [1] Edkollin (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence isn't proof

Mr.grantevans2 seems to be the only editor here capable of recognizing what I did or did not say. Wowest 04:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the above remark was an acknowledgement of the difficulty you're experiencing in communicating clearly on this talk page? I presume that it was not your intent to insult the majority of editors here. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We have several distinct categories of phenomena here. One is what we all know because we saw it happen on television. A second category is what most of us initially believed because the words came along with the shocking images we saw on television. This is one of the issues in which local television station footage is more reliable than anything on any network. I can't find an accurate Fritz Perls quote on the internet, but he defined "bullshit" as "anything that comes after the word 'because'." Wowest 04:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything to add here that might be helpful to making this article better? This isn't a blog.--MONGO 04:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Political statements which are not agreed up by all should be sourced rather than declared as facts without sources. Wowest 04:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically? This is an exceedingly general statement that offers no way of moving forward with any concrete changes. --Haemo 04:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have good sources, please, by all means, provide them. We have been asking for reliable sources for quite a while now. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't. He just has youtube conspiricy theories and self research. --Tarage 08:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, anything like

"a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda"

..."upon the United States of America."

..."hijackers intentionally crashed two of the airliners"

..."resulting in the collapse"

..."hijackers crashed a third airliner...into the Pentagon "

..."Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane"

..."that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville"

is speculation based on too little evidence. Some of it verges on libel. None of the 'facts' listed above, with which we open the article, are reliably referenceable. Yes some person or persons unknown diverted at least 4 aircraft, yes aircraft crashed into buildings and yes buildings were damaged-or-destroyed subsequent to the crashes, but no, al-Qaeda isn't a group that calls itself al-Qaeda, isn't a specific group of people; no we have no reasonable evidence that the aircraft impacts were the same ('hijacked') aircraft, or that the impacts caused the damage (see Post hoc ergo propter hoc), or that even if the planes had been hijacked by 'entity x' that 'x' was in control of the aircraft... wide public acceptance of a story doesn't make it true and is not in line with WP:RS. The public still widely believes that there was only one bullet shot by one assassin at Dealey Plaza in 63, even though it's been thoroughly proven that that is not a remote possibility. User:Pedant (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag to be added to this article

Since I can't edit this article I can only politely request to add the NPOV tag to this article.

This article start by saying:

On that morning nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda ...

Which references to an article claiming Bin Laden is the head of Al Qaeda based on the infamous video translation. According to WP:V any statement that doesn't have reliable, verifiable sources is open for removal. In this case we're talking about verifiability of the translation of the video.

WP:V also says:

exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

In this case there appears to be only one translation of the video. To verify the source the video should be translated by multiple sources, not just one. Since this source is thus not verifiable at this point the claim that Al Qaeda is responsible for the attacks is unsourced, thus, non-NPOV, thus open for removal.

Please let's apply WP's rules. If anyone can make this source verifiable please do so. Otherwise, if WP rules cannot be applied to such an important article then there is no point in continuing WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2007

By invoking "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", I assume you think that this is an exceptional claim. I think it would be helpful if you would elaborate on that a little further, because this is not an exceptional claim on its face. Natalie 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this source not verifiable? It specifically states that the attacks on September 11th were committed by Al-Qaeda; the "extraordinary claim" being made here is not the fact reported by the CBC, but that they and myriad other media sources, government and academic sources translated the tape incorrectly. --Haemo 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That's totally disingenuous. You know perfectly well that none of the media sources did their own translations of the original tape. They all just read or broadcast the press releases from the Bush regime, or reprinted the wire service stories coming from the same source. When people who actually speak both English and Arabic state that the text was mistranslated, they get labeled "conspiracy theorists," and the truth is ignored. Wowest (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the verifiability of the source. Reliable sources, which the CBC is, have a reputation for fact checking — and that includes checking that the translations they use, regardless of their source, are accurate. If you disagree with their reporting, that's not an issue for Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be verifiable if the claim would be supported by references. So the issue here is not whether the claim is true or not. If so many sources have translated this tape then adding those references shouldn't be too hard. No references or not verifiable through references => up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.20.10 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple translations of the video, including one by Al Jazeera which originally broadcast the video. (see above quotes) This is already cited in the article. Furthermore, the video is available online for anyone to watch. I'm able to understand what Osama says without the translation, and find the Al Jazeera translation accurate and the CBC article also accurate. CBC also meets Wikipedia's reliable source guideline. --Aude (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The source also specifically states that the attacks were committed by Al-Qaeda; the CBC is a reliable source and so the fact in question meets verifiability standards. --Haemo 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, {{POV}} really isn't the best tag to indicate a problem with sources. Other templates can be found at WP:TM. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And just because that is the closest citation does not mean it is the only one. There are dozens of other sources used in the article that support that statement as well. Mr.Z-man 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I could add a NPOV tag but I don't as it would be reverted immediately. 62.102.20.10 is right: There are only 9/11 conspiracy theories for what happened. The official theory is by definition a conspiracy theory, too. This understanding should be included in all 9/11 articles. --mms (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"9/11" vs "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks"

I have seen various articles refer to the terrorist attacks as "9/11". I think this doesn't sound very encyclopedic and we should change any article that refers to the attacks as "9/11" to "September 11, 2001 attacks" or something along those lines. What do you guys think? --Xer0 06:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is probably a good idea. 9/11 is just a date, and only in American parlance is it synonymous with the attacks. --Haemo 06:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to do that. "9/11" is already synonymous with "terror" around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the attacks as 9/11 is like referring to the President of the US as "Bush". In most contexts, the reader can figure out what's meant, but to be formal, it makes sense to give the full name, at least the first time in an article. I don't think it's necessary to hunt down everty single mention.Heqwm (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11 is also the date for the military coup in Chile where Pinochet acclaimed himself the leader guy of the country... so for many Latin Americans this could possibly be very confusing calling this article 9/11 .. though this is in no way contradictory to 9/11 being synonymous with terror since the USA backed fascist were terrorist also. Oka last part was maybe a little POV-like .. but the first bit should be true. Peace OliverR (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. Certainly in the English language though, 9/11 is far more strongly associated with this event than any other, so the redirect is appropriate; the {{dablink}} template gives a pointer for any other usages anyway. Whether or not the term is a context-friendly choice in any given wording should be dealt with on an individual basis and is an issue of style as well as terminology for the article concerned. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Independent Researchers Conspiracy Citation

These theories are generally not accepted as credible by political leaders, mainstream journalists, and independent researchers who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda I think that this statement is in need of a citation(s). Especially that of independent researchers. It seems many independent researchers have found just the opposite.--DatDoo (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DatDoo. The paragraph under Conspiracy Theories essentially dismisses any credibility of the theories before any reader has a chance to even learn about them. This bias is unacceptable and at the very least as DatDoo said a citation regarding the independent researchers is necessary.--Shaylan G.

The statement is accurate, though, although "independent researchers" is ambiguous. It would probably be correct to say "the vast majority of" political leaders, mainstream journalist, and independent researchers...., but that would be difficult to source. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand. It's not sourced in the first place. I think this is an important point to many people and if it is true it certainly needs to be sourced no matter what right? Perhaps it would be better to write "the vast majority. I'm a new user so I'm still getting used to some of the rules. Thanks.--DatDoo (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. These summaries of other articles need not include every reference. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

I think this is a specific point and it is likely to be challenged.--DatDoo (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The best one is this article in Popular Mechanics, where it specifically states that the mainstream account is "widely accepted". There's also a good NPR interview where they interview an expert who explains that they're not accepted as credible by historians, or experts. This Time article also specifically explains that they've been rejected by the mainstream media. --Haemo (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The subarticle also provides a citation, which we could steal. --Haemo (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before in regards to that sentence. After much debate it was altered to add the word "most" when refering to independant researchers because as it reads now it implies a vast majority which is clearly not the case when considering those who have actually examined the subject which was the basis of the objection at the time. I was not aware that it had been changed back. Wayne (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Haemo, the citation in the subarticle dosen't actually correspond to the claim it is supposed to support. Also, thanks for the heads up Wayne, I saw the discussion on the other page.--DatDoo (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arson

We don't know if the terrorist planned to destroy the buiildings by Arson...we do know that what they engaged in was Aircraft hijacking, hoping for Mass murder, resulting in Murder suicide, and that it was therefore, a Suicide attack...that is why I reverted Wowest's addition of arson.[2]--MONGO (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As have I, it seems like it's quite trivial in the greater scheme. --Golbez (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see -- what do you people claim bin Laden said?

"And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my
mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should 
destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we 
tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children."

So, they did NOT plan to start a fire in the WTC, and THAT is why they dumped all the jet fuel in the ocean before the attack? (with heavy sarcasm) How did he plan to destroy the towers then? With pre-planted explosives? -- or do you now agree that bin Laden did NOT say that?

The level of doublethink around here amazes me. Wowest (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating that the goal was "arson" is original research unless you have a specific citation to back up that claim. Bin Laden could have hoped for any number of things — a fire, serious structural damage followed by a collapse, damage requiring a demolition, or simply casual mayhem. Without a definitive statement, we cannot say for sure. --Haemo (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we include "arson" in every attack where explosives are used, because they can potentially cause fires? --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asserting that setting a building on fire as the result of action consistent with a criminal intent is arson. Similarly, involvement in a robbery in which anyone kills anyone else is considered murder, no matter who killed whom. Wowest (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not arson. If I break into a house and accidentally set it on fire it's not arson; arson requires the intentional setting of a fire for an unlawful or illegal purpose. Since you don't have any sources stating that Bin Laden was trying to set a fire it's not exactly helpful here. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

September 11th Wiki?

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to ask this question, but it seems as good a place as any.

Whatever happened to the September 11th wiki (http://sep11.wikipedia.org/) ?? Several pages on wikipedia still link to it and wasn't sure if it closed down due to money problems or what. Thanks.  — Noah¢s (Talk) 03:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It was closed down because it was rather un-wikimediaish. If we have that, why not have tribute wikis for anything? A wiki where anyone can post about their brother who just died in a car accident? It was moved to the non-foundation site http://www.sep11memories.org. More info is here: [3] --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A new light on 9/11

There have been a few conspiracy video's out there. They are all heavily suggestive, conclusive and just plain rubbish.

But now I happened to find a website [4] with a timeline of what happened before, during and after the attacks of 9/11. Everything written down there has a source. Real sources; BBC, CNN, London Times, Washinton post, etc. Aside from the 3249 events listed there there is no overall theory, no conclusions and no suggestions just plain facts with sources.

You might want to take a look at it and change the 9/11 article. 81.58.78.136 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Change it to what? --Golbez (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold!!! and just do it yourself! — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The timeline is nothing but 'conclusions' and 'suggestions' because every item is implicitly a judgment as to what is or is not related to September 11th. Reliable sources that back up the implication of relevance would be one thing, but innuendo is not encyclopedic. Peter Grey (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

nothing new (t)here, it was all discussed before, this article is much like 911 omission report, it is historically insignificant. if you want facts, look elsewhere. 78.1.126.142 (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Then what is encyclopedic? What kind of evidence do you have? I bet zero. I am not flaming you however. Why am I not going to do this? English isn't my native language, I don't have any knowledge on encyclopedic 'stuff' and whenever I edit wikipedia (bad grammar, etc) it always gets removed. So I would just like to address this. What should be changed? I am still busy reading it thoroughly. But most facts have valuable sources to it and a lot (I can't remember what) is different. What makes a good encyclopedia? Research. And research is exactly what the website houses. 83.117.39.46 (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The point he is making is that judging what is, and is not, related to 9/11 is an academic call — and this site is not reliable in that respect.--Haemo (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

83.117.39.46: Hi! May I call you 83 for short? Thanks for asking that. There are certain things in the Wikipedia article which are simply wrong. There is a rule of reasoning that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. However, a lot of people assumed that the really remarkable legend spun by the U.S. Government about what happened on 9/11 and, more controversially, why, was completely true with no real evidence at all. Now, however, they demand Reliable Sources of anyone advancing any other theory, or even pointing out that some particular ridiculous claim comes with no real evidence.

The usefulness of a site like cooperative research is that you can go there to check out some particular fact and find the mainstream reference that supposedly supports it. If you determine that the mainstream reference actually supports the fact you wish to point out, you can use that reference to justify a change here, but it isn't anyone else's job to do that, and you can't just use cooperative research as a reference.

Personally, I'm looking for a reference to document the fact that an American cable channel spokesbeing said that the "Osama" "confession" video was mistranslated before the European source pointed that out. I think that claim should have several supporting authorities. However, I can't even find that article on cooperative research. If you run across it, please let me know. Wowest (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wowest you can call me 83. I have a dynamic ip adress but I will sign my posts here with 83.

Yes you are right. Cooperative research is not a valuable resource but it contains, in itself, many resources. What I wanted to say was not "Take cooperative research as your resource for the article." but "Take a look at the resources of cooperative research and see what is relative/valuable to the article and see if the article needs some changing/adding/removing.".

83 83.117.39.46 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an article dedicated to these conspiracy theories. I do see some names here from there but if you have not taken a look at the article or its discussion pages I suggest you do. I do believe the conspiracy theory paragraph should be expanded because a significant minority in the United States and majorities in other countries do believe in them. And Time Magizine in an otherwise hostile article to the theories has stated "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."[5] Edkollin 18:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. I do not think that independent research by individuals is just fringe. The US used to take pride in independent research (a certain pair of brothere that flew at Kitty Hawk comes to mind). However when a meme like conspiracy theory is applied to an idea it has a negative connotation. I think its time to wake up. Tony0937 20:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with most of these proposals is that there's no clear way to say very much more — the "political reality" is that something like 30%, give or take, of the American population believes that there's something incomplete, or misleading, or what-have-you about the "official story". What form this takes is all over the map — there's no clear consensus on who did what, when, where, or why. Thus, it's hard to say more than what the article currently says — which is why we have a whole article discussing this linked. --Haemo 21:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Haemo, what's your source for the 30% figure? I say more like 60% of Americans think there's something fishy with the "official story", and that that number grows daily. How many believed the official JFK theory in 1964? 1968? Today? User:Pedant (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Revised 9/11 Conspiracy theory section proposal (Rough Draft)

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

See also: 9/11 Truth Movement and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

The 9/11 truth movement has emerged to contest the version of events described above. Allegations of conspiracy have been leveled at primarily elements of both the government of the United States and Israel. Other allegations have been leveled towered the Project for a New American Century a neoconservative think tank whose membership in the 1990’s included Vice President Dick Chaney and many eventual high ranking Bush Administration officials, Rudolph Giuliani mayor of New York City at the time and currently a candidate for President of the United States, Larry Silverstein owner of the World Trade Center properties at the time of the attacks, The Carlyle Group an international conglomerate whose membership has including many top level former officials from several governments and the Bin Laden family, the Saudi Royal Family, and World Jewry. In addition according to 9/11 opinion polls a large minority of the American public believe that the late Saddam Hussein was “personally involved” in the attacks despite refutations of that theory by President Bush, the 9/11 commission and little 9/11 truth movement interest in the topic.

The general motives for the alleged conspiracies were stirring up the passions and winning the allegiance of the American people in order to facilitate military spending, the restriction of civil liberties, and/or a program of aggressive foreign policy. In the case of Israel the alleged motive was to gain empathy of the American people in order to gain sympathy for their cause. Also corporate and individual profit motives have been cited.

There are many sometimes contradictory conspiracy theories. They fall under two main categories The LIHOP theories allege advanced knowledge of the attacks and that the attackers were actively helped (such as disabling defenses that day) or nothing was done to prevent them on purpose. The MIHOP theories allege actual involvement. There has been of great deal of interest in theories that conclude that World Trade Center buildings one,two and seven were destroyed by a controlled demolition. Of particular interest has been World Trade Center Seven which was not directly attacked had several high profile organizations as tenants. The National Institute of Standards and Technology have not reached a final conclusion as to why that building fell. Other conspiracy theories claim that hijacked planes were not used but either military aircraft or pods in a false flag operation and that Flight 93 was shot down

9/11 conspiracy theorists use a “connect the dots” approach using videotape, eyewitness descriptions, and news reports (particularly those from the immediate aftermath of the attacks) to reach alternative conclusions as to what happened that day and why it happened. Critics of these theories besides criticizing elements within individual theories accuse 9/11 conspiracy theorists of refusing to accept that great tragedies occur in life mostly due to randomness and incompetence, fitting information to fit what they believe, and lack of expertise in the subjects they are theorizing about. Conspiracy theorists have rebutted these criticisms by citing historical precedent.

Prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists include Andreas von Bülow a former German Defense Minister, author David Ray Griffin, Multimedia personality Alex Jones, Steven E. Jones a Brigham Young University physicist who was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave after his views became public, and Dylan Avery director of the film Loose Change

These theories have been mostly advocated via the internet through the use of websites and streaming video sometimes in the form of full length documentaries. After receiving little mainstream media coverage in the first few years following the attacks the theories started to receive more attention when a number of 9/11 opinion polls concluded that a significant minority of the American public were sympathetic towered them. Time Magazine concluded in 2006 that “ This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality”

I used the words “conspiracy” theory or theorists despite the controversy over the use of that world because that is the word the article this is summarizing uses. I did not restate as the original version did that the “mainstream” world does not agree with these theories. I feel this is would just be a rehash of what has been adequately explained above. Thus I put why these are important at the bottom of the article to prevent appearance of advocacy Edkollin (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, aside from sourcing, which will have to be addressed I think this is too specific. Remember, this is an article about the attacks — not the reaction to the attacks. The 9/11 truth movement is not the be-all and end-all of conspiracy theories, and the proposal you've presented here focuses specifically on them. In addition, it doesn't treat a broad range of other theories at all — I think you'd do better to shorten this two down to one, maybe two, short paragraphs and address the topic as generally as possible. Deciding what to mention, and what to include, creates a point of view about the topic so it definitely pays to be general. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Since this is a summary of other articles do you need cites for every claim?. I changed the top to make 9/11 conspiracy theories the main article. Citing can come after about a the basic decision has been made that something like this is even necessary. Yes is my first attempt a editing a summary section Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably should; as you can see, everything is article is likely to be challenged, and so should be attributable to a reliable source, somewhere. --Haemo (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On top of that, you need to look at your comma usage. There should be a space after each one...yours appears to have zero total...

Fair enough Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I also concur that this level of depth is not necessary. These theories revolve around massive plots of people who were too stupid to cover their tracks, but to have a U.S. government so completely fooled that it went to war while people living sheltered lives nitpicked minor points of the attack, mostly erroneously. Every major "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively. That some people choose not to believe it (because "you can't trust the government" or "you don't believe what George Bush tells you, do you?") is of only minor note. It certainly doesn't mean it should have 4 paragraphs dedicated to it. A simple paragraph stating that there are some people who don't believe the U.S. government account and a few more sentences is sufficient. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how "true" these theories are. The decision has been made that they are notable enough to have a lengthy article on the subject. Writing a one paragraph section as it is currently or four long paragraphs involves deciding "what to mention" as does deciding what theories go into the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. The current paragraph has two specific type of theories. If you look at the above all I do is break it down further. I do not mention any specific theory. If it needs one or two paragraphs what is already there is almost enough for a very basic summary although I do think any summary should at least mention "controlled demolition","connecting the dots" and 9/11 truth movement" somehow. I would like a suggestion on how to reuse "the 9/11 Truth movement". I decided to "do it" as you say because nothing had happened in the "new light" debate" in couple of days (Murphys Law being as it is comments would come in as I was writing this revision) and I thought putting an actual example of a longer section that summarizes the main 9/11 conspiracy aticle might help the process along which it is starting to Edkollin (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not needed in this depth, they have pages that describe them. I think more than one quote from a mainstream publication is needed before we need this much material. Among experts working in their field they remain fringe(s) theory, and in political terms it's more of a cultural artifact that has no real political impact or meaning. RxS (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am leaning towered withdrawing the proposal based on the unanimous negative reaction. I will wait until the weekend before deleting the proposal in order to be fair to people who are to busy during the week and because the initial reaction might be misleading although I do not think this is the case. Edkollin (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 seems to be privy to information that has eluded everyone else. Can you give me a link to support the claim "Every major "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively". Also I question your interpretation of "massive"... for example the LIHOP theory according to Jones and others could involve as few as 5 or even less people if they were in strategic positions. In short, such claims are as rediculous as an editor claiming "The official "theory" has been proven false pretty conclusively". The subject must be treated in a nuetral way not from a preconceived biased view. Having said that I think Edkollins proposal is far too detailed for this particular artical. Wayne (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A talk page is not the place to argue the validity of the theories themselves. I have no problem with people feeling strongly about the subject one way or another (I would have a problem with you if you don't) and want to be an advocate for your POV. You have message board threads, YouTube video comment section, letters to the editor etc for advocacy. Most editors are familiar the arguments Edkollin (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is far too specific as well. Also, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it seems a bit misleading. It mentions the "large minority" (I don't care for that phrasing, a percent range would be better) but it then goes into detail about the actual theories, when, from what I remember of the polls, the majority of the "large minority" simply believed the government was hiding some details, and may not have believed any of the specific theories. The way this is worded suggests that the "large minority" believes in one of the 2 main theories presented, when I don't believe that is necessarily the case. Also, the second paragraph seems kind of vague, especially the "Israel" sentence. Mr.Z-man 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We do have an article dedicated to 9/11 opinion polls where you can see the percentages involved. Although I don't particularly like "large minority" either, it's difficult to give percentages as they quickly become out-of-date - better to just link to the article rather than picking one particular poll result. I rather like the sentence in the current version for its necessary vagueness: "A number of 9/11 opinion polls have established that there is disagreement in the general population as to the veracity of the mainstream account". Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Large Minority: If you reread the proposal I used the phrase "large minority" in direct reference to percentage of Americans that believe that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved". The couple of polls in the last year ranged from 33 to 41% which is a "large minority". I used the more vague phrase "significant minority" for belief in CT's in general Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edkollin, I like what you've done in general, but it is too long I think. I suggest: 1) cutting out most of the first paragraph (too specific), 2) removing the LIHOP v MIHOP issue and shortening the rest of that paragraph (too specific), 3) removing the TM members paragraph (reader can click on TM link if interested in 'who'), 4) moving the last paragraph to near the beginning (establish notability at the top). I'm not sure about the "connect-the-dots" paragraph (have you got a source for that phrase or it that your own?). Hope this helps. Good work! Corleonebrother (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Connect the dots" is phraseology taken directly from the "Main Approaches" section of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Article Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I oppose revising the section. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:NPOV#Undue weight, the amount of space devoted to conspiracy theories is more than enough. As you see on the right-side navigation bar, there are dozens of articles about the 9/11 attacks. This article is a summary of them, with a small section to cover conspiracy theories, small section about the "War on Terrorism", small section on the collapse, etc. --Aude (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I am not happy about how the current section is worded and I deeply appreciate what Edkollin is trying to do. I am willing to work with Edkollin and anyone else to correct this. There are quite a number of people that question the offical story and they have good reasons to do so. Tony0937 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to briefly mention the existence of informal 'movements' (without getting into purposes which are open to dispute), and maybe there should be some clarification regarding conspiracy theories regarding the attacks, and theories regarding cover-up after the fact of incompetence/negligence/complicity/etc. But otherwise there is no reason to expand the section any futher (as of 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)). The point is to introduce a tangential topic covered in another article, and details do not contribute to the reader's understanding of the immediate subject matter, but merely serve to promote conspiracy theories by artificially increasing their visibility. Peter Grey (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I will add See also for the 9/11 Truth Movement and Controlled demolition theory to that section in the article and then I am done with this for now. To say there is no consensus is an understatement. There were some article based comments above but based on some of the above but especially below many editors here are not in a rational enough state of mind in regards to this topic to be making any decisions on this section. And that includes both believers and non-believers of these theories Edkollin (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

After all the arguments about how a only a brief summary is needed this little addition gets deleted for not being broad enough. Absolutely unbelievable. I’m putting it back. Then you can delete the whole section which is what some editors really want Edkollin (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Reactions of most editors here... I fully agree with your description. I am in favor of the proposal. Here is a source to strengthen the claim that 9/11 Conspiracy Theories became political reality.(in Italian),www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm (here a referring (biased) article in English)]. salVNaut (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am afraid this is an argument that it is not in the mainstream as no "mainstream" newscast or newspaper covered this. But I will find a place for this in the 9/11 conspiracy theory article Edkollin (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tourist guy

I think there should be a mention of the "Accidental Tourist" photoshop picture that was forwarded around right after 9/11. I think it is a reaction to 9/11 that is strange and should be documented. I'm going to do some more research now and will likely add edit soon. Please add your thoughts on how best to link this article. Clerks. (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

At most, that should get a link in the 'see also' at the end of the article. --Golbez (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be in it. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things that could be linked to the 9/11 attacks. A single e-mail hoax isn't of any significant importance...especially considering the main article is only a few paragraphs long. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless?

is there a way to denounce this article as useless…? where could i put such notion in motion? if you please…

...to clarify, this article doesn't recognize the fact that there is no official explanation for the fall of wtc 7, this article doesn't recognize the fact that the official documents of the u.s. armed forces institute of pathology say there were no arabs on the plane that crashed into the pentagon, this article is based on conspiracy theories, this article is locked down from editing since the day it was conceived, this article is a work of fiction which is enforced by the small number of administrators that need to be taken straight to the arbitrary committee, where they'll have a chance to explain themselves... please point me to the venue in which i can put such notions in motions, or explain why are the facts mentioned (or not mentioned) above omitted from the article. do not remove this edit without a valid reason. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable verifiable source = no mention in the article. I think we do have an article for crank theories, though. Maybe that's where you should visit next. But that article also requires reliable, verifiable sources. This really isn't the place for cranks, and you really do come off sounding like a crank. No offence intended. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm deeply sorry, your introduction is not acceptable in the same way you wouldn't accept my introduction which would state that you are a government shill who is receiving money to obstruct editors from improving this article… well let's not start off on the wrong foot here, no need for apologies… that said, which of the points would you like to discuss? do you have a reference which explains the fall of the wtc7? there is not a single one provided in the article... would you find official documents obtained through the foia acceptable? i'll provide… Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, you can visit WP:ARB to start an arbitration case if you feel editors or administrators are acting improperly here. I don't think you'll get very far but you can try. RxS (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

thank you, if the facts can be added to the article freely there is no need to pursue such course… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From the sound of some of your facts, I don't think you should be adding them "freely". Please discuss them here first. Many issues have been debated here in the past, consensus has been reached in many if not most areas so you'd be over reaching to start adding facts without bringing them here first. RxS (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm puzzled, the facts have no sound, they are simply facts, right? since you mentioned it, this article is fully protected (therefore no one can add any info in anyway, yes)? elsewhere on wiki we provide clear explanations for the lockdowns. why do these standards, warnings if you prefer, lack on this article? is there a reason for such exception and what is it? this article is clearly disputed. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is semi-protected because it is a target for vandalism. If you have things to add to the article, discuss your edits here first, and cite reliable sources. I would also request that you assume good faith on the part of other editors here; accusing them of being "government shills" who are being paid off is neither productive nor civil. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

don't say, and referring to people with… what was it? crank talk? that is acceptable, productive and civil? i've assumed good faith indeed. ever wondered what might be the cause of all the vandalism? Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you haven't spelled out exactly what you believe, I don't think anyone was calling your views "crank theories". We do have an article for crank theories about this event, and there are a large number of them. Which ones you believe to be cranky, or not, is a matter of opinion. Everyone is enjoined to be civil, and to focus on improving the article. --Haemo (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

so which article is the cranky one? because this one is the crankiest article of them all, master crank article this one is… imo, that is. we should try and avoid such terminology, yes? Quantumentanglement (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not individual opinions of editors. Non-specific criticism without supporting evidence is not helpful. Peter Grey (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite honestly the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory, to quote David Ray Griffin http://www.greens.org/s-r/42/42-20.html

"The official story is itself a conspiracy theory. As the accepted “conspiracy theory” goes, a cadre of al-Qaida operatives conspired to hijack four jetliners, did so undetected, and was able to complete their mission with no interception or even interference from the best-prepared air force on the face of the Earth.

The crime was solved immediately and the official story was in place before the day of the attack was over. Within 48 hours, our president stood at the National Cathedral surrounded by Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi, and an imam, and used this religious setting to declare a holy war on terror."

You have to appreciate the accuracy of this statement. I no longer buy the mainstream account. The complicity of the corporate media disturbs me. They have helped to sell a lie. I keep on seeing "RS" asking for some newspaper/magazine quote as if it a mantra. I assert that it is more important that it is verifiable. This does not exclude publicly accessible documents such as web pages although some people would like us to think so. Tony0937 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Reliable sourcing is a guideline on Wikipedia, and your personal opinions about the subject are not a reason to disregard it. If you disagree with it, then feel free to discuss it elsewhere to try and enact a change. If you're not willing to do that, then there's nothing to discuss here other than arguing over your personal views — however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum and all such discussion will be removed per our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC):

I am not disputing wikipedia guidlines, I am simply pointing out that RS means nothing if that source is no longer reliable. At the bottom of every edit you will see this "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". There is an old adage "Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper". Once again, I say, verifiability is paramont. Tony0937 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Every source in this article is verifiable and sourced to reliable sources. Read the guidelines before you discuss terms using your own colloquial meaning. Verifiability means:

Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source

No source used in this article is unverifiable. --Haemo (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I refer to the dictionary definition of verify:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/verify

ver·i·fy

tr.v. ver·i·fied, ver·i·fy·ing, ver·i·fies

1. To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.

2. To determine or test the truth or accuracy of, as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis. See Synonyms at confirm.

I am not being colloquial [6] I am being literal in the sence of adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. Are you aserting that wikipedia policy has strayed so far from the literal meaning of verify that the dictionary definition can no longer apply? If that truly is the case then I suppose that the policy is indeed in need of review. Tony0937 (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

However you use the term, you're not using it as we do on Wikipedia. Verifiability has a specific meaning in this context, and one which you are pointedly ignoring. --Haemo (talk) 21:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

there were no arabs on flight 77

Reliable sources that interpret those documents would be better as we are limited in how we use primary sources, but at this point, any new reliable sources would be nice. Mr.Z-man 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

took a look at that guideline, we are talking about the documents obtained through foia, primary source would be as reliable as afip.org ...secondary source would be the person who obtained the information, the misinterpretation of information is not possible. where could one upload the files?? Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We require reliable secondary sources in order to consider adding material of that nature. --Haemo (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

all right, here is american airlines flight 77 passenger list which was 'compiled' by associated press, no arabs on it either. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear whose included on that report, and there's no context for it, so saying anything like "Aha, no Arabs!" is original research — the URL clearly indicates that it's a list of victims. Usually, sites memorializing the event do not list the people responsible for the deaths of the other passengers. In fact, if you go up one level you can clearly see that they state "those identified by federal authorities as the hijackers are not included" in the "memorial main page" which this section is headed under in the "Special Report". --Haemo (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

not clear to whom? and how exactly have you deduced that? we have a non disputable reference with heading:

American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. - yet you choose to point out the url?

we also have undisputable official autopsy report which confirms that the list compiled by the mainstream media is correct. original research claim doesn't apply here, be kind and elaborate your reasoning.

a. American Airlines Flight 77, from Washington to Los Angeles, crashed into the Pentagon with 64 people aboard. – no arabs among 'em.

b. the official autopsy made by official state body confirms the fact there were no arabs aboard.

either draw a valid and logical conclusion, or simply prove that afip deceived us and point to reputable flight manifest which contains the following names:

- Hani Hanjour – pilot

- Khalid al-Mihdhar

- Majed Moqed

- Nawaf al-Hazmi

- Salem al-Hazmi

thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The American Airlines ref is a list of victims. The number of names listed totals 56 which means not all the people on board the plane are on the list. The list was compiled by CNN and is not an actual flight manifest. afip.org has no information that I can find. Perhaps you can show a link to the information posted on afip? The other reference is a blog and as such is not a reliable source. Anyone can write or post anything on a blog. --PTR (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be looking very closely at these issues. There were plenty of Arabs on those flights. Take a look at this link, it includes material (and links) about both the flight manifests and the autopsy. [7]. There's no question that your claims are baseless. In any case, please confine your comments to the article and stay away from arguing the issue. RxS (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a source for the FOIA documents, if the documents obtained from the government organization are not acceptable then nothing is acceptable, which imo, proves those points made about uselessness. As for that 911 myths destination, the bias there is obvious from the nomen itself. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The site has links that explain why CT claims about flight manifests and autopsy are baseless. The explanations on that page together with the links will satisfy anyone being rational about it. For example claiming that there are no Arabs on the flight because of a victims list on CNN (which stated up front that no highjackers were included) is easily refuted by reading that page. As are the autopsy claims. Of course in some cases asking for rationality is fruitless, but we can hope I guess. RxS (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a CT'er criticizing a web site because of bias is ironic enough to spin the Earth out of it's orbit. RxS (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, just lovely. What kind of talk is this? What is a CT? If you will? You are dismissing the official documents on what basis? Is it your silent complicity in mass murder of US citizens? I’m waiting to hear you civil and decent answer. CT?!!! Thank you. 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing any official documents and CT would be Conspiracy Theorist. So now that we have that settled I'll leave you to read why those claims are baseless. I'm sorry if I offended your no doubt delicate sensibilities. Have a great day! RxS (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And may you have an equally good one, but you need to use arguments, not insults. So what is your argument, are you alleging that the documents are forged? What is your point, if you please? 213.147.97.163 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's policy here not to interpret primary sources for ourselves. We aren't researchers. We just report what reliable researchers report. See also reliable sources. You'll hear a lot about those when editing articles. Rklawton (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The name of this section states that there were no arabs on flight 77 and I pointed out a source that has American Airlines and court data that explicitly refutes that. The problem of course is that instead of reading that, you provide a single statement by a (not involved) psychiatrist. And in the same breath accuse one source of bias while remaining silent on the source that supports your claim. So there's some tap dancing that you're doing here, but that's cool. Not sure about all this forgery talk though. Take care! RxS (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007(UTC)

Dyslexia? Who is the source? Psychiatrist? Nope, the source is official body of US Army. As for your source, it’s puny, to say the least. Do tell, how can you dispute the obvious? 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[8]I am an ex Naval line officer and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Orleans, a Christian and homeschool dad. It troubled me a great deal that we rushed off to war on the flimsiest of evidence. I considered various ways to provide a smoking gun of who and why Sept 11th happened. Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that “crashed” on that day..[....]..I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. It is my opinion that the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable. So, yeah. RxS (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What to heck that has to do with the document itself, what is your interpretation? What?! 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is there to interpret? I understand that some of you feel the need to misinterpret the obvious, and lie, and omit, and throw utterly uncivil CT arguments and to ignore the collapse of whole buildings. But that needs to end. This article breaks each and every of wiki guidelines, and that is a fact. Your claim of original reaserch is a call for omission, and that is also a fact. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a list of victims who were identified. Remains of the hijackers were also found at the Pentagon. [9] Also suggest you look at the passenger manifests. Here is the first page which includes the names of all five hijackers on that flight, with seat numbers and all. --Aude (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are weighing official documents against the mythological sites of the third kind? Why? What is there to dispute? The autopsy showed there were no Arabs. Period. There is not a spin or a myth in the world which will change that fact. 213.147.97.163 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but how exactly would an autopsy determine a person's ethnicity? Is there an Arab gland nestled behind the spleen that would give that away? --clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on providing reliable secondary sources for claims, because this discussion is getting very sidetracked. --Haemo (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has and I apologize for my part in it. RxS (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

nice digressions, i'm working long hours so there will be some delays… here, that reference is already accepted on wiki as the flight manifest… it is the strangest thing if you ask me... well, can we pull it? now? Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perpetrators are generally not remembered as victims. --Mmx1 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

perhaps, but that reference is accepted, or should i go over there and make another fuss? because of disastrously irresponsible nonsense we have there? both references provided are clear and valid. do say, where did all the manifests go? who ate 'em, i wonder? so far and when it comes to 9/11... this whole place is… it's remarkable in a way… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the reference is accepted as a list of victims. It is totally unacceptable as a reference to "prove" there were no Arabs of Flight 77. You need some reliable secondary sources which back up this claim. Right now, you have a reliable secondary source saying there were no Arabs among the victims on Flight 77; a fact which is uncontroversial. --Haemo (talk) 04:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not being used as a reference. Note that it is not in the "References" section and is in the "External links" section. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

>well if you put it that way, you leave us no choice, i'm deeply sorry, but we'll need to provide the flight manifest which will put those arabs aboard… since i cannot edit the article because of.., what? i'll kindly ask you, to put the tag which will show that we lack reference for this section. we simply don't have the reference which will put those people aboard… i'm afraid we'll need to remove that section if we don't find one… i've already placed the template at the other location. there is also another, more subtle option which would change the wording at the start of that paragraph by pointing out, that certain people believe, or postulate or… whatever… that 19 hijackers were aboard those planes. our guidelines are very clear, we need a primary source and secondary source to verify such claim. since it is such well known event, references should not be a problem. in any case, we lack those there, completely, and until we find one (should be easy, but i couldn’t find the manifests? someone ate 'em or somthinig?), we need to warn the readers about it. i've seen that in our rules. let's not break those… Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. You misunderstand our sourcing guidelines. We do not, indeed cannot have primary sources for many things. That is why we require reliable sources instead. Read the guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

i've read them carefully, and we don't have a reference for that section, and it is just the beginning so cut the… and put the tag there… Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What fact are you requesting a reference for? That there were hijackers on Flight 77? Because requests like that are why this article has a billion references. --Haemo (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, that is a request, if we call it like that, you see, we lack a single reference which places those fellows aboard, in other words, we lack flight manifest. i'm trying to verify it as we type, but apparently we lack those on all articles related to flights… Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the flight manifest. There are innumerable reliable sources for the hijackers being on the plane, and it's contrary to our guidelines to claim we require the flight manifest. Stop wasting everyone's time. --Haemo (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

nope, i've read the guidelines and we need a source. a single secondary source which is based on a valid and verifiable primary source, and you are really, and i mean really waistin' our time… with such nonsense… i have no idea why we don't have one, it should be easy, by the guidelines… piece of cake… so to say… repeater, we need a single secondary source which is based on a valid and verifiable primary source (flight manifest)… for you see, this whole event is troublesome and we have to source all of our claims. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't — read the guidelines:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation

There is absolutely nothing here requiring a primary source of any kind. We do not need to know how, exactly, a reliable source determined something — only that they did.--Haemo (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

hey, we are not a blog to carry unverified claims form all sorts of monkeys, our guidelines are clear… Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. therefore any source which states that there were arabs on board without having a primary source itself is worthless, litterary… you need to have an apple to bite the apple… if you don't have an apple in the first place, there is nothing to bite… give me one of your many "reliable" sources and i'll illustrate the paradox. 05:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs)

You don't need a primary source to accompany every secondary source. Mr.Z-man 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What he said. What you have quoted doesn't even remotely say that. Read the words carefully:

Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation.

In other words if we put interpretation of a primary source into an article we require a reliable source for that interpretation. This guidelines exists to prevent original research — i.e. an editor interpreting primary sources, and putting their interpretation into an article. This does not even remotely say "if we quote a secondary source without a primary source, it is worthless." There is no interpretation of primary sources going on here which is not being done by a reliable source. --Haemo (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

or in other words, please, do take a look, our guidelines our clear, so what is this? read it, carefully…

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made.

now, provide a reliable, fact checking source, which places those arabs aboard, please. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there are innumerable sources. Here's one. --Haemo (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

oh my, look, i hold no grudge with you, hex, i even sympathize, because i see you're a well rounded person, but please, honestly. just put the tag there, we have no reference… it's by the book, our own guidelines, all rules applied. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article is 100% in line with our guidelines, and we're not going to bother sourcing uncontroversial details which are extensively covered on a subarticle. --Haemo (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the details wouldn’t be controversial if we wouldn’t have an autopsy report which is official in its nature. which sub articles are you pointing to? please, do point to those, so we may carry this on, if those are not locked, that is. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You should read Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott, which documents how the 19 hijackers became involved in the plot, including the five hijackers on flight 77. His book is a reliable source on the matter. Also, he shows some figures in the book, including one of the pages from the actual flight manifest from the airlines, such as this page. --Aude (talk) 13:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

eh, and you should read House of Bush, House of Saud by craig unger. unlike that unverifiable piece of fiction you've pointed to, it is rather reliable book with content that can be verified in mainstream media. well, if anyone has some valid objections to the material provided above, please object, because my "trial period" is about to end, and i'm about to implement some factually accurate changes to the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

there are some vandals which are avoiding discussion while they obstruct and omit the improvements to the article, where can i file a complaint? Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You can read WP:Dispute for more information. Your objections here haven't received any traction much less any consensus. You don't get to slap a disputed tag on an article just because you don't get your way. Especially not a controversial article such as this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rx StrangeLove (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nor should Quantum be slapping warning templates onto the user pages of established users. Crockspot (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

nor should the established users resort to vandalism because they lack the valid arguments, the factual accuracy of the article is disputed, should we start another section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantumentanglement (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling an established editor a vandal is a personal attack. Please restrain yourself. - Crockspot (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

established editor? or well established vandal?! in any case, established editors/vandals should know better then go around and revert without explanation whatsoever, right? the factual accuracy of the article is disputed, should we start another section? Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i'll restrain, please provide a valid argument or flight manifest which will reference our claims. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling established users vandals is uncalled for and strongly discouraged. If you cannot sway consensus to your arguments you just have to accept that and move on. But do not call editors in good faith vandals. You do not get to do that, period. RxS (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There isn't a lot to discuss since adequate references are provided in the aricle and have been provided here already. If there are reliable sources that refute what is already in the article, then cite them here.--MONGO (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the adequate and undeniable reference is provided above. do you have a single reference which would put those arabs aboard? i'm patiently waiting for that one for days now. so i'm a bit annoyed by these hollow claims. sincerely and with no hard feelings. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's one [10]...only took 5 seconds to find...how many do you need?--MONGO (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

i see you've just drop into the discussion, and i'd appreciate if you would carefully read everything above and act maturely. sincerely and seriously. Quantumentanglement (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your questions have been answered multiple times here, by multiple editors. I think we've reached the point where your refusal to read the answers or your inability to understand them has stopped being our problem and we have no obligation to keep going over them repeatedly. RxS (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

please focus, no one is seeking an opinion or a load (but you did ask for one, and i'll share and)… i'll stay polite… if we don't have a reference, then we do not have one. not a singe person provided a decent edit on this topic, not a single one. on contrary, folks are repeatedly being uncivil (and i've seen that don't bite newcomers note), and each of the editors who provided response acted as… if you close your eyes the facts won't go away. you cannot deny something because you don't like it. this is an encyclopedia, and this article in its current state is… i'll stay polite… so instead of nonsense, and gibberish (do forgive), please, kindly provide the reference which will put those arabs aboard or let US add the template which states that we need one. if that is not acceptable, i'd like to start the arbitration, which is, as far i've seen it, some sort of the last resort. you see, imho, state sponsored terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable and the people who fuel those conspiracy theories, the people who are spreading malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty…. are traitors, traitors and murderers of worst kind.

ps. you've answered nothing, not a single thing. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I just provided a ref...how many more do you need?--MONGO (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

we are talking about the list of passengers (or autopsy of the people which were) on flight 77 and you've provided a reference which has nothing to do with it. you see, in our article those naughty arabs managed to climb aboard without a boarding pass and they also managed to evade the death itself… we are not asking for the miracle, we are seeking the document which is based on reliable source and which will put those arabs aboard. nothing more, nothing less… yellow mellow articles which do not state nothing about the issue, or nothing about their source are not acceptable. per our guidelines that is. how many times do we have to repeat the obvious? and I'm asking that patiently and kindly and honestly. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The sentence (or rather part of a sentence) that you questioned is only about the number of hijackers. It mentions nothing of their nationality, where does it say anything about boarding passes? Mr.Z-man 08:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

our story goes "Nineteen men boarded the four planes", so we need to provide the reference which will actually put those 19 men aboard (it's remarkable that there is none… really). that's why we need a boarding pass… to put those villains aboard. Quantumentanglement (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You are asking for ridiculous levels of information. You have been provided with the flight manifest for flight 77 and there are numerous references that give the number of hijackers. How can you say that there are none? What about [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], or [17]? Do we need their fingerprints on the aircraft controls as well? What you are asking for is far, far beyond what is ever required for a Wikipedia article. We don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to include information, we are not an investigative body - we report already published information; all we require is that the information has been reported in reliable sources and in this case it has been. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quantumentanglement, please read WP:POINT while you are at it. You are engaging in novel interpretations of our policies and guidelines, in an apparent attempt to disrupt this discussion page. - Crockspot (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. --Haemo (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is tiresome, look, i'm asking for the document or news report which will put those arabs aboard (the passenger list will suffice) and you are providing a storylines with all sort of unverifiable nonsense in it which is, imo, somewhat unusual if not disruptive behavior. take a look at that bbc link z provided above, what does it have to do with the request for citation? not to say that bbc is not acceptable or reputable source when it comes to 9/11 which is a well know fact. as for these accusations that boarder on personal attacks, do comment the article, not the contributor, i'd kindly ask if you would restrain yourselves. to get back to the point, no, there is not a single reputable source which will put those arabs aboard, but there is a undisputable official source that proves that there were no hijackers on flight 77. so you see, the factual accuracy of this article is not verifiable and people who are removing appropriate warnings and templates are vandals by the very definition of it. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i'm patiently waiting for the reference which will contradict and/or refute the official document of the united states government body which undeniably and undisputedly states that there were no arabs aboard, please provide a reliable source, please restrain from removing the valid citation needed template, please restrain from non related linkspam. thank you. Quantumentanglement (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not. You are either deliberately misreading guidelines in order to waste everyone's time over this issue, or are simply ignorant about guidelines and show no willingness to learn. You have been told repeatedly that your misinterpretation of guidelines are incorrect, but persist in your incorrect interpretation. It is disruptive, and it wastes everyone's time. We have commented on the article repeatedly — we no longer have any other choice but to comment on the contributor because you do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and are trying to change the article based on that misunderstanding. Please stop. --Haemo (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that your answer/reference for the simple citation request? No we don't is your reference? Once again you've decided to ignore the issue while engaging into the personal attack. I've read the guidelines, and used those to clearly show why we need a citation. At this point and IMO, you are not here to improve this article; you are here to keep it from growth. You are ignoring undeniable primary sources while you point to the questionable books, while you're showing all sorts of unrelated articles and while some of you share outrageous, utterly non related CT insults which have nothing, but not one thing to do with the discussion, although they appear to be ideal for provoking all kinds of unfortunate responses. I've noticed that this sort of behavior is already recognized and described in our soapbox guideline…

The fact is, you are persistently avoiding very clear issue and the archived talk pages (I've seen so far) clearly show that you (easily identifiable and recognizable group of editors with remarkable amount of free time) are using the same approach on dozens of troublesome and IMO extremly serious topics… for quite some time. I am not sure if that is acceptable, but I'm pretty sure that some of you did nothing but wasted our time, so I've decided to leave a notice at our Administrators' noticeboard. Quantumentanglement (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You have been told over, and over again that you have been provided with references that meet Wikipedia's guidelines — you simply choose to ignore them, and instead request a level of evidence which is beyond anything Wikipedia requires. You have not shown that our guidelines need the level of evidence you're asking for, and indeed, have merely demonstrated that you do not understand them. You will notice that your request for admin intervention has been roundly rebuffed because you are quite mistaken here. --Haemo (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"linkspam?" You asked for a source for the statement that says there was 19 hijackers. I provided you with 7. Please read WP:SPAM before you continue to make assumptions of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that you present once source as absolute truth and then say that every source that doesn't agree with your source is wrong, no matter how many sources there are that disagree. Please see WP:UNDUE and note that there are other viewpoints besides your own. Mr.Z-man 03:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the viewpoints? Who?!!!! We are working on encyclopedia and you are talking about the truth? There is no truth, there are facts and the fact is… The official autopsy showed that there were no Arabs aboard the Flight 77. Here, an article, the documents are attached at the bottom, examine those and then come back here and speak of truth and conspiracy and waste our time with all sort of non related… uf! Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

We have provided you with more than a half-dozen reliable sources which put Arabs on those planes, as the hijackers. You have articles of dubious reliablity that lack editorial oversight, or a reputation for fact-checking, discussing FOIA requests that may, or may not, prove something which you seem to believe very strongly. That doesn't cut it. Find a reliable source that states there were no Arabs, and you'll do something productive here. Until then, you have nothing more than gossip and original research. --Haemo (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike us, that article cites its sources, it even provides the documents. As for your edit above, it is the other way around and you know it. Dear God, one has to wonder what will happen when we start to examine that house of cards called WTC7? I need rest. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have opened up an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quantumentanglement‎ concerning this issue. Anyone is welcome to contribute. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Official autopsy report of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) showed there were no Arabs aboard Flight 77. This information needs to be referenced in the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable sources can attest to that interpretation of the documents. Numerous reliable sources state that there were Arabs on board Flight 77. The current article reflects Wikipedia guidelines and standards, and your proposed changes do not meet our sourcing standards. Until you produce reliable sources to support your interpretation, you're not going to make any headway n this issue. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The FOIA autopsy document[18] clearly states that it is providing a list of the IDENTIFIED bodies. The FOIA document does NOT claim to account for all bodies found. As a result the FOIA autopsy document is consistent with the secondary sources, and Quantumentanglement needs to quit this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus it pretty specifically says "victims". Hijackers are not victims. --Haemo (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The FOIA request didn't seek the victims/passengers list, FOIA sought autopsy list, specifically, so it may verify the mainstream reports which showed there were no Arabs aboard. The document states it is the final list, there are no Arabs among the identified bodies. As for your claims, the document clearly states "This is a response to your FOIA request (…) in which you requested copies of the final list of bodies identified by AFIP". Since the AFIP successfully identified all passengers (we even have some surplus) there is no reason why they wouldn’t identify the hijackers, if there were any, that is. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77..." Mr.Z-man 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, attached files contain the autopsy list of all the identified bodies. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What the FOIA sought and what the FOIA got were two different things - go complain to the government. The reply to the FOAI states quite clearly that the "attached file contains the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology". That's it. It's a list of identified victims - nothing more and nothing less. We can't read into this list anything else. The government was asked for something, and the government replied with a letter telling us quite clearly what we were getting (identified victims). This, of course, begs a few questions. Like how many remains weren't identified, and whether or not terrorists are considered victims in this context. But that's why we don't use primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. Such sources would follow up with these sorts of questions and provide a clearer picture of what the government meant. And, by the way, that's just what the secondary sources did - and they don't support your contentions. Rklawton (talk) 02:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn doublethink applied everywhere… Guess I'll have to drop the issue. Quantumentanglement (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden family

Is it pertinent that 24 members of the Bin Laden family, as well as Saudi Royals (about 140 Saudis total) were allowed to fly out of the U.S. on September 14, 2001? That info would probably go here, since it was a rare exception to the fight blackout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Immediate_national_response Softlavender (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right? http://911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight has several links from news sources and the commission report itself debunking the myth. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL @ ' User:Pedant (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The flight blackout ended on the 14th anyways, so that wouldn't be an exception. --clpo13_(talk) 00:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"By the 14th, you mean the 20th, right?" No, I meant the 14th. My info was from here, all with citations from contemporary print news sources: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a091301flight&scale=1#a091301flight (And in terms of the 9/11 commission report, I probably would trust that about as much as I'd trust the Warren Report, meaning I wouldn't.) In terms of the absolute blackout having already been lifted, I understand, yet many of the Bin Ladens and Saudis who who left wouldn't have passed a competent or prudent security check, especially not in the week following a terrorist attack (for reasons listed on the link and elsewhere). Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on which sources you want to believe. But the issue about the family leaving has long been considered a non-event by most people. --Golbez (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Immediate news sources were reporting events as they occurred, rather than a story to represent a commission viewpoint well after the facts. Plus, I'm not sure you or anyone can speak for "most people"; plus, it wasn't simply the immediate Bin Laden family who left, it was 140 Saudis, all of whom the governement had a legitimate reason to detain. Softlavender (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing about immediate news sources is that they can be corrected later on. For example, the story from a mere week after the attacks so repeated by truthers that some of the hijackers are alive and well and living in Saudi Arabia - too bad the BBC has since published multiple articles refuting those original statements. But I suppose a certain tunnel vision is required for these people. --Golbez (talk) 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Too long?

A tag has been added to this article, arguing that it's too long. However, according to article size guidelines this article is within acceptable limits. The argument has been made that it take too long for people on slow connections to access it. Unfortunately, this is simply impossible to make it smaller — the fact is this, because people keep needlessly asking for {{fact}} sources for innumerable statements in the article it has 180+ references which each compose around 1/3 of a k a piece. That's over 60k of references alone. There's simply no way to make this article smaller without removing some of the references — and that's not going to happen. --Haemo (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well we can take out all the "kooky stuff" like the references to aircraft crashing and buildings collapsing and dead people, and just leave it at: It was decided that a war would be profitable for some people or corporations, and someone (or groups of someones) made it happen, and nobody wants this article to be long. The end. User:Pedant (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Haemo, this article easily satisfies the occasional exceptions section of WP:SIZE [19]. RxS (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the current length is appropriate given the magnitude of such an event.-Wafulz (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Osama bin laden

I don't know why Osama bin laden is listed as the perpetrator of the attacks, but what is that based on?, just what the government claims?.

This seems to be often overlooked, but Given Osama bin laden has not been indicted, 'nor wanted for anything in relation with 9/11, and is only linked to other lesser terrorists attacks, its highly predudicial to say he's the mastermind.No evidence has ever been shown linking him, just the commonly excepted claim.

And from what I remember he never explicitly claimed responsibility.

But what I'm really trying to say is, yes Al Queda was responsible for 9/11, and bin laden is the head of it, but does that mean he directly participated in what al queda did?, Or is more like a branch of his organization was responsible for something he condoned but had no direct participation in.

His personal responsibility likely lies somewhere in between, but the fact is there is no evidence in support of government claims, and FBI don't even list 9/11 as why he's on 10 most wanted list.I just think people will be misleaded reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The "perpetrators" section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden". Numerous reliable sources call Bin Laden the "mastermind" behind the attacks, and he has personally taken responsibility for conceiving of and planning them in explicit terms. --Haemo (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden"?, that is an extremely misleading and suggestive statement.He's the leader of the organization, not nessesarly 9/11 itself, to tie him to 9/11 through his organization in such a statement is such persecution.

And the media and government and other sources probably use the same misleading logic, he's the head of the organization responsible for the attack, but noone says he was directly part of it, so that should be made clear.

And I don't know about your claims that he has taken responsibility, but thats also speculative.Rodrigue (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article...it has links to other sources.--MONGO (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what special sources there would be, besides regualr media. Rodrigue (talk)

Those would be reliable sources both asserting that he's the mastermind behind the plot, and that he took responsibility for it. If you don't agree with them, then you'll need to produce reliable sources disagreeing with them in order to get anything done on the article. Otherwise, you're at a fundamental loggerhead with our guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, here, etc. --Aude (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable, third-party sources is context-sensitive, moderated by common sense. In a situation in which some part of the executive branch of the U.S. Government is probably guilty of some degree of wrongdoing, no part of that branch of government is a reliable source except to the extent that it is accusing another branch of wrongdoing. Likewise, following the commencement of known activities such as Operation Mockingbird, certain mainstream media fail the reliable-source test in such a situation. I'm open-minded, though. Please provide an unbiased, reliable third-party source supporting the government's position. Wowest (talk) 06:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch specifically uses the phrase "Bin Laden takes responsibility for 9/11". The Guardian specifically says he "took responsibility for the September 11 attacks". Reliable sources is a clear guidelines on Wikipedia — and it says nothing about throwing out the "mainstream media" because you don't believe them. --Haemo (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources also reported accounts of bin Laden's funeral in 2001, indicating that he died of a lung infection. Foreign heads of state opined that this was highly likely because of his kidney disease. Any claim that subsequent videos, showing someone who doesn't quite look right and doesn't quite sound right are bin Laden are extraordinary, and require extraordinary proof, particularly when they are made by agents of a regime noted for lying. Wowest (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wowest : Before starting to make a fool of yourself, please read a book called "The looming tower" from Lawrence Wright were you will found the whole story from day one. It was Pultizer price and it is most exahustive and reliable source of this particular aspect ot 9/11. --Igor21 (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable when making claims based on hearsay evidence only. To date there has been no authenticated evidence linking Bin laden to 911. He may be the most likely perpetrator but it is POV to make the claim he did it without pointing out that there is no actual evidence of guilt. Wayne (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So is it true that reliable sources only claim that he took responsibility?, there aren't any claiming that he was a direct participant in the attacks beyond just being the leader of Al-qaeda?.

And thats besides the fact that they wouldn't have any evidence to support saying it either, even being on the FBI most wanted list, no there's no mention of him being linked to 9/11,

so I'm guessing there is only claims that he took responsibility that support saying he is responsible, which even if somewhat true isn't the same as having evidence or sources directly saying he's resonsible, not just sources saying he somewhat claimed to be. Rodrigue (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, he didn't remote control the planes into the building or something. He helped plan and support the attack. That's why the perpetrators section says "Al Qaeda led by Bin Laden. --Haemo (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources "claim" Bin laden took responsibility. The evidence is disputed with only the US government supporting it's authenticity. Therefor the article can legitimately make the claim. It is only POV if it's not mentioned that the evidence is unreliable. Wayne (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, how can there be disputed evidence that he confessed, he either did or he didn't.What are they disputing?, a tape with questionable authenticity or interpetation, or just some intelligence claiming he confessed.

But seriously, if Bin Laden was captured tomorrow, hypothetically, would he be brought to justice in any way regarding 9/11, or just the few other attacks he's connected to?. Rodrigue (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. He's clearly claimed responsibility, contrary to Wayne's statement above, but proving it is another matter. Is encouraging the action (clear) and claiming responsibility adequate for conviction under Islamic law? It certainly isn't under US law. Conspiracy convictions (under US law) require identifying a specific action taken in furtherance of the conspiracy, and I don't think we can identify a specific action he took related to 9/11. That being said, if captured, he would probably be "accidentally" shot a few hundred times, to avoid the problem coming up. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I was getting at, even with sources claiming he took responsibility and him being painted as the big mastermind of the hole thing and everyone people should hate, the fact is from a legal stand point no modern legal system would hold him based on whatever it is that ties him directly to 9/11, if anything. Rodrigue (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. We don't require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to include something in an article, just reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

See also

There's currently been some discussion about the "See Also" properties of the "Conspiracy Theories" section in the article. There's a kind of half-hearted discussion above, but I think we could definitely benefit from some more concentrated focus here. Currently, the proposal is as this, to link to the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center as a "See Also" link.

I'm not really sure that this is appropriate. Guidelines indicate that these header should be used to link to related articles — however, I'm not sure if these are representative of the theories being discussed, and gives undue weight to specific groups and theories about the attacks. There's no rationale for why these particular theories are more important than other, competing theories, or why this group is more important than other 9/11 Conspiracy Groups. Frankly, I think we're better simply linking to the sub-article which extensively discusses both of these articles. --Haemo (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A 9/11 conspiracy section article that does not somehow mention the controlled demolition theory or the 9/11 Truth movement is like a Beatles section that does not mention Beatlemania or Sergeant Pepper. If this were a the Beatles article saying it would be saying the rough equivalent of “that some people do not like the Beatles" and then repeating "but the vast majority of the music press and fellow musicians conclude that the Beatles are one of the most influential groups in history”. It’s a useless waste of space. If you spend any amount of time looking at "conspiracy" websites,message board debates, mainstream or alternative press practically everyone of them mentions the controlled demolition theory and most of the journalistic articles mention the 9/11 Truth movement. You say there is no rational reasoning as to why these are more important. That is a good question and a very interesting one and a subject for experts on public opinion and journalism. As for us as Wikipedia editors all that should matter is that these are the most notable, there are Wikipedia articles written about them and that many readers may not know about. Why deny them the option of finding out they exist? This adds a total of one line to the article what is the grievous harm here? Edkollin (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I said there was no rationale presented for why these are included. Our 9/11 conspiracy article does not omit these — you claim the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Controlled Demolition hypothesis are as integral to 9/11 Conspiracies as Sergeant Pepper is to the Beatles. I would suggest otherwise — there are many, many movements and theories surrounding the attacks, and these are just two of many. In fact, probably the only central theme which can be written about 9/11 conspiracy theories is their absolute multiplicity; virtually any permutation of events, plans, and those responsible can, and has, been put forward as an explanation. --Haemo (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles put out many other important works besides Sgt. Pepper. There have been a multiplicity of "theories" as to the meaning of Beatle lyrics. That does not change the fact that that a Beatle section that fails to mention Sgt. Pepper does a great disservice to the reader. Putting in a See also line does not say these are the only theories or movements. The 9/11 CT article is still the main article the CD and Truth movement are the "also" line. The reason the reader might not know that there are a multiplicity of theories is that there is no line stating such information. All putting in a see also line does is make it easier for the reader to get detailed information on the most discussed CT theories/movement. Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This metaphor is too stretched to be useful at this point, but I definitely think that it gives it too much weight — especially to 9/11 Truth. The "movement" itself is related to the theories, not the attacks — I think you have a good point about the controlled demolition hypothesis, and it should stay. However, the Truth movement is tangentially related to the attacks, and integrally related to the conspiracies. --Haemo (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't belong in this article under any circumstances (linked or otherwise). Links to CD and 9/11 Conspiracy theories make sense but not a link to one group over another that promote those theories. The 9/11 Truth Movement is notable within conspiracy theory circles and can be linked from those topics but it is not notable in 9/11 topics in general and has no place as a link. RxS (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that the controlled demolition hypothesis carries at least the same weight as NISTs working fire and debris hypothesis. I'm not sure why would one be omitted and other admitted. Both of these are well known and well recognized hypotheses. We should also note that we lack official explanation of collapse. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there is evidence of fire and debris, and there is no evidence of demolition, the hypotheses do not have equal weight. Peter Grey (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is so in your opinion or your POV, how we call it here, my opinion differs, but that is not the issue. We have two notable hypotheses, if we are to follow the NPOV, both of these hypotheses should be mentioned. There is no reason to accept the fire and debris theory which is yet to be proved and there is no reason to accept the controlled demolition theory which is yet to be proved. However, there are very good reasons to mention both notable theories, and the first which comes to mind would be NPOV. Quantumentanglement (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Existence and non-existence of evidence are not opinions. Peter Grey (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be clearer about it. Do we have evidence which proves the fire and debris hypothesis? Or are you referring to the controlled demolition hypothesis? Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd think the video tapes of debris and fire in the immediate area are good evidence. Really, please stop this pointless arguing, I can assure you, you will be limited from disrupting this topic soon. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be much easier if you would provide a reference for your claim, for you see the video tapes of the WTC7 collapse are widely accepted as the proof of controlled demolition. I can assure you that I'm not willing to engage into fruitless discussion around this issue. Your posts are annoying to me, at least as much as mine are to you. Such is the nature of quantum entanglement. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The 7 WTC collapse looks like a demolition, but that is evidence only of a catastrophic structural failure, which has many possible causes. The talk archives explain this in more detail. Peter Grey (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I have spoken to you before, so I don't know what plural you speak of. As for WTC7, fire and debris were visible, whereas somehow covertly wiring 60 floors of busy office tower for controlled demolition were not. But enough of this. --Golbez (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What sort of explanation and what sort of the attitude is that? Do you have evidence which proves your claim? Or should I parrot you and say, the squibs and rate of fall are consistent with the controlled demolition. But enough of this, both hypotheses are notable and should be mentioned in the article. Quantumentanglement (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please restrict comments to the article and means for improving it. Discussing the merits or demerits of different theories is not productive, and is not the purpose of this talk page. --Haemo (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Took out See Also for 9/11 Truth Movement left in Controlled Demolition as per rough consensus above Edkollin (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The article about the 9/11 Truth Movement reads as an advertisement more than an encyclopedic article. They are not nearly as organized or as big as they themselves would like to believe. So, yeah, I concur with removing that link to that article. If I had more time, I would try and clean that article up a lot.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The CT section should focus on the theories and not on the group or groups supporting them (per WEIGHT). Each theory article can then include information about the group or groups supporting (and opposing) that particular theory (limited, of course, to notable groups with their own articles). Rklawton (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Ed has gone ahead and unilaterally re-added the "see also" link and pointed to this talk section to back this up. However, I see only discussion and no attempt to build consensus. This pretty much defines WP:TE. No matter. I propose we take the issue up more directly and see what sort of consensus we have.

Those who support (or oppose) including a "See also" link (this way) please so indicate below:

• Oppose - the subject should be addressed in the section, but a separate "see also" link at the top of the section is redundant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Rklawton (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Favour - If this subject was addressed properly in the section it would still require something like the also see. As it is there is no mention of the subject at all. Tony0937 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - common sense, as undue weight is given by the placement. Mr Which??? 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:WEIGHT, and because the subject is well-covered within the 9/11 CT page. Dchall1 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - out of desire for organisational clarity as much as concerns about undue weight. This is the top level article covering the subject in its broadest sense. "9/11 conspiracy theories" is a sub-topic, and "9/11 Truth movement" and "Controlled demolition theory" are sub-sub-topics. They should be linked to on the 911CT page - which interested readers are sure to want to visit anyway - not here. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep it on the CT page. A number of people keeping trying to turn the main article into the CT article, which should not happen. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Keep it on the CT page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: A link would be appropriate for the conspiracy theory phenomenon as a whole; specific conspiracy theories are twice-removed from the subject of this article. Peter Grey (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Peter and Sheffield that CDH is too far removed from the topic of this article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course.--MONGO (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Entire Section Mostly non-reliable internet sources. Major media and reliable scientific sources are critical to scathing. A point acknowlaged by most CT theorists. NO weight needs to be given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Memorial Link

I'd like to add a link to a Memorial that I'm associated with called "Flags on the 48". Bascially it's a memorial hike held every year to commemorate the victims of the attacks. Fittingly, the first hike was held on Sept 15, 2001 on Mt. Liberty and from there the event grew. In following with the guidelines, I'm seeking consensus here. The link is http://www.flagsonthe48.org Coberg (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The memorial hike sounds like a very worthwhile event, but try searching 9/11 memorial on Google. There are countless worthwhile events or memorials. We have a limitation on space for links, per the external links guidelines. How do we choose which ones to include? I don't think we can choose one over all the others. Instead, I think it's best to keep the number of links to a minimum, and leave it to sites like the Open Directory project to include the links. --Aude (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose link. While I commend both the organizers and Coberg's intent, I agree with Aude's reasoning in this case. Rklawton (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it does not further the article's purpose (informing about the attacks) to include the link. Echo support for the sentiment expressed above, though. Mr Which??? 22:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deathscrepancies?

I notice that two "total death tolls" for the event are given - 2,999 in the lead paragraph and 2,993 in the infobox. Why the difference? Neither are sourced, but I'm sure the one in the infobox must have come from somewhere. The one in the lead paragraph seems to be a napkin calculation from adding up all the previous sourced numbers. In such a contentious article, details like this probably shouldn't be left to original reasearch like that, especially if they can't agree with the numbers floating right next to them. Could someone familiar with the sources around this subject be bold and put forward a reliable one which does the final death toll for us, and update both numbers to agree? BigBlueFish (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, they're accurate. There were 2974 victims of the original attack, plus 24 missing, plus 1 who died from dust exposure. This is the 2999 figure. On the day, there were 2974 + 19 deaths; 2993. Confusing, yes. I'll reword the lead to indicate it's victims. --Haemo (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

confirmed deaths?!

It is stated that the number of deathes is 2974 or something similar. Were all those deathes confirmed or are they presumed dead? this is a confusing subject. The way it is stated, 2974 were confirmed dead without any doubt (ie remains from their bodies were found). This also negates the possability that any of these people exploited the situation to start new lives under other identities. I would appreciate if this could be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.163.237 (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As the article states, 2974 people were confirmed dead, usually by finding human body parts identified by DNA evidence. 24 people are missing, and presumed to have died — there is a slim possibility that they took the opportunity to vanish. --Haemo (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission and Report

I just functionally reverted this recent edit by WLRoss which added that the 9/11 Commission and/or Report were subject to criticism from Commission members. I hope the new revision is clearly more NPOV, but just wanted point this out in talk in case anyone sees this as trying to bury 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc etc. The main articles for these topics are currently NPOV trainwrecks, particularly with respect to the coverage style of criticism, and yet I still can't fish out anything which suggests that members spoke out against their organisation or report, let alone in a notable way to the topic. Maybe when these articles are more mature there will be more to elaborate on this matter in this article, but seeing as it's already too long, this isn't the case right now. BigBlueFish (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your rewording, so I changed it a little. If it's not sourced in the main article, we shouldn't be including it. However, it's not really that relevant who speaks out, since it's mostly a footnote to the article about the attacks. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

HUH? You can't find "anything which suggests that members spoke out against their organisation or report"? Almost all the board members have publicly stated they were consistantly denied access to evidence, lied to and obstructed. If this is not critism what is it? Wayne (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In that comment I was referring to the Wikipedia articles, not the media in general, as made clear at the beginning of the sentence out of which you cut my quote. I neither deny nor affirm that board members criticised the Commission or Report, but if they did then that is made woefully unclear in their articles. The article on the Report is particularly bad, giving no introduction to the criticisms section, stating whether there was official reaction/affirmation/opposition to these criticisms. The Commission article has an introduction to criticisms but does not mention internal criticism despite naming other critics.

It's hard to comment on how the articles you cited are relevant to this since they aren't (yet) cited in either of the articles. The first I can't comment on at all since I'm not a NYT subscriber; the second discusses suspicions raised, not of accusations made. Both the second and third might be construed as criticism of the CIA and other authorities associated with the work of the Commission, but I can't say they exactly explicitly criticise the Commission itself, although it presents comment on the quality of the resulting report. From the third: "first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well" - from this I would assume that Hamilton criticises the outcome of the Report in the said book Without Precedent or that article.

All of this aside, the sources quote the chairmen, "some" staff members and commissioners and one chairman respectively. I am without a doubt that if these statements can be construed as criticism of the Commission that there will also be comments of response from other interested parties out there. All this needs to be properly and encyclopedically treated in the relevant articles before bringing up summary qualifications in this article. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I expect that, due to the surmounting authenticity of many "conspiracy" theories about the attacks of September 11, 2001, this article remain under need of being less authenticated by hotheaded media sources such as FOX and globalized by more authentic sources, that are not offered by the institution of televised media. For example, 9/11 Commission Report is still being criticized. I feel that the tags at the top of the page should be left, since, specifically, my most recent contributions about the videos of Osama bin Laden were quickly removed. The government should stop tampering with this article, since, obviously, its intentions are not to allow "conspiracy" theories to seem authenticated in any manner. Crass_conversationalist (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Please assume good faith upon the editors of Wikipedia. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make them government shills.
2. Insulting news sources and dismissing them through disparaging contents is simply not good form. State your actual objections to the article or please find a forum on another website. This is not a forum.
3. Your additions wer removed due to a lack of reputable sources, not your personal opinions. Furthermore, reliable sources can come from the US. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Ron Paul is quite a reputable source to the theory that the attacks on the World Trade Centers were a false flag operation, among other historians and their analyses of the attacks, often marked as "conspiracies" in accordance with FOX. Crass_conversationalist (talk 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And, moreover, as I am a contributor to Wikipedia, among others, and my thoughts have not "logically" been proven "wrong" in accordance with "reputable" sources, I will leave the tags to globalize and to make the article more in accordance with a worldview on this article, to remind visitors of this page that the authenticity of much of that which has been "authenticated" by some media sources and, furthermore, by the US government, is questionable, if not doubtful (see Newton's Laws of Motion), and therefore, should not be taken as fact (quoting Chris Sanders, professor, banker, asset manager, principal executive of SANDERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATES LTD, "The use of conspiracy theory as a derogatory--as an epithet, almost, is something that propaganda has so perfected over the decades. And it’s a useful tool for eliminating articulate descent and other points to view and information that might be inconvenient for policy agenda"). Crass_conversationalist (talk 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Ron Paul is a reputable source for anything but his campaigns, and possibly his actions and intent. He is a politician, after all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul has never said that 9/11 was a false flag operation; on the contrary, he has stated that he sees 9/11 as blowback for U.S. foreign policy, and regularly cites the 9/11 Commission Report findings in his arguments. Corleonebrother (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

To the original point over the past weekend the CIA were accused by 9/11 commission chairmen Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kane of making a conscious decision to impede the commissions investigation by withholding information regarding videotapes of interrogation of two Al Qeada operatives a charge the agency denied. This story was covered heavily over the weekend by mainstream media outlets. I added a section about this in the 9/11 commission article but decided not to add anything here. 1. As mentioned before the chairmen did not specifically state that the alleged withheld information made the report or parts of it invalid. 2. Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kane can not in any way be said to be 9/11 conspiracy theorists. 2A Although they did not specifically say so taking events in context the implication was that the CIA were allegedly covering up their involvement in torture not a 9/11 conspiracy. Edkollin (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that the 9/11 Commission and its report have their own articles. Peter Grey (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Survivors

In the opening text it states "The fourth plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania, after some of its passengers and flight crew attempted to retake control of the plane, which the hijackers had redirected toward Washington, D.C. There are no survivors from any of the flights."

To me this should be changed to "There were no survivors from any of the flights". Otherwise the current wording implies there were survivors from the planes who subsequently died.

 Done Thanks for spotting this. Euryalus (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)