diff --git "a/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_12202714.tei.xml" "b/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_12202714.tei.xml" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_12202714.tei.xml" @@ -0,0 +1,1452 @@ + + + + + + + Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 30 + + + French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019; +Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès + Mannheim + Toulouse + + 12202714.tei.xml + + +

Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.

+ + + + + + + + SmackBot et al. + Collaborative authors + + Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 30 + + 12202714 + English + + + Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia + English language version + + Wikimedia Foundation, Inc + + + + + + + enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current + Dump file + enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current + + Wikimedia Foundation, Inc + + + + 2019 + 08 + 01 + + + + September 11 Attacks + + + + + + + 2010-10-12T18:10:51Z + + + + + + +
+ September 11 attacks/Archive 30 + + {{Automatic archive navigator}} +
+ [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] (Moved from [[WP:CSB]] talk page) + +

It is not about the conspiracy theory.

+

The articles of ) 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

Sorry! I forgot to sign. So is this right place to discuss about this issue? Since I am new here, I just want to make sure how I am supposed to do.--Shoons17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You can discuss it on the article's talk page, which you've never edited before now. --Golbez05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Plus, "'It is not about the conspiracy theory"' because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the example you give above. --Haemo

+ + +

"Theory" parts can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described at September 11, 2001 attacks. From point of view of NPOV, I think it is violating the guideline or rule of Wikipedia.--Shoons05:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You seem to have an incorrect view of NPOV; please tell me how including falsehoods in an article makes it less biased. --Golbez05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0%2C11209%2C784542%2C00.html Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

+

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. "--Shoons06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Can we discuss this on the talk page of the article please, instead of you pasting the same things in two locations? And who exactly are you quoting? (answer there) --Golbez06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

We should talk about this issue here instead of the article. You have already discussed about this bias issue there. I need opinions by neutral people who know about NPOV very well. —The preceding ) 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

Okey dokey - but one should point out, as it is made on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Mohammed Atta that these claims are not supported. In fact, the BBC later retracted that story. NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence. --Haemo06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Now we are talking. Thanks. I can not find your sentence "NPOV does not ... evidence". Help me to find it.--Shoons06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It exists in what he wrote. He wasn't quoting anything. Are you just attempting to troll here? You have been completely unwilling to actually respond to anything we say, and seem to have a deliberately incorrect notion as to what NPOV means. --Golbez06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Well, his user page says he's Japanese, so benefit of a doubt. And, yes, I wasn't quoting anything there - I was just explaining what neutral point of view means, and what it doesn't mean. --Haemo07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Please quote. I am trying to make a real Wikipedia article. If you think the article is NPOV, convince me. I cannot find any articles about BBC declined Hijackers were found. Could you tell me where I can find it, please? --Shoons07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html Here is the link, plain as day. --Golbez07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you. I have found ) 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

2. Video or Audio tape of Osama bin Ladin can be fake

+ + IDIAP Research Institute (December 2002). "http://www.idiap.ch/~marietho/images/stories/pdfs/binladen.pdf IDIAP analysis of the latest bin Laden tape"--Shoons13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC) + + + +

A lot of things "can" be fake, this being one of them; in fact, some people even think the footage of planes hitting the towers was faked. However, since Osama later made other, undispited (so far as I know) tapes that claim responsibility, the truthiness of the December 2001 tape is ultimately irrelevant with regard to responsibility for the attacks. It's handled in the article Videos of Osama bin Laden, though not very well. --Golbez14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you very much for your help! So can we upgrade "The authenticity of the tape has been questioned." and add citation of IDIAP? If this first step works out, I do not need to stay here. I can go back and talk at the article of "9/11". --Shoons15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

3.Intelligence failure

+ + In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of U.S. history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/050607.html Similar to president Bush' reaction has been described in Woodward's book State of Denial when Condoleezza Rice in July 2001 dismissed high-alert warning of incoming attacks from CIA directors. + CIA Director George Tenet and J. Cofer Black met with then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001 to warn her about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and were disappointed Rice wasn't alarmed enough by the warning, although Rice's friend Philip D. Zelikow (also executive director of the 9/11 Commission) also says in the book that the warning wasn't specific enough to enable the government to take a specific action to counter it (pages 49-52 of "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward).http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjFiZmRmMjJmODA3Y2E1ZjE2MzllNDZhMGRhOTNkZTc=Frum, David, "David Frum's Diary" on the National Review Online Web site, October 5, 2006, 11:07 a.m. post "Blogging Woodward (4)", accessed same day + Able Danger: CIA conducted surveillance program which included observation of several key hijackers including Mohhamed Atta. + I'm not proposing http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1956542165192088795 this video as a source (though it is compiled mainly from news sources), but this might give an idea of what I think we should deal with. + +

My question is: shouldn't at least an overview of those issues, if not the issues themselves, be presented in the main article? SalvNaut22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Please just search and see in what context words "foreknowledge" and "intelligence" only do occur in the article. Is that NPOV? SalvNaut22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

There is an entire article., Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks here, which is to address those issues. --Haemo22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I can't find this, or any related, information there but my question is shouldn't "at least" an overview of those issues be given in the main article.SalvNaut22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Why? This is a question of "'responsibility"' for the attacks - and any argument which could be made that government action was too slow, or inadequate, is extremely distant from the proximate cause of a handful of terrorists. If you're going to apportion blame for the attacks, suggestions of government inaction - which are roundly denied by many - would play such a small part that giving them any mention on the page about the attacks would constitute undue weight. --Haemo22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Moreover, why are we discussing this here? Does this have anything to do with systematic bias - because I haven't seen anyone argue that. Why is this not being discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question? --Haemo22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Oh, it has. But I must admit that I bring this up here because, firstly, there is an opportunity, secondly, because of lack of belief in discussing on the talk page. I might be prejudiced, I'd like to hope that this is only it. SalvNaut22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

What? I don't understand - the talk page appears to be full of discussion, and I have discussed there too. My question is, why is this a systematic bias issue, rather than just an attempt to move discussion away from a page where interested editors can participate in it? --Haemo22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does the September 11, 2001 attacks article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on that page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

There is an entire article devoted to fringe theories about what happened, and a section in the article. The underlying narrative of the events is not seriously questioned by many credible sources, government-based or otherwise. --Haemo00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+ "tiny-minority" + +

While I was away from home, this place has been very wild. Mr. Oneismany, calm down, please. Many people have been fighting like this for many years. I feel the same way as you do. But Wikipedia does not work that way at this point. We have to approach different way. I am asking them to show facts at least. Theories can be described at 9/11 conspiracy theory at this point. We should add facts gradually and let's build up right articles.

+

Mr. Haemo, I am still waiting for the quote regarding "NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence." --Shoons03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't understand what you're asking - as I said, that's an interpretation of neutral point of view - specifically, undue weight. ---07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

That's your interpretation. I need a citation. Thta's the Wikipedia way. That's what makes Wikipedia reliable source for other people. I still do not know if the statement is NPOV or not. It can be merely your opinion. --Shoons12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm being charitable, because your English isn't your first language - but it is totally acceptable to paraphrase policy in such a way. If you want a quote that says essentially the same thing - here's a quote from undue weight.

+ + +

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, "'and may not include tiny-minority views at all"'.

+ + +

Do you understand how that says essentially the same thing I said above? --Haemo21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you! Now let's talk about "tiny-minority". How do you define "tiny-minority" or "minority"

+ + Is half of New York "tiny-minority"? + +

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

+ + Is 1/3 of American "tiny-minority"? + Do you think 6,000,000 people is "tiny-minority"? + +

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

+

--Shoons16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Neither of these surveys support your assertion - these surveys do not point out what they believe happened. The article "does" mention that some people believe the US government was involved in the attacks, which is totally in line with neutral point of view. --Haemo20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am just asking you the/your definition of "tiny-minority". I just showed you some examples. --Shoons01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ surveys required? + +

Since you are saying "Neither of these surveys support your assertion", I am asking the next question. Do we need to have surveys for every single item to determine "tiny-minority"?--Shoons01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No? I honestly don't even know what you're looking for here. This is totally confused, and I don't understand what's going on here. --Haemo01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am just trying to clarify what you are talking about. Because you are accusing us as "tiny-minority", I bet you have some good proofs that show us we are "tiny-minority". Please answer the question above regarding "tiny-minority", too. I need your/the definition of "tiny-minority".

+ + +

I'm not accusing you of anything - and "definition" has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia's guidelines are not written in code - it's plain English. The onus is not on me to provide some kind of evidence of unpopularity here - I don't even know how one would do such a thing - especially since I'm not even sure what you're advocating to be included. --Haemo03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I just want to understand what is your definition of the words that you are telling us, because other people disagree with you, too. I just want to play fair by Wikipedia's guideline.

+ + +

If the guideline says you are right, there is no argue here.--Shoons11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This entire "article" consists of 100% Bush administration invented fairy tales. Not a shred of it is supported by objective evidence. All of the actual objective evidence proves that the fairy tale told by this article is definitely untrue. And the vast majority of the public, even in the USA, knows this. There is something desperately wrong with Wikipedia when a tiny majority of gullibe, brainwashed fools is able to 100% dominate the content. See article: "Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story" here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=3553

+ + +

That poll doesn't come close to suggesting what you think it suggests. Also, please read 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Please cast your mind back to the awful moments when you were perhaps watching the events of 9/11 unfold live on TV, or in real life on the streets of NY. There's the horror and disbelief of the planes hitting the towers, but the disbelief associated with the falling of the towers is something else....The thought arises...from the gut....""No, that's not possible. How is that possible?" "

+

If it were a disaster movie the film would loose all credibility at that point because we have an innate sense of how things operate in the physical world which FX people are paid to get right. But that thought dissolves quite quickly in the realization that this is really happening, that the buildings and the aeroplanes have real people in them. We let the anguish and anger create a momentum which allows us to be led up the garden path and that gut sense is forgotten. Even the equivocation and brazen subterfuge demonstrated by the US government passes unnoticed because our eyes are fixed on the ‘baddies’ roughly framed on our behalf.

+

Not even scientific research ascertains facts, it only gathers evidence towards a theory; and most scientists will admit that their intuition plays a big part in knowing where to look and what to look for. Please remember that moment of disbelief and approach this page with an intuition rather than the cold, calculated denial that is evident as it stands. I’m not talking here of the denial of alternative theories, I’m talking of the denial of bias that this page shows towards so called accepted version of events. It doesn’t even say…”The accepted version of the events are…” which would be in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. --Iwanbrioc09:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ fringe theories + +

How do you know a theory is fringe or not? Since you do not show unpopularity. Obviously many people are trying to add the facts and you keep denying. I'd like to know the/your defeinition of "fringe theory". How do we know if it is fringe or not when you do not provide any evidence of unpopularity. --Shoons11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Fringe - as in, not widely supported by experts on the subject. It's not a trick phrase or something. --Haemo20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

So called "9/11 conspiracy theory" is widely supported by experts on the subject.--Shoons00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No, they're not? I don't know what else to tell you. What you are saying is not the case, and you have no evidence to support it. This has been explained repeatedly on the talk page for 9/11, yet you insist dragging it on our there. --Haemo01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You do not have any evidence to support either because you already have mentioned above that you will not provide it. If you do, show us. --Shoons03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You seriously don't understand the problem with asking me to show you that something doesn't exist, do you? --Haemo04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Why do you say "something doesn't exist"? If something doesn't exist, no argue before or now. —The preceding ) 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

You're asking me to advance evidence that a given theory is not popular. I.e. that the popularity of a given theory does not exist. --Haemo22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. So are you talking about pancake theory?--Shoons02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I have no idea how this even constitutes a reply to my last statement. No? --Haemo02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am sorry I skipped the logic. I am not saying the popularity of a given theory does not exist. I am just saying pancake theory can exist but we consider it is one of the theory. So are the other thories. It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. But is panckae theory fringe thory?--Shoons02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

There is much scientific evidence suggesting insider (Govt) actions leading to the deaths caused at 9/11 (one specific paper just written this past month by Dr. Steven E. Jones - http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf ) along with many other professionals papers at the website www.journalof911studies.com... also a great site is www.vt911.org where vermonters had successfully petitioned to start an independent forensic investigation of the 911 events.. external from the govt who seems to be covering up what they likely have done and still will not answer questions regarding. read up and learn about everything that did happen and make a real judgement on the way things DID happen

+ + +

If your "pancakce theory" is the mainstream account, then no. --Haemo03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Another theory can be shown because you can not show that another theory is fringe. But I do not think 1/3 of American is fringe.--Shoons04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This is not true, and I pointed out why above. Your numbers do not say what you think they say. --Haemo07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

For example, in Japan 0.8% of population is Christian. I say it is fringe. But we mention these small tiny cult groups. So should we eliminate them according to your logic?--Shoons01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

We mention it in Japan and Demographics of Japan, not Asia. --Haemo02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am just telling you an example. Religion in Japan tells about Christian. 0.8% of Japanese is Christian so we should delete them. Is it what you are saying?--Shoons03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ science vs. pseudoscience + +

according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewCommon objections and clarifications

+ + Giving "equal validity" + +

I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

+ + +

I would like to know how you understand this.--Shoons11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

What do you mean? That's just a statement of someone's belief - I don't hold that belief. --Haemo20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

As you know, this statemetn came from the guideline. What I am saying is that science is what so called "9/11 conspracy theory" is and pseudoscience is what US government or related people are saying. That's how I see regarding this statement. So I wonder how you see this statement.--Shoons00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No, that statement is a question posed as a frequently asked question. It is then answered below. In fact, considering that it's explicitly explained as a mistaken impression, your endorsement of the argument implies that you don't really understand neutral point of view. --Haemo01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

OK, I do not understand. That's why I am asking. Please explain. When you say neutral point of view, please quote so that I know what you are exactly talking about. And which part is wrong with science:pseudoscience=sphear earth:flat earth=so called "9/11 conspiracy theory":"government theory"? --Shoons03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Read the section that follows what you quoted above. --Haemo04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQThere's no such thing as objectivity states "we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them."

+

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQLack of neutrality as an excuse to delete, too!--Shoons15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

That's not the section which follows it:

+ + +

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." --Haemo22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The following statement is

+

Writing for the "enemy"

+

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

+ + +

the answer is "It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view."

+ + +

It still does not say what you are talking about. I am sorry but I can not find what you are talking about. --Shoons02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"'That's not the statement which follows your original quote"'. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, but I am frankly getting very tired of this. --Haemo02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm sorry but this statement is the following statement of Giving "equal validity". Or am I seeing a wrong quote? If you just copy the statement and show me, it would be quicker. I simply can not find what you are talking about.--Shoons02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You didn't quote the entire of "giving equal validity". You quoted the incorrect presumption, and not the answer to it! Furthermore, you "agreed" with that that incorrect presumption. --Haemo03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes I did. I did not chagne any words at all. I just added "blockquote". It is correct presumption. relation between flat earth and government theory is correct.--Shoons04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Okay, let's walk through this, because you appear to have a great deal of problems with this topic.

+

"'YOU QUOTED THIS"':I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

+

"'I said to post the next section of text, which is this:"' Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

+

The thing "you posted" is a "frequent objection" to NPOV. What "I posted" is the "response to the objection". Do you understand now? You "agree" with the objection - and haven't read the clarification for some reason. You also are attempting to read in some vacuous analogy into the objection, which not only doesn't fit, but also doesn't "matter", since the objection is "incorrect" in the first place. Does this make sense to you now? --Haemo07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Now I see. Thanks. But does it mean that you can eliminate the another opinion? —The preceding ) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

It depends on the context. --Haemo21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ structural failure + +

I see you do not see what I see. Let's talk about this.

+ + "Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. " + +

I think this is pseudoscience. All three building collapsed to its footprint. What a coincident! If so, could you explain more detail and could you describe articles that showing somebody sued the building engineer or builders, etc? If you explain with controlled demolition theory, it would make sense. I thought those building were called "indestructible building" when they had a fire on February 13, 1975 and a bombing on February 26, 1993.

+

Since we do have both ) 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

+ + +

That's super. However, as Collapse of the World Trade Center will show you, this view is not widely held by experts. We, as editors, are not here to make judgment calls about what did, or did not happen. As the section above notes, even if we believe something to be "pseudoscience" we are enjoined to report about it nonetheless. --Haemo21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

When the logic widely held is pseudoscience, what would you do with it?--Shoons01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Follow neutral point of view? --Haemo02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Then why don't you follow it?--Shoons03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am - you're the one who is trying to give undue weight to a fringe theory. This has been discussed "ad nauseum" on the talk page for 9/11, but you refuse to accept that, or even read the archived discussion. Instead, you've decided to bring it to this page, with no clear justification for why it is a "systematic bias" issue, and have proceeded to essentially interrogate me over this. Use the talk page if you have anything more to say, because I'm done here. --Haemo04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It was stated by eyewitnesses (fire fighters mostly) on the day of the attack that their were explosive devices in cars in the basement and planted in the lobby, it's been proven by many scientists that these were the causing of the structure. Because if the structures colapse began at the top it would have taken roughly 45 seconds to fall completley because of the resistance from the impact on each floor, however it fell to the ground at 15 seconds (they both did roughly) which tells us either the floors were already broken (caused by bombs) or that the initial collapse started at the bottom of the tower. Also it should be noted that these 2 were the first and only steel beam structures in history to collapse do to "fire damage" and it is a large coincidence that both of the towers could fall from this.

+ + +

On the other hand, there is video evidence that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were struck by airliners. Peter Grey23:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+
+ The collapsing time + +

Due to the spam prootection, I am posting the answer for Haemo here.

+ + +

The falling speed is stated here.

+

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in "'ten seconds"', killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside ........."（commission report page 305/pdf page)

+ + +

Not amateur, the official report said so. You are saying "'your calculation"' but you are daring Newton physics is wrong. Newton physics is correct unless you try to figure out extremely small things or large things. Now when you calculate it, if you can, the value is very close to "'ten seconds"'. If you can not calculate it, please go back to school and learn real math, please. Then we can talk each other. The value is based without air resistence. With air resistence it can be 10 seconds or more depend on th density and shape, etc. If the expert is real, he should consider resistence of the steel, concrete, glass, air and so on. Even air is important. That's why you see squibes.--Shoons07:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm no physics expert, but weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?" 07:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"weren't the Twin Towers "extremely large things?"" In physics terms, no. Although the geometry of the towers is the reason they fell straight. Peter Grey10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

We already know the connection between gravity and things falling down. "he should consider resistance of the steel, concrete, glass, air". Exactly. Calculate the behaviour of the remaining part of the building "under impact loading" and "'show that the times are appreciably different"'. And do remember that the part of the building we're interested in was "behind" the dust cloud. Peter Grey10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The building was collapsing ahead of cloud, if you have not seen it, please take a look at it. And again ten seconds according to official story and this ten second is equivalent to duration of free fall. --Shoons02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ The last question + +

Thank you for your answers. I guess Systemic bias was useless and this place's discuss regarding NPOV will not go anywhere. I just give up for now. I have a question. This is not about bias. Can you solve this? I am just curios.

+ + \int_0^t gtdt=417\, + + + +

"g"=9.8

+ + +

What is "t"?

+

--Shoons03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This board really isn't for that, so you know. Try the reference desk. --Haemo05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

That's what I expected. This is a very easy basic calculation. If you can answer the question above right away, then here is no argument. I am sorry I forgot to tell you about constant value g=9.8.--Shoons10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

For those who don't know, gravity is constant acceleration, not constant velocity. Peter Grey11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you for your comment. That's good point but I was just asking as general math calculation not as physics so it really did not matter. --Shoons12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Like you said, this was a pretty easy calculation (t is about 9.23). I know you're trying to make the point that the towers fell at free fall speed, but this is the most easily debunked argument of all CT arguments. If the towers fell at free fall speed, then why did the debris fall much more quickly? 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Pretty close to free fall, isn't it? No scientist in truth movement argues "exact" free fall time, however most debunkers stick to arguments like yours. This won't lead anywhere (isn't that what debunkers hope for?). I'd prefer to see debunking of http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", or another study that confirms, or not, soundness of NIST report because as it is shown http://stj911.org/actions/NIST_DQA_Petition.pdf in this petition the report was not scientific with regard to NIST's own rules. SalvNaut20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

the debris did not fall much more quickly. only slightly quicker. the debris didnt have a building under it. the debris was blasted OUT. if the demolitions had been fired slightly quicker, the building would have fallen at the same speed as the debris. 69.11.120.15118:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

And what does all of this have to do with the article? Wow, an equation. And supposed video evidence of something that has yet to be substantially backed up. Yeah, can we get back to talking about the article rather than the incident? --Golbez18:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

hey! look everyone! its doublethink - lets forget about the incident because the incident isnt important...only the article is! the article! how can you forget the incident and not the article? the article is based on the incident...redundancies! 142.165.95.8320:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + Amateur, qualitative analyses of the incident are not relevant to the article, and the various deliberate hoaxes are related only tangentally. And would everyone convinced that 1 WTC and 2 WTC ressemble demolitions please get a video of a "'real"' controlled demolition rather than just blindly believing some folklore you heard? Peter Grey21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC) + + + +

I was going to finish this discussion but it seems to be going on so I am making a comment. When somebody posts something at high school textbook level, would you reject it? This topic is about very basic high school level math or physics (at least in Japan). We should not consider this Amateur, qualitative analyses. This is just like 1+1=2. Would you blame people as Amateur, qualitative analyses when we are discussing 1+1=2 or not.

+

Now debris should not drop fast as free fall speed because of air resistance. When you see the building, building is collapsing ahead of the frying debris. If somebody jumps off from the roof of twin tower when it started to collapse, he would see the roof all the way down. Isn’t it amazing?--Shoons02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The point is, that your calculation is based on amateur analysis of videotape, which has been roundly rejected by experts in the field, who are actually qualified to analyze this material. Yes, I can do basic calculus too - that doesn't make me an expert on building collapses, or videotape analysis. --Haemo02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This "is" amateur, qualitative analyses, and it is not as simple as 1+1=2....but it doesn't matter. Please stop the SOAP-ing. If you keep arguing facts I'm going to move all this to the reference desk. Rx StrangeLove RxS 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This section used to be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks so that this section should no belong here anyway. So if you can move to the place where other people without bias can see, please do so. This "is not even" an analysis. It's just a simple math equation like 1+1=2, maybe depend on his/her education. You would fix English grammars or spells when they are wrong in the article. What I am talking about is as basic as grammar/spell.--Shoons15:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Any "systemic" (or other) bias is yours. The facade fell "may have fallen" at near-free-fall speed, but we have no idea whether the interior of the building had already collapsed, because of the dust clouds.

+

Considering the number of people associated with movie industry who (claim to) disagree with the official findings, it would be "'very"' surprising if no one with the ability and interest to "fake" a home video of the collapse had appeared. Videos should be ignored until authenticated. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Did you read official report? The official report says "'in ten seconds"'. "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside ........." If you are on offical side, you should read the official story at least. --Shoons02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Why all this talk of free fall speeds? I think the NIST report says it was free fall speeds. As an analogy, think of a bowling ball falling through a houseof cards. Arguing that the resistance of the air and the cards would somehow alter the characteristics of the fall misses the entire magnitude of the falling bowling ball. The dynamic forces of the falling floors greatly exceeded the static forces designed to support the strcuture. The building was never designed to withstand falling floors. --Tbeatty03:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Why? Because a "basic grammar" of physics is wrong. Once you consider air resistance it is not high school level in Japan however everybody should know even air resistance greatly reduce the speed of objects. Now, when you consder resistance of the steel, even if it was weaken or what ever, and concrete which has higher yield to heat, it is simply"' impossible"' to fall down as fast as free fall speed without air resistance. Furthermore NIST told it was "free fall speeds" and the commission report says it was 10 seconds so what I am saying is not my own analysis anymore. How you understand is very wrong.--Shoons14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You are incorrect. Nearly as fast as free fall is certainly possible and indeed likely. A bowling ball would fall indistinguishably as fast as free fall from that height as it would not reach Terminal velocity until very near the ground if at all. This is tentch of a second difference in fall times. We are only talking about 1000 ft or so which isn't enough distance to obtain substantial velocity that air resistance would be significant. From my calculation, a free fall object from 1000 ft would reach 252 ft/sec. That's 170 mph. I estimate the terminal velocity for the mass of that building to be upward of 600 mph. --Tbeatty18:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Shoons: stop avoiding the question. You need to estimate the performance of the collapsing tower and show it doesn't fit the facts. Your intuition that it "had to be longer" doesn't count. How much extra time? 30 seconds? 1 second? 0.4 seconds? Peter Grey15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

As a mathematician who has worked with structural engineers, I "can" say it's "possible" that a building can collapse in less time than the normal fall time of debris from the top of the building, as the collapsing building can pull air with it, thereby reducing the effect of air resistance. (Of course, if someone powered up an powerful electromagnet in the subbasement, and the steel "'hadn't"' softenedSoftened steel is no longer ferromagnetic, it could fall "faster" than free fall. I suspect someone would have noticed metal objects flying "toward" the building, however.) mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It is called "squibe". I can see all over these buildings.No major damage to WTC7, anyway.--Shoons16:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Even if you spelled it correctly, "that" is not relevant. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, 'Squib'. Have you ever seen the videos of WTC12 falling down? You see explosions everywhere I though they are called squibs. They seem to pulling down the buildings so you are correct. The building fell down faster than free fall speed. Now terminal speed in the air really does not matter in this case. The resistance is not the air, they are steel and concrete, etc.--Shoons03:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Calculation of building collapse + +

I was going to fish this discussion but you cannot admit your incapability of math and physics.

+

Building is 417 m and 110 stories. I do not know the distance from the floor to the ceiling. But let’s assume 3.5 m unless somebody knows it. It makes the thickness of the floor 29cm. I do not consder any resistance so basically the floors are in the air. It is not realistic but it would be the fastest it can go. I will not consider the squibs. If you want me to consider, it is fine but you just admit they were controlled demolitions. So this discussion would be over.

+ + +

The first drop is \int_0^t gtdt=3.5\,

+

t=0.84(s)

+

v=gt=8.28(m/s)

+

The second drop is

+

8.28*10m=11mv (10 floors are droping in this case)

+

v=7.52(m/s)

+

\int_0^t (v+gt)dt=3.5\,

+

t=0.37(s)

+

v=7.52+g*0.37=11.146(m/s)

+

The third drop is

+

11.146*11m=12mv (10 floors are droping in this case)

+ + +

(continues) If you think values are wrong, I will fix them.

+ + +

You're not impressing anyone with your knowledge of elementary calculus and elementary physics. We know how to calculate integrals. 04:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Aside from the business of just making up the step with the 10 floors falling in unison, what you are really interested in is momentum, not velocity, and even that gives you an upper bound, not a lower bound. Peter Grey04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This kind of discussion should always go around sources here on Wikipedia. In this case the sources would be http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf Mechanics of Progressive Collapse, Bazant Verdue and its critique http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf NIST and Dr. Bazant - Simultaneous Failure, Gordon Ross, ME. This only applies to the mechanics of WTC12 collapse - progressive collapse style which has not been studied well at all (even Bazant states that). WTC7 collapse features, as far as I know, to this day has only been studied (and published) by the people from 9/11 Truth movementhttp://journalof911studies.com/volume/200611/911-Acceleration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf. NIST only measured collapse times but none conclusions were drawn and their full study is quite delayed for unknown reasons. SalvNaut07:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Remind me again why we're performing basic calculus on an article talk page to verify facts? I thought we were supposed to write an article using reliable sources - but apparently I was mistaken. --Haemo07:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Agreed, this is the very essence of original research. --Golbez11:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I am just checking your education level. Do you think kindergarten kids should edit this page? If you do not have proper education to judge this matter, even if we show you sources, you cannot judge properly due to lack of basic education. People with Science or engineering degree should edit this page and I do have science degree. If you do not understand this kind of basic calculus, obviously, you are not even entitled to delete articles regarding scientific issues.—Preceding )

+ + +

Anymore insulting commentary such as this will be removed in the future and I have explained why on your talkpage. This article is not a scientific one...it's a historical one.--MONGO21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

If you think I am insulting, I am sorry. But it is true that somebody who is capable of understanding the calculation above have to judge it. And as I mentioned above, I was going to quit this useless discussion anyway. But I am just trying to explain my calculation since somebody told me to explain it. I know it would be useless. So long!--Shoons23:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I have a couple of engineering degrees and I am a Registered Professional Engineer and you are mistaken in your understanding, application and interpretation of the above equations as they relate to the dynamic and static building forces. Regardless, my view is not notable or verifiable and neither is yours and so neither will make it into the article. --Tbeatty00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't feel any compelling need to justify my academic credentials to you, because your assertion is patently untrue. As said, this article is a historical one - all that is really required is an ability to read secondary sources, and fairly explain their positions, and give them relative weights based on their authoritativeness. Some "test" of our ability to perform trivial calculations is absurd, and you need to stop this nonsense. --Haemo02:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ San Diego Grand Jury article? + +

There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.

+

In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy (http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

lol "Chief Investigator Jim Hoffman"....I'm sorry, who exactly is the San Diego citizens Grand Jury? Rx StrangeLove RxS 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Good question. Oneismany...if some articles don't cover things then feel free to write them.--MONGO05:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Holy shit, I just read the "Citizens Grand Jury" article, and I got that bad ole feeling -- the same one I got when I first read about the Khmer Rouge's "Peoples Tribunals". The 9/11 CT'ers aren't just stupid, they're dangerous -- we haven't seen propaganda like that in the U.S. since the days of Uncle Joe. It's chilling. Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 22:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Perhaps they should also hire someone with more than a 3rd grade education in English to write up their next press release, too. --Golbez22:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + This is not a court proceeding. This is a group of academics who put on a dog and pony show at the Student Council Chambers in the Aztec Center of San Diego State University, then wrote a press release about it. - Crockspot05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) + + +
+
+ "For the First Time, New York Links a Death to 9/11 Dust" + +

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24dust.html?ex=1337659200en=871bd1f50af7df48ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss

+

1. I cannot find 2749 or 2750 count anywhere in the article. According to the news article this is official.

+

2. The news article and the wikipedia article mentions James Zagroda. Perhaps a mention to Felicia Dunn-Jones is in order, since it is "beyond reasonable doubt" that her death was caused by wtc dust (unlike Zagroda's).

+

+ + + 67.80.122.91 + + 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC) + +

+ + +

3. ABC News reports: "The city said the Sept. 11 death toll at the trade center stands at 2,750." but later adds: "Dunn-Jones will be listed on the Sept. 11 memorial with the names of 2,973 people killed on Sept. 11 in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C., memorial foundation spokeswoman Lynn Rasic said. " http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/national/main2845478.shtml?source=mostpop_story someone want to take care of this? Mcas16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

From BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6689973.stm 2,750 Jumping cheese @ct 00:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ WTC death toll + +

According to http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/05/24/wtc.dust/index.html this CNN article, "the September 11 death toll at the World Trade Center now stands at 2,750." However, our article says "2,603 died and another 24 remain listed as missing." Which one is correct? Kaldari22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The 9/11 Death Toll is all over the place in various wiki articles, going as high as 2997 in some places (other pages).

+

Anyway, the official toll is a bit higher now - "New York's chief medical examiner said he was certain the dust contributed to Felicia Dunn-Jones' death from a rare lung disease five months after 9/11" from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6689973.stm this BBC news article. (Incidentally, this article puts the toll at 2,750 also). I can't wiki the wiki, so could someone with sufficient uberness please update the main article with a note about Felicia Dunn-Jones' death being attibuted to the dust and therefore the terrorists.

+ +
+
+ Steel + +

Is it worth mentioning that the steel recovered from the site (about 330,000t) was sold to other countries? some of it was used to make cutlery, some was used for pots and pans, car doors etc. my source is a documentary on recycling of steel. ∆ Qz3 "'Algonquin"' 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't see why, considering that has little, if anything, to do with the actual attacks. --Haemo12:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Many people believe it relates to the investigation following the attacks. For experts to adequately investigate the cause of the collapse, analysis of the steel is believed to be important. The designers considered it a major engineering feat, designed to withstand airplane collisions. The causes should be of interest to engineers, especially since the collapse is an apparent failure of the intent of the designers. Shipping the steel off before and adequate analysis could be made is believed to be a indication of the inadequacy of the investigation. Thus, if we can find reliable sources for the removal of the steel and the questions many are asking regarding that removal, I believe it should be included. Kevin77v 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

In that case, it's probably better on on the main "investigation" page, Collapse of the World Trade Center, since it's a relatively unknown theory. --Haemo20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The red links on the page appear to all be broken. These are not the blue links, obviously —Preceding )

+ + +

The links aren't broken, if you find a link which is in red it means there is no article about the subject on wikipedia yet, but an editor thinks there should be. You can help fix them by clicking on them and writting an article on the subject in the window that opens. Jackaranga01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Many statements incorrectly referenced as irrefutable facts. + +

This article and its architects are clearly only interested in the U. S. government's official conspiracy theory on the matter. The article states that it was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, a "fact" that has not ever been established with Imperical evidence. The perpetrators are listed as Al Quaeda and Osama Bin Laden, when no concrete evidence linking them to these dastardly crimes has ever been produced. Please remember that Osama Bin Laden has never been tried and convicted for any such involvement, so stating his certain guilt is misleading and wholly incorrect.

+

9/11 conspiracy theories are marginalized and even trivialized in this article, even though recent polls show that up to 75% of American citizens doubt the official story of 9/11 as presented by the U.S. government, and over 33% of Americans now believe the attacks were an inside job orchestrated by our own government.

+

Because of these facts, and many others, I request that all statements regarding the nature of the attacks and the identities of the perpetrators be edited to include appropriate wording, such as "alleged" and "thought to be."

+

Regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, they deserve more than irresponsible dismissal as baseless and irrelevant. The polls clearly show what people are coming to believe more and more about these awful crimes, and to trivialize the opinions of 75% of the U. S. populace in this way is nothing short of criminal.

+ + +

Please read the archived discussion of this page, for previous debate addressing your concerns, and explaining why the article is in its current form. --Haemo03:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Reliable sources support the existing version of the article. And not every doubt about the so-called 'official story' (which is a different article anyway) is based on conspiracy theory folklore. Peter Grey03:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The unsigned commentor, (as I'm sure has also been noticed by many would-be contributors to this page) is engaging in an effort of futility, as it is of little use putting anything forward here that sounds the slightest bit contrary to the official story of 9/11. This article accentuates that fact that Wikipedia is not necessarily a factual resource. It is to much greater degree a representation of the popular opinion using choice references to support the opinion. Wikipedia is a majority rules system. If the majority of people believe an incorrect theory, that theory is going tLet the reader decide what the facts are, not have Wikipedia decide for them.

+

o be the prevalent theory shown in an article and probably presented as true. Majority rules not necessarily truth. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

+

Kevin77v 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This article demonstrates the reverse - unscientific yet popular folklore is rejected in favour of verifiable facts. Peter Grey15:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Precisely.--MONGO17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This article needs to be a little more encyclopedic. Whether or not the official story is true or not is irrelavant. The information the article presents need to be stated for what it is: The mainstream or popular account. The article need not cave to conspiracy theories and claim them as fact, nor should it place doubt about the official story. It really should not state any account as fact. To me it's very simple. Why can we not just state what the government is puporting as just that: the account the government is purporting. This doesn't say it isn't true, nor does it say it is false. Simple statements like, "Immediately following the attacks, president Bush indicated government intelligence implicates Al Queada...." or "According to mainstream news outlets...", etc, etc, would not imply falsehood, yet not be stated as a certain fact.

+

Instead, what happens in this article instead is that the government and mainstream account is stated as a set of facts. Anything outside the these accounts is ommitted. Why is this the case? Are all things that comes from these sources undoubtable facts? Are all sources outside of the mainstream automatically false? How is this encyclopedic? We should state everything in this article for what it is: the account that the popular publications and sources are purporting. The account may be true, but that is irrelevant. It is not our job to decide this for the reader. Kevin77v 17:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Unless you want to continue to habitually ignore the facts, you'll have to accept that the so-called "official story" is the factually accurate one. You are calling for us to present the factually accurate story as something other than accurate, which is unencyclopedic. 07:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You may well be correct about your point of view that the official account is factual, however, there are a significant amount of people who dispute that. My point is that the Wikipedia article should not have any stance at all. The article should state exactly what happened, the stuff that isn't in dispute: Four planes were hijacked and crashed into the WTC, Pentagon, and one downed, etc, etc...Then instead of asserting who is responsible, state who makes the claims that these individuals are responsible, and what their claims are, and how the sources have described the events. In doing so, the article should clearly indicate that this is what the sources are saying, and which sources are saying it, as opposed to stating it as though they are factual. All stuff that is in dispute should be presented as a belief of the sources.

+

This is exactly how the JFK assassination article is presented. Even though, as with 9/11, the majority of people believe the government's account of the event, a significant number disagree. So the JFK article doesn't state the government's account as fact, rather it states the government's account as it should: as an account of the government. This article should do the same. Kevin77v 13:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + It's not a dispute simply because some people (pretend to) disagree. That would be like saying the Elvis Presley article should not assert whether or not he is still alive. If there is a genuine noteworthy dispute, identify the specific issue, and verify that its validity has not been properly rejected (yes, that means go through "'all"' the archived talk). New evidence would of course be welcome, but most objections to this article are not new issues and are not mere differences of opinion - they have already been demonstrated to be invalid. Peter Grey05:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC) + + + +

What makes you think "the majority of people believe the government's account of the event"?. The Warren Commission report has been clearly shown to be not a factual account of the events. Pedant User:Pedant 07:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Suicide Attacks + +

This has probably already been said, but would it make more sense to change 'suicide' to homicide? Technically, suicide as defined by Wikipedia, "is the act of intentionally taking one's own life. The term "suicide" can also be used to refer to a person who has killed himself or herself."

+

Granted, these people did end up ending their own lives intentionally, but they did so by killing numerous others as well. I simply believe a better word could be chosen. Am I wrong?

+

EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign. --Tarage09:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The fact that the attacks were suicide attacks is an important tactical detail. Peter Grey15:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Tactical yes, and I understand the importance of saying these people took their own lives as well as thousands of others, but suiside... seems to singular. Are there no verbavors out there who can provide a better one? --Tarage09:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ The word "alleged" absolutely needs to be added, for accuracy and Neutral Point of View + +

The hijackers are only alleged hijackers. The perpetrators are only alleged to be Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

+

In the interest of fairness and accuracy, as well as truth, I request again that we come to a consensus to include words such as "alleged," "allegedly," "reportedly," etc., where appropriate, involving any of the accusations (allegations) that the article asserts. The people in question were not tried and convicted of the crimes accused (alleged). Therefore it is unfactual and inaccurate to state such things as fact.

+

I submit that Wikipedia's touted "Neutral Point of View" supports the addition of words such as "alleged" to every single instance where a person or group is accused of a crime in this article.

+

Regardless of what you believe or think you know, stating a person's guilt without a conviction upheld in a court of law is the equivalent of libel. Are you more interested in maintaining a libelous article, or one that presents a neutral point of view? Declaring someone's guilt where none has been proven is not a neutral point of view, and goes against everything Wikipedia is about.

+

+ + + Ultimist + + 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC) + +

+ + +

This has been extensively discussed. In fact, you can see this exact same question being answered on this page, and "numerous" times in the archives. Read through those if you want to understand why this is inappropriate -- chiefly, read about undue weight. --Haemo07:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

According to Wikipedia policies, I am allowed to post my opinions regarding changes to an article, to try to gain consensus. In fact, Wikipedia's policies encourage such discussion. If you dispute Wikipedia encouraging this kind of exchange, take it up with the owners of the site. Every cited source's assertions about a person or group's guilt is nothing more than an allegation. The addition of "alleged" and similar language is supported by the fact that every cited source is full of implicit allegations. Any cited source that states "Osama bin Laden did this..." or "Al Qaeda did that..." is making an allegation. Ultimist07:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm not discouraging you -- I'm telling you that it's already been discussed "ad nauseum", and you're not brining anything new to the table. All of your arguments, and concerns have already been discussed, and addressed -- unless you have some shocking new evidence published by reliable sources which is so stunning and definitive that it causes a total re-examination of the entire narrative, you're not going to get anywhere. Again, see about undue weight to understand why your interpretation of neutral point of view is misguided... or any of the numerous other explanations in the archives. --Haemo07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You are missing the point, I think. Support for adding the word "alleged" is in every source cited within this article. Every single source makes allegations. Remember, the facts have not been proven in a court of law. In the United States, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not the other way around. I also repeat that the act of declaring someone's guilt in written form without a court conviction to back it up is libelous. Ultimist07:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No, I think you're missing the point, and misapplying neutral point of view. Josef Mengele was never tried for his crime - yet look at his article. Again, see undue weight before commenting further. And please read the archives. I'm not going to comment further until you do both of those. --Haemo07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I've read undue weight numerous times and I've read pertinent portions of the archives, both today and before today. It seems to me that undue weight is given in this article to assertions that are not proven to be facts, quite frankly. Cited sources state bin Laden's involvement, do they not? Is such a statement not an allegation? I am not adding undue weight to this fact, nor am I misapplying NPOV. Support for rewording the stated crimes to alleged crimes is implicit in statements from cited sources. Cited sources allege bin Laden's involvement, simply by making reference to his involvement. Allegations are implicit to the cited sources. They "allege" his involvement. This is not difficult to understand. Ultimist07:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

By the way, Josef Mengele's cited sources lead back to works and testimonials from people who were subjected to his crimes, and/or people who witnessed it. They lived it. No reasonable comparison can be drawn between that article and this, since there is no eyewitness testimony as to bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, why is Bush "not concerned" with bin Laden if he truly did orchestrate the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil in the history of the world? Please, in the future, try not to put this discussion off course by comparing apples and oranges. 9/11 and Mengele do not compare. Ultimist08:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

BTW, The FBI does not list anything related to 9/11 in any of osama bin laden's crimes for which he is wanted. In their OWN WORDS, there is no evidence to connect Osama to 9/11. This doesn't mean that the alleged hijackers and alleged al Qaeda masterminding are not true, but it recognizes that these are just allegations, as yet unproved. Whether the FBI feels it's likely or not, they can't act without evidence (or at least, aren't supposed to). Wikipedia needs to remain neutral, but not claiming that one as yet unproven version of events is the only version of events, and by withholding words like "alleged" when all that exist are allegations. In the case of Mengele, there is overwhelming evidence, photographic, documentary, eyewitnesses, and so on. I'm not saying Osama didn't do it, I'm saying until some evidence is presented, it's merely the most likely theory of many. -- 28 Jun 2007

+ +
+
+ Why are the government sources assumed to be totally factual? + +

Why is it assumed that the US government sources, and their commissioned studies, constitute reliable sources. Perhaps the government sources are totally accurate, however, if it is true that the elements within government were responsible, negligent, or merely incompetent, it is reasonable to believe they would do anything to conceal these facts. This opens up the possibility that the government sources are not necessarily reliable. Indeed, there are many people who are critical of the their efforts at investigating the events and the results they've come up with (even non-conspiracy theorists). I'm not saying that there necessarily is a conspiracy, but if there is, we are using only perpetrator sources to determine what is fact. Then we are telling the reader that these are all established facts, rather than saying what are the sources of the story, truth or not. I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

At last, a voice of reason! I agree with your post 100%, Kevin77v. If we assume for the sake of argument that the government IS involved, then those who constitute the "consensus" on this article are inadvertently assisting the perpetrators in the cover-up of their crimes. One can assume that if they ARE involved, they will be very happy with the current state of this article. That is, if such assumptions are made. Ultimist08:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Unfortunately, read the archives and you'll see reason doesn't go very far because everyone who believes the official story believes that the only reliable sources come from the government sources, their commissioned studies, and the mainstream media. I imagine that in the "world is flat" consensus of long ago, there were plenty of mainstream sources to confirm the "facts" about the earth. If conspiracy theorists are correct, it is even worse with 9/11 because the implications are immensly more frightening than terrorism, and far too disrupting to the citizens' beliefs regarding the government of the USA. No doubt, this is why even looking at the evidence is too hard for most people, who instead choose to dismiss it out of hand as ridiculous. Kevin77v08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It is "'not"' assumed that the mainstream account is correct. It "'is"' assumed that they are reliable sources, as they should be. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The issue is not that the US government source are accepted without question, but that the conspiracy theory hoax is based on sources that are demonstrably unreliable if not fraudulent. And there are many valid questions about the so-called mainstream account, such as questions of negligence. Peter Grey15:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Is the sum total of the entire history of the world considered a reliable source? No steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, before or after 9/11 when three such buildings collapsed on the same day, in the same location. And what about building 7, which was not even hit by a plane? What about NORAD standing down? What about Cheney giving the order NOT to attack the "plane" or whatever it was that hit the Pentagon? What about members of the bin Laden family being escorted safely out of the country by air, when the rest of us couldn't even fly? What about PNAC's document, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," stating the need for a "New Pearl Harbor" to allow them to meet their political goals? What about alleged hijackers' passports magically surviving temperatures that reportedly melted steel? What about people standing in the impact wounds of where the planes hit, waving at cameras and begging for help... while leaning with bare hands up against steel framework that was supposedly hot enough to be weakened?

+

I could go on and on. These are legitimate questions regarding 9/11 that this article in no way addresses. In fact, it pretends these legitimate questions don't even exist. 69.145.121.5017:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Please don't. When the towers were built, there was no steel fireproofing required. It was added years later and decades before the attacks when building codes for steel buildings changed. Why? Because steel is vulnerable to fire. You repeat the conspiracy cruft talking points with the same lack of understanding that it was created. The claim that steel buildings did not collapse due to fire prior to 9/11 is rubbish. Rosie O'Donnell is not a good source for information on bulding construction and codes. --Tbeatty15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

ZZZZZZZZZ--MONGO17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'll assume your "ZZZZZZZZZ" to mean that you couldn't refute the legitimate questions I offered up. 69.145.121.5017:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No, you simply put me to sleep with this nonsense.--MONGO17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

MONGO seems to say the above when he has no argument to give. I decided to investigate him after he completely ignored and deleted my comments on his talk page offering some genuine advice. It seems a recurring theme that MONGO is responsible for the abuse of conspiracy theorists. For the record ladies and gentlemen, I don't like conspiracies too much. I'd just rather both sides were allowed to be heard and that people like MONGO would give conflicting opinions a chance to speak. NOTE, MONGO's comments below about "you people" are not helpful. Can't everyone just get along!Doctor1116:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

By all means, please elaborate on why you see it as nonsense. Did NORAD *not* stand down? Were people *not* in the impact wounds? Did PNAC's document *not* state the need for a "New Pearl Harbor"? Have any other steel buildings EVER collapsed due to fire, in all of history? Put your knowledge and reliable sources where your mouth is, or don't bother participating in this discussion. If you have reliable sources that refute what I am saying, then share them. Arguing that something is "nonsense" is a cop out. Back up your claims. 69.145.121.5017:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + These aren't really legitimate questions, and they appear to be posed in bad faith. "What about building 7" is hardly a specific question that anyone could provide an exact answer to. Others are equally lacking context and appear to be based on faulty assumptions about temperature distribution or steel framed design. Some questions can reasonably be asked but may not be relevant to this article. Peter Grey23:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) + + + +

We have argued with you people for years about this, but you choose to not become educated and that is your fault, not mine. The article is there, it is referenced, so read it and get educated.--MONGO17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Apparently it isn't me who lacks an education. 69.145.121.5019:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It wasn't the "steel framework" against which people were leaning that was weakened; it was the steel core columns of the towers, at the center of the structures, that were weakened. Please check your facts before posting. Jpers3617:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Well, the contention is that the temperatures on the affected floors were sufficient to weaken the steel on those floors, yet miraculously those temps weren't sufficient to incinerate human beings. Whether we are talking about the frame or core, the fact is that human beings were alive and not being toasted on those floors. Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. The steel frame impact holes are where massive explosions occurred when the planes impacted. Yet, the frame was cool to the touch (evidenced by bare human hands touching it). Incidentally, the majority of the jet fuel was burned off in the initial explosions. Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. And what of NORAD standing down, and the rest? What supposed evidence will you use to sidestep those issues? Please check all the facts before posting, rather than cherry-picking supposed facts that support your argument. 69.145.121.5019:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Is it ok if we cherry pick supposed facts before commenting? Rx StrangeLove RxS 19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It is fine to do so, but not advisable if you wish to be taken seriously. 69.145.121.5019:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

No need to get repetitive. The contention is not that "the temperatures on the affected floors were sufficient to weaken the steel on those floors", but that the temperatures at the core of the buildings were sufficient to weaken steel. The temperatures in other sections of the towers ranged from somewhat hotter to much cooler. Those standing at the outer frame would have been at least 35 feet, and probably more than 65 feet, away from the core, and were additionally in open windows which were providing ventilation for the fires -- meaning, in many cases, that cooler air was being sucked into the tower.

+

What is your alternate explanation for the facts? The planes hit. Certain people survived the impact, as well as the fires. The towers then fell. I don't see valid or cogent explanation for these incidents other than that the planes, through a combination of impact damage and fire damage, weakened the structure of the towers to a point where they fell, while leaving pockets of survivability until the actual collapse point. Jpers3620:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

And what about the fact that drills were being held on the same day... drills that involved the exact scenario of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon? Coincidence? 69.145.121.5020:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

That's exactly what you (69.145.121.50) are doing; the frame was "'not"' cool to the touch, steel is a good conductor of heat, so that the core temperature could easily exceed 600 even if the concrete was cool to the touch; it's "possible" (although I tend to doubt it) that the steel temperature could exceed the maximum flame temperature, due to convection effects — the errors are endless. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The frame wasn't cool to the touch? How is it then, that human beings were touching the frame with their "'bare hands"' and not screaming in utter agony from 600 degree heat? Conclusion: The steel frame was cool enough to be touched by human hands without causing burns. Period. 69.145.121.5020:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Of course, none of your "proof" is of any relevance here anyway, as Wikipedia is not a place to PROVE anything about 9/11, pro or con. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize in a neutral manner facts reported by reputable sources. We are not a place to publish previously unpublished and undocumented "proofs." Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Cite? (And don't show me the edited videos.) mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Chew on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topicforum=125topic_id=56836 this! and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_alladdress=125x135380 THIS! Bet you don't feel so smug NOW, do you Mr. Rubin? - Crockspot20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

OMG, he's a "Researcher". Give him his own Wikipedia article. Right now. I demand it! Morton_devonshire "' nbsp;MortonDevonshirenbsp;"' · 22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

They got me there. Especially the picture where Kong stepped on the model to prove how strong it still was. No controlled demolition experiments though. I figure a could of well placed fircrackers and we'd see molten metal running out of the floors. --Tbeatty15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

LOL! How could I have forgotten?! A man with a rabbit cage and two cinder blocks will always find the truth faster and more accurately than hundreds of experts on architecture, physics, chemistry and explosives operating the most sophisticated modeling tools on the planet! Jpers3620:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

BTW, I'm done here for now. No reason to further feed the trolls. Jpers3620:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

But the laugh factor here is still fun, though of course, we really should feed the trolls, you are correct.--MONGO21:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"'comment"' - I'm fast becoming confused here. The basics of this debate from what I can see are "is what the government says a good source".. NO, obviously not. Just the mere fact that their story is disputed should be enough to throw them out as sources. (Jpers36 by the way - It's not relevant to discuss whether sources are right or wrong, as said above). To be brutally honest - 9/11, I don't "'care"' who did it. It was an evil attack that killed thousands of innocent people. Mr Bush and Osama Bin Laden have both committed crimes that could see them locked away, the way I see it: anything is possible. We may never know what really happened but what we do know is that on 11th Sept. 2001, people were murdered by either a bomb, a plane or something else destroying the World Trade Centre. That's the fact. Debate over. --Doctor1116:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Your standard is "disputted"? If that were a standard there would still be a 9/11 article and none of the conspiracy nonsense. Heck, the conspiracy nutballs are even disputing each other. And no, Bush has not committed crimes and your comparison is somewhat repulsive. And no, it wasn't "either a bomb or a plane or something else." It was a plane. That is the fact of the matter. The conspiracy crap iscovered bcause it's notable, just as the Flat Earth Society is notable. But it's notablility does not give them credibility in the world of science and facts. --Tbeatty05:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

There are reports independant of the government report as well as millions of eyewitnesses. The government also reports that the world is round and gives us GPS coordinates. We don't report these as "alleged" or any other qualifying word. --Tbeatty15:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Some people simply want to discredit the storyline by pointing out that the US government agrees with it. That might actually be enough to raise some degree of suspicion, except that the account is corroborated by many independent sources. The US government is not even a particularly important source in this case. Peter Grey20:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+ please vote + +

To return to the original point being made in this section:

+ + +

Kevin77v wr: "I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I move that we will not regard government sources as RS in this matter, and in stead of indicating doubt, clearly indicate the source of the "facts" in the wording of the article.

+

We cannot maintain that governments are reliable sources when they are caught lying all the time, can we? So please vote "'agree"' or "'disagree"'. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + "'agree"' 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC) + + + + + "'disagree"'. Violation of our core principles to state that a government source is not a (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC) + + + + + *"'comment"': You are right: we could say government and mainstream media are RS but not necessarily trustworthy. Therefor wikipedia should not take a stance, and always indicate the source in the wording. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC) + + + + + "'comment"': The question is meaningless. "Government" does not represent a single source, and each source should be assessed on its individual merits. Some sources, like the 9/11 Commission, are vulnerable to political influence, others, like NIST, are less so. Peter Grey20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC) + + + + + "'Comment"' I agree with Peter. This poll is lame. 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC) + + +
+
+ Responsibility + +

The start of this section dives right into the history of Al Qaeda, which is a subject that has its own section, and should go there. The article should begin with the fact that the main "'suspect"' ( bin Laden ) has not been charged with any crime relating to 9/11.

+

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47109

+

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

+

Simply mentioning that he has been charged with other crimes is not enough information, specifically, it must be stated somewhere that he has not be formally charged with any crime related to 9/11, and he is a suspect. Any sentence placing the blame on bin Laden (without also mentioning that he is only a suspect) should be removed from wikipedia.--Bennyxbo17:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I guess my question would be why is it so important to say that when he's already admitted responsibility? During a (rightly or wrongly) time of war I'm not sure civil courts have much input/relevance. Rx StrangeLove RxS 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

They have had ample opportunity to find evidence/hold trials, and indict him of something in the last 6 years. The more time that passes, the more interesting this fact will become. The reason why he hasn't been indicted is because " there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to the attacks" - Rex Tomb, FBI spokes person. I'm attempting to get Mr. Tomb on the record, we'll see if opinions change then.--Bennyxbo01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Did you check the date on that article? A lot has been learned since 9/27/01. 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

""'On June 5, 2006,"' the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

+ + +

"

+

By Dan Eggen

+

Washington Post Staff Writer

+

Monday, "'August 28, 2006"'; Page A13

+

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is a longtime and prominent member of the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list, which notes his role as the suspected mastermind of the deadly U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa on Aug. 7, 1998.

+

But another more infamous date -- Sept. 11, 2001 -- is nowhere to be found on the same FBI notice

+

"

+

Mr. Tomb was all too prophetic it would seem. I know you will say that the teamliberty/Muckraker quote is unreliable, that's why I am going to throw the mp3 down as the source.--Bennyxbo12:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+
+ Page needs to allow for diversified perspectives so long as they offer justification. + +

I'm not very good at editing these wikipages, but I believe the following line to be unfairly representative of 9/11:

+

These theories are not accepted as credible by mainstream journalists, scientists, or political leaders, who have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests with Al Qaeda.118119

+

I believe that the problem with this is that mainstream is by definition apart from a conspiracy theory. If these mainstream people held the views of the conspiracy theory then they wouldn't be mainstream anymore.

+

There are, however, numerous people that either through a position of power or education are important to consider when discussing the events of 9/11 that are not credited on the main page. Many of these views can be found in "9/11 and American Empire" Volume 1, edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, Olive Branch Press, 2007. To quote the book exactly,

+

"All of the eleven contributors to this volume were well-respected members of establishment organizations before they got involved in the question of 9/11. Ten of them had earned the Ph.D. Nine of them were professors at well-regarded universities; one of them was employed at Underwriters Laboratories; one was a military officer in the Pentagon. The combined weight of their testimony cannot be dismissed lightly." (Preface VIII)

+

They do offer very compelling arguments which I am not going to get into here. I feel it deserves to at least be mentioned that there are important and well educated people who offer strong evidence to the contrary of the "mainstream" belief. If wikipedia is going to be a scholarly source then it must acknowledge diversified opinions so long as they have their own justification.

+

+ + + 74.135.161.163 + + 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) + +

+ + +

It rather depends what the 'evidence' is and whether or not it is considered reliable or noteworthy "by others", not by the eleven contributors making their own claims of their self-importance. Peter Grey01:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Agreed. But to simply discredit their evidence and not have it even included as an opposing theory seems unfair. Their 'evidence' is very well cited and/or backed up by their own experience in the field. To simply discredit it because it is theirs and is not held by mainstream people doesn't follow logic at all as it is circular reasoning. Moreover, with 42% of the US Public believing that there is a cover up (according to Wall Street Journal 29 September 2003) of some sort going on, I believe that this article deserves a little more than a couple of lines of text that those who disagree with the things stated on the page simply are accepted because they are mainstream. That would make about as much sense as saying that they must be wrong because they are mainstream. If this article is truly to address the issue, the arguments that are logically sound on both sides should be presented and the reader should be allowed to come to his/her own opinion. 74.135.161.16302:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Moreover, to add to that, my argument is further justified by Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View wherein is stated:

+

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

+

"

+

+ + + 74.135.161.163 + + 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC) + +

+ + +

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon." - Naploeon. Wikipedia actually awards medals to people who contantly edit-out any thought provoking 9/11 info in articles. I've simply tried to add that "'bin Laden is still only a suspect"', but it gets yanked for POV pushing. These people who think that government never lies makes me want to puke, they take everything the government says as fact. We attacked Afghanistan to get Binny, a mere suspect?, because the government said to... now its out that bin Laden may have personally chartered a jet in the U.S. a few days after the attacks ! http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

+

Why didn't the bin Laden family get thrown into Gitmo? --Bennyxbo11:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The US government is not exactly approaching this as a matter of criminal justice. It may be appropriate, however, to underline that bin Laden's role is not known exactly, although it does seem to be clear that he is a co-conspirator. Peter Grey06:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Why Did the Defenses Fail? + +

Should this article discuss what the operating procedures of NORAD and the FAA were and some of the associated theories regarding why there was a failure of the US defenses? This article addresses what happened, but very little about the causes of the failures that lead to the events. I'm not sure of what are all the details that should be addressed, but I feel this general topic is very relavant. Is it addressed in any related articles? Kevin77v00:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Probably because no one was expecting our planes to be crashed into buildings on purpose. I don't believe it needs to be elaborated on.--Tarage19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It's surely a good thing the tax payers put in trillions of dollars for this system. Perhaps they didn't spend enough because apparently the potential of using the planes as projectiles escaped NORAD's thoughts. But seriously though, do you not all think this needs more than just a passing thought? Kevin77v09:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

KAL007 it didn't fail. Ooops. This is why there isn't a shoot first policy. It's also why that even today, when airspaces are breached (and htere have been thousands) we have no shootdowns. And we've also have not had a terrorist attack. Your presumption of failure is misplaced. --Tbeatty17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You people must be joking. You DO realize that on 9/11 NORAD was holding drills involving the exact scenario of planes crashing into the WTC towers and Pentagon, don't you? Do some research. NORAD failed to intercept the allegedly hijacked planes because NORAD was ordered to STAND DOWN. Neither bin Laden nor al CIAda could have accomplished such a thing. 'Twas Cheney. 69.145.121.5005:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Got a link proving that? --Golbez05:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Global dimming? + +

One aspect of "trivia" related to this article was that the subsequent grounding of all aircraft in the ensuing days gave scientists a rare opportunity to research the effects of airborne smoke on the theory of Global dimming. Should this be linked under "trivia"?

+ + +

Actually I think it could be mentioned in the article itself, not in a little "trivia" section. Perhaps under the economic impact section. This is actually a notable thing, the few days without contrails was a unique forbidden experiment. --Golbez07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Timeline link + +

Would the following link be an acceptable link to put into the external links section: http://cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project Complete 911 Timeline? EPM01:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ AA 77 black box data + +

According to Yahoo! News, black box data examined by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, several independent scholars, and fifteen airline pilots with military experience suggests AA 77 may not have crashed into the Pentagon. Thoughts? 70.187.214.11913:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Cite? Verification it's not not a P911T press release?

+

I'm sorry to be so curt, but I've seen a number of "news" articles recently which were recycled press releases, and your description looks like a press release summary. mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ POV tag + +

It'll probably earn me some FBI surveilance, but I tagged it anyway. Morganfitzp14:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Oh yes... because your oppinion voids out everyone else's. We've been over this so many times, yet people like you never seem to get it. Don't add these things unless there is a general concensus on the issue. Otherwise, you are just trolling. --Tarage12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Okay, I get it. Thee's no need to be mean. Morganfitzp21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I agree with both of you. Yes, the September 11, 2001 attacks-article is definitly a POV-article (though not tagged as one), and yes, there has to be some sort of concensus before putting the tag on the article. Geir Solerød Geir 18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Well put. Morganfitzp21:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

This article is only POV if you have decided to avoid the facts of the incident.--MONGO07:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I agree there is a POV problem. The conspiracy theories are given too much Undue Weight. If you have any good suggestions on how to reduce this Undue Weight, please propose it. We've been fighting this for a long time and we appear to be at a standstill so the POV tag won't stand but proposing reductions might be supported on the talk page. --Tbeatty07:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

That is actually a good argument as to why this article is almost perfect. Both sides, the conspiricy theorists and the anti conspiricy theorists both don't like it. Ballanced. --Tarage09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Why is there no POV tag here? 202.124.176.405:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Because the article is neutral. Why do you want one? --Golbez06:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Reactions and Aftermath + +

Referring to the Reactions sub-section, i find the current layout of the article problematic.

+

there is no separation between "immediate reactions" and "aftermath reactions", no proper mentions examinations of events such as the "MEMRI 9/11 5 years later in Arab and Iranian media" document or the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks either. and there's definitely too much information in that segment in stuff which should be on separate articles and reffered to with main| templates. Jaakobou17:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Selective fact picking? + +

I think we should be careful not to leave out certain facts which are at odds with the mainstream view which was propelled by the White House. I would like Wikipedia to be a trustworthy soure of information, and *not* some propaganda letout. We're not in the Sovjet Union, folks!

+

I fully agree that we should keep the main article FREE of conspiracy theories - there are zillions of them. But neither should we distort reality, and we should not portait things as certain facts when they are mere opinions mdash; regardless whether these opionions may be right or wrong.

+

151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 06:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + + + "Vandalism to this page will be promptly removed. Consider helping instead of damaging other people's hard work." + + + +

I agree, reverting my edits is not helping... 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + + + 06:36, 5 July 2007 Pablothegreat85 (Talk | contribs) (107,634 bytes) (we've talked about these kind of edits, and you are editing against consensus. revert to my last version.) + + + +

I presume you are confusing concensus with majority opinion. My edits are according to wikipedia guidelines, do not revert them please. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I think that you might be confused. 06:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Please, do not hold this article hostage with neutrality tags, when your opinion is against consensus. The core of this article is reliable sources and verifiability. You haven't presented any rationale behind your argument when hasn't been extensively dealt with in the archives of this talk page, and we are not bound to report extreme minority opinions with no expert validity in any sort of an equal way. Propose something here, rather than just slapping a neutrality tag on this article -- better yet, read the archives, and you'll see that dollars to donuts it's been dealt with, and rejected, before. --Haemo06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I know it has been dealt with and rejected, ""'but not in accordance with guidelines""'.

+

There seems to be some groupthink in which only certain guidelines apply to only unwelcome edits.

+

Edits of contention: 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+ 1 + +

" "'presumably"' by Islamic extremists "

+ + +

There are two theories:

+ + the mainstream theory is that Osama bin Laden hated our freedoms so much that he inspired 19 young men to hijack 4 planes, evade the best defence system in the world, make the President sit and do nothing, and destroy WTC7 as a bonus. + the underground theory is that a group of criminals infiltrated the government and gave some help. + +

Since in the real world, the debate is ongoing, and has not been decided upon by any neutral party, there cannot be any reliable source which definitely has a conclusion.

+

Therefore wikipedia cannot take sides either, as this would be OR.

+

151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + + + *The main theory is that OBL despised U.S. foreign policy and resented U.S. troops in Saudia Arabia and throughout the years attacked the U.S. interests numerous times. I doubt he cared about U.S. freedoms. Rather that is a rhetorical device used to highlight the differences between Western secular society and the Taliban model that OBL strived for. Secondly, you make the mistake of assuming the underground theory has wide enough acceptance to be stated here as an alternate explanation of events. It is not. Rather it is notable for it's fringeness but not for it's account. It is very much like the JFK conspiracy theories that warrant mention as conspiracy theories but not in the actual factual accounting of history. --Tbeatty08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC) + + +
+
+ 2 + +

"Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed, "'presumably"' due to structural failure, on the day of the attack."

+ + +

Building seven was announced collapsed 25 minutes before the fact; its demolition was announced on radio; experts are baffeled by its collapse.

+

How could wikipedia attest it was "'not"' demolished?

+

151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

Prove it was. --Golbez07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

You're missing my point: if we leave out "presumably" we would consider it proven that it was NOT demolished. I do not need or want to prove that it was demolished, I just want wikipedia to reflect the facts fairly. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Therein lies the problem. The controlled demolition theory is not based on facts; it's based on its adherents making things up. 07:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The fact is that the building collapsed due to damage suffered from the collapsed of 1 WTC. That its collapse was announced 25 minutes before the fact has zero established bearing; maybe you'd like to express complete thoughts in the future rather than supposed factoids. --Golbez07:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Actually we don't even need presumably since everyone agrees that it collapsed from structural failure. Controlled demolition theorists, NIST, or directed energy weapon theorists all agree that the structure failed. The cause of structural failure my be disputed but I have not heard a conspiracy theory alleging the buildings are still standing. --Tbeatty08:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 3 + + + "It then received massive support from the United States in fighting for freedom against the Soviet Union." + +

Is anyone disputing this? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + + + " Al Qaeda literally means: "the database" (of warriors and agents). " + +

Is anyone disputing this? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

What do either of these have to do with anything? I'm not disputing or confirming, I'm just trying to understand why you even bring these two things up... --Tarage06:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, Al qaeda didn't get "massive" support from the U.S. Native afghani tribes and Pakistani's received aid. They spent as they saw fit including on Arab fighters, but it would have upset the tribal sensibilities if the U.S. gave lots of money to Arab "foreigners" fighting in Afghanistan. --Tbeatty08:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 4 + + + " His suspected involvement in the September, 11 attacks, however, is not even mentioned on his FBI-most-wanted page.http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm + +

Is this untrue? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

Does it matter to this article? --Tarage06:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 5 + + + "This lasted several days and provided climate researchers with an unique opportunity to measure the Global dimming effect." + +

What's wrong with this? People may feel it's inappropriate to combine the issues, but they are connected, and Climate change can be a deadly tragedy also.

+

151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

It isn't neccary. --Tarage06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't think the 1 day datapoint provided significant scientific information. Just like one sunny day doesn't prove or disprove global warming. --Tbeatty08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 6 + + + "As it is standard procedure to quickly intercept any commercial plane which deviates from course, September 11 is unprecedented in that these four jets flew without being intercepted for so long. Had the hijackers not succeeded in evading interception, their plan might have failed." + +

Is this not correct? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

These edits are not productive. --Haemo

+ + +

I thank you for your effort to discuss this. You are more eloquent than I am. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

For (1), the consensus theory that is by and large agreed on is the one presented in the article. To give any other runs into undue weight issues, which is why they are explained on other subpages. Try adding your view there. --Haemo

+ + +

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. " mdash; I agree, but a single word to avoid an unwarrented stance is not "too much"? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk)

+ + +

You completly miss the point of 'tiny-minority'. We do NOT have to add even a single word to playcate such a tiny minority.--Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Your (2) claim also has its own page, Controlled demolition hypothesis, and is has been moved there instead, given that an overwhelming majority of experts do not agree with it. Any treatment of it requires more space than we can give it, hence its own article. --Haemo

+ + +

Agree that treatment should be in the sub-article, but the main article cannot take a stance without providing a source for that stance. Agree? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel

+ + +

(talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Not when the source tends to be every shread of evidence NOT from a fringe orginization. --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

(3) is half false (Al Queda meaning 'The base', not 'The database') and is already explained on Al Queda; we don't need it here. --Haemo

+ + +

Agree with you that we don't need it here! The first part however, needs mentioning: the USA supported Al Qaeda for years. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Again... why? It is mentioned on the Al Queda page, why does it need redundancy here? --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

(4) is immaterial, and the reference has no apparent relation to this, other than as opinionated original research.--Haemo

+ + +

I do not understand what you are saying at all? What's OR about citing an FBI poster? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Its a POSTER. Stop making a mountain out of a molehill. --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

(5) and (6) are totally uncited and also OR. --Haemo

+ + +

Let's begin by agreeing that it's true. Then we can find the RS, if you need them. Agree? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Let's begin by agreeing you CAN find RS, THEN we will talk about it. Not before. --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

All of these edits, or similar ones, have been extensively discussed, and rejected. Read the archives, and look at the subpages. This is very tiresome. --Haemo07:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

It's very tiresome for "'all"' concerned. Thank you for your effort, though! 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Concidering your 'kind' don't seem to want to listen to the general consensus, yes it is... --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I will point to you that we have other article, many quite large, which deal with minority views. We also link to them, which does far more for those views than adding words which, given the lack of any explanatory context on "this" page, will help readers instead of confusing them. If you think the article has sourcing problems, then point them out specifically -- note, however, that it's considered un-necessary to source certain types of "topical" claims if they are discussed on a closely linked page. Claims like "The US previously supported Al Queda" are unnecessary, because they are orphaned -- we need to explain the context of this, which cannot be done in any meaningful fashion on this page; hence the links. With respect to (4), it is original research because the implication is that the poster has some bearing on 9/11; it does not, it merely is an FBI document. There is no source explaining why omitting 9/11 is important, or relevant; it could be for any number of reasons. With respect to (5) and (6), that's not exactly how it works -- especially in a high-profile, and high-quality, article like this. --Haemo07:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I issue a warning to anyone else, we have to understand that many of these people are ignorant by choice. They know there's evidence and indeed proof of many of the "official" stories, but they deliberately avoid them, so as to keep their own theories. There is no hope in arguing with them; you can only educate the willing. So just smile and wave, boys, smile and wave. They all go away eventually, and the article has never been long-term compromised by them. --Golbez07:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you for smiling and waving, Golbez. The truth will not go away however, whatever it is. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Keep claiming your fringe theories are the truth and we will continue to sigh and move along. Until you have actual credible proof, stay out. --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Golbez never said with which finger he's waving. As far as the truth goes, you're correct - the truth will not go away. The lies (which is what you're trying to give credibility to) will eventually go away. We will not allow you to compromise the credibility of the article. 07:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"They know there's evidence and indeed proof "

+ + +

Golbez, if you are so certain about the innocence of the White House officials, why do you object to mentioning the failure to intercept? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

"lies (which is what you're trying to give credibility to) "

+ + +

George W. will thank you for you loyal support. I am not trying to give credibility to lies, I am trying to make the article balanced, so that visitors can make up their own mind. How can it be that facts which you do not dispute "are giving credibility to lies"? 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Ah yes, because everyone who supports the mainstream view on this is obviously a Bush supporter. Slipery slope tactics are a sign of futility. We do NOT need to give balance to views that are a fringe minority that have very little to no actual substance to back them up. Please stop trying to force this on the rest of us when we have pages upon pages of your 'kind' arguing the EXACT SAME THING! Its monotinous. --Tarage06:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

--Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)===consensus===

+ + +

CONSENSUS

+ + "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." + +

Where in the archives do people agree to abide by the outcome? I think all that has ever been reached is people walking out on wikipedia, which I feel is a shame. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Good riddence to bad rubbish.

+ + + + "That said, the numbers mentioned as being sufficient to reach supermajority vary from about 60% to over 80% depending upon the decision, with the more critical processes tending to have higher thresholds." + +

I would say there is a supermajority on wikipedia which tends to believe the mainstream account. But why be so bold and take it as certain? Why leave out all facts that place doubt on that view?

+

151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Because your 'facts' aren't facts at all. They are wild speculation with little to back it up. We've been down this road so many times it isn't even funny anymore. --Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't think I'm the one making the bold claims here. 08:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

We tend not to "leave out facts", but rather shuffle them off to subpages, where we don't run into undue weight problems. --Haemo08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I see. I disagree with this, is there no better solution? It makes the main article very biased. I feel we should either include facts in a more balanced matter, or if we choose not to, express more caution in the wording. As it is now, neither is the case and I feel the article deserves a NPOV tag. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

To be honest, I don't CARE if you think it is biased or not. Everything in this world has some sort of bias on it. The key here is that the 'bias' here is the 'bias' of the VAST majority. I may not be as eloquent as the rest, but I like to think that I can point out the sane side of things. --Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The point is, that the facts "are" balanced -- "balanced" in the context of an encyclopedia means neutral point of view, and that implies that we weight different views on questions according to their acceptance and verifiability in reliable sources. Often, this means they they slide entirely off the page, and into subpages. Think of it like this -- Wikipedia is like a series of nested levels of information. This article is like the "big picture" -- it gives the most general overview of the event; if someone asked the everyman to explain, in two minutes, what happened on 9/11, they would say something very similar to this article. However, if you dig deeper into any part of the story, some minor opinions begin to get noticed -- these are like zooming into the picture, or opening those deeper nests. The fact that these views exist should not, however, distract from the big picture here -- they're too small to catch the eye of the viewer at first glance. --Haemo

+ + +

"if someone asked the everyman to explain, in two minutes," ...

+

I agree, but, we don't want our article on Quantum mechanics to reflect the knowledge of the everyman, do we?

+

I feel there is enough credibility in the minority view that "the official story doesn't fit together", to allow *some* mention of that in the main article, and to use *some* caution in wording the (mainstream) view. The view as it is worded in this main article could hardly be *more* biased than it is now, could it? The links to other articles are all that remains from irregular facts. I feel it's a poor job, and we can do better and fairer. 151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

We do give some mention to this "minority" view in the main article here. That's more than sufficient. I think it gives to much weight and this section should be cut out. But, it's still in there. --Aude12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Quoting again (151;nbsp;Xiutwel (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)):

+ + +

Kevin77v wr: "I do not take any stance on what the truth is and I don't feel Wikipedia should either. As I've argued in sections above, we don't need to state that there is doubt about the official account. We should merely indicate what the source of the official account. Let the reader, not our assumptions decide whether or not they are trustworthy. Kevin77v07:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

if you folks have any decency, then place the appropriate tag and point the people to this discussions, i'm sorry, but at this point in time the article does look ridiculous and so does the wikipedia. best wishes. 78.1.107.15701:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Cry about it... --Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I think this article looks pretty good. For an encylopedia that anyone can edit this article is pretty solid: factual, credible and mostly free from fringe POV's. I think you'll find that the editors that attempt to add fringe theories to these types of articles edit here only to push those POVs. On the other hand, I think you'll find that the editors that try and keep this article (and others like it) factual and credible work on a broad range of articles and care about Wikipedia's greater good. I think it's fair to question the motives of an editor (or a group of editors) that edit here only to push a single POV. Rx StrangeLove RxS 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I think it is worth distinguishing fringe theories from disproven theories. A fringe theory is probably but not necessarily inappropriate. Also, the mainstream account is not a single monolithic narrative beyond challenge. Just because the conspiracy theories are wrong does not mean there are no legitimate questions - for example the possibility of negligence by Bush, Cheney and/or Rice. Peter Grey03:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

There is a time and place for both, and neither are here and now. --Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Agreed. There are legitimate questions, and sadly more by the day. The problem is keeping the focus on those legitimate questions and resisting attempts to make the illogical leap from those questions to nutjob controlled demo theories etc. Rx StrangeLove RxS 03:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm not going to say for sure that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. However, suppose you were to create a video showing a sequence of demolitions and include the collapse of WTC7 in that sequence. Now show it someone who did not know the building's collapse occurred on 9/11 (there are many such people). They would probably not think it was the odd one out of the sequence. With the possible exception that it was quite a bit neater a destruction than most demolitions. Now, that doesn't mean it was a controlled demolition, but it is not as obvious as you think. You automatically dismiss everyone who would be skeptical as nutjobs. It is not straight forward that WTC7 is not controlled demolition. Now, I imagine most people will then respond that the majority of the experts disagree with the controlled demolition theories. Fine, they may well be accurate. However, when you consider that if any of the relatively few experts on the subject decide to object, they risk their careers, social status, being ostracized as a conspiracy theorist, and probably wouldn't be listened to anyhow by the mainstream, it's easy to see why they would stay silent. To distrust the government sanctioned studies isn't a stretch either, because it's very unlikely experts in a study will produce a result critical of their funders. You see this in any study, which is why you should always see who funds a study before you trust their results. What it comes down to is what sources you consider reliable. I'm not saying I agree with the conspiracy theorist necessarily, however, I can see why they may come to their conclusions. It is not as obvious as you think. Kevin77v05:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

What part of 'origional research' do you not understand? This isn't the place for theories. Come back with cold hard proof, and none of the things that litter the archives with holes so big you can drive jumbo jets through them. Bad taste yes, but if it quiets this, I'll accept it. --Tarage06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm not suggesting their inclusion in this page. I was merely commenting on Strangelove's post, pointing out that while the theories mentioned may be false, the theories are not nutjob theories because they are not "obviously" false. It seems to be a common attitude possessed by editors of this page and does not promote NPOV. Kevin77v08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

I suspect they would look pretty similar as the underlying mechanism (gravity) is the same in both. What would be different is the amount of windows blown out in the blast radius of a controlled demolition. I guess we could show sequences of windows one block from the building. --Tbeatty08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Have you ever actually witnessed a controlled demolition? Do you know really what they look like? what they sound like? the WTC7 videos sure do not sound the same as a controlled demolition. I have seen a couple actual demolitions in person. Here's video of a real controlled demolition - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8639504156862456165 which sounds very different than the way WTC7 collapsed. It also looks a bit different. --Aude12:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes I've have seen many demolitions. An observation about controlled demolitions is that they are all different, but they all have similar features. If WTC7 is a controlled demolition it would be no exception and WTC7, I believe, does have many similar features, although, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a controlled demolition. Regarding the noise of WTC7's collapse, I agree with your observation that the noise is different than with demolitions. Instead of the noise of many explosions you hear a loud rush noise. This may well be a strong reason to disbelieve the controlled demolition theory. However, a possible explanation is that the demolition uses a much larger amount of explosives at once creating so many rapid explosion noises that it sounds like a continuous noise instead of many single pop noises. This could explain why the destruction seems much finer than other demolitions. This is just speculation and I'm not sure entirely what the case is for WTC7, however, as it seems to be the trend of many people on here to treat anyone who opposes the official story as a lunatic and that seems to influence what shows in this article, I succumbed to the temptation to point out that the truth isn't as obvious as many people want to think -- my apologies, we can end the controlled demolition discussion, as it is discussed elsewhere. Kevin77v08:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

+ + +

The emergency personnel on the scene detected the failure of the structure long before the actual collapse. Unless you contemplate someone intentionally demolishing a building which was already on the brink of collapse, the truth seems pretty obvious. Peter Grey18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

+ +
+
+
+ Requesting Replacement of Protection + +

It's clear that when this article is allowed to be edited by non registered users that an excessive amount of vandalism occurs. Please put the lock back in place before we have more such incidents. --Tarage11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

.

+ + +

One would think that, at the very least, you could have expressed that without being tendentious. What we're seeing might be called a one-sided edit war, or, perhaps better, asymmetrical edit-warring or guerrilla edit-warring. It's rather obviously anonymous truthers versus the propaganda coalition. They are clearly good faith edits, attempting to improve the honesty of the article.

+

We used to witness Xiutwel, who is probably the most persistently honest editor ever to address this article, bringing up a very few points repeatedly in this discussion. His points were never addressed, but MORTON DEVONSHIRE, MONGO and half-a-dozen others kept claiming that they were previously addressed and referring him to unspecified archives where they hadn't been addressed either. Finally, he was permanently banned from the topic. That's called censorship. So, now you have this anonymous editing.

+

My own suggestion, a long time ago, was to attribute controversial statements to their sources. What we're seeing, instead, is an anonymous and unsourced retaliatory attribution accompanied by an unsourced accusation. It is the Official Conspiracy Theory, as Doctor Griffin calls it, which is being represented here as if it were proven fact. Sometimes aspects of the theory are tendentiously labeled "scientific." Critics and skeptics are tendentiously labelled "conspiracists" and banned from the topic.

+

I do, however, agree with you as to the temporary remedy to the edit war, except that it is clearly not vandalism. It is a waste of everybody's time to have to keep reverting things. It would be better to amend the article to make it more honest, but as long as we don't attribute controversial statements to their sources, it's going to attract anonymous editing.

+

The responsibility we share, as a result of our awareness of this situation is to ensure that school teachers realize that no encyclopedia can be considered a reliable source for historical, geographical or biographical information on any event which occurred after the year 1860. Some students think that copying something out of an encyclopedia constitutes research. Some teachers find that actually makes it easier for them to correct the resultant papers. More darkly, some teachers actually sell Encyclopedia Britannica on the side while assigning papers which tend to make students dependent on it. At least, here, although some of the information is worthless, or worse, there are a lot of other articles which are as reliable as most users would require, and the information is free.

+

So I have to second your request that the article be locked up again, but it's to stop out-of-control edit-warring, not vandalism. You're supposed to assume good faith.

+

+ + + Wowest + + 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC) + +

+ + +

"You're supposed to assume good faith." Yeah, so are you. It's hard to see how calling people a "propaganda coalition" does that. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 12:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

You're right, Tom. I was actually thinking about something MONGO perpetrated a few days ago on a different thread. Wowest16:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

According to NPOV, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. Given the fact that there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that plainly explain that 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda, and few (if any) that say it was an inside job by the US government, I'm suprised this article mentions it at all. A Quest For Knowledge13:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

To get back to the original subject here, if you want the protection restored I suggest you go to RFPP. ""'Hut 8.5""' 13:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

That's good, but someone replaced it already. Curious, though, how so much actual vandalism just cropped up. Very curious. Wowest16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

"Curious, though...Very curious." That's what they want you to think. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

No, it isn't. September 11th is a highly important event in history, and there are bound to be quite a number of vandals that wish to harm this article. Just because YOU don't see it as vandalism doesn't mean it isn't. These people are more than welcome to create an account and propose edits in a rational and civil manner. Instead, most simply attempted to either add ignorant statements, blank the page, or push propaganda that was rejected numerous times on this talk page. You can invoke the name Xiutwel all you want, but he is STILL topic blocked, so clearly there is not a minority of people who think he was out of line. You yourself are increasingly toeing that line yourself with statements like the one you made above. I suggest you stop now, or I will start the request admin intervention. I'm sick of your attitude, and I'm not alone. --Tarage19:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

+ + +

Agreed. The article was vandalized right after unprotection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacksdiff=272720152oldid=272715201 Kanonkas has protected the article, and there is no need to remove protection. AdjustShift18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ + +