Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

POV?

NOw you got Iran added to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report, this page is POV, NPOV it!--Striver 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No bias there! The Iranian government's views on the events of 9/11...well alrighty then. If they think the U.S. Government was behind the attacks then it simply must be so.--MONGO 09:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Im not talking about "truth", im talking about POV. Further, are you saying that the 9/11 Commission was not biased?----Striver 11:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the 911 Commission is not biased.--MONGO 12:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, im sure they are not. How could a commission headed by Thomas Kean ever be biased? For starters, they wanted to appoint Henry Kissinger to lead it! --Striver 13:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The commission can be considered a reliable source as it's conclusion have been checked and confirmed by others. Jefffire 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
And dissagreed by others. Simply having people agreeing does not make them unbiased. --Striver 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The fact that some people promote alternative views on the 9/11 events does not make the research commission biased. gidonb 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
No, but the fact that it was chaired by Thomas Kean makes it biased. --Striver 20:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Why did this chairperson make the inquiry comission biased in your opinion? gidonb 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody, including StuffOfInterest, responded to my point posted May 3 about the alleged failure to find the black boxes of the two planes at Ground Zero, I've re-added the newspaper account to the article. --JustFacts 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, please don't delete my contribution based on your speculations. It's up to you to show that the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer is not relialbe. I will restore my contribution.--JustFacts 16:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

JustFacts: I did not make any speculations. The way you inserted it simply suggested that these testimonies were actually given. The new version is fine with me. The item did appear in the Inquirer. gidonb 16:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, there is sooo much material on the web, and even some papers peer-reviewed that everyone who do some research on wtc collapse or other topics must have doubts. I would even say that it's POV because it doesn't inform about concerns about what really happenned on 9/11 in the first paragraph. USA opinnion is also concerned as recent polls show. Just stating my opinnion here. 22:22, 24 May (GMT+1)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.6.227.52 (talk • contribs) .

Image pharming?

Am I the only one who thinks that all these images are going overboard? It seems like the very single possible picture of the towers burning has been uploaded here, might it not be better to follow the guidlines of pages like, for instance, NYC, and establish a gallery page to store excess or redundant images? Maybe it's just my personal POV, being from nyc, seeing them collapse once is more than enough, then to have them running on the covers of every single newspaper for just about every single day for about a year. Then the 2004 election cycle where just about every other campaign comercial was filled with them, then bloomberg doing the same thing during his election. It just doesn't seem like it actually adds anything to the article other than satisfying people's morbid need to see the towers collapsing from every single angle imaginable.--64.12.116.201 21:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 

I dont agree, the pictures are part of that day. They need to stay there. Caf3623 03:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

C-130 that accompanied Flight 77 through miles of restricted airspace

Any RATIONAL reason for not including the details in the main article? So far I've been subjected to what is apparently a kosher kind of personal abuse for simply raising the matter. Is it so threatening to the official dogma, Tom Harrison? Can we include it? Confabulous 17:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Because a C-130 turboprop can't fly fast enough to keep up with a 757? Utter fuckingnonsense --Mmx1 17:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Confabulous, If you provide multiple credible references and stick with the facts I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be included. MMx are you stating in your engineering opinion that 757's cannot fly below cruising velocity?

e.g. According to the Washinton Post multiple whitnesses observed a plane resembling a C-130 flying above two of the planes ...

The Air Traffic control records show all planes traveling well in excess of their cruising speeds. Given that witnesses claimed they saw a 757, a private jet, or a cruise missile, I don't really count on witness testimony accurately identifying anything in the air. --Mmx1 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

The fatalities section is poorly put together in my opinion, with lack of sources and true facts. The first OFFICIAL caualty was Father Mychal Judge. However, I think that if anything, the Israeli special forces retiree was mot likely not the 1st casuaulty, as the planes were flown into the Towers before the actual hijacking took place. The most likely first casualty would've been a pilot or passenger on the first plane. What do you guys think?

40oz 2 Freedom 01:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Lies

Most of the content of this page is all lies. we should all know that bush destroyed the Twin towers through controllled demoltion. We cannot just be gullible idiots. We should change the content of this page to the truth, and nothing but the truth.

signed, Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! --71.125.65.226 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What were the planes for then? Answer that and you get a cookie. Pacific Coast Highway blah • my tracks 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, then after they demolished the two tall towers, they demolished WTC7 which was not hit by any plane to make their version more believabubble... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JimWae (talk • contribs) .

Are you serious? Talous 15:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

well of course im serios. --71.125.65.226 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

These claims are widespread and unfounded. How do YOU KNOW that this is the case? I think you just want this to be true because it would be more interesting. Do you have a phd in structural engineering? Do you have inside links to the Whitehouse? MynameisRoB 14:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I smell a troll. 74.33.161.233 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I merely ask that he cites his assertion that we are all 'gullible idiots', and that we should change the content of this page to reflect a barely coherent, and quite frankly offensive, conspiracy theory MynameisRoB 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Reducing 9/11 Disputes: A Possible Way Forward

The basic problem with the 9/11 controversy is that the official 9/11 Commission Report (headed by a White House insider, Phillip Zelikow), failed to address many troubling questions [1] that hang above the world like a dark cloud. The 9/11 wound will never heal until a fully independent investigation settles the most central and disturbing omitted questions.

Most of the disputes on Wikipedia center around incomplete, inadequate information. People in a dark forest cannot find a way out until there is light -- so arguing doesn't help.

Until certain questions are cleared up by the release of currently classified information, Wikipedia could reduce the conflict within its own pages by using a libary approach to structuring the subject headings to reflect the inadequate knowledge that exists around 9/11.

The existing subject headings for the topic are: 1. September 11th Attacks (which presents the official story as historically true) 2. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (which presents both proved and unproved alternative theories, and 3. The 9/11 Truth Movement (which asks questions).

I propose that parallel structure be given to these 3 subject headings to reflect the inadequacy of knowledge around 9/11, as per the outline below:

The most commonly accepted story, which has been advanced by the White House and the media (but not the firemen and police at the scene) could be placed under "9/11 Attacks: Official Theory". LIHOP's and MIHOP's and other theories could be placed under "9/11 attacks: Alterntive and Conspiracy Theories". Other sources of verified information that do not advance theories but simply ask the questions that were omitted from the official report could be placed under the "9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Investigations".

I propose that we take a vote on applying these proposed headings, and if agreed, that we submit the matter to an administrator.

Please vote yes or no here:


Yours sincerely, --PureLogic 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sincerely -- there's a place for all of the crackpot ideas -- it's over at 9/11 conspiracy theories. This article is reserved for a factual account of the September 11 attacks. If you want to reduce disputes, add your thoughts to that page, not this one. Morton devonshire 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember [2] ? It's right on your page. SkeenaR 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you are right. My apologies. Morton devonshire 20:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, thanks. SkeenaR 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote no. The logic and quality of evidence used by the alternative theories are of the same scientific rigor as those found in Holocaust denial, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, and Elvis Lives theories. None of those fringe beliefs justified renaming the article for the accepted view as a "theory."--Bill 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Elvis Lives? If anyones a crackpot, it is people who compare events that are within the realm of possibility and have historical precedent to crap like Elvis Lives. I don't believe that staunch defenders of the official story are stupid enough to believe their own words, so there must be other motives for these posts, political I'm assuming. Yes, the official story might have happened more or less the way it is claimed, but to question it shouldn't be such a crime. How about "Osama Lives"? [3]SkeenaR 20:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Questioning it isn't a crime, and I fully support having articles about alternative theories. I was comparing the type of evidence that has been used to prove the alternative theories to show that there is no precedent for changing the title of the accepted view based on that type of evidence.--Bill 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No wonder they shut the page down! The arguing just never stops, and the insults are worse. All this could be cleared up with a proper investigation. Where are your facts, Mr. Morton Devonshire, when you say those who disbelieve the official story are crackpots? If your facts are so obvious and true that you can insult me, a complete stranger who has been nothing but respectful on Wikipedia, why don't you apply for the million dollars being offered by Dr. James Walter to anyone who can prove the towers were not brought down by controlled demolition?--PureLogic 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this the guy who's offering money to anyone who can disprove a nonfalsfiable theory? Tom Harrison Talk 23:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the beauty of it. The CT's can't prove that there were explosives, so they try to frame the debate so the issue is whether you can prove that there were not explosives.--DCAnderson 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hell no Lack of comprehensiveness does not mean it's false. --Mmx1 00:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • PureLogic here. There is plenty of evidence that there were explosives, depending on where you look. You will not find it in the New York Times, for example. But you will find firemen and policemen and a janitor and a female office worker who have claimed that they heard massive explosions in the basement -- but they were not covered by the 9/11 Commission. And unfortunatley, the 30' lengths of steel beams were removed and not subject to forensic analysis so that evidenceis neither falsifiable or nonfalsifiable. The government did not need to analyse this evidence because it already knew who the perpetrators were -- it was able to announce 18 of the 19 names the next day. Amazing! And without any foreknowledge either. Just superfast and incredibly efficient sleuthing. A sudden about-face in competence -- the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the whole thing happened because of massive incompetence and compound coincidences across the board. But presto! -- in one day, the massive incompetence ship turned around and produced all those criminals.
So because of this sudden super competence, there was no need to conduct a formal 9/11 investigation -- that would take energy away from hunting down the terrorists. You know, the ones in Iraq, with Weapons of Mass Destruction. So the investigation was put off for 441 days while the families agonized over all the contradictions and finally managed to get a heavily window-dressed investigation led by a White House insider. (Interesting to note that the Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Challenger and JFK investigations were all started within a week.) Is it any wonder that half of New Yorkers, according to a Zogby Poll, believe that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge? That is why the 9/11 Truth Movement will never rest until its questions are answered. That is why there must be a formal independent investigation with everyone under oath (that's right, White House staff were not under oath during the 9/11 Commission investigation). Why was George Bush Senior meeting with Bin Laden's brother as the attacks unfolded? Why were the Saudis allowed to fly out of the US when everyone else was grounded? Let's get these answers, wherever they may lead, and deal with them. Then lay the issue to rest.--PureLogic 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This where the spiel comes in about how only verifiable facts are written about here and no original research is allowed. But if you can find verifiable information that you think is pertinent to the article you can try adding them. SkeenaR 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks, SkeenaR. As a professional librarian with 30 years experience in the medical field, I cannot say that I understand the difference "original research" and "verifiable information". These are lay terms. In peer-reviewed literature, we talk about research methods, statistical analysis, meta-analysis, comprehensive literature reviews, and the like. But 9/11 evidence does not fit into the formal literature of any science; I have looked. So we have to use what we have. Multiple witnesses. New phenomena (such as steel buildings burning down) that have never been replicated -- and that is a scientific method right there. Replication. It looks as if these pages are haunted by aggressive people with some kind of an agenda. By the way, how long does one have to be a contributor to be eligble to post on the WTC Collapse talksite? There is no editing function available to me just now.--PureLogic 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Actual evidence

Is there really evidence that there were explosives? Not simply the fact of catastrophic failure, or that witnesses heard noises in building whose structure was compromised, or a camera from several kilometres away captured some flame or dust? Something that actually points to the presence of explosives? Peter Grey 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Why are you asking for evidence of explosives (and there are several very serious signs, squibs from windows far below collapsing zone, pyroclastic clouds, trajectory of debris that travels UPWARDS, speed of collapse... and others), and you are not asking for evidence or really good explanation of how the towers collapsed itself? It's been widely stated that 9/11 comission report didn't answer those questions well. Only theories are proposed there - no actual proofs, no evidence (evidence - steel columns - were destroyed quickly, hmm).

Your POV is very un-NPOV... 15:08 27 May (GMT+1)

  • This article by Stephen E. Jones has garnered quite a lot of respect on the Internet for its objectivity: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? You will note that it was published in the edu domain and probably on this basis alone would tend to carry as much or more weight than research published from the gov domain. For the benefit of those not particularly familiar with literature authentication and quality, it carries the essential attributes of careful research: a structured disciplined paper, written by a professional physicist, containing a lengthy authoritative reference list. It certainly beats a lot of the junk I have seen referenced on these 9/11 pages to date -- which has somehow escaped the notice of our self-appointed censorship artists.--PureLogic 05:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "This article by Stephen E. Jones has garnered quite a lot of respect on the Internet..."
I would like to point out that you can also garner a lot of repect on the Internet for waving a golfball retriever around like it's a lightsaber.--DCAnderson 00:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The only "evidence" that occurs in Jones' essay is the apparent temperature observed on 27 September, 2001, but Jones does not calculate 16 days of heat loss, so there is no evidence of the temperature at the moment of collapse, and no evidence of explosives. Peter Grey 06:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the essential attribute of scientific research. Even then, most scientists are skeptical of the research until its been replicated by numerous independent researchers.Bill 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. By this standard, where is the "evidence" that led the government to accuse 18 hijackers the next day? How did they know this so quickly, after not having known anything the day itself? Does this mean that we wipe the whole official story off of Wikpedia because it was not peer reviewed? Come on. Let's have parallel rules and consideration applied to all the logical deductions that have been made about that day in the absence of evidence that disappered into a huge pile of rubble and was then sealed off and removed.--PureLogic 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The conclusions made the day of the attacks have been "peer-reviewed" by many journalists - there is no lack of verifiable evidence. The assertion that explosives were present has not been supported by peer-reviewed evidence. Peter Grey 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW, Jones is also known for his 'research' into Jesus' supposed visits to North America. [5]. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 15:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Jones is a Mormon I guess. His religious beliefs have no bearing on physics or 9/11 research.SkeenaR 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's hosted at physics.byu.edu and actually seems to be part of the course material for a class. You can tell they have a rigorous peer-review process. </sarcasm> --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

BYU is a Mormon institution. SkeenaR 23:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I guess we should ignore Jones' other loony reesearch and take his 9/11 stuff at face value. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No, don't bother with it. SkeenaR 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Being verified by science is not a requirement for Wikipedia. You can see that by reading this page: 9/11 conspiracy theories, which by the way cites the article you are referring to and many less reputable sources. And we aren't making any deductions about 9/11. We are writing about the deductions that others have made that have received worldwide attention.--Bill 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you're saying the truth doesn't matter on Wikipedia, and that's why anybody can post any theory they want. That's truly bizarre. Morton devonshire 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, policy in this place says that truth is not criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. It's pretty simple, we can't say the moon is made of cheese, we say that buddy says the moon is made of cheese. SkeenaR 19:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"
[6]
"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion."[7] Please study up.
SkeenaR 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Verifiability" means citing reliable published sources. You can read about what a reliable published source is in the link I posted above. --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 20:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what that is. You can find someone else to sermonize to now. Thanks. SkeenaR 21:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean there. I pointed you in the direction of a link to correct what I percieved was a misconception about Wikipolicy. I'm sorry if that offended you? --rehpotsirhc █♣█ ▪ Talk 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only fair that people know what they are talking about, therefore, before anyone say's anything about 9/11 it should be facts not personal beleif. This way people can read the ture facts not opinnions. So when you have a POV through a FACT in to prove it(if you can). This is something the goverment of the great United States did NOT do! They presented presumptions and made up stories instead of facts. For example, the goverment said that the 78th floor of the South tower was "a raging inferno", but if it was how could Cheif Palmer get up to the 78th floor and devise a plan to put the fire out? Threrfore i conclude that the goverment deliberately spread false information about what happened on 9/11.

Because of that one comment? Your conclusions are thin as the paper they're written on. And yes, I know this isn't paper. --Golbez 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

New Pentagon 9/11 Footage Released

Anyone planning on adding a mention of the Pentagon's release of new video footage in response to conspiracy theorists? [[8]] I would but I don't know where to put it and how to word it to avoid being reverted. 86.49.76.137 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean that video where there is still now plane to see? Which is being promoted by a right-wing nut president of Judicial Watch who is currently being sued by the founders of the very ngo he highjacked and have stolen money from? Good try but Karl won't be impressed with you performance on this one.. [[9]]

=Comment from Sacca

I think the current article is biased towards to official US government account. While this article is to cover the september 11 attacs, it actualy just covers the official US government story concerning these attacs.

About this US government account there are more and more doubts, and these doubts are getting more well known in the general population.

Consequently, more people want to edit this page and make it more 'accepting' of those alternative explanations which some people choose to call 'conspiracy theories' And because not everyone agrees, the page is now locked.

I propose a solution to this which I think will solve the problem, and that is to simply make a new page called Official Account of 911 Attacks. Or something like it. Then Wikipedia will have moved back to the neutral zone, since both the official account and the alternative explanations will have their own pages. None of those two 'theories' is awarded special status as 'the truth', as is the case now where anything which doesn't fit into the official account is rejected from this page and can only be be mentioned on the page for 'conspiracy stories'.

This page can then be much smaller, and focus on the information which both theories have in common.

thanks, Sacca

I would be in favour of that Seconded 86.49.76.137 16:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, suggestion would violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Also this same idea has pretty much been beaten to death in the past. I suggest we move on.--DCAnderson 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The same small group guarding the article. There is no consensus to keep the page the same. The page remains locked for no good reason. A request for unprotection is not even acknowledged. Is this page special? Do the small group of guard dogs own this article? No. I'm going to try and start small.
Do we need another vote to get a majority opinion about this article? If we look back at the vote earlier on this page, we can see that most voters chose to keep the titles the same. Count one more vote for Keep if you make a new tally... Mysterius 08:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The Wikipedia account and the 9/11 Commission account are similar because both are based on evidence, and therefore closely resemble what actually happened, and therefore resemble each other. Commentary on the 9/11 Commission account belongs on the corresponding article. Peter Grey 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote to unprotect

  • Yes SkeenaR 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes I don't see any reason this page should be protected right now.--DCAnderson 18:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to can just go and request unprotection. Tom Harrison Talk 19:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your forwarding of my message was appreciated. I've put the request in. SkeenaR 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for semi-protection to be reinstated[10], because this page has been vandalized 10 times since then:[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]--DCAnderson 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Make that 11.[21]--DCAnderson 23:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What's with Mahmood Abbas and Ismael Haniyeh?

Robin Hood 1212 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Another primary participant in the War on Terror

I would say both the United States and the United Kingdom are Primary Participants for one reason, both countries have sent the largest armies and the bulk of force to each event that has happened since - Afghanistan and Iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.11.221.164 (talk • contribs) .

I second that!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.60.199.37 (talk • contribs) .

In Memoriam: 9/11
Lest we forget…

--Chili14 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This user box will break soon as the 9/11 wiki is finally being deleted. -Quasipalm 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden Confession Image

The image labeled with the caption "Taken from the 2001 Osama bin Laden confession video." is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the confession video was faked (by saying that the man in the picture looks nothing like Bin Laden) and I feel the the only reason it was included here was to perpetuate this myth. For this reason I believe it should be removed. look here for more information on the photo: http://www.911myths.com/html/fake_video.html --TeN 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Considering that Osama Bin Laden has been dead since Dec 2001, of course those videos are FAKE. You've got the fake ones there, and you say get rid of the REAL ONE????

"Conspiracy Theories"

The term "Altername Theories" would be better and more NPOV.--the Dannycas 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in mincing and using a less descriptive word just because some folks don't like the connotations. These "Alternate Theories" are conspiracy theories. They posit that what we saw in the news is false because of a conspiracy behind the scenes. I don't know how else to describe it.--Rosicrucian 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Very simple. ALternative theories. Easy peasy. The use of the term "conspiracy theories" is an obvious attempt to lead the reader in a certain direction before he has even started to read. That's why it is used, and why it is so often mentioned in the same breath as the Loch Ness Monster or other such silly notions.
This has been debated over and over again. It's old news. It's settled. It's a conspiracy theory. -Quasipalm
I disagree. It's not settled. And the "conspiracy theories" are no more theories than is the official report, which crucially left out vital questions and answers (see below). If that is NOT conspiracy, then I don't know what is!!

Agreed. However, it isn't going to happen. Shills and supporters of the official Conspiracy Theory are determined that nothing which questions the officially sanctioned lies will find it's way into the "respectable" sections on Wikipedia. Anything which questions will fall under "Conspiracy theories" in order to discredit it. I also find it curious that the people who edit the pages which deal with 9/11 and other such controversial topics seem to be the only editors who are able to work full time on their areas of responsibility. As soon as a question or doubt is posted, there are 2 or 3 who jump all over it in seconds. Surely this is JUST what you'd expect from people with a genuine desire to uncover the truth!

As an example of the lies and omissions from official sources, what about WTC Building 7? Why did it fall? Why did the 9/11 Cover-Up Commission not even mention it, apart from to admit (or pretend) that they had no idea? Why did they not order a further investigation of the fall of Building 7 in order to satisfy their remit of answering all the questions? Why was there no prompting from the government itself when all mention of Building 7 was omitted? Why did Larry Silverstein admit on TV that a decision had been made to "pull" Building 7? Why was this not examined closely? If it HAD been "pulled", why was this not mentioned in the official report? Why are there so many holes from an official commission whose job it was to answer all those questions? How can the official report be quoted as any kind of authority when by it's own omissions it discredits itself so thoroughly? I mean, come on! No major steel-cored building has EVER collapsed because of fire, and yet on 9/11 THREE collapse, in highly questionable circumstances, one of which wasn't even burning that badly, and yet the official commission tasked with finding out exactly what happened ignored ALL MENTION of only the 3rd steel cored building in history to collapse because of fire. A 47-storey building, with a massive steel core, which hasn't been impacted by anything larger than maybe a few chunks of steel, collapses for no good reason, in a manner which resembles a controlled explosion to surely even the least suspicious, and the commission putatively tasked with finding out WHY avoid all mention of it?!?! Please! Anyone who is STUPID enough to believe anything else they say should go and queue up to buy some Iraqi WMD, or Iranian Nooks.

File:Can you hear me now.png
Can you hear this message?

And there, I think, we reach the crux of the matter. It is obvious to anyone who has the ability to analyse and ask basic questions that the official version of events on 9/11 is highly questionable, to put it mildly. The fact that there seems to be armies of drones willing to propogate the official lies on sites such as this accords well with the US government's policy of taking the war even into cyberspace, for I believe that is partly who we are fighting against, as well as poor ignorant sheeple who are misguided enough to swallow anything and everything their government tells them, simply because they do not have the courage to question.

"Conspiracy theorists", for the shills and supporters of the official line, are not kooks or crazies who believe the Moon Landings were fake, or the Loch Ness Monster exists. The Official Conspiracy Theory about Building 7 shows beyond all shadow of doubts that even officialdom engage in conspiracies - for how otherwise could an official appointed commission, specially tasked to answer all the questions, fail to even ask about Building 7, at least without conspiring among themselves to leave the relevant pages blank? This is a CONSPIRACY, and no amount of semantic arguing and dissembling will escape from the fact that THIS conspiracy theory is a real one. And yet, shills and supporters, you believe the rest of the story these particular conspiracy theorists trot out. Why is that? The very fact that the 9/11 Cover-up Commission was officially appointed does not make every word it says gospel truth. There is plenty of precedent for this; you only have to look as far as Lee Harvey Oswald and The Incredible Guided Bullet from the Kennedy assassination for outright lies peddled by officialdom.

Documentary on 9/11

Has anyone seen this provocative documentary? It's well done. I think it would be a good addition to the multi-media section:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848

I like how it uses Wikipedia. Watch the whole thing for some Wikipedia close ups.

64.121.40.153 10:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a whole article on it here: Loose Change (video) -- MisterHand 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary.

The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11 [1]) were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks upon the United States of America carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. That morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were hijacked. Two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower. Both towers subsequently collapsed within two hours. A third tower, Building 7, collapsed in the evening. A third aircraft crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. A fourth aircraft crashed into a field in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Approximately 3,000 people died in these attacks.

~~SECONDED. This is absolutley the only manner in which to conduct such an article - factually. The leading paragraph in the current article is distinctly POV. LD~~

Understanding the two sides

I find that in order to better tell the truth of 9-11 names such as terrorist and al-queada should be left out. In other words: NO fingers should be pointed to anybody.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamisamanou (talk • contribs)

That's silly. A weak argument could be made for the word "terrorist", but there is no reason not to call Al-Qaeda, "Al-Qaeda".--DCAnderson 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The notion that one can't be NPoV and say 9/11 was a terrorist act by Al Qaeda is absurd, to say the least.--Rosicrucian 04:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
You think you've seen edit wars before, go ahead and try it. Bin Laden admitted again, two days ago, that he did it. Morton devonshire 04:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This Is Stupid: Highly Government POV!

This article has been stripped of a lot of valid, factual evidence, which does not support the government position. This presents an unbalanced prepresentation of facts to the reader. Is our goal to present the government position, or the truth, and let the chips fall where they may? Relegating dissenting voices to "Conspiracy Theories", especially when they are factual, is Orwellian, and un-American. The government's version of events is, after all, a so-called "conspiracy theory" itself, with Osama behind it. We surely don't want to remove any mention of Osama from this page, do we?

I shall begin a programme of re-introducing facts which are at variance with the government position. If we relegate the government's conspiracy theory to the Conspiracy Theories page, we shall to strip a lot of information from the page, and have little help in interpreting it left. A much more even-handed, NPOV method would be to restrict this page to factual assertions, and more speculative conspiracy theories to the "Conspiracy Theories" page. Some of the factual information that has been left out:

  • The Nov. 2001 Osama Bin Laden tape does not look like Bin Laden. His face is wider, he smiles a lot, he wears a wedding ring, which is forbidden in Islam, and he appears darker complected.
  • Of the four known videos of Flight 175 hitting the South tower, all show a flash of light just before the South Tower was hit, and of the one known video of the plane hitting the North Tower, there is a flash of light just where this plane hit.
  • There is a very good image of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower from CNN, in which what looks to be very probably a missle, is fired at the tower just before impact. This video needs to have a link from here, and be mentioned, if we want the readers to have a balanced presentation of the facts.
  • There is a video where squibs can plainly be seen chasing up the side of WTC7, before it came down. Enquiring minds should be informed. Several squib-like ejecta can be seen in nearly all films of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 before they fall. These should be pointed out.
  • Kevin Ryan, who certified the steel used for the WTC for Underwriter's Labs, wrote a letter early on, saying that fire should NOT have caused the steel to melt.
  • There are a number of very well documented examples of government proir knowledge of the attacks, and of government lying about this fact. Factual evidence that can support this idea clearly should not be off-topic. Although its bulk could be covered elsewhere, the reader should not be deprived of a balanced representation of this evidence in this article.

Really! Haven't any of you people seen "Loose Change"? Let's get with the program, and not reject factual data because it disagrees with the government's POV. To include these, and say, "it proves this or that theory" could possibly be construed as POV. To not include these, rejects valid, factual data, and is itself very POV. I am not suggesting that questionable or marginal videos be allowed here, but when their evidential value seems reasonably clear and important, shall we censor them from main pages? If there is anything to the claims that the government knew it was going to happen, allowed it to happen, or even assisted its happening, then we risk aiding the rise of tyranny in our midst by hiding up vital and valid facts concerning the cirucmstances of the attack. Shall the Wikipedia display only government announcements prominently, or is the Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia where the people and the hackers can speak the truth in spite of government censorship?

--ThaThinker 20:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I think the article you are looking for (that already contains many of the points you want to make) is 9/11 conspiracy theories. I hope this is helpful. -- MisterHand 21:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's precisely the point of what I wrote, is that facts inconsistant with the government position, such as they may be, should NOT be divoriced from the main article. It comes off merely repeating press releases from the government, otherwise. Did you even read what I wrote? --ThaThinker 23:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Many "facts" cited by 9/11 Truth Movement members are either unsubstantiated or thoroughly refuted, yet are still repeated by a plethora of sites, from personal pages to 9/11 "Truth" organizations. Thus, as unverified or even falsified information, they do not belong in this central article. I am making this statement while being as objective as possible. -- Huysmantalk 23:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not being objective. I do not propose to put unsubstantiated things here. Only things that are substantiated, but may agree with the government's theory. I can substantiate every one of my points. One of my points can be substantiated by viewing the original Osama "confession". The others can be found on videos from credible sources. What we have now should probably be a separate article, such as "The Government's Version of 9/11", or "The Government's 9/11 Conspiracy Theory".

--ThaThinker 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • In other words, the US Government's point of view is suspiciously similar to the account based on factual, verifiable information. I disagree that the US government's endorsement necessarily means that objective reality must be wrong. Peter Grey 23:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Right! Thank you for pointing out a common fallacy. -- Huysmantalk 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that. I never asked you to agree that the government's version is necessarily wrong. I propose to place such well-verifiable, substantiatable points here as there may be here. We can argue about the source of this or that video, and I would love to see these ideas refuted. However, what we have here is, "If it isn't what the government says, it doesn't belong here." How is that NPOV? --ThaThinker 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to convey that, "If it is demonstrably false" it does not belong in this article. -- Huysmantalk 23:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that's demonstrably substantiated is that the 9/11 Truth Movement website isn't demonstrably substantiated. Morton devonshire 09:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Theories

Personal opinions aside, "Alternate Theories" is infinitely less POV than "conspiracy theories".--the Dannycas 23:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And if the Wikipedian who reverted my edit could show me where in the archives this dispute was settled, that would be great.--the Dannycas 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps--"conspiracy theories" could be (mis)construed as prejudicial--but these views are by definition conspiracy theories. -- Huysmantalk 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the government's theory. Shall we remove evidence that tends to support it from this page?

Please be more intellectually responsible than that; calling the government's account a conspiracy theory is misusing the term as widely understood. Regardless, many critics of 9/11 conspiracism have demonstrated that the government's account best matches the available evidence and that the facts do not fit the positions of 9/11 "alternate" theorists (e.g. pod plane, WTC demolition, no Flight 77, remote control, foreknowledge, etc.). I was a 9/11 conspiracist for about 20 months before realizing my error; believe me, you do not have to lecture me about 9/11 "alternate theory" sites because I have seen them all. -- Huysmantalk 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility might be to have a bare bones version with the completely undisputed facts, and then a government version of events article, a well-verifiable events that don't fit the government theory article, and another with hypotheses and theories. Still, it seems unnecessary, as this one would fit the bill as an introduction to the subject with a number of its POV assertions addressed, and a small handful of important facts added.

--ThaThinker 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What are some examples of "well-verifiable events that don't fit the government theory?" It would be good to hear/discuss/address some specific issues. -- Huysmantalk 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have a high-speed connection, you can see "Loose Change, 2nd Ed." at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=%22loose+change%22

Loose Change is an extremely unreliable video, containing an abundance of misinformation. 1 2 3 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In it, he points out four different videos that show a flash of light before the plane hit the south tower, available from reputable sources like PBS (he mentions their sources), and in one, it looks like you can even see a missle travel from the plane to the tower. Also, he highlights what look like squibs going off on WTC1 & 2. He describes interviews with people who heard secondary explosions at the towers. He shows a fireman who had been on the site, and says that it looked like a demolition, with one floor after another going "Boom, boom, boom". This was first seen on a documentary by the Naudler brothers (may be spelled wrong), French journalists who were doing a documentary on NYC firefighters, beginning perhaps a week before 9/11. This documentary also contains the only known clip of the first plane hitting the first tower, and there is a strange flash of light there. On LetsRoll911.org, he shows a clip of a CNN documentary, in which the missle hitting the south tower can be more clearly seen, when enlarged: http://www.letsroll911.net/images/missileignitionandlaunch.swf

There are no “missiles” being launched from the Boeings that hit the Twin Towers. 1 9/11 conspiracists have misinterpreted reports of “explosions” in the WTC. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan, who certified the steel used in the WTC, wrote an official letter complaining that fire should not make the steel melt:

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

There are good reasons to reject conspiratorial explanations of so-called “molten” steel. 1 2 3 4 5 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I could give a ton of such examples. If I were to add many more, however, the article would become too long. Actually, I am not sure I can substantiate one of my above points, about the squibs on building seven. Here is the video, and I have never seen it disputed, but I'm afraid I don't know the source:

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm

I would find out where it came from before mentioning it in an article. It probably has a reputable source, as its on the site of a physics professor who is a member of Scolars for 9/11 Truth. His site is:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The “squibs” are not from controlled demolition. 1 2 -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, it is easy to demonstrate foreknowledge on the part of the government. Henry Waxman, a Senator on the Government Reform committee, requested 52 documents related to foreknowledge, apart from the many which are more commonly mentioned by 9/11 researchers:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/story.asp?ID=791&Issue=Open+Government

Also, the Able Danger program is now public knowledge, and had identified Mohammed Atta and two other hijackers in the U.S. well before 9/11, but they were prevented from telling the FBI.

I have not researched Able Danger nearly enough to come to a conclusion. -- Huysmantalk 02:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

These are important pieces of evidence for anybody trying to make sense of 9/11. Whether they are found to have innocent explanations ultimately, we cannot know. The price of assuming they are innocent when they are really signs of an executive branch that could but did not prevent them, could be high indeed.

--ThaThinker 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. After viewing the information I will let you know my thoughts and its bearing on the article. -- Huysmantalk 00:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What makes the conspiracy in the conspiracy theory is the improbable claim that thousands of people officially involved in the examination of the 9/11 evidence have been able to keep a complex set of lies consistent for almost 5 years and managed to hide all the evidence of government foreknowledge or complicity — and for no apparent motive. patsw 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Amen. Mike Williams's article at http://911myths.com/html/who_knew_.html demonstrates the patent absurdity of a government conspiracy. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This article provides the factual account. The US government version is found under 9/11 Commission; obstruction of the 9/11 Commission would fall under the same article, other government failurs might belong somewhere else. The conspiracy theories are under 9/11 conspiracy theories. No verifiable facts contradicting Wikipedia's version have been identified. Peter Grey 01:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Case closed. -- Huysmantalk 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That's you guys' opinions. I disagree. I'd say we've got a POV dispute, as you guys seem very POV. I say this, because the videos and the sources are clear enough to be important, not because I wish to disagree just to disagree. You guys haven't addressed any of the specific evidence. This article needs to be updated to be more balanced.

Because the discussion of the "evidence" is too involved for this page, I directed you to websites which thoroughly refute the claims of Loose Change and 9/11 conspiracists. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't being partial, you would admit that Abel Danger is a clear cut example of something that was real that bears on the case. This article has pointedly and lopsidedly left out all evidence at any variance to the government view.

You can direct your concerns regarding Able Danger to the talk page of that article and also do what Tom Harrison said. -- Huysmantalk 16:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you this. Without even assuming the factuality of any particular claim, can you admit that if there were any solid evidence that tended not to support the government claims, wouldn't you say that this article is an excellent place for at least a handful of the best, especially when it touches on something already in the article? --ThaThinker 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No; take it to 9/11 conspiracy theories and stop crufting up this talk page with loose-change links. Tom Harrison Talk 13:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree: "conspiracy theories" is a POV title, see [22].--Pokipsy76 16:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

I aim at collecting information regarding the wikipedia users view of this article. Please read this --Striver 14:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really fine as it is; don't fret over it. Also remember that Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- Huysmantalk 16:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Also remember Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight and giving "equal validity". -- MisterHand 16:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against trying to come to some sort of different concensus as to how to fix the problem. I'm suggesting that it isn't "really fine" as it is. That is a good idea to collect ideas on the subject. Wikipedia isn't organized as a democracy, and this is probably good for the inclusion of minority, but interesting views. If you check some of the recent Zogby polls, you'll see that this minority really is pretty substantial. I think collecting ideas on the subject should be a good idea toward figuring out how to fix the problem.

--ThaThinker 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't cite any of that stuff here. Violates Wikipedia policy: See Dubious Sources: From WP:RS "Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [24] Morton devonshire 09:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did that page disappear?--Pokipsy76 19:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from discussion from Stiver's POV fork into userspace

  1. Add some of the most factual items that don't harmonize with the government version of events to the current article by having items from different viewpoints in one section of the article.
  2. Add some of the most factual dissenting items at various places throughout the article, grouping ideas by subject.
  3. Break 9/11 materials up into four articles: one with undisputed items, one with factual items which tend to support the government position, one with factual items which do not tend to support the government position, and one with more hypothetical or theoretical types of items.

(These were some different possibities I suggested as to how the POV problem might be fixed on this page.--ThaThinker 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

Can someone list which information they think belongs in the respective proposed sections above? -- Huysmantalk 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've listed at least five solid points in the talk section already. Although many more exist, many should not belong here, due to concern for the length of the article. Anybody else? --ThaThinker 19:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Four of these "solid" points are trivially refuted in the links I provided. However, I am unsure about Able Danger and thus am going to research it from both points of view and will get back to you on that. -- Huysmantalk 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't. For example, the Conta war was conducted in secret, by G. Bush's Sr. G. Bush Jr. grew up with secret wars going on. A conspiracy of at least some size is possible. True, it did come out into the open, but then, 9/11 is still in the process. Many people have resigned or have been fired after blowing the whistle on 9/11 activities. Again, you have not even tried to refute any of my points specifically. I'm sure others will agree. Waving a magic wand, and saying a conspiracy is impossible without addressing the evidence does not make it go away. --ThaThinker 20:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that "waving a magic wand" does not make a conspiracy vanish. Did you even read the links? You can visit them in your free time or you can let me know if I should post (potentially very detailed and lengthy) refutations on the (already very cluttered) talk page. I am also aware of the fact that there have been real conspiracies (e.g. Dreyfus affair) but 9/11 is not a U.S.A. government conspiracy. -- Huysmantalk 20:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
What you can do in the meantime is mention the "alternate theory" that Able Danger indicates U.S. complicity in the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the main article. -- Huysmantalk 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go that far, necessarily. While it can be taken as tending to confirm the idea, I am most focused on direct evidence, whereever it might lead. We will probably never really know unless it comes out in a court of law or a truly independent investigation.

One great link on Able Danger is to go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.html, and search on "Able Danger Failure". Then, choose the record for Oct. 19, 2005. Weldon's testimony is quite stirring, for a Republican, conservative congressman. There's a great interview here, also: http://www.mediachannel.org/mv21.shtml

I urge you to visit Able Danger: 20 Questions by Rory O'Connor. -- Huysmantalk 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is room to resolve at least some of this on principle, without raising a POV flag.--ThaThinker 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can agree in principle to check out any reasonable amount of refutations that you guys have to offer, and indeed I hope you guys are right, although I fear you guys are not. Even so, from the Wikipedia rules, you must allow 9/11 skeptics a voice here. As Striver's spot poll is no longer there, should I take it that it has been removed because somebody realizes it shouldn't affect the outcome, as per the wikipedia rules? As to the question of sources, "Loose Change" is an independent documentary, and could be a questionable source. I am willing to order the original documentaries from sources such as PBS or CNN, in order to verify his claims, if anyone has any serious doubts as to usability of sources. As for my part, I've seen these mysterious flashes just before the plane hits the south tower on History Channel footage as well, and even the mysterious ejecta that could be some sort of squibs, when the shot hasn't been cropped to remove them. I need no source other than the Nov. 2001 tape itself and any other real Bin Laden tape to prove that that wasn't him. Other points can be substantiated from the congressional record, or letters on the websites of congressmen. Although I intend to reason in good faith, 9/11 skeptics are not required to convince supporters of the official theory, in order to have a voice. --ThaThinker 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Every point you have made is original research, and this has been an ongoing series of arguments that simply do not refute the official findings. Striver's poll was in userspace and was a POV fork, so it is gone. We really don't care what some silly website has to say on this matter and your voice can be made here as much as you want, but we are not going ton have nonsense in this article. Wikipedia is liable to 100,000 lawsuits from the people that were related to or friends of those that died that day if we put heresay or original research in this article.--MONGO 16:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, why would relatives or friends sue Wikipedia for acknowledging alternative theories? Are the deaths of 9/11 victims made somehow more traumatic by exploring possibilities of guilt or complicity of the US government? Your implication seems to be that relatives/friends of victims are satisfied with the official explanation for the tragedy, and thus would not be interested in, would indeed be angered by, an attempt to pursue research into the role that their own government may have played. I think this is highly unlikely in the current climate of political antipathy and distrust.
I would just like to add that I do not find many of these 'conspiracy theories' convincing at all. Though I do not trust the agendas of radical or oddball theorists, I have no more faith in the validity of the US government's position, and the agenda behind it. 150.203.114.182 14:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Original research is not necessarily wrong, and I do not agree that it should not be in Wikipedia pages, when it holds water. Every point everybody makes was original research at one point. The existence of these explosions are not my finding originally, so it is not original with me. If you expect uz to find mainstream, commercial television sources critical of 9/11, we won't, and we believe this is by design. If we care about truth, we may have to weather frivilous libel lawsuits. Many of the families of the 9/11 victims support such investigations:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Here are examples of families who have gone public, saying the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash:


http://suitcaseman.gnn.tv/blogs/13419/Father_of_911_Victim_Speaks_Out

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Bob_McIlvaine-GoldInterview_March_1_2006/bob9113106.mov is a relevent video on that site.

Here’s another: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0115-11.htm

The spectre of 9/11 families suing for libel for mentioning these things seems to me to be a phantom menace. It just doesn't seem very likely, as long as things are kept on as factual a basis as possible. Many would applaud this effort.

Mysterious explosions at the WTC may not prove anything about why they happened, but they are still something I think the people need to know, and the television networks, both conservative and liberal, have been engaging in a blackout of this information. My idea is to be forthcoming on evidence, but be very cautious in drawing conclusions based on them. Likewise, I don't favor revealing classified information, but, e.g. in the case of Able Danger, 1) it is already in the public domain, 2) governmental means of addressing wrongdoing have failed in this case (on Lt. Col. Schaffer's part, if in no other regard), and 3) among all the commercial television networks, only Lou Dobbs has made it a point to inform the people about it.--ThaThinker 18:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html --the Dannycas 19:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess really what I'm offering to do is to verify what an independent documentary maker did, where the documentary has generated a rather sizeable following, as opposed to simply putting my own findings and conclusions up, which are few anyway, on this subject so far. --ThaThinker 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't use blogs and no peer reviewed websites as a reference base. Websites that are written up by private parties are controlled by just one or a few individuals, so they have complete say as to what the website details. The video you mention is just pure POV, no one that understands the events takes it seriously and it is already discussed in the articles related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please see WP:RS and WP:V for clarification as to what constitiutes a reliable source.--MONGO 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use a blog as a reference base. Yes, "Loose Change" is POV, but if the documentaries it refers to actually have the same thing happening in them, then mainstream sources can be used. It is a suitable grounds for discussion, since there's really quite a substantial minority that support its claims. I am only suggesting bringing in a few of its best, most verifiable points. "no one that understands the events takes it seriously" is a clever, if curiously worded statement, which has some bad grammar. Many people have studied the issue in great depth, and take it seriously. This sounds like a POV statement. How do you define 'understands', and who makes that judgement? If you are the one who decides if they understand it, based on if they agree with you, I can see how you would come to that conclusion. It's amazing the people who come out of the woodwork to attempt to explain how the Wikipedia rules do not allow examination of this particular topic. The Wikipedia rules cannot restrict the right to talk about POV works, or else the Bible, the Third Reich, and anything or anyone else that ever held an opinion would be off topic. Yes, "Loose Change" is POV, but researching if its claims hold water or not, can be done in a NPOV way. There already is, for example, a Wikipedia page on it. We've already got Bin Laden vidcaps all over the place, and he is certainly POV. That doesn't have to keep an article discussing him from being NPOV. The sources, again, would be from the mainstream, even if the minority view is not, and can barely so much as get itself mentioned in the mainstream. Anyone else want to try to make the rules say something they don't?

By no means would I want to represent this as a simple issue, and although I have researched the attacks on 9/11 well enough to have gotten at least a reasonable sampling of both sides of the debate, it will take longer to propose arguments and counter-arguments, and consider both, than it will to see if we can come to some sort of resolution. I've been pretty busy myself, lately . For starters, I am simply making the effort to try to build some sort of concensus as to how the article can be fixed to include minority views, and then I would ask for suggestions as to the best items out there which tend to support alternative theories. Even so, there are already some well sourced or otherwise obvious points that could be made for starters, apart from the footage referenced in "Loose Change". I really do intend to give other people's refutations honest consideration as time may reasonably allow, but don't be surprised if supporters of alternate theories and hypotheses do not come to the same conclusion as to the validity of evidence that many supporters of the official version do. That's why its an alternate theory or hypothesis. --ThaThinker 01:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Bin Laden

Have they all been official verified as him? Was wondering for the validity of the captions.

The third one, in military uniform seems particularly odd, in that Bin Laden (on his Wiki page) is clearly described as a left hander, yet this photo shows him gesticulating in right hand dominant manner.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclebob (talk • contribs)

In, for example, the December 2001 confession video by bin Laden and al Qaeda associates, higher resolution shots show that that the video indeed shows Osama bin Laden. On bin Laden's righthandedness or lefthandedness see bin Laden Right Handed? by Mike Williams of 911Myths.com. --

Huysmantalk 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden's Recent Admission

Last week Bin Laden admitted his role in the attacks, but denied that Moussaoui had participated -- shouldn't this fact be in the article somewhere? Responsibility section? Morton devonshire 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely this is simple?

I believe this article is unbalanced and frankly ridiculous. I'm in the UK and we get very different news here... ;-)

In order to be at all scientific about this, we ought to:

  • Give a BRIEF account of different POVs that attempt to explain why these events occurred
  • Link to EXTERNAL sites that support these different POVs


If you'd like my POV (I bet you wouldn't, but hey...), the reason I believe Orwell was thankfully wrong is that he didn't forsee the proletariat becoming such a sophisticated and intellectually independent bunch as we are. But in order to prove him wrong we need to grow up...simply documenting the American news reports in the immediate aftermath of the attacks as an objective factbase on the event is just plain silly, guys. I mean come on... (LD)

In other words, the American reports are biased?--MONGO 03:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. --Striver 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the news is very different in the UK. The BBC and a few other outlets published a few discredited reports that the hijackers were alive. There's always bias, no matter the source. The current setup of this central article and 9/11 conspiracy theories is perfectly OK. -- Huysmantalk 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic date?

Does this date have any significance in the Muslim calendar?

It doesn't exist in the Muslim calendar, "September 11" occurs at a different Muslim date each year. --Golbez 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, but was there some significance in 2001?

Not what i know. --Striver 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The onlie true war on terrorism

Editing the main article, Tarage wrote:

(diff) (hist) . . September 11 attacks‎; 06:49 . . (-2) . . Tarage (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 263717783 by Kaelfischer (talk) I don't believe that this is the only 'War on Terror' that has occured.)

... I think you are mistaken, there. We've had a War on Poverty and a War on Drugs (Poverty and Drugs won). We don't usually "declare" war on abstractions. The closest thing to the 'War on Terror' I'm aware of was called the War on Poland. Himmler and his subordinates sent troops into Poland, covertly, to fire into Germany and dressed a guy named Honionk in a Polish uniform, murdered him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz on the last day of October, 1939. The next morning, thousands of German tanks rolled into Poland to defend the Fatherland (Motherland? Parentland?) from further such terrorism. Well, I'll leave the "a" or "the" to other editors to figure out. .. By the way, Tarage, how old are you? ... Wowest (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking my age is reliant how? --Tarage (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The proper word is relevant. -69.124.55.254 (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_18&oldid=1136379791"