Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 59

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

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

→

Revert of minor changes

A number of minor changes I made to the article have been reverted. The changes in question are as follows:

[1] - Changed "on that Tuesday morning" to "early that morning" in response to an objection regarding a different change to the same material.
[2] - Changed "The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture in general" to "The 9/11 attacks have had a significant impact on society and culture" in response to an objection to a previous variant that used the term "political arena" in place of the "geopolitics" term.
[3] - Diminishing the proseline appearance of the article.

I am finding it particularly difficult to understand why the last two edits were reverted. At best I can see maybe two changes that may not be phrased just right, but that does not justify a wholesale revert. Perhaps the individuals who have been reverting these changes can be more clear about their objections or someone uninvolved could weigh in on the edits above.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The politics/geopolitics or similar wording probably is best left out altogether...as I've tried numerous times before but have failed to properly convey, this article would be a lot better if we focused mostly on the event of that day, with a lead in on some precursers, and some following paragraphs on the aftermath such as the war, the cleanup, health effects and investigations all in one section under maybe 4 subsections of a paragraph each.MONGO 12:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree to an extent. Maybe not quite as short as what you suggest, but I definitely think those sections should be shorter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying disambiguation hatnotes

OK, my edit aiming at simplifying the disambiguation hatnotes was reverted with the message "removal of legitimate DAB links [...], needs discussion on Talk" so let there be discussion.

I think hatnotes should be kept as short as possible, without breaking their navigational purpose of course. Here we have ""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For the attacks in Chile in 1973, see 1973 Chilean coup d'état. For the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya in 2012, see U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).". Five page suggestions; I find that long and quite confusing, especially for people having to go through the four "For..." sentences to find something on the disambiguation page; and on a smartphone, all that takes a big portion of the screen, quite frustrating when you just loaded the article.

I suggested ""9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).". The idea was that 1973 Chilean coup d'état and U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi are two possibilities listed on 911 (disambiguation), so users arriving on that page looking for one of them would be guided to that disambiguation page where they would find the article they were looking for.

What's wrong with that? - Cos-fr (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay with me. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Improve first introductory paragraph

Ok, my edit aiming at improving the first introductory paragraph was reverted with the message "PoV edits; needs discussion on Talk", so let there be discussion.

Reading #Destruction of the WTC complex above on this talk page, I understand that I had reduced too much the level of detail about destruction/fires/collapses and such around the WTC; still I think that the current sentences are too wordy, and with too much details, for the first paragraph of the lead section of the article (there's plenty space later on to give more details). But okay for that error, is there anything else wrong in what I suggested? What is the PoV in my edit ?

Thanks - Cos-fr (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I made an attempt to shorten this and was reverted on the basis that it removed mention of the fires. However, the debris causing damage would include fires and the fires are only considered important with respect to one building other than the towers. Since the discussion above was simply about clearing up that the collapse was not uniform given the debris damaging other buildings, I do not think this is important enough to mention. Remember, this article is about the attacks. We have an article about the collapse that does mention this in some detail. I think the best course it to restore the shortened version I presented and wikilink to the collapse article in the lede. Seems to me that there really should be such a link and it would serve readers better than front-loading this article with all the gritty details.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya in 2012, see U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi

Who made the determination that when some people go to September 11 attacks, they are looking for an attack at the American consulate in Benghazi and not the well known terrorist attack that killed 2,996 people? I think the link to that article has to be removed. It's unnecessary. It's only on here because it's a recent event. If it was never added here, 2 years later it would still not be added. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, the embassy attacks happened on September 11th and were attacks. I don't think it's unreasonable to have the link. --Tarage (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

without being rude, where is the 2996 number from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.53.83.69 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

2,977 victims plus the 19 hijackers. Victims include the 292 people on the planes, the 2,606 people inside the buildings (WTC complex + Pentagon) at time of collapse, and 292 people that were outside the towers but were killed by debris and/or falling bodies from WTC 1 and 2. At least 6,000 other people were injured due to the attacks and a bomb-sniffing dog was killed, but is obviously not included in either total. The death total is gaining periodically due to deaths linked to exposure to dust from the WTC, so it is plausible that the total could at some point surpass 3,000. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

False flag

I would like to propose that the term "false flag" be introduced into this article and discussed as separate from "conspiracy theories" as there is now substantial scientific evidence to support the controlled demolition theory in relation to building 7 and it does Wikipedia a dis-service to have this page written purely as a POV, albeit a POV that is supported by the US Government. Wikipedia must serve the world, not the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.49.190 (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories has that generally covered.

No it doesn't, I am proposing that the title of this page be changed to include the term "September 11 false flag attacks"

Is there anything new from reliable sources that would affect the articles? I'd also note that you're mixing theories: the whole 9/11 event has been proposed as a false flag event, while the purported demolition of WTC 7 is proposed as more of a cover-up, with the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 possibly serving to cover up the coverup. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, Wikipedia relies on facts or what are regarded as facts, and 9/11 conspiracy theories are soundly rejected by academia and by people knowledgeable in any of the topic areas involved (engineering, building collapses, physics, etc.). The idea that 9/11 was a false-flag operation flies in the face of all evidence in the topic and is nothing more than nonsense promoted by a lunatic fringe. Toa Nidhiki05 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid personal attacks on Wikipedia. There is a substantive case for new evidence as NIST has recognized the WTC 7 free fall for the first 2.25 seconds. This could only be achieved under a controlled demolition with all of the columns demolished simultaneously. By admitting to WTC 7 being a controlled demolition the review of towers one and two being brought down in a controlled demolition hence forth puts the official conspiracy theory in total doubt. 122.57.49.190 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be as polite as I can. You need to bring reliable sources to overturn the consensus. You say that there is now "substantial scientific evidence". Cite it. If you cannot provide reliable sources, I'm afraid your edit request will be ignored. --Tarage (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, NIST did not admit WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. In fact, the free fall portion of the collapse was only the north face of the building, and only for part of its collapse. See this link, and I'll quote the relevant portion behind a cut. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Neutrality

Close soapbox

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just checked this article out for the first time the other day. I was very saddened to how some parties have hijacked Wikipedia articles to advance what is easily recognized as propaganda by most people. It's so one-sided that I don't believe this was written by private citizens. This page is a black stain on Wikipedia's credibility. --User:J3wishVulcan

It's not "one-sided", unless you count logic and evidence, and its negation, being two sides. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Like the above poster, I must request reliable sources. If you cannot provide them to back up your opinion, I will close this discussion thread for soapboxing. --Tarage (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I could show you a thousand things right now, but I won't bother wasting my time because I know the operatives who have hijacked this page will just re-hash their pre-scripted name calling routine. You may want to be more subtle. This page is easily recognized cartoon-level propaganda. It's so obvious my cousin who's in 6th grade showed it to me and said I would get good laugh out of this sad propaganda effort. J3wishVulcan (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Like it or not, the reality is that most people don't believe the official story on 9/11. The fact the editors of this page have made such a deliberate and concerted effort to suppress any information that goes against the official story, is a major "red flag" for most people. It's clear the editors of this page are presenting a drastically skewed version of "mainstream" beliefs. "Mainstream" means what most people believe. The government and its corporate conglomerate media would love to be able to wave a magic wand and tell most people what they believe, but only the most gullible of individuals actually falls for such tricks. The fact that you have tried to hide my comments in addition to closing the thread...I mean seriously who would go so far as to hide comments they didn't agree with, unless they had a special interest in the outcome. It's absolutely laughable. You're not doing yourselves any favours with this either. I wonder how many people have been awakened just by seeing this article and seeing how deliberately skewed it is. People aren't that stupid. J3wishVulcan (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the operatives who controls this page, we can't let you speak because we have all the sheeple fooled. One post from you threatens to expose the conspiracy to the entire world, and our cover-up would come falling down like a deck of cards. But rest assured, the black helicopters have been dispatched. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Add "Department of Homeland Security" and "The Patriot Act" as explicit U.S. responses

I think the following statement should be added in the second introductory paragraph, just before the last sentence: "In addition, significant restructuring of national security occurred through the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and passage of the USA PATRIOT Act." Also, insert "other" following the first word of the last sentence (for smoother transition): "Many other countries..."

The restructuring of our national security and The Patriot Act have had a profound effect on the constitutionally-balanced rights of the individual, powers of the State, and powers of the Federal government. The changes are so sweeping that almost all other legislation and budgeting since then are impacted in a significant way. Our very culture has been modified as a direct result of these responses. For example, Dept. of Transportation has instituted comprehensive and expensive compliance with regard to airport security: people have changed personal habits with regard to carry-on bags; personal IDs and tracking has become pervasive through mandatory gps-tracking abilities in cars, passports, drivers' licenses and cell phones; even violation of personal space is being tolerated in ways that humanity has never experienced. Many of these changes were and continue to be challenged as impositions on individual liberties as well as States' rights. These reasons support my claim that at least a mention of Dept. of Homeland Security and Patriot Act should be made in the introduction to the article so that readers understand the full impact of 9/11 in a cursory description of the event. Without them, readers may be misled into thinking that only other countries have instituted anti-terrorism measures.

76.20.198.161 (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. New article material requires reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem Phrase in Cultural Impact Section

The Cultural Impact section concludes with:

"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians."

The reference points to this CBS article. The article certainly does oppose the conspiracy theories, however, it's quite a stretch to use that article to support the view that "expert scientists, engineers, and historians" agree that there is "negligible support" for "conspiracy theories". I understand that this is a sensitive topic that instigates a lot of debate, but I don't think this is a very well supported statement. As I understand, many "expert scientists, engineers, and historians" accept elements of the conspiracy theories. But I suppose I should dig up some sources on this. --Louisstar (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We have an article about that: 9/11 conspiracy theories. Suffice to say, scientific consensus is that the conspiracy theories do not stand up to scrutiny. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't be a problem to cite a source that actually says that "expert scientists, engineers, and historians" say there is "negligible support" for conspiracy theories. So why is that section making unreferenced claims? --Louisstar (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping you from doing so yourself. In fact, negligible support should be rephrased to "virtually zero" or simply "no" support, since there simply isn't any amongst reputable experts.MONGO 14:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mongo on both points. If you want better sourcing, feel free to add it. And "negligible support" should be changed to "no support" or "lack of support". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen an article say there is "zero support" for these alternative theories. And I doubt you'd find one. You're pushing an agenda here, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cite the source, add it, and I'll retract. Otherwise, this article reeks of serious bias. I have not once said anything about what I agree or disagree to. All I said was that I found that the cited source did not say what the paragraph was claiming, and you guys are jumping on me like I'm some conspiracy nut. All I'm saying is, cite the source or else remove the false statement. Is it against Wikipedia's guidelines to ask for a statement to be properly sourced?--Louisstar (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It's an entirely correct summary of the reliable sources to say the conspiracy theories have no support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians. There's no need to lard the paragraph with sources saying the cts are bunk. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We could add the following citations and use the phrasing "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite solid affirmation of the mainstream account and utter rejection of truther claims by scientists, historians, and scholars of other sundry fields":

"NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster". NIST. 2005. p. 146. Archived from the original on 29 May 2009. Retrieved July 7, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
"Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" (PDF). NIST. 2008. pp. 22–4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 September 2008. Retrieved September 29, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Bazant, Zdenek P. and Mathieu Verdure. "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" in Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp. 308–319 (March 2007). Bazant and Verdure write, "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows...." (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure).
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, Popular Mechanics, 3 February 2005

That summarize the sources closely without giving in to any truther-POV. Of course assuming Louisstar is not here to push a truther-POV (I mean, just because he wouldn't admit to accepting the fact that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks is not completely the same as denying it... Just really close...), this should satisfy him, as it does stick closer to the CBS article and provides additional sources demonstrating that, no, only crackpot and/or unaccredited scientists who are speaking outside of their fields or need to go back to flipping burgers give any credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the only real change needed with the "negligible support" phrase is to simply summarize the listing of experts by saying "negligible support within the academic community" since "expert" is a tad redundant and the current listing excludes certain relevant groups.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. WP:GOADTHECONSPIRACYLOONIES isn't even an essay. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm ok with "a total lack of support by experts in the fields of.... " or "universal lack of support...". Something like that. (i.e., factual.) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. What you just proposed has no connection to reality. This article should not deny the existence of supporters in the relevant fields, no matter how much you may wish they did not exist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering the fact that, over the last decade, none of these "supporters" have gotten around to publishing anything in any peer-reviewed journal in any of the relevant fields; I fail to see why the beliefs of such an extremely small minority should be acknowledged against the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Not sure what I can say about the part where you try to read my mind. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

New Sub-Head: "Alternative Theories and Views"

I really don't understand why this page doesn't have a major section called "alternative theories". I understand that there is a separate article on "conspiracy theories", but this does not properly represent the facts. I am not saying here that the alternative theories are correct. I am not taking sides here, nor am I an active "truther" or anything like that.

It is my view, however, that even within the mainstream, and among many recognized experts, that these alternative views have been considered and discusssed. Here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

CBC News in Canada has broadcast documentaries discussing alternative theories. The documentaries are not just re-plays of Loose Change and whatnot, but are CBC-produced pieces.
Major political figures have gone public with their rejection of the official story. I understand that the mainstream media views these people as "crackpots" and such, but this is not just a few isolated cases. There are many such individuals, not just Jesse Ventura.
Many well-known celebrities have gone on record questioning the government's official story. This page lists those with sources to their statements. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean any of them are right. It just shows that these alternative views (or the idea of questioning the official story) are not as "minority" as this article seems to suggest (which is against Wikipedia guidelines since the article does not properly reflect what is actually in the mainstream regarding the 9/11 attacks)
What about this article in the Washington Post? It says even those who were part of the 9/11 commission panel question the info they were given by certain sources
PBS aired a 9/11 alternative theory documentary. According to this article, that documentary is ranking #3 in "most-watched" documentaries on PBS and #1 in "most shared".
There have been polls taken that show that a very large percentage of Americans do not accept the official story, in some form, and most poll respondents want a new investigation.
From the scientific community, this paper discusses findings that strongly suggest (prove?) the existence of explosives. Why can't this be included in an "alternative theories" section?

Again, I realize that much of this is discussed in the article on conspiracy theories. But I think it's wrong that this article itself buries the conspiracy theories article in a single link. There needs to be a major sub-head that summarizes this content, and that links to the main article. 9/11 conspiracies, whether they are rejected by mainstream sources or not, is not just some minor group of crackpots.

So my proposal here is that a main heading should be called "Alternative Theories" and at the very least it should have a link to the conspiracy theories article, and at most it should summarize these alternative theories and how widespread they are among professed experts, celebrities, and even among the public.

If anyone questions my honesty here, look at my editing history. I don't think I've ever touched a 9/11 related article. I simply came across this, and was dumbfounded at the fact that there was no mention of the alternative theories, despite that they are so widespread.--Louisstar (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories have been considered, discussed, and dismissed by mainstream media. Here's an example from the Guardian, hardly a source friendly to US government policy [4]. A "major subsection" would be undue weight and has been rejected by community consensus in the past. While I personally believe that certain aspects of 9/11 are not satisfactorily explained, my concerns center on mishandling of the conspirators prior to the event by the security agencies in the hopes that they might lead to bigger fish, and with political exploitation of events after the fact. Conspiracy enthusiasts have not come up with anything remotely new in five or six years, confining themselves to nitpicking and exploitation of minor inconsistencies to "prove" a grand conspiracy, yet have been unable to address refutations in any manner other than declaring those who refute their theories to be either deluded or part of the conspiracy. In any case extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The controlled demolition scenarios are bunk, plain and simple, based on provably faulty understanding of structural design, mechanics of materials at elevated temperatures, the essential difference between statics and dynamics, and general physics. I won't even go into the "fake planes" scenarios. Polls are not a useful metric for inclusion: lots of people believe that humans interacted with dinosaurs, but we don't include that. We don't give credence to homeopathy or pyramids in Bosnia, and we say so. Water-based fuels are described as hoaxes despite a lot of people thinking there's a conspiracy to suppress them. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That maybe explains why my vehicle has been running so rough! That 50/50 mix of gas and water makes for a horrible vibration!..MONGO 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please listen carefully, Acroterion. I don't think you're understanding what I'm proposing here. I am not debating you on the validity of the crashes, the collapses, and whatnot. I am not saying that the evidence goes against the official story. I am saying that the cultural impact of the alternative theories is much much bigger than this article suggests. It doesn't really matter whether the conspiracy theories have little support in acedemia. My point is that even major mainstream sources have given the theories a lot of attention.

Let's compare this for a moment to the Moon Landing article. Would you say that the moon landing conspiracy theories have any weight in the scientific community? No, obviously not. But at the bottom of that article, there is a section on "Hoax Accusations". The moon landing hoax does not have support from major celebrities, from politicians, from recognized experts. Yet, it has mention in a major article. Are you going to tell me that the "Conspiracy Accusations" in relation to the 9/11 attacks have "undue weight", and yet the moon landing article allows the hoax theories to have its own major section?

Again, say whatever you want in that section, as long as it's sourced properly. But to not have a major section on conspiracy theories in this article actually goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on "undue weight". This article is not a scientific discussion on 9/11, it's a summary of the entire story and should include the cultural impact of the conspiracy theories.--Louisstar (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Louisstar, you are not fooling anyone as to who you are - it is very clear you are a conspiracy theorist from your rhetoric alone, so please stop pretending like you aren't. 9/11 conspiracy theories (not 'alternative theories', because there are no alternative theories) have no place on this article and never will because they lack support from reputable sources, instead drawing their support from internet forums and crackpot theorists. This article covers what happened on 9/11, not what some pseudoscientific documentary or a 15-year old on an internet forum thinks happened. Conspiracy theories aren't relevant and have no place here. Toa Nidhiki05 15:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Toa, I'm sorry, but your statements are uncalled for. It's clear that this talk page is surrounded by trolls like you whose sole purpose is to turn every objective discussion into personal attacks and bad faith assumptions. I have not once made an opinion statement here, nor have I accused anyone of any improper intent. 9/11 conspiracies are a major cultural phenomenon. That is a documented and well-supported fact. It's not just Internet forums, nor is it just the views of Dylan Avery and other such non-experts. Again, I am not saying that I support the theories. That's irrelevant to my point. But of course, since you're a troll, that doesn't matter to you. If you deny that them mainstream have documented the major cultural impact of the theories, then you might as well also deny that you live on planet Earth, because they both have the same amount of evidence. Again, I repeat, I am not saying that there is evidence to support the conspiracy theories, I am saying there is valid evidence to support that these theories have a very large cultural impact, and are not just "minority views". Am I wrong about that, Toa? Are you able to discuss the topic at hand, or are you going to continue to make personal attacks and be a troll?--Louisstar (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a troll, the people who keep coming on here and promoting fringe nonsense that will never be put in this article are. You have used Truther movement phrases ("official theory" and "alternative theory") and, in combination with what you are promoting, this is enough for me to call a duck a duck. These denialist ideas have no support from reputable sources and thus have no business being in an article that is about what actually happened, not what some guy in some website/conspiracy club/Truther group thinks. We don't discuss the idea that the Earth is flat on the 'Earth' page even though Flat Earth theories have had infinitely more impact on culture than 9/11 CTs have, and there is no reason we should discuss fringe nonsense here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be taking conspiracy theories much more seriously than you assert, by my reading of your proposal. Your watering-down of "conspiracy theories" as "alternative views" is indicative. As far as your argument about moon landing hoaxes, it would be my contention that the article on moon landings gives undue weight to hoax assertions. I will also note that this article is very long: what do you propose to remove to make room for your discussion? There was extensive discussion here with wide participation about a year ago about what to include and how far to go: I suggest that you review the archives.

FYI, the Bentham "paper" on explosives isn't what it purports to be, and Bentham has been rejected as a serious source in extensive discussions here and elsewhere. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion, I understand what you're saying. If there was discussion on this, like you say, then the conclusions reached were wrong. It is an undeniable fact that many mainstream sources, many industry professionals, and and many well-known public figures and politicians have gone on record as saying that they question the official story. And once again, I will repeat, I am not saying that any of these people are right in what they say. Nor am I saying that I disagree with the official story. If anyone is assuming that I do, then you are going against Wikipedia guidelines about assuming good faith. So I ask that we just discuss the issue. I understand it's been discussed before, but there are just far too many mainstream sources drawing attention to the conspiracy theories to delegate them to a minor link in the last sentence of a paragraph in a single section. The impact of these theories on the public, according to mainstream sources, is much larger than this article lets on, and that does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and weight. Am I wrong about this?--Louisstar (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Louisstar, there are not a bunch of mainstream sources questioning the facts, just mainstream sources you misrepresented the same way other truthers do, and fringe sources by truthers. See below. You've been caught by everyone, we know you're a truther. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ian Thomson, I'm sorry but you are a very rude human being. Here is my official statement on 9/11: "I, the user who goes by the name of Louisstar, freely admit that peer-reviewed, well-respected sources and major mainstream media outlets fully support the official story on what happened on 9/11, and they all reject any and all conspiracy theories." That is my official stance. Now, since that has nothing to do with the discussion I've opened, let's get down to the real topic: Is it not true that the views of conspiracy theorists have had a major social and cultural impact on America and other countries, and is it not true that these conspiracy views and their impact have been discussed in many mainstream, well-respected, news sources? That's all I'm asking. Now please take your anti-tin-foil-hat-weaponry, put it aside, and let's discuss the real issue I've brought up. Thank you.--Louisstar (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any mainstream sources that "question the official story." There's just an echo chamber on the Internet. The only "industry professionals" that take 9/11 conspiracy theories seriously are regarded by the vast majority of their peers as fringe theorists and are ignored by professional organizations. Acroterion (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I worded that wrong. I didn't mean to say that the sources "questioned" and agreed with the theories, I was trying to say that the theories, according to mainstream sources, have had a major cultural impact, part of which is related to the fact that many prominent figures and celebrities have gone on record about them. I'm not saying these theories should be considered scientifically sound; I know they are fringe. But their impact on culture cannot be denied, even by mainstream sources.--Louisstar (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So what factual, referenced and relevant material would you propose to cut from this already-too-long article to make room for innuendo, supposition and heard-it-on-the-Internet? And what precisely do you mean by "cultural impact?"The Falling Man, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and The Sphere are examples of relevant cultural associations, but I'm having trouble thinking of much else in the visual or performing arts or in literature, and Wikipedia's made a concerted attempt to get away from "in popular culture" links. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If someone quacks like a duck, cites duck sources, and has to be openly confronted a few times before denying being a duck, pardon me for making assumptions. And no, the conspiracy theorists have not a major social and cultural impact on the world. They have only been discussed in mainstream sources as incorrect curiosities, like the Westboro Baptist Church, and their views are discussed as conspiracy theories, which is how we handle it. The point of echo-chambers is that they sound louder than they really are. They pretend they're bigger and more numerous than they really are, and present themselves as having more members than they really have, as a (twice-erroneous) argumentum ad populum. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Louisstar, you need mainstream secondary sources, not original research, not WP:FRINGE sources.

As I mentioned earlier, Popular Mechanics did a special issue (eventually a whole book) on alternative theories. If I leave it at that, it sounds like people might agree with it, especially if I don't mention that the whole point of it was "here's how the alternative theories fail to hold up to science."
Jesse Ventura is perhaps the only figure to reject the facts, that does not amount to "major political figures." The only reason anyone cares about Ventura besides his constituency is that he was a former actor and wrestler.
Patriotsquestion911 is an unreliable source, it is a personal website and WP:FRINGE. In addition, "Charlie Sheen believes it" is hardly any measure of sane behavior.
The Washington Post report specifically says that the 9/11 panel had concerns about how the pentagon reacted to and reported the attacks, not that there as any doubt as to who attacked them or why. I'm having a hard time assuming both good faith and competence on your part with that slip up. You seriously are grasping at straws that only a truther would grasp at, and pretty good at finding/misinterpreting sources a truther would be all over.
PBS doing a documentary on the theories does not mean that anyone disagree with the facts. The Digital Journal site you cite cites Wikipedia, and so is not a reliable source.
Source on polls?
The Bentham science article, which I see is popular among truther sites, does no suggest that explosives were introduced, merely that some of the wreckage resembles a type of thermite only documented about a year prior. If you look in the previous thread, I've presented many sources from larger institutions explaining that explosive were not needed and that they do not appear to have been used. In addition, this Popular Mechanics article explains that thermite could not have used thermite, as the amount needed to do anything would have been impossible to sneak in and would have created the sort of loud explosion heard miles away that did not happen.

Louisstar, you are citing sources only a truther would use, and misrepresenting sources in a way that only a truther would do. Given your inability earlier to admit to the basic fact that on September 11, 2012, Al-Qaeda attacked the WTC using planes and no explosives, seals the deal. You are a truther, we know it, quit trying to pretend you're not here to push your truther POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. I am not part of any "truther" group or other such nonsense. All those things I sourced were found in a Google search I did in a few short minutes. I understand what you're saying now, so I'll reconsider. I find it extremely annoying, however, that I'm treated so poorly and so many people are going against Wikipedia's guidelines on good faith. I'm not here to cause problems, I'm just here to propose that the cultural impact section be expanded to include more attention for the conspiracy theories, since they seem to get a lot of attention even in the mainstream. Is that really such a bad request? The problem is, your attitude towards truthers is causing you to be quite rude to anyone that proposes a new idea on here. That's not right, and is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's openness and collaboration. If you want to say I'm incompetent, fine. But why do you have to accuse me of a political agenda? Is that really necessary since the incompetence card can be played by itself? --Louisstar (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Truthers implicate the whole US gov't, the majority of scientists and historians, a large number of rescue workers, and even common people who have seen the evidence as being accessories or even participants in a mass murder, so they can possess some sort of paranoid gnosis to feel special. I have no respect for anyone who reduces their fellow humans into cogs in a Manichaean hate machine made to worship themselves, whether that hate machine features Ahriman, Satan, or the US gov't as the forces of darkness, and whether the "cogs" in it are Jews, Freemasons, or anyone who isn't a truther. Wikipedia also does not need conspiracy theorists trying to ruin the site with their delusions. They're welcome to edit, in the guidelines, but doing so would require them to edit against their basic beliefs and shut down their Manicaean hate machine for a bit. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

not a forum, folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.132.93 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@Louisstar: The short answer is because it's a fringe theory. Fringe theories don't belong in a 'mainstream' article. Only majority and significant minority POVs belong here. See WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I'll take a look at those sources. But you might want to have the Moon Landing page checked out, because that's a major article that has a fringe theory, too.--Louisstar (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Louisstar, before you "proposes a new idea on here", perhaps you could read through the 58 pages of discussion archives and some of the 11 years of article history to see if your idea is, in fact, actually new. We have been writing this page literally since the event was happening live and have had a few discussions before. Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the conspiracy theory in which al-Qaeda-linked groups operating outside Afghanistan played a major role: As noted military historian Gwynne Dyer pointed out, "The 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan. They were planned by al Qaeda operatives in Germany and Florida, and it is very unlikely that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had advance warning of them."[5] Tobby72

To address the point about political figures, there is a truther group set up by political figures with a list of members: [6]. It includes a number of prominent names such as Robert M. Bowman, Andreas von Bülow, Mike Gravel, Giulietto Chiesa, and Yukihisa Fujita. As it stands the argument against including more information about these theories is not, in my observation, based on a faithful adherence to the principle of WP:FRINGE, but on an emotional rejection of the views in question. However, I would prefer to see other issues resolved first before any expansion is contemplated. The current state of this article in general is quite poor and some things should be shortened, other things expanded. Once that is all done would be the time to revisit this issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

How can anybody take anything Wikipedia says seriously, when it's obvious they have chosen to ignore every relevant argument that frames the official story as bogus? Either the writers of this article have an agenda and are politically driven in their motives, or they did absolutely no research on this subject before creating this page.

And if the mentality of the writers is summed up by comments like the one below by Acroterion, where he says "controlled demolition scenarios are bunk, plain and simple", and then actually goes on to try and use obtuse, scientific language as some sort of semantic smokescreen, as if his argument has any scientific credibility at all, then this site is in worse shape than I thought. Sorry guys but thousands of scientists, architects, and engineers are against you on this one; as is any critically thinking individual.

I will never believe anything on Wikipedia again, and will make sure I tell everyone I know to never again use this garbage site. Clearly the contributors of this article are extremely gullible and stupid, or they are lying political hacks. Either way, Wikipedia is nothing but fictional drivel as far as I'm concerned. 75.114.153.131 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Jesse4Truth

I'm curious about what you consider "obtuse scientific language." Is it "structural design," "mechanics of materials at elevated temperatures," "statics," "dynamics," or "general physics?" They all govern the design, construction and behavior of buildings. I'm sorry if that seems complicated, but one doesn't design 110 story buildings without understanding each subject as it applies to engineering design. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thousands of scientists, architects and engineers...then how come none of these people have ever been able to publish their information in a reputable journal?--MONGO 17:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Cultural impact

I don't think it's unreasonable to link the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a subheading. They have had an undeniable cultural impact regardless of accuracy. While they were always fringe as far as the scientific community, they have played a significant role in society as a whole, if only as an object of ridicule. Soxwon (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the section is just a small paragraph and most of it does not concern conspiracy theories so I would not support having the see also link on that basis. If we had a subsection that only covered the conspiracy theories that would be another matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Those thinks the 9/11 CT's have played a "significant role in society" are those that think the CT's have some crediblity....I never hear anyone ever talk about 9/11 CT's in real life! I meet dozens of new people everyday and engage sometimes in various discussions, and I never have the issues of 9/11 come up. The only place you can find discussions about 9/11 CT's is in some blog or chat room with like-minded denizens who have gone there deliberately to discuss all sorts of wacky notions.--MONGO 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Average people don't talk about 9/11 CTs in real life unless they are in a Truther sphere for the same reason people don't publicly talk about their Flat Earth beliefs or their belief that Barack Obama and George Bush are shapeshifting lizard-men unless they are in groups that agree - the subject seriously undermines the credibility and sanity of that person. Reaction in public to these beliefs ranges from eye-rolling to vitriolic anger that anyone could believe such rubbish, and most Truthers wisely talk about it under the guise of the internet or in groups. Public figures may support it but deny it or not discuss it - Andrew Napolitano is a Truther but never talks about it because it would undermine his credibility, and Ron Paul supports it when talking to Truthers but denies it when talking to average people. The fact of the matter is the cultural impact of them is null - there is no actual impact behind the ideas because there is no real Truther ideal of George Bush being a terrible person. Toa Nidhiki05 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Toa, Ron Paul has denied such claims rather strongly. Be aware that WP:BLP still applies to certain things said in other namespaces. Please be mindful of what you say about living people on Wikipedia, even if it is not in articlespace. On another note, I think you should tone down your comments here in general because it is only poisoning talk page discussions that should be focused on content rather than whether you like a subject or what you think of another editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about Ron Paul, but Ron Paul supports a 9/11 investigation and questions the account of what happened when talking to Truthers or on the Alex Jones show [7][www.examiner.com/article/ron-paul-on-9-11-conspiracies-chronological-order][8]. When in public or confronted on them, he denies it (as you prove above), and more recently he says he has abandoned them, but the point is still there. If you really think what I said is a BLP issue, please go report it to the BLP noticeboard. Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

What I see is him being completely consistent in saying he wants a new investigation because he felt the initial ones were covering up government incompetence but doesn't believe the "inside job" claims. So stop insinuating that he has been deceiving people about his views. It is a BLP issue per the very first sentence of WP:BLPTALK.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think I violated policy, by all means report me. Everything I said is accurate - Ron Paul has supported 9/11 CTers when talking to them, and has denied them when talking to non-CTers. Regardless, this is not a forum and not the Ron Paul talk page so unless you want to threaten me again, there is no reason to keep this going. Toa Nidhiki05 19:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Toa, can you cite any reliable sources to back up your claims that "average people" don't talk about these things, or that "public reaction" to such conversation "ranges from eye-rolling to vitriolic anger"? The problem is, you're making these statements as part of your overall argument to keep the conspiracy theories out of the main article. I assume you can source these, so please go ahead. But if you can't source these arguments, then why are you making them? And how valid are they in a talk page that's deciding on a major inclusion like this? --Louisstar (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to - it is blatantly obvious, in the same way people are quiet about other CT beliefs (with perhaps the exception of the Kennedy assassination). Toa Nidhiki05 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I hear loads of people discussing 911 even to this day and a lot of them don't believe the official story at all. There's even proof a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but because the mainstream media won't touch it for political reasons it's never goinh to get in Wikipedia due to a lack of a politically correct source. Most of this article is fiction as are other related articles, but while what Wikipedia deems as reliable sources are controlled by those with an agenda then nothing will change. The Conspiracy Theories certainly should have a larger mention.95.148.228.53 (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I like your phrase "with perhaps the exception". Cute. But thank you for your opinion that it is "blatantly obvious". Do you understand that personal opinions don't mean anything when deciding what should and should not be included in a Wikipedia article? I just want to make sure you understand that. I'm not an experienced editor, nor am I well versed in Wikipedia guidelines, but I know that, and I think you do too. So do you mind not giving your personal opinion when we're trying to establish if the conspiracy theories should have larger mention? Thanks! --Louisstar (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Louis...heres the thing...zero engineers, scientists or experts in the fields of their specialities give the conspiracy theories any time in various academic journals or reputable literature. Simply put, the CT's are not discussed since no one of credibility has ever published a single paper in a widely distributed journal which is reviewed and edited by their peers. The only place any literature arguing in favor of the CT's is either self published, or (similar) paid for publishment, then distributed for sale on the web via websites catering to the CT notions, or at the now dying seminars that are advertised via the web and sold at those gatherings. In some cases, Amazon or other sites may have these books for sale, but they are often out of print. I've never seen a single one of these books in a public library. Therefore, since Wikipedia insists on Reliable sources and the neural point of view we can only cite in an article about what really happened, the facts of the case. There are thousands of excellent journals, news sources, books and research papaers that are considered reliable...self published books aren't. Nor are books that were published solely by the publisher that felt that a small niche market might gain them a return on their investment....aka sensationalistic books. It's important to understand that the undue weight clause of our NPOV policy insists we not give undue weight to fringe beliefs. In consequence, we have numerous articles about the 9/11 conspiracy theories that dwelve into every known tenant postulated by those advocating any deviation from the "mainstream" 9/11 facts. I suggest if you wish to see those articles improved, then they would be the place to voice your opinion. But as far as this article goes, I think we already give more weight to discussing the CT's than they merit.--MONGO 18:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair points, MONGO. I will adjourn this for now and come back maybe at another time. Thanks to everyone for letting down your guards and actually pointing out some legitimate reasons why the CTs aren't in the main article. I still don't completely agree, but I'll have to look through WP guidelines to see if there's something more to support their inclusion.--Louisstar (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from above since it got lost in the clutter) So what factual, referenced and relevant material would you propose to cut from this already-too-long article to make room for innuendo, supposition and heard-it-on-the-Internet? And what precisely do you mean by "cultural impact? The Falling Man, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and The Sphere are examples of relevant cultural associations, but I'm having trouble thinking of much else in the visual or performing arts or in literature, and Wikipedia's made a concerted attempt to get away from "in popular culture" links. That leaves Truther culture, whatever that is, which covers every shade of opinion from "it's not fully explained to my satisfaction" to "WTC was nuked!" Additionally, your comments above seem to be asking for references to prove a negative. Acroterion (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There already is a link to 9/11 CT inside the section "Cultural impact". Currently there is one sentence that says, "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." We could add a second sentence explaining the extent of the phenomenon. Other than that it clearly violates weight to explain any "alternative theories and views", because none of them have any acceptance in reliable sources. That people have reacted this way is signficant in the same way as the wave of hate crimes that followed the attacks. But the actual arguments that conspiracists have presented belongs in articles about them. TFD (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"wave of hate crimes"? What?...please do tell...there were a few isolated incidents of Americans engaging in hate crimes...how about instead we talk about how the Palestinians and other Moslems were noted as celebrating when they heard about the attacks.[9] In several locations, there were spontaneous parades and parties that were documented.--MONGO 17:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hate crimes against Moslems reported to the FBI increased by over 1,400% between 2000 and 2001 and included shootings, stabbings, wounding and arson. The figures do not include three people who were murdered because they appeared to be Muslims by the assailants. In the past year a Sikh temple was attaced and six worshipers murdered because the assailant believed they were Muslims. TFD (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm done discussing issue this for now. My apologies for spreading this over two headings in this Talk page. I will come back with some sources at a later date to see if there's anything that can be improved. Thanks to all for the dialogue.--Louisstar (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Are some of you defending Muslims are not the cause of 9/11? But instead blaming on United States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.89.91 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion if your going to reject pier reviewed scientific papers simply because the topics are discussed in an alternative theories article then this page is clearly not neutral as you have claimed. The fact is books and movies that discuss the fact that the WTC fell too quickly for it to have been caused by office fires as a result of aircraft impacts have been heavily censored by the mainstream media therefore they are not going to be widely distributed. I must point out that this term your throwing around "truther" by definition includes professional architects and engineers, scientists, and other scholars.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=truther My question is if you admit that you are not a "truther" then are you then saying by default that you are a lier? midima_alex Midiman Alex (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion (that there are "peer" reviewed scientific papers ... which disagree with the mainstream explanation) is inconsistent with the facts, and with what reliable sources say. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd citation

There is a citation simply saying "Goldbery (2007), p. 17", but no mention anywhere else of any work by someone of that name. A quick web search does not turn up anything obvious. Does anyone have any idea what work this intends to cite? - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Might that be a typo for "Goldberg"? I see a 2007 work by a "Goldberg" that is listed in the sources and not referenced in any footnote. - Jmabel | Talk 06:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be Goldberg; corrected, thanks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fifth plane details

I found an archive where someone was trying to recall the story about a fifth plane grounded before takeoff, with a few passengers behaving suspiciously. I was able to find this online. I don't know what the video shows as it won't play on my computer, but towards the end of the article excerpt it seems to say what other, less reliable websites have quoted: that several young men fled after the plane's return to the terminal and box cutters and Al Qaeda documents were later discovered in their luggage. If anyone is able to find more information on other potential hijackings and would-be hijackers, I think that would be a great contribution to the article, since I know from an incontrovertible but uncitable source that there were several more planes later revealed as targets, but thwarted by groundings. Throody Shrelfe (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the story in The Telegraph. It could be mentioned, but is basically unconfirmed speculation by an American diplomat. TFD (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this is a witness account by the pilot of the plane. Somehow the article is no longer accessible, but here's another one that references it. Throody Shrelfe (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You can read the original story here on p. 102 ff. Carol Timmons btw has refused to talk about the event. The book seems reliable, but the story itself seems dubious. TFD (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to contributors

I will remind you of what it says at the top of this article:

Be polite, and welcoming to new users
Assume good faith
Avoid personal attacks

I am new to this article, and Ian.Thomson, Toa Nidhiki05, and others have treated me very rudely. I asked about expanding a section that I felt had legitimate backing from reputable sources. If I'm wrong, then that's fine, demonstrate it. But please stop being rude. I have not once said anything about my own personal views, nor have I attacked anyone on here, or even attempted to make any edits to the real page. I'm just asking some questions, and I am sincere about these. The whole point of those bullet-list reminders at the top is to prevent you editors from doing those things, and yet you're doing them in every response you've made. Thank you for your cooperation. Am I asking too much to ask you to comply with those suggestions? --Louisstar (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I demonstrated how the claims you were making were way too similar to those of truthers. It also says at the top of the page that we stick with a neutral point of view (and reading that page points out that we do not give equal validity to fringe points), we do not engage in original research (which includes representing sources as saying something other than exactly what they say), and we try to remain as verifiable as possible (the page for which links to our reliable sourcing guidelines, which excludes personal website). You were caught in a series of mistakes, and rather than back off on them, you pressed the issue until those mistakes looked way too similar to those truthers make. Yesterday, I provided plenty of sources yesterday that demonstrate that the scientific consensus is against the conspiracy theories, and you totally ignored them. You've also ignored, nay, all but spat on the contributions of countless editors who have worked on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and clearly failed to examine any of the sources they provided to classify those ideas as conspiracy theories and not valid alternatives.

Disagreeing with you, correcting your mistakes, and pointing out that you were behaving just like a truther may not please you, but it's hardly unacceptable, especially if we want this site to remain neutral and reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Who says I did not back off? I think you have some serious issues. You are only seeing exactly what you want to see: That anyone who asks questions about conspiracy theories is automatically a "truther". You're rude, and you went against the first three things posted at the top of this article. Since I, a Wikipedia newbie, clearly pointed this out for all to see, this pissed you off, so you provided the above response, which doesn't change anything. I've admitted to reconsidering my views. I didn't ignore anything. I never once said that the lede in this article should be changed to include conspiracy theories, and yet you are assuming that I agree with those theories. My position here is that what you call a fringe theory seems to have a lot of support from many well-known people and it has received a lot of attention in mainstream media. I did not ever say that the NIST report or the 9/11 commission report had errors or was not scientific. Again, how many times do I have to repeat this? I am not saying that the conspiracy views are valid; I am saying that their impact seems to me to be stronger than this article lets on.

How about I ask this question: What types of sources need to be cited to demonstrate that the cultural and social impact of 9/11 conspiracy theories is strong enough to warrant a full sub heading in this article? Tell me what you expect from that, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, and I'll look for it. To me, it seems enough that a bunch of celebrities and politicians have gone on record as stating their opinion, and add to that the fact that major networks have aired the documentaries. But if that's not enough, then tell me what else is needed, and I'll do my best to see if support for the cultural impact existst. Again, I repeat, for the twentieth time, I am not saying that mainstream sources support the conspiracy theories, I am saying that mainstream sources have clearly pointed out the cultural impact, and that this is also reflected by the large number of public figures who have stated their opinions on it. I've seen much more trivial Wikipedia articles with "cultural impact" type of info before, and it would be a shame if the whole "anti-truther" attitude on this talk page prevents this article from including something like this.--Louisstar (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat what I just said above: "you could read through the 58 pages of discussion archives and some of the 11 years of article history to see if your idea is, in fact, actually new." Do you have anything new that hasn't been debated before? Rmhermen (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Louis! You start this section telling everyone to be polite then you proceed to tell ian he has "issues"...above you called Toa a "troll".MONGO 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

To Rmhermen: That's fine, that's a legitimate answer. On the other hand, telling someone "You're a truther, I can tell by your research" is not an answer. The trolls that did that should be called out.

To MONGO: If Ian cannot respond to a legitimate inquiry without making accusations, personal assumptions, and personal attacks (as he has clearly demonstrated that he cannot), then he needs to be reminded that he's just being rude and is not complying with those rules. If I am not complying with rules, then I apologize. But if you look at the history of this brief discussion, you'll see that I never once stated my opinion on anything and I only inquired about why the conspiracy theories aren't given much attention at all in this article, seeing as they seem to have more of an impact than the article lets on. The very fact that the conspiracy theories have a separate full article should be enough to warrant a separate section in this one, in my opinion. But maybe I'm wrong. Can someone demonstrate that this would not be valid, based on Wikipedia's guidelines? Thank you.--Louisstar (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Louisstar,

On talk pages it is best to suggest specific changes you see has improving the article in question (or just be bold).

Reliable sources are required for all content, this is not negotiable.

As per your list above...

CBC News in Canada has broadcast documentaries discussing alternative theories. The documentaries are not just re-plays of Loose Change and whatnot, but are CBC-produced pieces.

Please provide links and some idea of the content they would support.

Major political figures have gone public with their rejection of the official story. I understand that the mainstream media views these people as "crackpots" and such, but this is not just a few isolated cases. There are many such individuals, not just Jesse Ventura.

Please provide links to reliable sources that cover the views of these major political figures and some idea of the content they would support.

Many well-known celebrities have gone on record questioning the government's official story. This page lists those with sources to their statements. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean any of them are right. It just shows that these alternative views (or the idea of questioning the official story) are not as "minority" as this article seems to suggest (which is against Wikipedia guidelines since the article does not properly reflect what is actually in the mainstream regarding the 9/11 attacks)

Please provide links to reliable sources (patriotsquestion911.com is not a reliable source) that would indicate the views of these well-known celebrities are not in the extreme minority.

What about this article in the Washington Post? It says even those who were part of the 9/11 commission panel question the info they were given by certain sources

Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

So some bureaucrats might have tried whitewash their incompetence. There is nothing in the source that would indicate any other possible motives.

PBS aired a 9/11 alternative theory documentary. According to this article, that documentary is ranking #3 in "most-watched" documentaries on PBS and #1 in "most shared".

digitaljournal.com is not a reliable source. Please provide one, or more, along with some idea of the content they would support.

There have been polls taken that show that a very large percentage of Americans do not accept the official story, in some form, and most poll respondents want a new investigation.

Please provide links to reliable sources that cover this lack of support in detail (poll figures alone don't really help).

Please provide links to reliable sources to support the claim that a very large percentage of Americans want a new investigation.

From the scientific community, this paper discusses findings that strongly suggest (prove?) the existence of explosives. Why can't this be included in an "alternative theories" section?

While the authors of the paper are members of the larger "scientific community", none are members, much less experts, in any of the scientific communities that represent the relevant fields of study.

The paper was not published in a reputable journal nor was it peer-reviewed.

The paper should not be included in any "alternative theories" section because it is not a "alternative" theory of scientific merit; It is a conspiracy theory.

You might want to be careful when using the phrase "official story" as it is almost never used outside truther circles (i.e., you might mistakenly be seen as a truther).

Finally, the moon landing hoax comparisons miss two important points: (1) see Other stuff exists and, (2) If the moon landings were faked thousands of Americans would be complicit in a cold war propaganda victory. In the case of 9/11 they would be complicit, many with malice aforethought, in the obliteration of 2,996 human lives. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that the reasons not to add this material to the article have been rationally explained, I'm sure we'll hear no more about it. If someone asks later, we can just point him to the archive of this discussion, or to the FAQ at the top, or to the arbitration ruling, or one of the RfCs, or to any of the two dozen other archived discussions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is all fair enough to me. I will look into this further and see if I can support any of the statements asked above by ArtifexMayhem. I would like to point out something, however, as a contrast, to show you what it is exactly what I'm trying to get into this article: The Rick Astley page has a section called "Rickrolling internet phenomenon". Going by the rationale of many on this talk page, there is no way in hell that article should have such a section. Is anyone here going to tell me that the "Rickrolling phenomenon" is much more notable in relation to "Rick Astley" than 9/11 conspiracies are in relation to the 9/11 terrorist attacks? There are other such examples, too. Again, while I appreciate and understand the requests for reliable sources, the sources that I provide should not have to agree with the conspiracy theories, but only discuss their impact in some way, which is what I'm inquiring about. But now that this has been discussed reasonably, apart from the trolling of earlier, thank you for clearing this up. I will do my best to research this and come back if I have anything to add. --Louisstar (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Rickrolling phenomenon" is much more notable in relation to "Rick Astley" than 9/11 conspiracies are in relation to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The supposed significance of many fringe theories is an artifact of the echo chamber effect mentioned above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom, with all due respect, all you've done here is support my argument. The only reason the Rickrolling theme is a phenomenon is because of what you refer to as "the echo chamber effect". And yet it has its own section on Astley's page. Keep in mind that Rick Astley was a notable celebrity long before 2007 when that meme started to spread. If a 5-year old meme can be attached to a celebrity's page, then 9/11 conspiracies (even if it is only to describe them as lunacy) should have their own section on this page.--Louisstar (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So if no one here tells you the "Rickrolling phenomenon" is more notable in relation to "Rick Astley" than 9/11 conspiracies are in relation to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, that supports your argument. And if someone does tell you, that supports your argument too. That's a heck of an argument you got there. It's almost as if it were non-falsfiable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, what on earth are you talking about? Since when are those the only two options? The only valid argument against what I said would be to say that the Rick Astley article shouldn't have a section on Rickrolling. That was my point, that if something as trivial as an internet meme can exist as a major part of an article on a celebrity who became notable 20 years before that meme ever existed, than surely a "conspiracy theories" section should exist on the primary article on the 9/11 attacks. Thus, my argument is 100% falsifiable, and your inference that there were only two options to debunk my argument is just plain nonsense. My discussion here is based on Wikipedia guidelines. If Wikipedia guidelines do not require that the Rickrolling section be removed from Rick Astley, then Wikipedia guidelines should have the same standard for far more important information in relation to the 9/11 attacks. --Louisstar (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

But we can't remove the material about Rickrolling, because there's lots of goofy stuff in the Apollo article. Or is it the other way around? We have to keep the stuff about how they faked the moon landing because of Rickrolling? Or do we have to keep both because of the Zapruder film? Then again, maybe none of this has anything to do with the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. None of this has anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Now let's get back to the issue: Since almost every reliable news outlet has had major coverage of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, then why are the conspiracy theories not included at all in this article? Why can something be excluded that is so evidently quite relevant (according to mainstream sources) to the culture of the 9/11 attacks and the overall effect on people's world views? For the twenty-third time, I'll reiterate: I am not saying that the mainstream sources agree with the conspiracy theories; I am saying that, for a supposedly minority and insignificant group of people, the mainstream news sure as heck give those theorists a lot of airtime.--Louisstar (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles and books have been written about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but they're written about them as conspiracy theories, not as aspects of the attacks. The coverage (though not so much coverage as you say) isn't about the attacks; it's about the conspiracy theories. They deserve, and have, their own article. In fact, they have a whole series of articles, because the nature of Wikipedia leads to a systemic bias in favor of conspiracy theories and internet nonsense. Expanding their coverage in this article would reduce the space available for what really happened, and would give undue weight to fringe material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a supporter of conspiracy theories - but the statement above inferring they are not a direct consequence of each-other and not-notable to the general public simply sounds absurd and ignores the facts (they are just as related as hate crimes or Government policies toward terrorism). I find it odd there has been no progress in this regard since the articles demotion from GA status. Its clear that after all this time and so so many inquires about the lack of info in this area by our readers that the article is not comprehensive enough with just one sentence on the matter. We should also confront the "double standard" of why the refs we use in the article are not ok to use to mention more about CT`s and there lack of viability. "Masterminds of Terror" CT's is a good example - CT`s are mentioned on pages 28 and 34 - this is als true of reliable news sources. Not interested in a fight here - but at some point we should confront the topic and explain to our readers why they are so prevalent in society and culture, yet lack credibility by the mainstream scientific community.Moxy (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Louisstar: You're comparing apples to oranges. Rickrolling is not a fringe theory or even a POV. Even if it were, WP:OTHERSTUFF applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, fair enough. However, again I'll point out that the Moon Landing hoax theories are in fact fringe theories and POV, correct? I don't think the support for the moon landing hoax comes even remotely close to the support for 9/11 conspiracy theories. Again, I realize you're just going to play the "other stuff" card here, but my point has been established above (and by many other in the history of this talk page) that there are lots of mainstream sources that give significant air time to the conspiracy theories, even if it is only to mock them. --Louisstar (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Louisstar: Wikipedia has lots of articles, all of varying quality. Just because you can find an article that gives undue weight to a fringe theory is no reason to do the same thing here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course...the reason I have always said no mention of CT's should be in this article is because I know that once they get any foothold at all here, they always want more coverage. First, the argument is about no link, then when we give them that, they want a sentence or two...then they want an entire paragraph, which will later still not be enough and they're not happy until the article provides equal coverage. Throwing a few names about of non-experts with big mouths that have "come forward" and proclaimed their nonexpert opinions isn't notable except to demonstrate they're not experts. We have a plethora of CT articles that do go into the issues about the odd notions of nonexperts...this one however, is based on the known evidence...not some fantasies oftentimes concocted by get-rich-schemers trying to peddle their fantasy books on the easily duped.--MONGO 02:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

People always complain about the slippery slope argument until they fall off the slope. The slope is real in this case and very, very slippery. Toa Nidhiki05 03:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Louis, I notice you called me out as a troll here. I am not a troll, and I called you a Truther because you act and talk like every Truther that has ever shown up here. If you aren't a Truther I sincerely apologize because that is a horrible thing to pin someone as (unless it is true, in which case it is an accurate label), but calling a duck a duck is not trolling, and neither is calling CTs out for the lunacy they are. I will never apologize for that and will never tone down my feelings towards people that want to implicate hundreds of thousands of good, hard-working Americans in the biggest act of mass-murder in modern American history. Toa Nidhiki05 03:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

All off track again....Dont know how many more editors have to convey the fact there is a problem before its solved here . To quote the closing admin from Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 - "I hope the article authors can take away the fact that the article has now undergone some extremely thorough reviews by a number of experienced editors which can be used to help guide the article's development. Anyone willing to tackle such a sensitive and controversial subject has my admiration, and I trust the article has and will improve as a result of this reassessment".Moxy (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

But there isn't a content problem and nor has one been demonstrated. WP:NPOV is very clear on the matter:

“

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

”

That ancillary article is 9/11 conspiracy theories. fringe theories doesn't belong here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again pls take the time to read what many many experienced outsiders have to said in the GA review - does not matter its fringe - its part of the overall topic that should be covered in an article that is about the overall topic. The article needs to grow some balls and explain the situation to our readers over running away from it like little mice.Moxy (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then put up, or shut up, as the saying goes. If you're going to make veiled insults at other editors, you should be able to present an acceptable contribution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@Moxy: I don't recognize the legitimacy of that GA review. In any case, WP:NPOV is official policy (and one of the 5 pillars) and it trumps all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Cant even address the points made - What,s the point in even trying to talking here - the attitude is so confrontational and not even open to conversation. To imply no acceptable contribution as been presented shows a lack of respect for our editors - dismissing all attempt at contributions at the same time saying "fix it"?. Good luck of my watchlist.Moxy (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see some verifiable references to show that the bulk of the scientific community believes in the reasons for the collapse of WTC 7 that this article covers. I would like to also see references to show that the bulk of the scientific community believed in the cause of the collapse of WTC seven at any time in the past that is claimed in this article. There are now 1,864 Architects and Engineers who have singed a petition demanding a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php And by the bulk of the scientific community I don't mean only the persons who were involved in the governments 9/11 "investigation". in the midiman_alex Midiman Alex (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of those that "signed" that petition aren't architects or engineers...only a few even hold any accreditations.--MONGO 05:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A/E 9/11 Truth is a fringe organization that isn't taken seriously by the several hundred thousand licensed architects and engineers in North America, or by any professional organization such as the ASCE or AIA. As with any profession, the presence of people with unconventional views does not mean, for instance, that doctors should think that peach pits cure cancer, or that lawyers should think that military personnel don't need to obey orders because some lawyers have argued about Barack Obama's birth certificate. Acroterion (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to 'rock the boat' here or anything, but I was honestly surprised at the lack of acknowledgement for the conspiracy theories in this article. I was disappointed that I had to search for a link to the other page hidden within the text. The 9/11 conspiracy theories article is similar in length to this, and it also has a couple of decent sized sub pages. Obviously they are mostly nonsense (the subject, not the wiki articles), but there's no denying the conspiracy theories have made an impact. I can completely understand why editors want to keep it out of the article, but I do think it sort of works against to encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia to relegate it to a single sentence. I also understand the argument that if you give them a paragraph or a small section, they'll eventually want the whole article written from their point of view. But honestly, I think it's a subject that deserves a paragraph in the main article, just a couple of sentences describing what they believe and a link to that page. That's just what I think though, and I think I'm fairly objective about it. I'm not American, I hate conspiracy theories, and I'm much more of a reader than an editor. voodooexperiment (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

VoodooExperiment, Like you I am not American and I hate conspiracy theories and there have been some pretty crazy ones regarding 9/11. However, I really think that the 9/11 conspiracy theories article covers this subject and those theories should be left in that article. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and relies on facts with verification. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that Wikipedia shouldn't include a paragraph about the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 because they are not facts with verification, then I do wonder why the other articles are allowed to exist. The existence and prominence of the conspiracy theories must be verifiable, and the length and detail of the other articles would also suggest that they are quite a big deal relating to this subject. You're right though, I can see why people would want to leave it out, and they are covered in full in other articles anyway. I was just a little surprised myself. Thanks for the answer! voodooexperiment (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a talkpage to be used to discuss how to improve the article. So I assume your suggestion is to add a paragraph about conspiracy theories?--MONGO 18:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

The "Al Qaeda" section, 2.1, has been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader283 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. Can you elaborate? --Tarage (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I had fixed it after he said this, somebody messed up the template. It's fixed and has been for a few days now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review is closed, take further comment to this section.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Modified 16:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Okay, reviewing the GA Reassessment, clearly this is a more politically fraught GA than I anticipated it was going to be. But that's all right; having a previous consensus from the GAR may actually be helpful in this regard.

The main concern I see at a glance is that it doesn't appear that the reason for the previous delisting--"lack of any mention of alternative theories"-- has been sufficiently addressed. But I haven't done a close readthrough of the article yet, is it possible I've overlooked this? So far I only see the sentence "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians". Could you speak to the rationale on this? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that the omission of alternative theories from the article hasn't been reasonably addressed. Until it is, I don't recommend that this article pass GA. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On this point I would actually disagree somewhat on GA status. A section about the conspiracy theories would be desirable for FA status, but the mention here seems sufficient. However, there are many other aspects of this event that are not sufficiently mentioned. For one, there was a decent-sized section about warnings and intelligence regarding an impending attack by al-Qaeda on the United States but that was deleted because certain editors strongly associated all such talk with conspiracy theories, even though it was all sourced to serious reporting about legitimate concerns from mainstream media. As it stands, there is not sufficient detail about this aspect. It also suffers from neutrality issues by not making mention of the various civil liberty consequences of government responses save for a single sentence about the Patriot Act. This also has just a single mention of how the attacks lead to the war in Iraq, with the only mention of allegations about Iraq being that Rumsfeld tried to find evidence of Iraqi involvement in the immediate aftermath. A lot of the important history associated with this event is thus being left out.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for adding input here. Devil's Advocate, I'm tempted to agree with you re: the conspiracy theory aspect, but what's tying my hands here is the previous GAR that delisted the article for the specific reason of not covering conspiracy theories. I'm not entirely sure that the one sentence that's been added is enough to cover this aspect. I'd at least suggest that a paragraph or two be added to cover these; given the prevalence of these theories, it seems a shame to not really address them. Though technically and temporarily the decision to promote this to Good Article rests with me, there's no point in my single-handedly defying a previous consensus at GAR. Devil's Advocate's suggestion that the consequences of the attacks be explored in a bit more detail also seems worthwhile to me.

In any case, since it's been a week and the original nominator hasn't commented on this (despite being very active on Wikipedia during that time and a direct request to do so), I'm going to close this now, without prejudice to future renomination. My personal suggestion would be that the conspiracy/alternative theories (US foreknowledge, US involvement, Israeli involvement, etc.) be briefly noted in a paragraph or two, and that regular editors of the page and participants in the article's GAR open a discussion as to whether this meets the GA criteria. Given that the previous RfC and the previous GAR appear to have reached opposing conclusions on this issue, this is a uniquely challenging situation to navigate. Still, I think a common ground here--a brief mention of alternative theories while otherwise describing events in the widely accepted version)--could be reached. Thanks to everybody working on this important and complicated article; sorry I couldn't be more help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Responses to GA review

@Khazar2: The problem isn't with the article; the problem is with the GA/FA review process. According to WP:NPOV, only majority and significant minority viewpoints should be presented. Tiny minority and fringe viewpoints should be excluded or delegated to some ancillary article (if they are notable). So, the article is correct and the RfC was correct. The problem is with the GA/FA review process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you that the conspiracy theories are not worth discussing as an actual explanation of the events. I do think, though, that they should get a paragraph or two here as a widely covered and significant social phenomenon, while noting carefully that these are debunked by practically every expert.

But as I said, this isn't really a problem one GA reviewer can solve at this point, regardless of my views. Since there's a previous consensus from GA reviewers, I'm going to defer to it; in any case, the nominator's refusal to participate meant this was never going to get off the ground.

If you want to overturn the GAR, my suggestion would be to call an RfC on the topic, explicitly asking about how the GA criteria apply here; then ping those who participated in that GAR as well as posting at relevant WikiProjects and WT:GAN. That way, it won't be possible for another GAN/GAR to disregard previous RfCs as "local consensus". Alternatively, you might start a conversation at WT:GAN about how this stalemate can be addressed; perhaps a second GAR could be opened directly, I'm not sure how that works. The bottom line, though, is that while consensus can change, we should at least get together some editors to make sure it has changed. Hope this helps, and thanks for your work on what I know is a frustrating article. It's terrific quality in almost all respects, and I hope a way can be found to resolve this impasse so it can get the green blob it deserves. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article should be the focus...the biggest problem this aticle has is that is goes off in too many directions.--MONGO 15:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel like you and AFQK are expending a lot of energy arguing with somebody who basically agrees with you. I've read many articles on the subject as well as books like Looming Tower and personally agree that the conspiracy/alternate theories are ludicrous. In Wikipedia terms, I haven't seen any sources significant enough to suggest to me that a significant minority of mainstream thinkers consider any alternative theory legitimate. I just think they're worth giving a paragraph to in the way that hate crimes, expansion of government surveillance, economic changes, and other subsequent social consequences are. To quote the BBC on how big these theories became:./

"As a report into Tower 7 prepares to publish its findings, Mike Rudin considers how this conspiracy theory got to be so big.

9/11 is the conspiracy theory of the internet age.

Put "9/11 conspiracy" into Google and you get 7.9 million hits. Put in "9/11 truth" and you get more than 22 million.

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

In the UK a survey by the BBC's The Conspiracy Files, carried out by GfkNOP in 2006, found that 16% of those questioned thought there was a "wider conspiracy that included the American government"."[10]

Or an example from the NYT:

"This is not a stereotype, but a fact of Middle Eastern cultures – and a fact that Western nations must reckon with. Conspiracy theories of this type are ubiquitous in the region; 75 percent of Egyptian Muslims do not believe Arabs were behind 9/11, with many faulting the U.S. government or Jews instead."[11]

I think the article's incomplete without noting that an enormous swath of people blame the US, Israel, etc. for the attacks. We don't have to endorse those views to note that they are widely held and socially significant. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: Believe it or not, we're very familiar with issue. While 9/11 Conspiracy theories (CTs) are independently notable, there is virtually no coverage of them in relation to 9/11. IOW, few, if any sources about 9/11 ever cover 9/11 CTs; only sources about 9/11 CTs or CTs in general cover 9/11 CTs. Please see WP:ONEWAY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you're familiar with the issue, and I respect your opinion; given the number of experienced editors who had various positions on this in the GAR, it's clear there's room for legitimate disagreement on how these policies apply. All I can do is say again that if you disagree with the previous consensus, and aren't willing to abide by that consensus, then build a new consensus--that seems like the only way this can move forward at this point. In any case, though, thanks for your work on this important topic. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: We already have consensus. It took two years of thoughtful discussion, multiple RfCs and participation of dozens, if not hundreds, of editors. Unfortunately, it only takes a single GA reviewer to reject community consensus. That's part of the problem. The other part is that 9/11 is a difficult topic. It's extremely easy to look at a bunch of primary sources and conclude that some aspect of this topic is under represented. What I would suggest to you is that you take some time to read the literature on this topic and ask yourself, "How often are CTs covered?" We've already done the research and the best we can come up with was a single sentence in one CNN article and in a book on 9/11 in popular culture (which is how the article currently treats CTs). In any case, please feel free to close this GA review. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not interested in making the article worse just to get a little green star in the corner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, I don't really understand what you're hoping to accomplish at this GA nom. You waited a week without commenting, and then an hour after I failed it for lack of participation, you showed up to complain about the fail. You know that different groups of editors have come to different consensuses on this point, but for some reason you're pretending that this issue has long been resolved and I alone ("a single reviewer to reject community consensus") am standing in its way. C'mon, even you don't think that's true.

If you feel that the prior RfC consensus trumps the GAR consensus about how the policies apply here, that's totally fine with me. But you need to demonstrate that this is the greater consensus by getting the participants from both venues on one page and having an uninvolved admin close it in your favor. You could also appeal the outcome of this review and try to build a new consensus at GAR--also fine with me. A third option might be to find another venue to appeal to that could rule on whether the RfCs supersede the later GAR. The bottom line is there are plenty of positive, productive outlets you could put this energy into, instead of complaining about a GA review in which you didn't participate that's already closed. Why not go for it and see if this issue can be brought to resolution? Either way, this'll be my last note here. Best of luck on this topic; as I said, I do really appreciate your work, and I hope that this one can get those GA and FA stars back in the future. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: I don't hope to accomplish anything at the GA nomination. I am not responding to the GA nomination. Instead, I'm responding to the posts you are making at the September 11 attacks talk page (which is transcribed from the GA nom pages in case you've forgotten). Instead of actually finding real issues with the article, you've focused your attention on a non-issue and I am trying to help explain to you why it is a non-issue. If you hadn't focused on it, I would not have tried to explain it. But you did, and I'm tried to help you understand. Apparently, my help is not appreciated. Which is fine. The GA/FA process is clearly flawed and I have no great desire to try to fix it. (To be honest, if you really wanted to know what the most serious issues are with the article, you could have asked, and I would have told you.) But you keep making incorrect claims to the September 11 attacks talk page and that's why I keep correcting them. So you can either do the research as I suggested, stop posting to the September 11 attacks talk page, or continue to make incorrect claims to the September 11 attacks talk page and expect responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you're posting to the GA nomination that "I don't hope to accomplish anything at the GA nomination", that pretty much says it all. Thanks, though, for the input. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

No, what says it all, is what says it all. I'm not sure why you continue to post here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've spent a number of hours today writing and rewriting arguments for why this shouldn't have been failed, including reopening the discussion after its close; for somebody who doesn't care about the GA process, you're pretty persistent about the GA process. But I do guiltily admit to taking the bait... I suppose it's just been a slow day at this end, but still, you're right that I should know better. Let's agree to disagree and part friends. My apologies for not stepping out sooner. Cheers, and thanks again for your work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think AQFK or myself were arguing with you, we just oppose any nonsense in an article that is supposed to be about what happened, not about what didn't happen. Equal time (and then some) IS given in the CT articles...since they are ABOUT the CT's. First the POV pushers wanted links, then sentences, then paragraghs...there never seems to be an end to the quantity of coverage they want devoted to those idiotic conspiracy theories.--MONGO 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely see the sense of your argument, even if I'm slightly further down the spectrum. Hopefully sometime soon a discussion can be opened to reconcile the two groups, or at least establish what the broader consensus really is. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Casualties subsection

The last paragraph of the casualties subsection seems a bit recent-ist and could likely be condensed. I'll leave that up to the regular editors of this article. NW (Talk) 05:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and simply removed the paragraph. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Time zones

The times of the incidents are given as "8:46 a.m.", etc. For events with international consequences, it would be helpful to know the UTC versions of these times. Maproom (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and other effects on civil liberties

[12] Many, if not most, of the articles related to the recent Verizon/NSA controversy mention that this is a result of the Patriot Act and other government actions enacted in response to 9/11 that have affected civil liberties. I believe that the sources support, especially after this NSA news, putting a section in the article detailing the actions by the government in response to the 9/11 attacks which have had controversial ramifications on civil liberties. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

More. Cla68 (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about a section devoted to it, but this should be more heavily incorporated into the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous...why are we continuing to drift away from the subject matter of the event? I think the article is already overloaded with things that have nothing to do with where the focus of this article needs to be.--MONGO 02:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Mongo. This article should continue to focus on the events of 9/11.JOJ ^Hutton 03:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I only partially agree in that I think there are a lot of unnecessary details presently, but we can't provide a comprehensive perspective on the event without giving more significant mention to Gitmo, enhanced interrogations, the Patriot Act, etc. as these were all direct results of the attacks and part of their historic impact.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

But its a but of a stretch of information on what is exactly being proposed, which is the link between 9/11 and the current NSA scandal. JOJ ^Hutton 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Jojhutton. Adding here material about PRISM, which is apparently the succussor of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which was itself part of the President's Surveillance Program, which was an element of the War on Terror, which was a result of the September 11 attacks, is a stretch. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 was not limiting himself to that, but suggesting a general elaboration on the effect the domestic response to 9/11 had on civil liberties. How much PRISM should be mentioned, if it should be mentioned at all, seems less important than the broader point.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

9/11's effect on civil liberties is already in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in any way that is meaningful. You have a defensive sentence or two buried in some section. That is not even remotely enough.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Some argue that these measures prevented terrorist attacks and saved lives. How much space in the article is devoted to that POV? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the event of 9/11. try Aftermath of the September 11 attacks for more detail.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird...I was just on the phone and I heard a clicking in the background and got disconnected from my call and then a voice came on and I said who is this, and he asked who I was and I said you first and so he said Barack Hussein Obama and I said oh wow cool...and then he asked how I was doing and I said well, anyway you can lower my taxes...and then the phone went dead.--MONGO 05:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the "American response" section has a fairly good summary of the domestic measures the Bush and Obama administrations have taken in response to the attacks. Now that it's coming out that the NSA has been secretly, with cooperation by the Internet giants, vacuuming up and indexing large amounts of data as well as almost all phone calls from and to the US and storing it all in a giant database in southern Utah, perhaps a sentence on that could be added to the paragraph. This is a major story and it is related to the attacks. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I still feel this article is already suffering from coatrack issues. AQFK worked hard to get all the refs updated and to try and touch on the various details in an effort to appease everyone and followed summary style to do so. I'm just not seeing how more expansion is necessary on such details.--MONGO 15:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How about something like, "Legal and constitutional law experts have expressed concern over the extensive covert data mining and collection by the NSA and other US government agencies, but the US public appear to have generally accepted their government's surveillance actions." Using This article as the source. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh...I don't know if the public generally accepts the government doing all this data mining...it may say that in the article, but I don't know if thats just editorial suspicions or based on real public opinion polls.--MONGO 02:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be probably be fine in PRISM (surveillance program) or maybe Patriot Act, but in this article it overemphasizes recent news that is at this point only distantly connected to the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

All of the surveillance and Patriot Act provisions have sunsetted and been reauthorized multiple times. The current form is unrelated to 9/11. --DHeyward (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

I'm currently seeing only one sentence on the conspiracy theories in this article. In the past, there was an entire one-paragraph section which summarized the major alternative theories. I don't agree with the reduction to one sentence. I think a small one or two paragraph section would be more appropriate, based on the amount of media attention the alternative theories have received and the number of notable individuals who have supported the theories. Cla68 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cla68: You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how WP:NPOV is supposed to work. Articles should cover majority and significant minority viewpoints. Tiny minority and fringe don't belong on Wikipedia except perhaps on some ancillary article. 9/11 conspiracy theories is that article. I suggest that if you want such a sweeping overhaul to NPOV, then you should seek consensus there for your changes first. Until then, this article should follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

We appear to be in disagreement on the issue. I believe the article as is is not in compliance with the NPOV policy. Please note that the GA reviewer above appears to have a similar opinion. Until this otherwise fine article complies with the NPOV policy, it will likely not be able to progress through GA and FA. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Cla68: We're not going to make the article worse just so we can get a star in the upper-right hand corner. Until you gain consensus to change NPOV, there's nothing we can do here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One easy way to determine if we're dealing with a POV pusher of 9/11 conspiracy theories is seeing how many times they refer to such notions as "alternate". Notice also that the only suggestions Cla68 ever has regarding improvements to this article are almost exclusively limited to an expansion on conspiracy theories.--MONGO 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As a minor correction to Cla's citation of me here (I'm the GA reviewer in question), I don't actually think the conspiracy/alternate theories need to be included for NPOV reasons--I agree that they're too fringey and widely discredited. The main problem for GA status is that they can be argued to be a "main aspect" of the 9/11 aftermath, not as a legitimate version of events, but a social consequence, if that distinction makes sense. (Much as we discuss intelligent design in the evolution article while noting carefully that it's a psuedoscience).

Those who supported delisting at the previous GAR appear split between those who wanted conspiracy theories as an explanation and those who simply wanted them briefly discussed as a phenomenon. If the concerns of the latter were addressed, I suspect this could return to being a Good Article without much difficulty. I'll bow out after this comment, but feel free to ping me if this does go to an RfC, GAN, or GAR again in the near future. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

MONGO, there are mainstream scientific papers aiming to debunk the theories that refer to them as "alternative theories" so, while I think "conspiracy theories" is fine, using "alternative theories" does not indicate a POV issue with an editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does.--MONGO 03:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

MONGO is correct here. Saying 'alternative theory' implies that those 'theories' are just as legitimate as the actual account. Using the term 'conspiracy theory', which is the only accurate term to use, describes them as they are - crackpot theories that have no basis in reality. You can tell a lot about the beliefs of people just by the use of the term, because only a person who believes the theories are legitimate or based on facts would equate them to what actually happened. Toa Nidhiki05 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope I am adding a comment the right way. The only way I could figure out to add a comment was to edit this area. I was just going to point out that conspiracy does not mean something is not based in reality. I think the meaning of that term in popular usage has changed. A conspiracy is the act of conspiring: doing something illegal or harmful in a secretive way. In the phrase "conspiracy theory," conspiracy is not describing the word theory as being not based in reality; it's simply saying what the theory regards. I don't have an opinion or information to add one way or the other on the debate. But I was just going to point out that a conspiracy theory is probably a subset of the term alternative theories, and it shouldn't in theory hold a negative connotation. Although, I understand it probably does.Swingerofbirches24 (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories have been universally disproven time and time again, sure making reference to them is relevant, yet an entire paragraph is pushing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander9595 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention of WTC 7 in this article and there most certainly should be. I'd be happy with that but a mention of the President's Daily Brief August 6 2001 would be nice too. Osama was CIA trained as well. To entertain the idea that US government agencies and officials did not have a hand in the orchestration of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is an act of either ignorance or complicity. 99.246.14.168 (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

IP, we don't take sides on the alternative theories' issue, we just report what the reliable sources are saying. Cla68 (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, calling them "crackpot" is in itself a breach of NPOV. The conspiracy theories have surely had enough coverage that they even have several of their own articles, so surely it should be expanded beyond a very hidden sentence here. WP:NPOV should mean that all sides of the issue are mentioned. This discussion shouldn't be on the truth/lack thereof of the conspiracy theories, but how much coverage there should be in the article. And surely they're widespread enough with some evidence supporting them that they deserve a bit more than what is here. DarkToonLink (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there is no supporting evidence for any of the conspiracy theories makes any supporting text very difficult to source. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to talk pages, but I could certainly find citations to use that label (or other labels) on the page. Toa Nidhiki05 21:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where that 'no supporting evidence' claim came from; there is plenty of physics and common sense that goes both ways on the issue. There is a whole series of articles on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories yet it is very hard for readers or this page who deserve all points of view on the issue to find it. Regardless of your beliefs on their validity, they are notable enough to deserve more coverage in the article. The article does not need to declare them true or false but further explain that some dispute the government's official story. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean they don't exist. (I'm sure there are plenty of people who would delete the article God which technically has no evidence, but it remains because it is a much-discussed topic.) DarkToonLink (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has shown time and time again that more inclusion is not warranted. I'm sorry, but you are wasting your time. --Tarage (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the actual reason why. DarkToonLink (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Because it's a violation of NPOV. Wikipedia articles should cover majority and significant minority POVs. Insignificant (including fringe) POVs don't belong here per WP:WEIGHT. This is official Wikipedia policy and it's not negotiable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Considering less than half the world believes the official story (As cited in the Wikipedia article discussing them), some alternate views surely deserve a larger mention. There should be some weight placed on various views. I understand that almost everything has some conspiracy to it held by a minor group of people, but 9/11 has a particularly large variety of conspiracy theories and participants in 9/11 truth groups, which is often publicized. So per the official Wikipedia policy, WP:WEIGHT, conspiracy theories deserve slightly broader coverage here. DarkToonLink (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest you spend some time reading the archives? None of the arguments you are making are new or correct, and it has become a chore to constantly explain why over and over again. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

In all reason, the best thing for this article would be to limit the description to facts as everyone has seen them (airplanes, buildings, aftermath, etc.), and then separately present the most accepted explanations about alleged authors/instigators. The weight-averaged opinion on this case still gives less than 50% of support to the official conspiracy theory, i.e. "alternative theories" are not less represented in educated circles. But Wikipedia tends towards perfection, and even if it can never reach it, I'm hopeful for this article's future. Alfy32 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are not represented at all as a viable explanation amongst experts.--MONGO 15:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Who said NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages? Cla68 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What?--MONGO 18:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on whether conspiracy theories should(n't) be given anything approaching equal validity, but WP:NPOV does say "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." That does not include talk pages. WP:TPG does ask editors to try to stay neutral and present sources when discussing article improvements, instead of using the page as a general discussion forum about the topic. So, NPOV doesn't apply directly, but airing one's opinions about an article subject could be removed as off-topic general discussion, and presenting non-neutral and/or POV information in good faith (perhaps even with sources) could be shot down as something that wouldn't improve the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No context regarding "Hani Hanjour"

The article launches into discussion of this person with no prior context. Nothing leads into this paragraph and as such it is written poorly. Someone with knowledge needs to preface who Hani Hanjour was before discussing why he was relevant.

"New recruits were routinely screened for special skills and al-Qaeda leaders consequently discovered that Hani Hanjour already had a commercial pilot's license.[156]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

"The" NIST

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology is commonly referred to as "NIST", without any preceding article. The current text of the "September 11 attacks" Wikipedia entry refers to it as "the NIST" on at least one occasion. For supporting material, refer to basically any NIST website to see the typical usage. 68.48.11.187 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Does this edit[13] address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, but the paragraph immediately preceding the edit also starts with the full name of the institute. There's no need to use the full name twice. I suggest that the proper change is just to eliminate "The" preceding "NIST" in the second mention. Thanks for the quick response.68.48.11.187 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, how about now?[14] Does this address your concern? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You've just restored the original, incorrect text. We're clearly talking past each other. Here's what I suggest: "The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigated the collapses of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC. The investigations examined why the buildings collapsed and what fire protection measures were in place, and evaluated how fire protection systems might be improved in future construction.[270] The investigation into the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC was concluded in October 2005 and that of 7 WTC was completed in August 2008. [paragraph break] NIST found that the fireproofing..." You simply can't make a reference to "the NIST". It's just "NIST"-- no preceding article. Does this make sense?68.48.11.187 (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be

Already done. I see no mentions of "the NIST" in this article now. If I've missed something, please reopen the request and be specific about where you're now seeing it. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 July 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11[nb 1]) to (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, S11 or 9/11[nb 1])

Sahha (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done I wasn't aware of this term, but found it used in online fora and blogs. —rybec 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that...it's not a term that is used with any frequency and I've never heard this event being referred to with that abbreviation. Use in fora and blogs is not noteworthy.--MONGO 11:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MONGO's removal. This is not noteworthy for September 11 attacks. You saved me an edit! Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed it. What is the difference between the first example and the proposal version? They look identical in this section. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ignore last remark. I have just spotted what is difficult for the eyes to pick out quickly. This is about S11 and I too admit not to know that term to refer to the attacks. The Big Hoof! (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Here are links to some news stories using the term:

—rybec 03:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's solely an Australian term; any sign of use anywhere else? Acroterion (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't object to the term but yes it does need wider coverage. Asia Pulse looks interesting here but it is a dead link. The Big Hoof! (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request "Destination of UA93"

The page currently reads: "The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at the United States Capitol[2] in Washington" - the evidence is linked to a documentary. I see no evidence that the hijackers of UA93 have provided written or verbal evidence that the target was the Capitol Building. Surely this is just speculation and should be described as such.

There is already extensive discussion of the target selection in the United Airlines Flight 93 article. Perhaps this page could be altered to include the slight uncertainty over White House or Capitol. Rmhermen (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed to address this, but I'm open to other wording. In general, shorter rather than longer, with the detail on Flight 93. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial sentence

For the sake of NPOV, shouldn't the initial sentence refer to al-Qaeda as an "Islamist" terrorist group or "Salafi" (or "Wahhabi") terrorist group? They have a very distinct ideology and belief system which is quite different from the mainline Sunni denominations, to the extent that Al-Azhar University considers the Salafi/Wahhabi faction to be a hopelessly evil cultic offshoot of mainline Sunnism. Considering the recent shakeup in Egypt which ousted the Salafist Muslim Brotherhood from power, I would advise we use much more specific descriptors with groups like al-Qaeda that are universally rejected and condemned by the vast majority of the world's billion+ Muslim population, and of course for the sake of maintaining a very strong focus on NPOV, which has generally been held up in this article over the years. Thoughts? Laval (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use the title of the linked article? If a change is called for, that's where it should be changed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

9/11

Is there a reason this page isn't titled 9/11? It's by far the most commonly used name, and it already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have thought the current title is quite unusual for a while now. Per WP:COMMONNAME I would support moving the page to either "9/11" or "9/11 attacks". --Philpill691 (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

9/11 is only common in the USA. they are universally referred to as the 'September 11th attacks' outside of there, largely due to the date format 9/11 meaning 9th of November in most countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.203.169.105 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents, 9/11 in some countries may be written as 11/9 (day listed before the month). WadeSimMiser (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen 9/11 used occasionally in written form in Britain (probably because it's considerably shorter than "September 11th, 2001") despite us using 11/9 for 11th September, but in speech it's usually referred to as "September 11th" over here.

Agree. 9/11 is used in Europe too and is now iconic. Actual title sounds awkward to me. 9/11 is better. Maybe 9/11 attacks as a compromise?.--Kim FOR sure (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Support move to 9/11 attacks for stated reasons. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unlock the article

Nothing but gibberish

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

History of this talk page is filled with thoughts of long-term editors and their respective puppets. This history is preserved and available for evaluation. At this point in time it's absolutely clear that we have group of editors who have gamed the system. Since its inception, this group has done nothing but turned away numerous editors, often in most uncivil manner - they've conspired to build false sense of consensus. Evidence of revision is here, it's open to the public.

Unlock the article. OTEx (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we are unable to comply with your demands at this time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly an effort to improve the article. Of course, it's pretty darn hard to improve perpetually locked propaganda that few may edit. Yes? OTEx (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is not going to be unlocked anytime soon, so unless you have specific suggestions for improving the article, there's not much else to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC1

As we delve the meaning of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, I'd like to see Template:Advert and Template:POV placed above the article. OTEx (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added the pov tag for you. You'll have to explain what advertising is bothering you before I'm willing to add the advert tag. --Onorem (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let's wait for a while, to see if there's will to dispute the fact that… strong minded editors took this page as their own playground. OTEx (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments so far are not going to keep that tag there. You need to make specific points, and soon, if you want it to stay there while a discussion can take place. Just saying OWN and GAME isn't good enough. What, exactly, do you think needs to be addressed? --Onorem (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. It's not appropriate when all that's been done on this page is to indulge in vague handwaving, soapboxing and innuendo about editors who have worked on the content. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is about group of editors who are gaming the system, if you object such notion; feel free to explain the history. OTEx (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Acroterion comments and action. I see no reason for the POV tag. All we have had is vague comments and soapboxing. No-one is using the article for their own "playground". The article is for confirmed fact and sources, not for conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is well written piece of propaganda. OTEx (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm obviously focused on the group of editors that turned this place in desolate wasteland. Hopefully, we understand that this is serious allegation. Should we revise each sound call for improvement of this article that was made one time to many just to be denied by this group? And on grounds of what? Article ownership? Wikipedia's failure? Intrusive nature of the governments? We have 59 pages of people who question 9/11 and not a word about people who question 9/11 in the article. Makes one wonder if there's any sanity and decency in vigilance…

So, instead of addressing such question as why we don't have section about conspiracy theories or peculiar fall of #7, we should rather address the group of editors who are enforcing their viewpoint while exploiting the system. Dudes telling people to piss off is on far side of consensus. It's a core issue, rather transparent even without name-calling. Reinstate the tag, please. OTEx (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There's an entire article on conspiracy theories, and the collapse of WTC 7 is addressed in the WTC 7 article. There is a general consensus that the article is too long already, and that for the most part conspiracy theories represent undue weight in the article. I suggest that you focus on content, rather than being "focused on the group of editors that have turned this place into a desolate wasteland." Tags aren't meant to be used to express vague gripes or for a single editor to dispute painfully-wrought consensus. Acroterion (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Better to remain focused on group of editors that turned away hundreds of contributors while painfully imposing consensus, as recorded in history. OTEx (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Big yawn....troll elsewhere.--MONGO 11:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Like an itch you can't scratch, eh Mongo? You were cautioned not to spew gibberish across the talkpage, once. Yes? Either way, I'll take you as fine representative of the group that's gaming the system. How many editors you've banned for stating their opinions? You have poor record, Mongo. I don't think you should be entangled with this article at all. OTEx (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

If anyone wants the POV tag added to the article, please list your reasons here in a civil manner. If you make a good case, I don't mind adding the tag to the top of the article. The POV tag is not a badge of shame for an article, just an invitation for all readers to come to the talk page and hash out a contentious issue. There needs to be a valid reason to have it, however. Cla68 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One World Trade Center

The last sentence of the introductory section reads: "After a lengthy delay, the 1,776-foot-tall (541 m) One World Trade Center was completed at the World Trade Center site in New York City in 2013.[3]"

This is untrue. One World Trade Center is not complete, and may not complete in 2013. The structure topped out in 2013 (May if I remember correctly), but the interior and some of the facade are still under construction. The building is expected to open either in late 2013 or early 2014, and the above sentence should be changed to indicate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dense-Electric (talk • contribs) 08:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- Jodon | Talk 18:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Muslim March

This squib apparently had Truther particiation. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This page has been targeted by conspiracy groups

I'd like to inform administrators and other users tasked with this article that a conspiracy theory group on reddit has targetted this article. Among other pages, there is an expressed goal of "small and gradual" changes to "something closer to the truth", as opposed to "the official story". I urge editors with expertise in the subject of the article to be on the lookout for obvious conspiracy-theory like edits. Mr. Anon 515 00:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Like the one that has now appeared below, for example? ;) --Korruski^Talk 11:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

Asked and answered. Nothing more to discuss

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For balance and accuracy, please qualify and/or correctly attribute this version of events, including the conclusions drawn from the events, to the US Government (specifically the Federal Bureau of Investigation) which is the sole source of the information. This would require very small modifications as suggested below.

For example: The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11[nb 1]) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Four passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists so they could be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, as well as major damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington, D.C.,[2] but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, almost 3,000 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters in the history of the United States.

Change to: The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11[nb 1]) were a series of four coordinated attacks believed to be launched by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda upon the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Four passenger airliners were reportedly hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists so they could be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. According to US Government and media sources, two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, as well as major damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was reportedly crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was believed to have been targeted at Washington, D.C.,[2] but reportedly crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers are believed to have attempted to overcome the hijackers. In total, almost 3,000 people died in the attacks, which, according to government and media sources, included 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters in the history of the United States.

120.149.147.173 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't help wondering (given the timing and nature of this request) whether it has something to do with this post here: [15] which suggests introducing small changes that gradually shift the narrative towards the conspiracist version of events. Although the changes you propose are subtle, clarifying perfectly well-established facts with 'reportedly' and 'According to US Government and media sources' is a subtle form of WP:POV pushing and WP:WEASEL. I strongly oppose this edit being made.--Korruski^Talk 10:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No sources are currently cited. The article as is violates WP:POV by presenting these claims as neutral. Are you calling into question the introduction of uncertainty or the suggestion that government and media sources circulated these claims as certainties? Magnunath (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's common practice not to excessively cite sources in the lede, especially when discussing established facts. Yes - I'm calling into question the introduction of uncertainty about facts that are, to all intents and purposes, certain.--Korruski^Talk 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with Korruski's comments above. Wikipedia is a encylopedia and not a forum for conspiracy theories. The edit request above tips the balance over to these theories and is WP:POV. In any case there is an article for "conspiracies" and plenty of internet forums. Strongly oppose any change such as those suggested above. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:WEASEL and WP:ALLEGED for the Manual of Style's guidelines on the use of such qualifiers. Whether or not it has anything to do with the Reddit post (which appears to have originated from an old-school adherent of the anti-semitic flavor of Truther thought), it represents an attempt to insert a conspiracy theory-tinged point of view. Acroterion (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the OP of that Reddit post is anti-semitic? He briefly mentioned 5 Israelis who have been connected to the 9/11 attacks by the fbi and multiple credible news sources. There's a lot of information on this already accepted as credible and backed up by numerous citations on other wikipedia pages, such as this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advanced-knowledge_debate#Israel Magnunath (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a theory based on and perpetrated by anti-semetic stereotypes. For a full debunking, see here. Of course, this is not relevant to the subject of the article. Mr. Anon 515 21:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The theory currently on this page - that osama bin laden and al-qaeda were solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks - is based on and perpetrated by anti-arab and islamophobic stereotypes.

Is Abraham Foxman an unbiased source? While he criticizes far-right white supremacists for latching onto anti-semitic conspiracy theories, he has stood with far-right white supremacists in their opposition to Park51 and defence of racially profiling muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Foxman#Opposition_to_Park51

His discussion of the 5 Israelis detained by the FBI is incomplete. He does not mention that 3 of them later went on Yair Lapid and one of them said that "our purpose was to document the event." He does not mention some of the politics involved. When questioned, Sivan Kurzberg said "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." He does not mention that Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, and then failed it.

Ultimately, he does not debunk the theory that these five Israelis had foreknowledge or were otherwise complicit in the attacks. He says that there is not sufficient evidence to convict them (which is the same thing the Taliban said about Osama bin Laden), and takes the fact that the 9/11 commission did not look into this further as proof that they are innocent.

The head of the 9/11 commission was originally going to be Henry Kissinger, but Phillip Zelikow took his place after Kissinger was asked about his business ties with the bin Laden family. Zelikow did not have an unbiased view of conspiracy theories while serving as executive director, he viewed them as a disease: "[t]he hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed. They’d have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That’s not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious . . . . [t]hen this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body."

Since many Muslims believe that the Israeli or U.S. government shared in the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, I feel that the current article does not reflect a neutral point of view as it only lists Muslims as suspects. Treating these beliefs as fringe or as a disease is the kind of marginalization that the ADL claims to be fighting against. Magnunath (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"The theory currently on this page - that osama bin laden and al-qaeda were solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks - is based on and perpetrated by anti-arab and islamophobic stereotypes. "

False. There are certain facts about the attacks that we know to be true. For example, we know that Mohammad Atta was on one of the planes that crashed, and we know from interviews with key Al Qaida leaders that he was involved in the planning an execution of the attacks. These are not "government sources", these are documents publically available for examination.

"Is Abraham Foxman an unbiased source? While he criticizes far-right white supremacists for latching onto anti-semitic conspiracy theories, he has stood with far-right white supremacists in their opposition to Park51 and defence of racially profiling muslims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Foxman#Opposition_to_Park51"

This is not relevant to the validity or reputability of the source.

"Ultimately, he does not debunk the theory that these five Israelis had foreknowledge or were otherwise complicit in the attacks. He says that there is not sufficient evidence to convict them (which is the same thing the Taliban said about Osama bin Laden), and takes the fact that the 9/11 commission did not look into this further as proof that they are innocent."

You misunderstand. The burden of proof is on you to prove guilt, not on a debunker to prove innocence. Do you have reliable sources supporting their foreknowledge and/or complacency in the act? The fact that these people were investigated and ultimately cleared of suspicion by the FBI would indicate that evidence of guilt was not sufficient.

"The head of the 9/11 commission was originally going to be Henry Kissinger, but Phillip Zelikow took his place after Kissinger was asked about his business ties with the bin Laden family. Zelikow did not have an unbiased view of conspiracy theories while serving as executive director, he viewed them as a disease: "[t]he hardcore conspiracy theorists are totally committed. They’d have to repudiate much of their life identity in order not to accept some of that stuff. That’s not our worry. Our worry is when things become infectious . . . . [t]hen this stuff can be deeply corrosive to public understanding. You can get where the bacteria can sicken the larger body.""

This is not relevant. The Bin Laden family is a very wealthy business in the Arab peninsula; it is not inconceivable that others would have "business ties" with them.

":Since many Muslims believe that the Israeli or U.S. government shared in the responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, I feel that the current article does not reflect a neutral point of view as it only lists Muslims as suspects. Treating these beliefs as fringe or as a disease is the kind of marginalization that the ADL claims to be fighting against."

How much is "many Muslims"? Furthermore, simply because a myth is widespread does not warrant it equal weight to other views. No doubt "many people" subscribe to Holocaust Denial conspiracy theories; certainly these should not be given equal weight. The presence of such beliefs are recorded in specific pages for 9/11 conspiracy theories, and are only tangentially relevant to the actual article. Mr. Anon 515 04:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It is based on stereotypes and it is based on facts. There was a LOT of anti-arab racism and islamophobia in the West after 9/11. There are facts supporting the involvement of people like Mohammad Atta. There are also facts connecting him to the fbi/cia and money laundering/drug cartels. I'm not going to respond to this "line by line" because I'm not here to have a debate with you, but the bottom line is that the conspiracy theory on this page (which is incomplete, too certain in some places, and leaves a lot of important information out) is given a privileged status with respect to other conspiracy theories, and for this reason the page does not reflect a neutral point of view. Here is a link about how much "many Muslims" is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/majority-muslims-arabs-not-responsible-911_n_906176.html.

I think that Arabs were involved, but I think that the evidence in favor of Osama's relatives being involved is not being given the weight it deserves. These are the "business partners" that lead to Kissinger's non-appointment to the 9/11 commission, and they were meeting with George H.W. Bush during a meeting of the Carlyle group on 9/11. They were flown back to Saudi Arabia 9 days later. The Carlyle Group is very heavily involved in the surveillance and security industries with companies such as QINETIQ and Booz Allen Hamilton. After Fahrenheit 9/11 was released, the Carlyle Group started buying up big movie chains: http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=12998. Fahreheneit 911 contained many allegations against the Carlyle Group. It is not mentioned on this page. Magnunath (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories does not imply credibility, it is merely an account of the various theories, many of which have a clearly bigoted origin. You confuse sourcing with credibility: it is possible to find sources for many fringe ideas, but those sources are credible only to the extent that they describe the fringe theory, they do not constitute evidence of mainstream acceptance. Acroterion (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Is mainstream acceptance a necessary criteria for something to be considered well-cited or well-supported. You are correct that the theory that "some Israelis knew about 9/11 before it happened" does not have mainstream acceptance (at least outside of the Muslim World), but there are mainstream sources which have reported the facts which are being used to support such a theory. Why should facts about 9/11 with mainstream acceptance be excluded from this page? Magnunath (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"For balance and ..." That is where you make a mistake. Wikipedia does not and never intended to balance all points of view equally. Rather wikipedia assigns weight to points of view per the preponderance of sources that take that view. Your proposal is clearly motivated by a desire to promote conspiracy theories which do not have much acceptance (and are in direct contradiction to the evidence, but this isn't the place to go into that), IRWolfie- (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does more people saying something mean it is true? There were a preponderance of sources that said Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons while the U.S. was preparing to invade Iraq in 2003 - they were wrong. This seems like a very troubling standard for exclusion when 90% of the information the u.s. consumes comes from only 6 companies: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6. This also does not reflect a neutral point of view. There are a preponderance of sources making these kinds of claims in Arabic media. Magnunath (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

"Why does more people saying something mean it is true?" You say this, while also claiming that we should give conspiracy theories equal weight simply because "many Muslims" subscribe to them. The article is backed up by numerous sources, not just "US media", but British and Arab sources as well as numerous public investigations of the events. If you have a specific problem with the reliability of any of these, raise them elsewhere. Mr. Anon 515 04:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! I am calling attention to a double standard which reveals that the page, as it is constructed now, does not reflect a neutral point of view. This is because the conspiracy theory which claims that osama bin laden and 19 saudi hijackers acted alone to attack the United States on September 11, 2001 is not treated as a conspiracy theory. If a preponderance of sources is your criteria for truth, then the claims that the U.S. or Israel were responsible and the facts supporting those claims should be included. Either that, or the 9/11 attacks page should be deleted and the content should be merged with the "9/11 conspiracy theories" page to eliminate the double standard and improve the neutrality of wikipedia's articles regarding the 9/11 attacks. Magnunath (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the "facts" supporting those claims are, of course, required. We can incorporate them just as soon as someone produces them. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we close this Edit Request as it has already been answered and the talk page should not be used as a forum? If you really believe the information you have create a blog or youtube video to let others know. VViking_TalkEdits 16:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to hate crimes section?

It seems to me that undue weight is being given to the hate crimes section of the article. Surely it deserves mentioning for posterity, but its own section borders on WP:RGW. Thoughts? Instaurare (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It is less than 200 words in an article that is in total not far off 10,000 words. That hardly seems to be undue prominence, and it is sensible located in a section on response. Unfortunately, hate crimes were one feature of the response to 9/11, and I fail to see how mentioning this has anything to do with WP:RGW.--Korruski^Talk 14:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Biased article.

This is not a forum for your personal views on 9/11

why this article is so biased? why he reverted my edit? SpidErxD (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You added a statement about conspiracy theories that used Wikipedia itself as a source. You need third-party sourcing. Additionally discussion of that topic has been ongoing on this page for some time without a consensus to add. :Please avoid accusations of "bias" as you have, I'm personally not convinced that conspiracy theories don't merit mention, but you need to approach the subject with greater care for referencing and appropriate placement in the article, after finding consensus. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Read last line of Assassination of John F. Kennedy Summary.SpidErxD (talk) 13:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the article is biased. Its biased against fiction. The article only includes facts, not made up fiction.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The article on the assassination of Kennedy reflects the fact that there has been sustained academic research into the assassination and whether Oswald had co-conspirators. No comparable research or writing in academic or prominent mainstream sources exists for 9/11. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@JOJ ^Hutton. I don't believe in Official story that 19 hijackers from 7500miles arrived in USA and carried out attacks with Cutters,Knives and Satellite phones. Most of the Engineers don't believe in Free Fall Collapse of WTC7. 92% Americans don't know that Al-Qaeda was created by USA in 1980s and Osama was a CIA agent. 911 dragged USA into war against Israel enemies. War on Terror caused 20times more damage to US economy than 911. Many US soldiers died in Afghan,Iraq war and many US soldiers will die in Syria,Iran War.Corporate Media lied about 911 & Iraq War and they are lying about Syria & Iran. SpidErxD (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

New Poll

This is an encyclopaedia not a forum. 'Debate' and 'balance' are not mandatory. Reliable sources are.

New poll finds most Americans open to alternative 911 theories. One in two surveyed have doubts about the government's account of 9/11. 46% suspect controlled demolition of World Trade Building 7 after viewing video footage of collapse. Shouldn't those views be reflected here? PecosinRat^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the rest of the Talk page. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and uses facts from properly sourced, reliable references. This page and the article are not for conspiracy theories - there are plenty of other sites on the internet for you to air these views. David J Johnson (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with David. Not a reliable source. --Tarage (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggest you read about Newton's laws of motion. They can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion . Three buildings fell on 9/11 symmetrically at (or very near) free fall acceleration into their own footprints. This is visible in any number of videos from 9/11. Building collapses into the path-of-most-resistance where thousands of tons of supposedly undamaged steel and concrete should have slowed (and probably stopped) any collapse is impossible by itself, but for the buildings to fall at free fall speed and to fall symmetrically... No one of these things is possible, but for them all to happen at once means that the story of 9/11 as told here in Wikipedia--no matter how many references used--is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Start here...

Bažant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L.; Greening, F. R.; Benson, D. B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 134 (10). American Society of Civil Engineers: 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892).

...and you will find that Newton's laws do predict the reality of what happened. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Your personal views on engineering aren't admissible on Wikipedia and reflect the common and mistaken notion that buildings are so enormously strong that they must necessarily fall over sideways if they fail. Specifically, your analysis is based on a common misunderstanding of the fundamental difference between static and dynamic loading. Read Bazant, as recommended above. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bazant's theories, which he proposed in a draft paper two days after 9/11, have not been supported by any experiments in the 12 years since he hypothesized them. Further, the basic notion that a building can fall at the same speed as free fall (Building 7) and at the same time crush itself is only a personal view, not supported by Newtonian physics or experimental data. Further, there have never been any high-rise steel superstructure buildings that have failed symmetrically. Failing symmetrically is not about strength. Instead, it is about the probability of all 250+ columns on 90+ floors of Tower 1 WTC failing simultaneously all the way down to the ground. For critique of Bazant's theory and his supposed proof read Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" in the International Journal of Protective Structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of analyses based on a misunderstanding of the basics...Unless you have some specific suggestions for improvements to this article, per WP:NOTAFORUM, we are done here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The changes needed in this article are so large that it should be rewritten from scratch. What are the rules for that and where is the place for that conversation if it isn't on this page? Finally, you've spoken dismissively and with authority, are you speaking just for yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is the place to gain consensus for article improvements. So far you've been using it as a soapbox for advocacy of fringe viewpoints, which can be a handicap in obtaining consensus. Acroterion (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph in this discussion might suggest that the idea that the official story was a complete fabrication is no longer fringe--if it ever was. 3,000 people died on September 11th and hundreds of thousands more in the useless wars that followed. The facts suggest that the murderers who started it all are likely still walking around among us. What more compelling argument is needed for a Wikipedia article that reflects that reality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you have reliable sourcing in prominent mainstream media that the account upon which Wikipedia's content is based is a total fabrication? A New York Times article explaining who actually did it would be sufficient. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nearly everyone on the face of the Earth has a reliable source for knowledge that the official report on 9/11 is fabricated. They only need to recall the videos from that day to have a clear vision of three steel superstructure buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprints at free fall speed. Those characteristics cannot happen in a "natural collapse" initiated by plane crashes and fire, they only occur with controlled demolition. That is a set of facts that doesn't need confirmation by the NY Times to be known to be true. Three thousand people died in NY on Sept 11 followed by hundreds of thousands of additional unnecessary deaths. Whatever the Wiki-rules are the enormity of the crime and the obviousness of the evidence outweigh them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

They didn't collapse in their own footprints...debris from all three towers damaged and destroyed numerous other nearby buildings. The controlled demolition conspiracy theory ranks up there as one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories of all time.--MONGO 05:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

so, all the reliably sourced media reports (e.g. BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera) are all fabricated? --Aude (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the 1960s the supposed attack in the Tonkin likeike3Gulf that led us into the Vietnam War was reported in all the reliable media. There were no contradictory reports. There is nothing sacrosanct about media reports. Debris was thrown in all directions around the WTC, but the bulk of it stayed inside the WTC site. The debris from Building 7, a 47-story tall building, didn't cross the street (fewer than 100 feet) to hit the Post Office building. Ridicule is not really an argument against physical evidence, merely an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia was around in the 1960s, it would cite "all the reliable media" about Tonkin Gulf. --Aude (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ilikeike3: The point here is that your proposed changes go against Wikipedia policy for sourcing and avoidance of original research, and they promote fringe theories, as they are based on your personal opinions and not on a preponderance of reliable secondary sources in major media. Those are all fundamental principles of Wikipedia, and they are what keeps the encyclopedia from becoming an chaotic outlet for every person with views on perpetual motion machines, water-fueled cars, cold fusion, anti-vaccination, the disappearances of Lord Lucan, Judge Crater and Jimmy Hoffa, the true identity of Jack the Ripper, and whether world leaders are really reptiloids or just a drug cartel. At this point you're just using this page as a soapbox to advocate a fringe POV. It appears that this discussion is at an end. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The list above is also not an argument against easily discernible physical evidence. The discussion is not at an end, just the ability of this site to have one. Wikipedia's article on 9/11 is not neutral. It adopts a standard for determining truth that ignores what can be easily seen. Two plus two still equals four even if the NYTimes hasn't confirmed it. Thank you for the relative civility here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeike3 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The list above is a series of examples of why Wikipedia insists on (indeed, requires) the use of published mainstream, preferably academic sources for everything. This isn't something that's subject to argument, it's a fundamental principle. So no, your views on what the videos look like are not admissible as a basis for content. Apart from that, this is not a subject that is reducible to 2+2=4: reasonable people can disagree widely on their personal interpretation of the complex events of 9/11, so we cannot rely on such interpretation. Acroterion (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Was not this started from the poll which was determined to come from an unreliable source. Next it moved onto physics, moved back to "not fringe" because of the aformentioned poll and finally back to physics. I suggest closing this as not a forum. If User:Ilikeike3 has a reliably sourced change she would like to make then suggest it. If not this needs to be closed as not a forum. VViking_TalkEdits 01:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Good article

Hi folks,

This article is a core part of WikiProject September 11, 2011 and I think we can it back to at least GA status, but I want to know what needs to happen for that to occur. MONGO, you appear to be an active participant. Thoughts? Sports guy 17 18:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's probably close to GA now...the refs have to be checked out...User:A Quest For Knowledge is the last person to bring it to GA.--MONGO 22:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

References 288 and 294 have broken parameters. I'm going to go fix them right now. Otherwise, it looks fine. Perhaps looks closer to FA than GA. Sports guy 17 19:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. It's been a while since I validated the references or read through the article beginning to end. I'll see what I can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Dead links

I've run the article through the WP:Checklinks tool and it found 15 broken links which I've tagged with {{broken link}}.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A poetic view to the september 11 attacks titled " Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view"

From - sunil malhotra,new delhi 9/11 is an event signifying retributive justice, it's futility, seen from an eastern perspective. The poem below was penned in its aftermath, absorbing the essence of the underlying retributive phenomenon, and churning it with an Indian thought and ethos, grounded in the tenet of forgiveness,tolerance. We destruct, then we reconstruct. One shatters life and it's notions. The other rekindles hope and faith, resurrects. An architectural cum a spiritual view is attempted through the verse to inspire courage,hope and spiritual freedom. The attached verse is in three parts- a letter to it's reader, an introduction to the verse and finally the verse "Pencils and Chalks- 9/11 an eastside view".https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/file:pencils_and_chalks.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallu729 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

That's... interesting, but the article is bloated enough as is. Not sure if this would fit anywhere. I appreciate the effort though. --Tarage (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

why is ICTS not mentioned in this HUGE article?

ICTS_International#Media_coverage

I think it is highly relevant as they are to blame for some of the oversight and letting the terrorist onto planes...

124.248.191.82 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whenever there is an accident or disaster, someone is always to blame...lawyers make sure of it.--MONGO 16:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

^ http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/#pagecontent

[1] ttp://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/#pagecontent

[1]