Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 62

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64

"911 conspiracy theory lacks expert support"

This has been discussed before with no consensus to include WP:FRINGE views in this article. See Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 61#No evidence from experts? and Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive_29#proof for just a couple of examples. Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories would be a better venue at any rate. clpo13(talk) 21:51, 28 November 2015 (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.

I see here a few experts.. So this statement by default is false.. right? Or is my logic wrong? Where's the catch?

Maybe it could be rephrased from

9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.

to

9/11 conspiracy theories supported by some expert scientists and engineers have become social phenomena, despite lack of backing from majority of expert scientists, engineers, and historians who support the mainstream view.

One is not an expert only if they support mainstream view.. One is an expert.. and they may support or not the mainstream view. Right? Or wrong? Is someone an expert by the view they have on a particular issue, or are they experts by their skills regardless on the judgment on a particular issue?

After all, both defense and prosecutor can bring their experts on court to argue opposing views.. I've seen this so many times on TV shows..

BTW, reference [1] does not even support above statement!

178.148.5.47 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the supporters of conspiracy theories are experts in the relevant fields: they are all opining outside of their fields of expertise, or they possess no more than the standard qualification needed to legally practice in their field with no specialized or advanced qualification beyond basic skills. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, still less a TV court, and neutral voice doesn't mean giving equal weight to all views. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view (throughout the encyclopedia) and treats fringe views accordingly. See WP:FRINGE. The reference supports the mainstream-vs-fringe statement, it most definitely doesn't contain a statement Truthers are experts Acroterion (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
What is your qualification? Are you an expert in those fields? It appears some of the people from the list have expertise in relevant fields. So I am asking myself why your opinion that they are not experts in relevant fields would be more accurate than my opinion that they are experts in those fields? WP:NPOV states minority view should be not given equal weight, but as the statement above says, conspiracy view is a social phenomena, far from minority view, and should be given more weight than currently is.. |Mainstream is current thought that is widespread. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow, so many links I keep finding just by searching... for example, look what happens to expert scientists when they publicly state non-mainstream views. no wonder many are scared to say what they think.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I would ask some editors to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Closing_discussions 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Please login to your main account. Jehochman Talk 21:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

? do I have it? didn't know that.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2015 (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.

citation not supporting statement.

You cannot get around a section close by making a new section to continue the previous discussion. Any further attempts to do so will be deleted. If you have a problem with this, take it up with Administrators' Noticeboard. --Tarage (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2015 (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.

Statement and reference provided in above section. I request correction of above statement in accordance with the source. thank you 178.148.5.47 (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Only after they submit proof that is published in a peer reviewed scholarly venue.--MONGO 16:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
statement 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians. from the article is not supported by its source.. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
We should probably remove the "despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers and historians"...but you're asking us to prove a negative, a common CT argument. The CT crowd has never gotten their nonsense printed in an appropriate peer reviewed venue. It's always wacky websites or some link to a goofy "conference".--MONGO 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Suggest IP:178.148.5.47 post their conspiracy theories on one of the many crazy sites on the internet. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia that deals in properly sourced facts and not ideas from second rate "experts".....David J Johnson (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your condescending tone is 'amusing' and shows your blindness prevents you from comprehending my objection posted above. 178.148.5.47 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree the citation doesn't fully support the statement as it stands. Here are a couple of quotes from the article that could support a statement about how there is a lack of evidence for the conspiracy theories compared to the widely-accepted sequence of events: Amid so much evidence to the contrary, and so much visible heartbreak from victims' family members probably made worse by wallowing in conspiracy theories, why believe in them? and The widely-accepted (and here greatly summarized) account of what led up to and happened on 9/11 is as follows (emphasis mine). clpo13(talk) 20:11, 29 November 2015 (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.

New proposed text for 'solidarity'

"In the days that directly followed the September 11th attacks many of the residents of New York City felt compelled to help in the rescue effort, but found that there was very little for them to do to directly support the effort. People lined up outside of hospitals to donate blood. People gathered in public parks to grieve together and hold candlelight vigils. The rescue workers used the West Side Highway to access "Ground Zero", and people lined the street holding signs of encouragement and cheering on the efforts of the firemen and policemen."

Thank you for the article on the September 11th Attacks. As a resident of Manhattan during the attacks in 2001, I think it is of interest to say something about the solidarity that permeated the city in the days, weeks and months following the attacks.It was a great coming together that happened in the aftermath of something truly terrible. Above is a proposal for what that text could look like. Kadytess (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you happen to have any sources for your proposed changes? --Tarage (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

relevant?

Michael Springmann 178.148.11.105 (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope.--MONGO 15:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

other names?

i think the article should note that 9/11 is referred to by Al-Qaeda as the 'Manhattan Raid', the article doesn't mention this

it could go in the first bit i.e

>The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) and then add in 'known by its perpetrators as the 'Manhattan Raid' or similar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It would require a source at least to even be considered. Rmhermen (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=WQg83rZIFTUC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=manhattan+raid+al+qaeda&source=bl&ots=6OxQ5lGFqd&sig=S6NjYzwxzP17G42xxVtiXhMn5Fo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik3MCe1tXKAhVHThQKHchaDjkQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=manhattan%20raid%20al%20qaeda&f=false here is one, there are others, if you just google just thought it was a worthwhile addition

You raise an interesting point, however, considering that there were more attacks planned and carried out than just the attacks on the world trade center it seems that it's not entirely accurate to refer to 9/11 as "the manhattan raid". Centerone (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Intelligence section

Just wanted to gauge the opinions of others regarding this section that I added a couple of weeks ago. Thanks, GABHello! 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Mostly heresay is what it appears to be. I'm inclined to not expand along these lines as they look like they are being misused to suggest that the powers that be had foreknowledge of such attacks in the manner they would happen...commonly known in conspiracy theory circles as "let it happen".--MONGO 20:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree with MONGO's comments above. This is just going back to the conspiracy theories - once again. David J Johnson (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's the main issue. In hindsight we can correlate all the tidbids and little pieces of information but in foresight even if put into the same folder and shown to the highest decision makers, there wasn't enough to know exactly what might happen, when, where and how. Without far greater specifics there is no way Bush or others could shut down some of the world's busiest airspace when it wasn't even clear that airspace much less aircraft were part of the equation.--MONGO 20:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright, fair enough. GABHello! 22:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
However, some mention of intellegence is warranted I think as there were red flags, though they are clearer now after the fact.--MONGO 02:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree it is balderdash. Now it is quite clear it was not "let it happen" - but organised by Saudis at the direct behest of the US gov. That is why the latter keeps the 28 pages secret: once they are out, the Saudis will out these clowns in return.Axxxion (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And rainbows lead to pots of gold, right?--MONGO 21:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Entirely agree with MONGO's comments above. There are plenty of sites on the internet for conspiracy theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a "conspiracy theory" site. David J Johnson (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
MONGO, stop abusing the meaningless term "conspiracy theory". People do conspire all the time and this article is about human activity, not physics. The convictions are usually delivered by courts of law for "conspiracy to...". My edits have nothing to do with this thread's discussion. You are merely censoring sourced and most relevant info. My edits apart, any normal person KNOWS that the US gov (the Bush adm) was the only entity that benefited from this attack, as they saw it. Moreover, no normal person can believe in this preposterous theory that a bunch of comic buffoons, in the CIA pay since 1979 (as we now KNOW), hiding in Pakistan, could pull off THIS on American soil. Please, allow some common sense at last. The only thing you are proving by your reverts is confirming the world's belief that the Americans are a bunch of completely brainwashed schmucks living in an invented parallel universe.Axxxion (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it wasn't let it happen, it was make it happen...okie dokie.--MONGO 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Axxxion is making a mountain out of a molehill here. There is absolutely no evidence that the US government was involved in this tragic event. I respectfully suggest that there is a page for conspiracy theories on Wikipedia and on the internet, and that is where these comments belong.David J Johnson (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
My edits simply update this article as per the latest top US officials' statements, which are most relevant and reliable, as coming from the horse's mouth. What is your point, guys, degenerate ("okie dokie") texan interjections apart?Axxxion (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
What i have initially said on this thread was about the other editor's contribution. I fully agreed that it is not relevant here. Though i did disagree about Why.Axxxion (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Possibility of local consensus seems dim. Baking Soda (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Baking Soda, no need for discussion. It has been a little experiment: i have made a minor edit giving the gist of the latest public statements of former U.S. officials, including the former DCI Porter Goss. They are being promptly reverted by edits, including one by a WP admin as "attempts to force conspiracy guff into this article". Does this not say it all? You cannot now mention in Wikipedia what former U.S. officilas say if that is inconvenient to the current ones, especially in view of such threats: Saudi Arabia threatens US with retaliation over 9/11 accusations. What a tragic end for this Resource that had appeared to have a brilliant future! And a tragic near-end for the United States of America that has degenerated into being a Saudi bitch. Q.E.D. That said, always fun to plumb the depths of human depravity (or shall i say human evolutionary flexibility?) Axxxion (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
So you've been conducting a little breaching experiment to see how far you can get with the points of view expressed immediately above? How helpful to the encyclopedia. We can all wait for the release of the documents, as opposed to reporting on comments on the potential release of the documents. Then we can improve the encyclopedia's coverage once it is known what they contain. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Very well put. We should wait until the documents are released and even then only after they are diagnosed by reliable secondary sources.--MONGO 23:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for starting all of this. GABHello! 01:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

US-Saudi relations

This is in reply to Axxxion, who wrote on my talk page, "I altered your recent edit as i saw appropriate as per the sources, specifically your phrase "the Saudis are withholding documents that would shed light on what they did"; however, i am not certain your version is incorrect. If you really meant that, please provide an accessible source. The BBC link was not quite helpful. Duscuss on the article Talk page if necessary."

In the BBC interview I linked to, when asked what he makes of the Saudi threat to sell off its US assets, Graham says, "I think it's outrageous. The Saudis know what they did in 9/11. They have used every influence that they could, including holding documents for almost 15 years out of public view and now threatening the United States with economic upheaval if it passes legislation that will facilitate our courts being open to hear the facts of this case. It is just reprehensible, and I hope the United States government will not succumb to this kind of intimidation."

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The statement by Senator Graham is not a reliable secondary source-- it's a highly POV primary source. The statement tells us nothing about what the Saudis did in 9/11. Rjensen (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Eric Kvaalen, as my experience shows (see the thread above), it is not allowed to write in this article about any statements (and that is not just Graham′s) by officials who actually wrote the Congressional Inquiry report. This kind of suppression is quite suspect in itself and serves to confirm the only logical surmise that follows (See my comments in the thread above). More to the point of your reply, I think Graham actually means the U.S. government withholding the documents, as this is what it is all about.Axxxion (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I in fact added more accessible sources, which naturally have been deleted.Axxxion (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Saudi role in September 11 attacks

Hey, editors are discussing whether to keep or remove the article. Mhhossein (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein yeah its a snow delete to be frank. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
How can I make you stop your hounding and harassment? Mhhossein (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Islam

You go change that subtitle, it's not the islam who force people to do this. These people aren't muslims and they don't know anything aboutislam just like you also don't so don't judge all the muslims about it Mohammad Wehbeh (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What subtitle are you talking about? The article has no subtitle, and "Islam" is not a section heading, or a part of one. Antandrus (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't a more specific title be preferred?

While I know Wikipedia tries to go with the most popular names for things and events, the initial attack on 1973 Chilean coup d'état is also important, so I feel a more specific name would be more respectful. 190.185.118.102 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

While I agree this article's title is unfortunate, WP:COMMONNAME doesn't appear to have any exceptions for respectfulness. And per the same policy, you have to try to name the article something that most people will immediately know. What's a well-known, widely-used name for the attacks that also immediately clicks in most people's minds? RunnyAmiga (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Remove categories

Partly done: Removed the first two cats, but disagree with use of "massacre" categories. Mass murder seems more appropriate imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
If so, change Category:Massacres in the United States to Category:Mass murder in the United States. 95.133.149.157 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Please stop adding conspiracy theories to the people who keep adding them. These are REAL plane crashes, but please don't add conspiracy theories on this article. You may argue on the talk page on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but we have to keep in a neutral point of view. Thanks. MattChatt18 (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Resource usage - translation from Persian to English

Hi. Few people can translate Persian to English. How can I prove that that message published in an important national daily newspaper was translated correctly? It is something about Iran, so it is natural to use a resource in Persian. This is Mohammad Khatami's message about the attacks:
Hamshahri Newspaper - Report on Mohammad Khatami's Messege Regarding September 11 Attacks. 2001-09-12. (Persian). Hamshahri. 2001-09-12. Archived by Mohammad Sadeghi, Computer Science Department, University of Valladolid. Permanent Archived Link. Retrieved and archived on September 1, 2016. 5:39:57 PM UTC. Permanent Archived Link at WebCite. Translation by Google Translate.
Please guide me to add this resource, so that the statements there would be more verifiable. I am an ELT student and am fluent in English. I am an Iranian and my mother tongue is Persian. I have not used anything but my language knowledge in translation of this text. Thanks. Maadikhah (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The link to Google Translate's translation is for readers who cannot understand Persian. Maadikhah (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete Firstly this is English Wikipedia and very few of our readers understand Persian and I would prefer references to be in English In this article the added text reads much like a public relations effort for the Iranian government and should be deleted. However, I would not object to its inclusion in the Responsibility for the September 11 attacks or Reactions to the September 11 attacks, as long as the statements are in a neutral tone.David J Johnson (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@David J Johnson: "the added text reads much like a public relations effort for the Iranian government and should be deleted." You mean this link and resource or the whole part about reactions of Iran? I have not added any text since more than one month ago.... I just added a resource. You mean the whole part is problematic? You should not accuse me of doing public relations effort. (WP:Assume good faith); it sounds like you are trying to find the hidden motivation of my edits. I agree that very few people know Persian; but what is the difference between Vladimir Putin and Mohammad Khatami? Why don't you call it a public relations effort?! If I find an English resource, do you say this again or not? And, finally, generally speaking, what should be done when there is only non-English information available about something worth attention. I know we shoud present 'reality' and not 'truth'; but similar metters shold be treated equally. Thank you: Maadikhah (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Your tone is so unfriendly. I think you should read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I am a newcomer at Engliah Wikipedia. Maadikhah (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts your sincerity. I'm pretty much in agreement with David Johnson but will wait for further feedback from other editors and agree with the consensus on this matter.--MONGO 03:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with MONGO's comments above. I, too, am happy to await consensus. However, I deny that my comments were "unfriendly", they were just the situation as I personally see it and also WP:NOENG and WP:SOURCES, which was mentioned to you in July 2015. Also Maadikhah cannot get away with the statement that they are a "newcomer" to English Wikipedia - they have been editing here since 10 March 2011 !! Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
:-) Thanks. But, my edits here are not worth mentioning. I can be called a newcomer. Maadikhah (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify if you think the whole part about Iran's reactions should be deleted or just this resource in Persian. As both users are much more experienced than I, I accept their judgement in case it is about this resource; but the rest are not bad resources. Please be kind enough to clarify. Thanks so much. Maadikhah (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is this one more acceptable?

I do not know the consensus we are seeking is about the whole part or just the Persian text. I will pass on the Persian text and no longer insist on using it. Thank you, all. Maadikhah (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Lost passport above table of contents

The second paragraph of the article begins with this sentence: Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines)—all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, losing one of their passports in the WTC area. The detail about the passport, as well as being pretty ungrammatically tagged on, seems inappropriately trivial for so very early in the article. I see no reason for it to remain there. --IslandHopper 973 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Name

"Nine Eleven" should be added to how term is commonly pronounced after "9/11" in the introduction, which is influenced by the way US formats dates. Outside the US, the dates are mostly read days, months then years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.116.200.249 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is already included in the note attached to "also referred to as 9/11" in the first sentence of the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Day of the week

Shouldn't the article mention what day of the week (a Tuesday) the attacks occurred? I came here looking to refresh my memory, but ended up having to ask Google instead. 46.167.245.132 (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Added by User:Invertzoo here. - Aoidh (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2016

In all instances where the article states the death toll as "2996" please correct to "2977 victims, not including the 19 terrorists responsible for the attacks"

The repetition of the 2996 figure is mistakenly causing people to memorialize the terrorists responsible for the attacks along with their victims.

76.190.138.159 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. -- Dane2007 talk 22:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing text

I have commented out a confusing portion of the following text:

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines)—all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California—were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists, losing one of their passports in the World Trade Center area.[1]

First of all, the subject of the sentence is "four passenger airliners", so literally the sentence claims that four passenger airliners lost one of their passports.

But even if we skip over that, and assume that the reader can figure out that one of the hijackers lost his passport, it's still confusing. The time context is the hijacking. How did he lose his passport from the hijacked plane?

Presumably he lost it sometime before the hijacking, right? But that isn't at all clear from the sentence. It needs to be explained better, and probably somewhere else. The question of the passport is not directly relevant to the hijacking, so it should be brought up somewhere else, presumably where the investigation of the hijacking is discussed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "passport significant piece of evidence". CNN. September 18, 2001. Retrieved August 7, 2016. Police and the FBI completed a grid search of area streets near the site of the World Trade Center looking for clues, said Barry Mawn, director of New York's FBI office.
    The searchers found several clues, he said, but would not elaborate. Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us", Mawn said.
I don't think that detail belongs in the lede -- it's confusingly out of place, and too small a detail for the beginning of the article (which should begin with the broadest description of the overall events and then gradually funnel into details). Either remove it or put it in the 'investigation' section. I presume what it means is one of the hijackers' passports was thrown free during the impacts. Antandrus (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought of that but I assumed that couldn't be it, because (I thought) it would have been destroyed. I figured one of the perps must have lost it when they were doing preliminary field work. But that doesn't make a lot of sense either, because it's hard to see why you would need reconnaissance from the ground.
So maybe you're right and an identifiable fragment of the fragment actually survived the wreckage to be found. But then I think that needs to be clearly explained, and as you say, put later in the article where it's more in context. --Trovatore (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Aha, it's in the article on Satam_al-Suqami. Maybe it should stay there? I'm going to go ahead and remove it here (thank you for commenting it out in the meantime). If anyone can find an elegant place for it instead of the lede, please go ahead. Antandrus (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

How many police officers died?

This article says 69, while Casualties of the September 11 attacks lists 68. Kiwifist (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Casualties actually says "...69 law enforcement officers who died in the World Trade Center and on the ground in New York City,[6] one law enforcement officer who died when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania,..." which equals 72. Rmhermen (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Europhysics News

Europhysics News is a journal of European Physical Society which membership include national physical societies of 42 countries.

Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences.

How one WP musician can falsify thesis in referencing paper reviewed by multitude of piers with credentials, published in the Europhysics News and accepted by editorial board ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No. EPN states that it was not reviewed [2] and "It is shocking that the published article is being used to support conspiracy theories related to the attacks on the WTC. The Editors of EPN do not endorse or support these views." It therefore fails Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy which demands editorial review. They've taken steps to keep this from happening again. In other words, it's a striking instance of a failure of editorial oversight and an example of remarkable naiveté on the part of EPN. Acroterion (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Not endorse do not mean it was not viewed before publication by peers in EPN editorial. To physical science endorsement do no apply. And the usual situation throught history is that most endorsed theory is falsified initially (usually) by single person. This is typical situation through all history of science: falsified theories are replaced by another theories. Beside I afraid the above quote was cited from source not yet in open circulation. From my knowledge horizon seem to be too trivial to request to peer review a theory based on the Copernicus postulate further developed by Newton? Interesting is that Copernicus excerpted ancient conspiracy theory and refers to it clearly in his work. Above considered wp-article cite cite 359 sources, should we apply similar rejective measures to thy theses if were independently peer-reviewed if adhering to the strict regiments of scientific scrutiny and if are falsifiable? Also note[1] Europhisics News sentence: "Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field, we considered that the correct scientific way to settle this debate was to publish the manuscript and possibly trigger an open discussion leading to an undisputable truth based on solid arguments." After publication the article was peer reviewed additionally in the sense that it postulates were presented by professional society to multiple national scientific societies (thousands of peers) and nobody yet published a paper falsifying a thesis. In scientific circles such situation have a specific meaning. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
EPN states quite clearly that it was not peer-reviewed, that it disowns the opinions in the article, and that they're not going to allow that to happen again. Full stop. Acroterion (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you certain, becouse seem to exist some discrepancy, do we refering to the same paper ? 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
"EPN does not have a formal review/rejection policy for invited contributions. In the present case we realized that the final manuscript contained some speculations and had a rather controversial conclusion. Therefore a 'Note from the editors' was added, stressing that the content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent an official position of EPN." "In future, prospective authors will be asked to provide an abstract of the proposed article, as well as an indication of other publications to allow the editors to better assess the content of the invited articles." Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The same source selectively (beside scientific importance) qouted by predecessor http://www.europhysicsnews.org/about-us/about-the-journal/15-news/670-15-years-later-on-the-physics-of-high-rise-building-collapses

Conspiracy Theories

Please stop adding conspiracy theories to the people who keep adding them. A conspiracy theory is you, you absolute fuckwit. Any theory that aims to show how a set of people conspired (i.e. worked together) with the goal of achieving the destruction of the towers and the subsequent mayhem, is actually really funny and the fact that 9/11 happened is great.

The only such theory allowed here on Wikipedia is how your mother got anal yesterday and the theory put forward by the government, known as the official theory. Please be aware that alternative explanations of observed phenomena, even those that appear to be based on scientific principles, are not allowed to be raised if they conflct with my religion.The government's official theory.

Please adhere to this Wikipedia directive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.175.12 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm noted. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Boeing 767

Hello, this is the flight envelope diagram of the 767, calculated from sea level to medium altitude. As the maximum speed for manouvers is limited to 360 kt, after that the aicraft is dangerous to fly or fall in pieces, it's understandable that someone is not believing to speeds up to 500 kt, far beyond the structural strenght of the aicrafts. Either Boeing did not a good work to test the plane, or the flight was overvalued as speed (or xxx explainations 'non convenctionals')? Someone could tell how is possible to fly at speed so far from the aicraft limitations? Speed over 900 km/h are well over any capability verified for 767's

The actual limits certified: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302E51A401F11A8625718B00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

360 kt is the safe speed as imposed by regulators on normal operations. I very much doubt Atta et al were concerned with violating FAA regulations on the safe operation of 767s, and it is very unlikely that the plane would just fall apart if it exceeded those limits, it would just be encroaching on the safety margins. If a plane exceeds speed limitations in airline operation it is normally withdrawn from service and subjected to a structural evaluation to see if it has to be repaired or scrapped; a couple of early 707s were treated that way after unintended dives that approached the speed of sound and vastly exceeded safe operating limits. Acroterion (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

I found grammar mistakes. 31.221.55.110 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ" - Arjayay (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

PrOzHype (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC) why

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2016

9/11 was a False Flag Attacks cause by the New World Order Party, Co-conspired by Israel, England and America Traitors in the CFR and Executive Branches of Government. There is no proof that 19 Arab Men committed the 9/11 Attacks to cause this much devastation and carnage. Wikipedia is misleading and placing disinformation about the 9/11 Attacks that is false doctrine and lies in our history and distorting the truth and facts of the 9/11 Attacks. 2601:8C1:8101:B048:5942:DBA3:269A:6AD9 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016 - reference 292

Reference 292 appears below standards of credibility. As well, it suffers from conflicts of interest, given the tight coupling between mass-media ownership and their corporate advertising clients -geopolitical events affecting major [medium-term] inputs to corporate economic activity (and the wider dominance of worldwide multi-national economic interests)

Furthermore, for such a major world event as this, one would desire more than a terse overview of the case for conspiracy -especially given the immense, multi-party/actor motive, and considering the political operating standard of conspiracy (most recently Clinton and the DNC). Kruchkamgar (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done CBS is a reliable source - unlike many of the conspiracy theories it covers - Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this not a reliable source? [1] . NIST and Z Bažant alone don't comprise a worthy review of collapse literature, therefore CBS is not credible or reliable. Structural collapse theories lack "support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians".

Vague, unsubstantiated claim: "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:"

[2] Kruchkamgar (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The Europhysics News article was an opinion piece written by non-experts in building mechanics and was published without peer review. Europhysics News later published an apology for their procedures in accepting commentary and they disowned the content and opinions. This has been discussed before. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Comment

I think that you could have been more precise and detailed in your statistical figures. I would have loved to hear more about what additional consequences resulted from this attack. I understand this is a very intricate subject matter so I feel that critical facts and information are missing in such a short article. The other attacks are rarely remembered or covered by the media so I feel that there are many unknown facts regarding the series of attacks to the general public. Your mentions of the other attacks are underrepresented in this article because the twin towers should not be the main focus in respect to 9/11. The subject of this article is 'September 11 attacks' yet you went into detail about the aftermath and America's response to this act of terrorism. Madeline.mcclaran (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Terrorism

i think that the word used in this article "Islamic Terrorism" sound not right for the Muslim community... like other terrorism communities,Taliban and some other tropes used the name of Islam for their own sake... we should not blame whole religion for such activities, carried out by single community... Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.43.141.173 (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Islamist" is the word to describe (in the main, Sunni) Muslims that favor a caliphate; meaning an Ottoman Empire II. Author Steve Coll distinguished betw. Islamic (devotees of Islam) and Islamist (those favoring the Islamic state) in his "Ghost Wars" (2004). The genuine terrorist activity by al-Qaeda has overwhelmed its primary goal of achieving an Islamist caliphate; the most recent origins of which are the Muslim Brotherhood (1928) and something called "Signposts" by an Egyptian named Qutb, who was imprisoned for trying to kill Nasser and had spent some time in the US of A (Greeley, CO) at the behest of the Egyptian government in the late 1940s. In any case, it is preferable to call the terrorists "Islamists"; noting that they are not nor represent the "whole religion." BubbleDine (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
No-one has blamed the whole Islamic community, but nonetheless it is true that the September 11 attacks were carried out by Islamic Terrorist groups. Wikipedia is about facts and does not blame the whole Islamic community for the attacks. Please also remember to use correct English and sign your contributions. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:LABEL and note that while the term "terrorist" is not controversial in association with Al Qaeda, nor the fact that they profess and are motivated in part by militant Islamism, the construction "Islamic terrorist" is very loaded and is publicly associated with a particular political agenda. Both of those facts are noted in the Wikipedia article linked to by the term itself. As a result, it likely violates WP:NPOV by its inclusion. The Wikipedia page on Al Qaeda doesn't use the term, but calls them "a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national organization" while also describing their terrorist designations, which carries more information as well as nuance. The use of the term here is also needlessly repetitious, coming as it does immediately after the description of the attacks as "terrorist attacks". I suggest replacing the term with the more neutral POV and less clunky "members of Al Qaeda". Also, it is not necessary to use "correct" English on the Talk page, or to correct the English of other editors. Please see WP:TPO. Walkinxyz (talk) 07:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, edit in the correct place - at the end of this section and secondly, read the comments here and stop making excuses. They refer to themselves as "Islamic". Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Your reversion based on what you call "excuses" for deleting the term "Islamic terrorist" was made in bad faith (see WP:GF). I didn't make excuses, I gave reasons. You calling them excuses simply makes it easier for you to dismiss them. My response was with respect to the appropriateness of the specific term "Islamic terrorist", not theories that someone other than Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks. That is why I replied here, and not to the comments below (yet you strangely reverted my edits citing "the usual conspiracy nonsense"). China refers to itself as "democratic". Should we always make sure to describe them with their preferred term, as well? The fact is that there is significant debate among experts about the connection between religion and terrorism. This article cites mainly geopolitical motives for the attack, not religious ones. Also, do you really think that the wide-ranging social, political, and economic consequences of the attacks, which are detailed in the article, and responses to the attacks, aren't important enough to merit mention in the first paragraph? That's almost as surprising as the notion that the 9/11 attacks "caused" the Iraq War, which is what the first paragraph now (again) erroneously suggests. Walkinxyz (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggest you read the Wikipedia page Islamic terrorism. The truth is the attacks were committed by Islamic terrorists. David J Johnson (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You suggest that I read something that I already cited above, which makes clear how politicized and disputed the term is? ("highly politicized, intellectually contestable" according to your preferred article). Walkinxyz (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The UN, EU, virtually all world leaders and even a few Moslem majority countries universally called the attacks acts of terrorism. The attacks were a textbook examples of terrorism...maybe you need to brush up on that definition.--MONGO 12:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Nobody is contesting that. In fact, I explicitly said calling it terrorism wasn't controversial and that I wanted to avoid repeating the word terrorism twice in the first sentence because it reads poorly. The term "Islamic terrorism" is controversial, however, and has been correctly described in Wikipedia's article on it as both "highly politicized" and "intellectually contestable." The KKK claims to be motivated by a desire to uphold Christian principles, and is a "textbook" terrorist organization, but virtually nobody refers to them as a Christian terrorist group. Instead, people refer to them as a violent, US-based white supremacist group (which is an accurate description comparable to the description of Al Qaeda as a multi-national "militant Sunni Islamist" organization -- the term "Sunni Islamist" here is comparable to "white supremacist" while "militants" means they use force). They are included with terrorism committed by other purportedly Christian groups, but that is not the same as calling members of the group itself "Christian terrorists", which would be a politically and ideologically loaded way of framing things. Again, see WP:LABEL. Walkinxyz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Is truth allowed here? Do we like scientific evidence? Is scientific research applicable here? People are afraid for their own lives over this issue of 9/11. They are fearful for their careers and personal/generational safety. Let's be clear; there is a HUGE difference between the US gov official story and what is understood by people outside the western media complex to be truly factual. The fact that the buildings on 9/11 that collapsed did so at free fall speed suggests a controlled demolition. This one simple fact is beyond a doubt, and clearly demonstrates that the official story (as well as the entire 9/11 wiki page) maintained by the US gov is totally irrelevant in regards to the truth, facts, or evidence. [1]

"Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence (terror) in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim."[2]

Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dealing in sourced, reliable, facts. If you want to peddle your conspiracy theories, there is even a page on here - but keep them away from factual articles. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the serious scientific research on this matter as referenced above; Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have done a fantastic job at debunking the claims from the 9/11 commission. There is nothing that suggests a theory when you look at the simple fact that the buildings collapsed at free fall speed-just like a controlled demolition. In what world is that considered a theory? Did the so called terrorists plant the explosives then?

"Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building."[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.16.83 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We're extremely familiar with this topic, and we're extremely familar with AE 911. You aren't the first conspiracy enthusiast to visit Wikipedia. No "serious scientific research" has ever emerged from that source and Wikipedia is not meant to be a forum for conspiracy theory promotion. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You still cannot sign your "contributions" can you? I suggest you read the contributions below. Your "independent researchers" have no reliable, or accepted peer-reviews, in the serious scientific community. Your efforts will not be accepted in Wikipedia. By all means put them in the appropriate "conspiracy theory" article, but certainly not here. You will be reverted by many concerned and informed editors.David J Johnson (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to sign my contribution sir. I would rather not be identified. Again the fact that the buildings fell at free fall speed is beyond dispute. That is in fact scientific evidence that you can go and see for yourself. You can watch the 9/11 towers collapsing and then watch a controlled demolition, and you can see for yourself how they are exactly the same. Your response is nonsensical, and I believe that you are in fact simply in denial of this very clear and significant FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.16.83 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "in denial", we have your location whether or not you sign your "contributions", which is required to edit Wikipedia, and please do not shout by inserting caps. You have already been advised that your "contributions" do not belong in a factual article, but on the Conspiracy Theories page . Please stop. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ae911truth.org/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
  3. ^ http://www.ae911truth.org/news/evidence.html

To Mr. David J Johnson: Why there is no reference at all in the article to these conspiracy theories. They do exist and you well mention that there is a page dedicated to them in Wikipedia. A "Controversies" section or something like that should be appropriate, even a "Conspiracy Theories" one. Not even mention them doesn't seem justifiable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.131.58 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They are there: they get an appropriate mention as a cultural occurrence in that section ("Cultural") -- as traumatic events almost invariably engender conspiracy theories -- and the link is in the navbox at the bottom. Antandrus (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel like this article is very helpful and cites credible sources. The inclusion of a conspiracy theories section in the table of contents would be pretty interesting though! Just a personal opinion. Nbelt408 (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, there is a Wikipedia page devoted to "conspiracy theories", we certainly do not want them in a factual article. David J Johnson (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I know this is not a forum to discuss 9/11, but to the person going on about the building collapsing at free fall speed, you should probably re-watch the videos of the collapse. In many of the videos, you can clearly see parts of the building, parts that are not attached to anything, falling at free fall speed, while the building itself is much further behind these pieces during the collapse. Had the building fell at "free fall speed", the building would be falling at the same speed as the pieces that are not attached to anything and actually falling at free fall speed. I got some advice for you, stop believing everything you read on the internet. Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

9/11attacks

I've just read your basic explanation of where and how these attacks on Sept.11, 2001 took place. However, a few paragraphs into this explanation, I read where you claim that Bin Laden did not officially take responsibility for these attacks until 2004. That is incorrect. It was very few days to weeks right after these attacks in which a videotape of him claiming responsibility was shown internationally on television, including American mainstream television. Please correct the above timeline. Thank you Kimberly Luttman (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you need to supply reliable sources for your statement before any possible correction can be made. David J Johnson (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this the best approach?

We all know conspiracy theorists flood this article to dispute most of the stuff in it. This phenomenon has endured for 16 years now. That's why it seems quizzical to me that the only mention of these conspiracy theories in the entire article is one sentence, tucked away in the "Cultural influence" section: "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." We have an article on it, and most branched-off articles either get a section or at least an early mention in the main article. Truth is, it's a notorious aspect of the topic that people will stubbornly look for. Let them find it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Because they aren't here to 'find the truth'. Conspiracy theorists already have a perverted 'truth' they believe. We are an encyclopedia. If people type in September 11th, they should be shown what reliable sources show, not what loons on blogs think. --Tarage (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with Tarage's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree completely. Although Wiki very rarely reaches for the ethical, it's wrong to give these cranks any more spotlight than the barest of minimums. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a fringe theory and doesn't belong in the first place. The bit where it's mentioned was a compromise that took months to achieve. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the OP - the lack of a link to the dedicated article is not the best approach. The relevant content to a dedicated article is not easy to find, and is also inconsistent with other similar articles. Other articles about historical events with alternate theories have the theories far easier to find: the Assassination of JFK article has a section and a link to the article; the Attack on Pearl Harbor article has a link to the article in the See Also section; the USS Maine (ACR-1) has a section. Autonova (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. Just as we don't consider fake news sites as reliable sources, we don't treat fringe theories as legitimate alternatives. Per WP:NPOV, there are three broad characterizations of viewpoints: majority, significant minority, and extremely small minority:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article...Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
If other articles are violating NPOV, then the solution should be to fix those articles, not repeat the mistake here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is about navigability, not NPOV. Surely if it's already mentioned and linked in the article, it should be linked in the See Also section? The idea that Global Warming is not caused by human activity is a view shared by a very small minority of scientists, yet the relevant articles are properly linked in the Global warming article. Like OP says, this is about letting the reader find something, if they want to look for it. Autonova (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories is already linked in the article. WP:SEEALSO sections are a not a place to repeat links that are already contained in the article, nor are they a place to place to repeat information that is already discussed in the article. The Conspiracy theory article already garners over 60,000 views a month on it's own, so there doesn't seem to be a problem with people finding the article.--JOJ Hutton 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with the contribution above from A Quest For Knowledge. Conspiracy theories are fringe and have no place in this article. David J Johnson (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This has been repeatedly discussed here previously and the current language was arrived at by consensus after months of process. If you have something new to add as to why the consensus language should be changed, please review all prior discussion in the Talk archives before coming back and then explaining why. Probably there should be something pinned on this page about it as most probably are not seeing the inline wiki comment. There's no need to repeat and relitigate the same points here every time the talk page gets archived and blanked. NTK (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

Please change the total number of victims to not include the hijackers for example of the left hand column under casualties it has victims+hijackers. I believe they have no reason to be respected as in that regard they should not be added to the total number of deaths because it is disrespectful to the families of the victims that these terrorists are being put along side the victims as dead. please do change the TOTAL number of dead to not include the terrorists. Rcotter22 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Might as well start here, but the sources do count the hijackers as deaths, so there is reason for inclusion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; per User:Jd22292, sources include hijackers in deaths count.BananaCarrot152 (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The hijackers died too and are included in death figures in all reliable sources. David J Johnson (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Al Qaeda Total people 2,997 (2,978 victims + 19 hijackers) 216.48.140.10 (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

Nine Elevens third attack really was going towards the White House. Thank god for the passengers. Keenan Brunetti (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, see the United Airlines Flight 93 article: ...the exact place intended to be hit by Flight 93 has never been decisively confirmed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Airplane Insurance

Were the lost airplanes covered by WTC insurance or airline insurance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.193.228 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Think about it this way: if you accidentally (or intentionally) crashed into someone's fence by the side of the road while driving, would you expect their homeowner's insurance to pay for the damage to your car? Centerone (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Revelation 9:11

Coincidence is not a reliable source. That OP thinks it's important to point out that they're white and compare this to Holocaust denial is an indication that we should have just deleted this superstitious bullshit from the beginning. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Why is Rev. 9:11 not mentioned anywhere in this article? "And in the Greek tongue, he hath his name Apollyon - the destroyer."

Btw, that refers to the Greeks as destroyers. It's not some 'prophecy' which predicted the event, in case you jump to the wrong conclusion.

Is somebody trying to disguise the truth of this matter? Is his name George Orwell by any chance?

Might as well paraphrase Rev. 17:9-11; "The Beast is the KING". Final nail... in that... coffin...

There is no understanding or reconciliation if you don't admit the truth of the matter. It's a delusion as it currently stands, this article.

The truth I'm speaking of, obviously, is that of the ancients; the Trojan War, invasions of Anatolia and subsequently the Levant, Mesopotamia and Egypt primarily.

Or, is that too controversial? The truth doesn't matter or doesn't exist? Isn't that akin to Holocaust denial?

Full disclosure: I am white and of Polish Catholic descent. 184.146.142.178 (talk)

Please stop posting nonsense. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
How is that even nonsense? Please elaborate using your own words. Be concise. No, thank you! 76.69.77.60 (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You are promoting a fringe theory which has nothing to do with the factual article. Please read WP:FRINGE and stop posting here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
You still haven't described why it is nonsense in a factual manner. In fact, your response is crafted to intentionally discredit my statements, as is evidenced by your use of terms like 'nonsense and fringe'. It's all historically factual, if you're familiar with history at all. The fact that the Beast is the King is undisputed, as it is stated VERBATIM in revelation. The fact the Bible is really about corrupt Kings, Greeks and Romans is also undisputable. So what is 'fringe' about this theory? Nothing. Are you familiar with Pergamus, Wilusa, Troas or Illios (a synonym of Aeolus)? Obviously not. So what makes you think you're qualified or competent to hold an opinion in this matter? Thank you! Actually, this is a waste of time evidently. PrincessMassacre (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines) — all of which departed from airports in the northeastern United States bound for California — were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Centre Turdmun (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:ENGVAR. This is correct as seen. David J Johnson (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center(should be centre) Turdmun (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No,this is correct use of US English. See WP:ENGVAR. David J Johnson (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Also World Trade "Center" is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

3,008 people actually died from direct attack.

IP range blocked for disruptive editing.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2018 (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.

12 homeless unidentified people were not listed on any tally. 329 people have died from lung damage do to asbestos related exposure from the attack as of December 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:1824:95A6:66D1:14BA (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Might I ask where you're getting this information from? -- ChamithN (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I was going to ask the same question. Where's the source?--JOJ Hutton 13:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The article is blocked from posting information by unknown people who have wrong information. 3,008 is the final total . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2018 (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.

"... tragedy that was Afghanistan..."?!!!

@David J Johnson:- Mr. Johnson, you are a native speaker of English language, don't you think this sentence has a problem? "In a speech by the Nizari Ismaili Imam at the Nobel Institute in 2005, Aga Khan IV stated that the "9/11 attack on the United States was a direct consequence of the international community ignoring the human tragedy that was Afghanistan at that time".". Human tragedy that was Afghanistan? What does it mean? I think that is wrong or incomplete translation or at least, something is wrong about this. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Reads perfectly OK for me. David J Johnson (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that something sounds wrong with it. Perhaps he meant something along the lines of the tragedy that was within Afghanistan and not human life itself and it just doesn't translate well. Aprilskye (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the sentence and that is how it is written in the reference so nothing for us to do anyway. Rmhermen (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think what was meant by that comment refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network. However, for obvious politically rhetorical reasons, those countries are not to be named, 'under punishment of democracy' (or wikipedia, take your pick). 184.146.142.154 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This comment was now removed twice, under false pretense. In both cases, the admins have military affiliations; breach of trust, inherent bias and abuse of power. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Then make specific suggestions for improvement rather than using this page as a platform for griping about Wikipedia and casting silly aspersions at other editors.Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I just want to add my complete support for the comments made by Acroterion above. This IP seems not to grasp that the Talk page is for improvements to the article and not for soapboxing or WP:POV. No doubt I will be added to the "bias", "breach of trust", "abuse of power" comments etc; none of which is true. David J Johnson (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I want to know what our military affiliations are - and why they would be bad if they existed. Acroterion (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know the heights of ridicule to which this line of reasoning will reach. Bias on wiki, doesn't exist, right? I wasn't even aware that Wiki still had a reputation to uphold. That died when admins/mods became nationalist fundamentalists several years ago. If you have an issue with me calling Wiki out on that, I see why you'd consider it soapbox, but that does not disqualify the rest of the comment, which was removed under false pretense. Also, admins chiming in with their opinions don't make them more 'credible', only more herd oriented. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Although I have to question that policy, since removing criticism of Wiki or their staff is technically white-washing, astroturfing or manufacture of consent, suppression of dissent, as is the manufacture of 'credibility'. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
So, do you have concrete suggestions for improving the article, or are you here to complain about the encyclopedia and its editors? I'm acting here as an ordinary editor, and David J. Johnson isn't an administrator, and neither of us are "staff." Either use this page as it is intended, to provide concrete suggestions for article improvement, or stop using it as a platform for griping. I don't see much evidence so far that my initial removal per WP:NOTFORUM was incorrect. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it isn't immediately clear to you, inb4; "refers to United States, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, in opposition to Russia, which eventually led to the formation of a terror network." You can even reference you own page on the war in Afghanistan for that. 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The thread is about "human tragedy that was Afghanistan" comment and one editor's concern that it is unclear. We all seem to have interpreted it the same way, leaving aside your side comments about other participants. Can you provide an external source that renders the intent of the comment more clearly? Acroterion (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The original source of that comment is incomplete, as was mentioned previously, so it's disingenuous to say there is consensus of interpretation. In fact, in its current form, it eludes any form of interpretation. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the original source. That will be my last comment in regards to this farce - Vedrai! Enn'le! 65.92.117.198 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Invasion of Afghanistan in lead

The lead currently states:

The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda.

Seems like it would be more precise to say "... the Taliban, which had failed to comply with US demands to extradite Osama bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda from Afghanistan." 2601:644:1:B7CB:813D:7883:7F41:7BC6 (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Prinsgezinde (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

edit needed - references out of date information

No --Tarage (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2018 (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.

The section of the article that reads, " 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.[298] " is out of date - it references an article written in 2011. As of now (5/2018), there are over 2,900 architects and engineers who've signed a position with the group, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which questions the government's report on the reasons for the collapses of the buildings and calls for an independent investigation. The line might better be changed to read, " 9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena. A growing number of engineers scientists and architects have indicated their belief in a need for an independent, comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. [1]

According to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, that petition had 2100 signatures in 2013. I wouldn't say that an increase of 800 signatures in five years is significant enough to mention in this article. Besides, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is already mentioned at 9/11 conspiracy theories. clpo13(talk) 06:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps it could simply be "A number of engineers scientists and architects have indicated their belief in a need for an independent, comprehensive investigation into the events surrounding 9/11. "
It is not the case that there is a "lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians", though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelaus (talk • contribs) 06:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That is technically true, though WP:NPOV says that Wikipedia articles should represent all significant viewpoints. Compared to the millions of engineers[3] and architects in the US, ~3000 is not very much at all. You might want to look back through the talk page archives (linked at the top of this page) because this discussion has likely happened a few times before. clpo13(talk) 07:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
You have to be careful with professional registrations, since many people are licensed in more than one place - I'm licensed in seven states - so the numbers I quoted are for "resident licenses" as opposed to reciprocal licenses in places outside the state of residence. I think the BLS statistics are for everybody described as an engineer or architect, not strictly those with licenses. Since AE911 has made a practice of trading on licensure as a marker of asserted expertise, I chose the narrowest definitions. Acroterion (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I'll remember that for future reference. clpo13(talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There's roughly 300,000 Mechanical Engineers, 300,000 Civil Engineers, and about 100,000 Architects in the US. As petitions usually go, not everyone who holds a given viewpoint will sign a petition that supports that viewpoint, especially if it involves their professional reputation. So the Amazon review statistic rule of thumb could be put into place here - every review equates to about 30 purchases. If this were the case here, there could be upwards of 90,000 Engineers and architects who would support a new investigation, which works out to about 13%. In any case, it doesn't represents the truth of the situation to continue to say there is a "lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians". Nickelaus (talk) 07:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This talkpage is for article improvement, not as a platform for the promotion of a fringe group. This theme of "3000 professionals" that keeps coming up: out of 450,000 [4] licensed engineers and 105,000 architects [5] in the US, you can pretty reliably get maybe one percent of them (or anybody else) to sign onto just about anything. 0.5405% is meaningless.:On the topic of professional views in general, see here: [6] [7]. You're using a complete guestimate to inflate the potential scope of a fringe pressure group with no professional credibility. Licensure is a baseline qualification, it does not endow the holder with expertise, any more than passing the bar exam makes one a Supreme Court justiceAcroterion (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. Every profession has a few nutcases!--MONGO 16:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There is definitely a numbers game that can be played and the numbers will always come out differently depending on your point of view. This language of 'fringe group' is kind of inflammatory as it implies radical views. This is not the case here as you'd see if you were to check the profiles of the professionals in their list and actually note the type of careful objective analysis and legitimate questions that are raised from that group. Is Wikipedia only meant to represent comfortable, majority viewpoints, or to represent reality in all its complexity and subtlety? Galileo's championing of the heliocentric model comes to mind here - at that time it was not in vogue politically or in the view of the church to agree with the heliocentric model even though it turned out to be true. If intellectual honesty is the objective, we ought to be willing shelf our biases and report the state of things objectively. Nickelaus (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Calling a group of lunatic charlatans "fringe" is not radical.--MONGO 18:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only meant to represent comfortable, majority viewpoints Well, yes. Non-mainstream views may be notable in their own right (see WP:NFRINGE), but Wikipedia should not make them seem more widely accepted than they actually are, which even a passing mention could do (there have been many heated debates about whether YEC should be mentioned at all in age of the Earth). For instance, the Earth article does not devote any space to the modern-day belief that the earth is flat, though modern flat Earth societies are notable enough to have their own article. Also note that when Wikipedians refer to something as "fringe", it should (ideally) be taken to mean only that it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field", not necessarily that its adherents are crackpots. clpo13(talk) 19:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
So, if Wikipedia were around in Galileo's time, would it be correct for an article discussing 'Earth's place in the cosmos' to avoid mentioning scientists who thought that the Earth traveled around the sun, since this was against the comfortable, majority viewpoint?Nickelaus (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see we've reached the inevitable citation of Galileo in defense of a fringe POV. Wikipedia reflects mainstream points of view as policy, and explicitly calls out conspiracy theories as such when they are considered to be fringe points of view in mainstream journalism and academic coverage. If the Truth is eventually revealed in mainstream publications, Wikipedia will be revised to reflect the new consensus. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
You probably keep hearing this Galileo citation because it is a really good analogy to the problem with Wikipedia. What I've heard here is, basically, even if something is true, you'll never read about it on Wikipedia until the 'mainline' sources bless it as true. Who gets to say which sources qualifies qualify as mainline and what is legitimate? How do we reconcile the fact that almost all mainstream news sources editorialize news according to a pre-established viewpoint and that academia only requires 'consensus' status for ideas to be considered scientific fact (Chrichton's paper on the flawed idea of consensus science comes to mind, here)?
It's good that we get this out in the open, though: Wikipedia is essentially an executive report of what the majority of mainline academia and media reports as true, regardless of whether that flies in the face of reality. Nickelaus (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/#/AE/
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.

Videos

These videos exist:

is it appropriate to add any of these videos to this article with start times at particular timecode of the video? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of these are decent. Some have snippets of people that jumped out of the buildings. I glance through them and am waiting to see what others think.--MONGO 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined against including them -- I think we already have plenty of photos and they are more reader accessible and just as expressive. Don't see a strong reason why they shouldn't be included either though.. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Change 16 years to 17 years. Nicatoris (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It should update automatically pretty soon. Saucy[talk – contribs] 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

2601:C8:C100:42B:D5C3:BED1:1355:A8AF (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

augast 10 was wen 9 11 started

 Not done Please cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source that allows us to make sense of your claim. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No Idea

Dear @MONGO:, If you have no idea what a reference is, you should either read it or ask about it. And, you should have used rollback, so that I could be notified. I do not want to be impolite at all, but should all editors add references only if you know about them?! That does not seem logic, and none of us is the owner of Wikipedia. Regards, 20:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

That reference is the article by Ali Soufan. It has been published in CTC Sentinel, a military journal owned by Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. If you open the link and press Ctrl+F and type the word "Taliban" and read the surrounding few sentences, you will know everything. Sincerely: KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
No...I did not use rollback because I did not see your edit is vandalism. Otherwise, we are not going to be "open a link and press Ctrl+F and type the word Taliban" to look at a reference.--MONGO (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@MONGO:-- You probably misunderstood me. I meant, if you want to know what that reference is, you can do that in order to get the result quickly. It was a suggestion for your assessment of the resource, not an obligation based on a policy. And, vandalism has its own definition. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That section's content is totally relevant to the resource. The section is about War in Afghanistan and war in Afghanistan was mainly against Taliban. Adding the reference was for the purpose of better verifying the reports already in the article. The article is a featured article of the official journal of Combating Terrorism Center, which is an academic institution of US military. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Mr.Johnson, another experienced contributor like you, used rollback for changing the content even when the change was with good faith; I mean, probably rollback can be used for non-vandalism, too. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned by the author of the article, the mutual actions by US. Army and IRGC Q. Force were related to 911. (close chronology, at least) KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1) Please don't make multiple posts-back to back like that. It makes it harder to follow the conversation.
2) When adding a reference, your Edit Summary should include how the reference is relevant to the passage. That saves us some trouble of trying to figure out which part of the reference you're using for this particular statement. That's why "just CTRL-F Taliban" wasn't too helpful, we had to guess what you were referring to in the cited source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
You're right, I am inexperienced with adding references. I will directly quote the related part below. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are the relevant paragraphs:
--__Beginning of direct quotation__--
"At the same time, the then-newly installed administration of Mohammed Khatami put him in charge of managing Iran’s burgeoning confrontation with the upstart Taliban movement in neighboring Afghanistan.28 Not for the first or last time, Soleimani’s inborn familiarity with tribal culture and politics would stand him in good stead.

In August 1998, a few months into Soleimani’s tenure at the head of the Quds Force, Taliban forces swept into the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i Sharif, home to a substantial community of ethnic Hazaras—Farsi-speaking Shi`a Muslims. The Taliban initiated a brutal pogrom against members of the minority, trashing homes, raping women and girls, and massacring hundreds of Shi`a men and boys.29 Among the dead was a group of nine Iranians: eight diplomats and a journalist.30 At this naked provocation, factions on both sides turned white-hot for war; the IRGC’s overall commander at the time, Yahya Rahim Safavi, requested Supreme Leader Khamenei’s permission “for the punishment of the Taliban, to advance to Herat [a city in western Afghanistan], annihilate, punish, eliminate them.”31 Iran began massing an invasion force of almost a quarter-million soldiers along the Afghan border. Reportedly, it was Soleimani who stepped in and defused the situation without resorting to further violence. Instead of confronting the Taliban directly, Soleimani opted to throw increased Iranian support behind the opposition Northern Alliance, personally helping to direct the group’s operations from a base across Afghanistan’s northern border in Tajikistan.32 It was a model of proxy warfare to which he would return again and again.

In the months after 9/11, Soleimani saw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban once and for all by unconventional means—namely, cooperation with the United States. Early in the war, he directed Iranian diplomats to share intelligence on Taliban military positions with their U.S. counterparts. The Americans, in return, told the Iranians what they knew about an al-Qa`ida fixer hiding out in eastern Iran.33"
--__End of direct quotation__--Link -KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO:-May I add this reference to the "Military operations" section of encyclopedia's article 'September 11 attacks' now, or do you still disagree? The reason for adding this reference is making the final statement of that section more verifiable and reliable. The reference article has been published in a prestigious and high-quality US military journal (CTC Sentinel by Combating Terrorism Center) and can be considered as academic/scholarly (or at least semi-academic/semi-scholarly). The relevant lines in the reference article are "In the months after 9/11, Soleimani saw an opportunity to defeat the Taliban once and for all by unconventional means—namely, cooperation with the United States. Early in the war, he directed Iranian diplomats to share intelligence on Taliban military positions with their U.S. counterparts. The Americans, in return, told the Iranians what they knew about an al-Qa`ida fixer hiding out in eastern Iran.33". The article's author is a former FBI officer/agent in the Anti-terrorism Division of FBI. Your reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks. Sincerely: KachaleMouferferee (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@MONGO:-- The problem is that nobody participates. Nobody has commented since 6 days ago! KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What does the reference pertain to? Not sure this is the place to expand greatly on the war, battles and other related issues. I'm confused by what you want to add...but your edits were also walked over per se by another editor.--MONGO (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The reference is intended to prove "the cooperation between US and Iran", which has been already reported in the section. This reference is maybe of higher quality compared to current references of the last lines of the topic. You mean User:Rs21867 walked over my edits? I agree that this article might not be the best place for war and related issues, but there is already a section. Thanks for discussing. KachaleMouferferee (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and re-add the reference and material you wanted. It will be easier to see how it looks once it's there and it's not trampled on.--MONGO (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Please remove "Islamic" where-ever you mention terrorist group. The terrorists are in no way, shape, or form part of the religion because they went against the major religious beliefs, so therefore they are not to be associated with a religion that promotes peace. Claiming that these terrorist groups are Islamic gives ignorant people the idea that the whole religion are based off of terrorist ideals. StopBeingIgnorant1 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done:The reliable sources repeatedly refer to them as such.--MONGO (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Religion is whatever you want it to be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
While I also disagree with your suggestion because of the coverage in reliable sources, most scholars agree with you that they do not represent mainstream Islam. That is another topic, however. —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to refer to one group of people as "Islamic" then you must do so for all other groups of people. Unless you want to spread misinformation and incite ignorance and hate NateDyer (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Weikipedia follows what the reliable sources say. If other groups proclaim that are doing things for religious reasons and that is reported in reliable sources linking the group to religious ideals then they should be mentioned also. If the reliable sources do not link the group to religious ideals then Wikipedia doesn't either. ~ GB fan 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

There is now unequivocal evidence showing that the three buildings that collapsed during the 9/11 incident were due to more than fires from burning jet fuel. The organisation 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' has amassed an immense amount of evidence showing what happened. Their website should be linked to this article http://www1.ae911truth.org. JefferyBloggs (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

AE911Truth.org is not a reliable source. Please read the archives. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a reliable source. You should be ashamed NateDyer (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia even says that about itself. You can read more at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. ~ GB fan 11:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? What happened to wikipedia

I've lost any trust in Wikipedia as a source for knowledge after reading this page. I thought Wikipedia attempts to provide "pure information" not propaganda or misinformation.

A few examples: 1.) In the first sentence why mention the alleged (I see no source) religious affiliations of those accused of these crimes.

2.) One cannot use the word "terrorism" to describe criminal activities and expect to be taken seriously.

3.) Misleading statements such as "The FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks." Which is followed by a footnote which lacks any evidence and is simple a unsubstantiated statement by the FBI.

4.) Why include creative writing section on motive?

One could continue to find holes in much of this extremely biased piece of "free information" but most people will simple read it as the truth.

Shame on Wikipedia

I realize that the funding for those who influence what ends up on this page far outways that of people who would like to free knowledge, but I would hope Wikipedia would make a better attempt to stop money from infulencing what it claims to be truth NateDyer (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

NateDyer, I am confused. Most of your points don't make a lot of sense.
1) That sentence has 3 sources. Did you read the sources and do they not verify the religious affiliations of Al Qaeda?
2) Wikipedia uses what reliable sources say about the event. In this case reliable sources called this a terrorism event.
3) The evidence isn't in that document but it does verify that the FBI concluded that there was clear and irrefutable evidence that linked al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks. The article is not looking at the evidence and making the conclusion the FBI did that. The article is just stating what the FBI concluded and that is sourced.
4) Can you be a little more specific on the creative writing you found in the section on the motive that isn't supported by the reliable sources in the section?
Do you have evidence that anyone has influenced the article or is that just your supposition from reading it? ~ GB fan 11:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Why mention the religious affiliations at all? 2. Define terrorism. Good luck 3. So unsubstantiated second hand sources are acceptable on Wikipedia? Why? 4. You assume the guilt of Osama bin Laden with a ANY evidence of his guilt.

If wikipedia intends to be a outlet for US propaganda than this article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateDyer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a summary of professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, with a bias towards reality-based sources. For this reason, Wikipedia does not treat 9/11 conspiracy theories as anything more than that -- conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2018

Osamabin laden was killed by Siel Nelson 156.1.40.41 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor 19:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please clarify

"By late June, senior counter-terrorism official..." – June of what year? 1999/2000/2001? Please clarify. 82.140.128.223 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you read the preceding paragraph, it's talking about events in 2000. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

firefighters that risked their lifes

Off topic commentary. Please only use this page for discussing improvements to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

all the firefighters that risked their life need to be respested206.207.170.123 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)nicholas enteman

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

in the way of how many firefighters responded and how many helped people out and lost their lives for that reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.170.125 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No I mean in what way do they deserve our respect here, how do you see our article as not respecting them, what edit are you suggesting?Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

im not talking about your arictle im talking about all the people that are disresprcting them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.170.125 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

what is that for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.207.170.125 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussions about how to improve the article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

COI, or, Iranian subversion of Wikipedia?

Currently, in the introduction there is a large paragraph promoting fringe claims of involvement from the Saudi Arabian government in the attacks.

"Although not confirmed, there is evidence of alleged Saudi Arabian involvement in the attacks.[10] Given as main evidence in these charges are the contents of the 28 redacted pages of the December 2002 Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 conducted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. These 28 pages contain information regarding the material and financial assistance given to the hijackers and their affiliates leading up to the attacks by the Saudi Arabian government.[11]"

There are a few problems with this;

(1) the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the article itself. Claims of Saudi government involvement are not presented as heavily in the prose and are a fringe theory.

(2) the nature of the fringe claims itself is that individual corrupt actors within Saudi politics may have assisted the terrorists. Nobody claims the Saudi Arabian government as some sort of official policy endorsed this. There are fringe claims that Israeli intelligence had knowledge of the attacks before they happened, yet we don't have a paragraph of that in the article. A group of Shia (probably Iranian connected) subversives such as Ahmed Chalabi fed the US government disinfo to launch the Iraq War, even though this is undisputed, it isn't mentioned in the intro for that article.

(3) the actual Wikipedia article on this topic, called Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks, was created by and is largely the work of User:Mhhossein, who carefully guards the content as the article history shows. Mr. Hossein describes himself on his own userpage as "proud to be Iranian" and a "proud member of the Shi'a Islam task force". While of course, we must assume good faith, for such a controversial topic of major international significance, it does not bode well that somebody with such a strong natural conflict of interest would be currating the content information on it. Ishbiliyya (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment by a sock master was struck. --Mhhossein talk 14:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank God he was blocked. I remember that I have reverted one of his inflammatory provocative comments somewhere in Wikipedia. What a toxic behaviour.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

anonymos 192.95.165.17 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC) al-queada is arabic for "Leaders"

Not Done - There's no specific request here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Malformed request

United states 9-11-2001 wold trade canter terrcesstop atakings researchs farhan shaikh farhan mustaq ahmed shaikh 2016passportf7177858 nack farhan datebith1 10 1988. Farhan mustaq ahamed shaikh (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea about what you're trying to say. Vincinel (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2019

It says that this happened 17 years ago when really it happened 18 years ago 98.146.163.42 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Not 18 years until September. QueerFilmNerdtalk 03:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Not an error. And it is kept up to date by a template. Rmhermen (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

New photos found

Hi. Per this story on the BBC News site, it states they've all been uploaded to Flickr (link in the article), so I assume they could be used on WP. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No. They are copyrighted but the author is still unknown. They are classic orphan works. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

Could the date field be changed to either 18 years ago or some code be put in to automatically update the date, from "Date September 11, 2001; 17 years ago" Thank you and I think this page is very important to protect. Please could you email kiran@inteleyes.com when the change is made. Thanks again 82.23.125.80 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I added the number of months. As of now, the attacks occurred 17 years, 9 months ago. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

North Tower impact zone - not identified

Phrase "impact zone" occurs three times in the article, but (unless I'm missing it) is never identified. (So if a reader comes to this article to learn what floor(s) in North Tower the passenger jet struck, they'd be unable to find.) --IHTS (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Remove hijackers from victim toll

The second sentence of the wiki states:

"The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others..."

Why are we listing the 19 hijackers with the victims? They weren't victims of the attacks - they committed them. There were 2,977 victims, and 19 perpetrators. They should be kept distinctly separate. Preceding unsigned comment added by V0latyle) 15:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't state that they are victims, merely that this was the total amount of people killed. (Also, sign your comment with four '~' (tildes) please) TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

the deaths

There were 2977 deaths not 2997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.192.47 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

2,977 victims; 19 terrorists; 2,996 total deaths. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


In honor of the victims, we should keep them distinctly separate from the terrorists. There is no need to cite the total number of deaths anywhere on the page. 2,977 people were killed by 19 Islamic perpetrators. User:V0latyle —Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If this were to be done, I should suggest 19 Al Qaeda members. The religion of Al Qaeda implies that all Muslims are terroristic, which they are not. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources call them terrorists and their actions as acts of terrorism. If there is a defining act of terrorism this one is it.--MONGO (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Not suggesting that the attacks weren't acts of terrorism. I'm saying that we ought to rephrase 19 Islamic perpetrators to 19 Al Qaeda members. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Background to the September 11 Terrorists attacks

First, the article as stands is well-written, researched, and balanced. My concern relates to the "Background" section which I think needs to be expanded to include the 1993 World Trade Tower attack led by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef who is a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a senior member of al-Qaeda and one of the accused principal architects of the 9/11 attacks. Yousef's failed attempt further incited al-Qaeda's terrorism against the USA and was a considerable factor of the attack on the WTT in 9/11. Easelpainter (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Easelpainter

Poor Sourcing

The article claims that Palestinians celebrated in the aftermath of 9/11, but the only source for this is a single article from The Jerusalem Post, which is known to paint Palestinians in a bad light to push its agenda. This section needs further corroboration or else should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by LavaringX (talk • contribs) 06:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've sourced the material with better sources, and reworded a few sentences accordingly. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, I was 30 years old when this happened and personally remember seeing footage of Palestinians celebrating the attack on TV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The size of demonstrations is noted as disputed by reliable sources from Oxford University Press "of disputed size". I've changed the article to reflect this. We do have a longer section in the Reactions_to_the_September_11_attacks article with some more details where discussion of the additional details and disagreements can be added. Dartslilly (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
As usual, Snopes has this covered. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

change the number killed from 2996 to 2977, and add that 19 hijackers also died 2605:A000:B180:A700:D08E:507F:9DCB:57EC (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thats what is says...--MONGO (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
No reason to make the phrasing more awkward & less clear. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I've tweaked it in the intro and under the casualties section. This has been a neverending issue about how best to phrase it.--MONGO (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Page title

Where can I find the discussion about the title of this article not being the common name 9/11?  Nixinova  T  C  05:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

According to the box at the top of the talk page, the most recent discussion is Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 60#Requested move 2 (or more). The primary reason is that the title "9/11" would be too ambiguous because it may refer to either September 11 or November 9, depending on your country's dating conventions. Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Numerous pictures are displayed as broken

If you scroll down the main page, numerous thumbnail pictures/images show up as a broken link. If you cursor over them, you can see the pics, and if you click the broken link image, they will show up properly, but the actual thumbnail images on the main page show up as broken images.

Somebody who knows how to fix them should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.98.110.136 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Note: already fixed by another editor. Rob3512 chat? what I did 12:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Death of the Mainframes

On 9/11 my brother was working for a major construction firm in San Diego, and he told me a chilling if technical story. One of their suppliers had a mainframe in WTC. If memory serves, first it registered vibration, then fire, then power outage (or the reverse of the last two). There's always a local angle, but does anyone know if there's a compendium of how all of the WTC mainframes, and other computers with sensors, registered the attack? Is there a timeline somewhere? The attack occurred before the smartphone era, so nowadays we'd have the cellular serves in play too.

Here's a list of the known corporations, if any journalist wants to run with it. Slashdot might have something on the angle; I'll check.

http://tbtf.com/unblinking/arc/2001-09a.htm

kencf0618 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Similar fuel oil fire induced structural damage example

There was a similar incident on the I-95 in 2004 where spilt heating oil caught fire under a highway bridge and caused the steel and concrete structure to glow orange hot and bend and the concrete to pop off from the heat of the flames.

I think it may be helpful to some to see how destructive such a fire could be to a steel reinforced concrete structure.

Idyllic press (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Only as long as RS say so.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Reasons given for the attacks

Today I added this sentence with FN right after the passage in the article giving Osama's stated reasons for the attacks. It was deleted with the comment "not helpful," which is an invalid WP objection. I will restore it unless a reasonable WP objection is stated.

The reasons given by Bin Laden for the attacks contradicted the reasons for the attacks often repeated by the Bush Administration, that terrorists attacked the United States because "they hate us for our freedoms." For example, President George W. Bush in a speech to Congress nine days after the attacks said: "They hate right what we see in this chamber--a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms--our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." via George W. Bush, "Address to Joint Session of Congress," 20 Sept. 2001.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It's simply not helpful. It doesn't add anything of value to the section. We don't add citations simply because they exist. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The US administration's position on why the attacks happened is not stated in the article. I think it's important to state it and to contrast it with the stated motivation of the terrorists.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe better in Motives for the September 11 attacks? Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, sure it belongs there, too. But the US government's position surely is worthy of mention given that the terrorists statement on the issue gets several paragraphs.--NYCJosh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The U.S. govt's position on the motivation for the attack is important and noteworthy per se. In addition, it's noteworthy because it informs public attitudes on the issue and helps set the stage for subsequent govt response.
Since no further objection has been received in several days, I will add it back.--NYCJosh (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
As I see it you want it and one other user does not, you do not have consensus for the addition.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no WP rules-based objection remaining against the addition. Consensus does NOT mean that an editor can hold up things simply because s/he feels like it.--17:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
No, not when its a case of there is a clear consensus against them this is not such a case (and in fact it may be possible that you are in fact in the minority).Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
That's speculative since we don't know what most editors think. Only a couple have been skeptical, one wrote it would be better elsewhere, and none have responded to my call to state a reason against inclusion based on WP rules. I just don't get how anyone can challenge the relevance, importance, noteworthiness, weight, etc. of the U.S. gov't repeated statement of the motivation for the attack. This is especially the case since the U.S. govt understanding of the motivation may have figured into its subsequent responses to the attacks in several major, far reaching ways both domestically and abroad.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
And you have not stated one for a reason to keep. Yes by the way "not helpful" is a valid reason. We are here to provide relevant information, the user who objected did not see the inflation as relevant. As to what you added, Bush could not know what the reasons were, he did not order the attack. Bin Ladden was the man who ordered the attack, thus his view of why he did it is relevant.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have not stated a reason to keep? Did you read what I wrote in my last comments here? The world's sole superpower has suffered it's greatest terrorist attack and it's president's oft-repeated view of the motivation for the attack is irrelevant? Not notable? WP readers wouldn't care or deserve to know? Doesn't inform readers about the state of mind of the govt of the country being attacked on 9/11? --NYCJosh (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
If you read what I write I said you have not stated a reason to keep based upon policy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing material on 9/11 intro

I recommend removing the last two paragraphs on the 9/11 intro. They appear to be unnecessary, and If I recall correctly wiki policy is four paragraphs per intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toluwan (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why "unnecessary"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Tehy are stated in the article, and aren't needed for a brief outline of the attacks which is what the intro is meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toluwan (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, and arguments for retention?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that these two paragraphs be retained. They are important, and are concisely expressed in the article lead (intro).--FeralOink (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Retain The information is important to the lead and is well written and consise. David J Johnson (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

WTC 2 South Tower Attack Time

Hello all fellow Wiki Users. I was just coming back to check on fellow Wiki Users on whether 9:02 A.M. or 9:03 A.M. was the actual time of the UA 175 Crash into WTC 2, that way we can all develop a consensus and form an opinion on this question some 10 years after this forum was discussed. Most websites including the Official 9/11 Memorial Timeline [1], [2] As well as the 9/11 Commission and Fema Reports have it as 9:03 A.M. The NIST Report on the Other Hand and a couple of earlier sources have the time such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) have the time as 9:02 A.M Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[3]. I personally believe the attack time was 9:03 A.M. The official timeline on the 9/11 memorial website as well as the History Channel and more surrent sources in the 2010's agree with that notion. And above all I was wondering if we could develop a general consensus on this matter thanksMiked1992 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 03:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No thanks.--MONGO (talk) 10:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://timeline.911memorial.org/#Timeline/2
  2. ^ https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-timeline
  3. ^ National Transportation and Safety Board (February 7, 2002). "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" (PDF). NTSB. p. 2. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 19, 2007. Retrieved December 29, 2010.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

6,000 were injured not 25,000 Fighterpilot112 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done. The injuries include those that suffered various reactions sometimes well after the attack.--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Asbestos deaths not included?

Why are the 2,000+ deaths directly related to Asbestos from the terrorist Attacks not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Badguy10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)The 911 attack was a life changing change for everyone and the whole world it made us way more connected in a way to become for safe for eachother.

Badguy10 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Questioning "Islamic" and "terrorist"? (A religion has nothing to do with "Extremist ideology" of terrorism)

No change of consensus on "Islamic terrorist(s)". Antandrus (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (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.

I wonder why the generalization of 19 suicide hijackers action with extreme Salafi Al-Qaeda ideology of a small people group is distorted to wider range to blame and to discriminate a religion as whole with more than one and half billion people around the world?

The term "Islamic terrorist" on lead paragraph is too broad, because the main source of Ideology of terrorizing is extrimist jihad ideology of Salafi Al-Qaeda. Thus, what's wrong with term "transnational jihadist" — MusenInvincible (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Because that is what RS call it, do you have any RS that call it "transnational jihadist"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree with Slatersteven comments above. No reliable news sources refer to Salafi jihadism in reference to the September 11 attacks. However, reliable, secondary, sources do refer to Islamic terrorism and this is what the general public appear to understand. There is no consensus for changing to Salafi jihadism. David J Johnson (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Which Reliable Sources? Western media biases that fueled by Anti-Islam propaganda who want to defame a religion instead of an extremist group who bear the great responsibility, Al-Qaeda is definitely an extrimist salafi jihadi group with multi-national branches, not a single national organization. You may read this.
To David J Johnson, it's not about agree or disagree, it's about framing a sin of a small extremist group to billion people community — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
War against Islam conspiracy theory, does not exactly make a very convincing argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
If you seek consensus, see Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_27#Straw_Poll:_Islamic_terrorist the majority do disagree with term "Islamic terrorist" — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
wp:consensus can change. Besides just because I do not want to be called Gitboywonderpants does not mean I want to be called TwathammerVonstinkybits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Why don't just call it "extremist group", "fundamentalist organization", "radical group" or "suicide hijackers of (Al-Qaeda)" instead "Islamic terrorist group" as Al-Qaeda is the core background of the hijackers instead of bringing the religion of the hijackers, which could be double standard, Do media call every Caucasian gunman or mass-shooter who murder tens of thousands people in America as "Christian terrorist", or Do media call criminal group in Italy as "Catholic mafia" or Do public call mass murder in Myanmar as "Buddhist junta military group", or do you call Adolf Hitler "Christian Nazi"? The fabricated connection to Islam with terrorist is a POV violation degrading the integrity, which could also violate neutrality ('Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist") — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason we say that the IRA are Irish Republicans, the motivation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
And we are not calling calling people or groups "terrorist". I will let others chime in now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
"IRA are Irish Republicans" has nothing to do with connecting religion instead of fundamentalist interpretation ideology. How can you convince anyone that motivation of killing innocent through suicide action is based on Islam ideology, while in Quran, God prohibit Muslim to do suicide action.

O ye who believe ! devour not your property amongst yourselves vainly, unless it be a merchandise by mutual consent. "And do not kill yourselves" ; verily, God is compassionate unto you. But whoso does that maliciously and unjustly, we will broil him with fire ; for that is easy with God.

— Quran 4:29-30
— MusenInvincible (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
MusenInvincible is showing a complete misunderstanding of IRA terrorism. It was carried-out in the name of Catholic people of Ireland. Whilst there has been views on the word "terrorism" in the past, the best solution is to delete mention of religion in the lede, but retain mention of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group, although they carry-out their actions in the name of Islam - I cannot think of any other description. I also have the impression that some we are trying to whitewash the actions of the "terrorists" on 9/11. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
To David J Johnson, I don't think you get my point, does phrase "Irish Republicans" or IRA include any name of religion; is "Irish" or is "Republicans" a name of religion for you? It's totally different when calling Christian Irish Republicans and Islamist terrorism where a religion linked to the organization. While Al-Qaeda carry-out their actions in the name of Islam, it's merely a pretext that they want to wash their own hands and their hatred ideology.
Just let say there is a boy who kills wolves in the name of God, Does God kill the wolves? Definitely No, it's only an alibi. Similarly, when Al-Qaeda killed innocent people in the name of Islam, Did Islam kill the innocent people? No it's Al-Qaeda who kills, only the media claim "Islam as terrorism" as pejorative term and political slur to obscure the core problem of the extreme ideology of Al-Qaeda — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
*I certainly get your intentions and note that you have not answered my lede suggestion? It appears that you are trying to alter widespread public views of Al-Qaeda on Wikipedia alone. Nonetheless, Al-Qaeda is an Islamic based organisation and I acknowledge that it may not be mainstream. I also note that you have blanked both your Main page and Talk page, which gives editors no information on yourself and views. I intend to let others comment further on this issue. David J Johnson (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
We have an article called Islamic Terrorism so maybe this argument would be better served there?--MONGO (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
To David J Johnson, If you think that "to delete mention of religion in the lede, but retain mention of Al-Qaeda as a terrorist group" then why you still not revert the current version to my edit? If anyone blank their own page or their own talk page, it's their personal rights to do such thing as the rightful owner of the page (not yours or anyone else...)
To MONGO, I don't think so, here is enough. — MusenInvincible (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I only mentioned a possible answer to your objections in the lede. I certainly have no intention of altering the present content of the lede, as it has been there for a considerable time and I personally consider it to be correct. I agree that you may blank your Talk page, but it is of note that you seem to delete criticism of your "edits" and view. Once again, I await comments from other editors. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The reliable sources call this act an act of Islamic terrorism, so we go with that.--MONGO (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length; no new points have been made in this discussion. The sources call it Islamic terrorism, so that's what we call it. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree this is 1 Vs many and is just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
First of all, I never think Western media is reliable enough on various topics. It's Western who hyperbolize-ly campaigning a religion as source of "terror" actions (yet the nation where 15 terrorists came from remains untouched) while they do not want to apply that for their own race and religion (e.g. terrorists with gunman in America), It's Western also who branded Bashar Al-Assad "brutal dictator" when killing a lot rebelious people and terrorists tried to topple him, yet no western labelled Bush "brutal interventionist" or "war criminal" when killing hundreds of thousands innocent people in Iraq just for "WMD hoax" and had toppled legitimate leader of a sovereign nation.
Back to discussion, I say again, it's not matter of agree or disagree, but following to the rule and principle: as the previous poll which majority did not agree to libelous naming of Islamic terrorism, also WP:NPOV breach as Wikipedia is not suggesting debatable media bias as main information on an lead paragraph, then WP:TERRORIST principle also that Wikipedia does not associate any person or group with negative term, even with RS when must be written in-line text (e.g. "According to (Media X) Al-Qaeda is Islamic terrorism" or "The (Media Y) claimed that Al-Qaeda is Anti-West group" bla, bla, bla) because it could be one-sided journalist (claim) based analysis might be different to another journalist's argument, not Fact.
While Al-Qaeda is using "Islamic" as motive to terrorize or other intentions, it's deeply debatable, since most Muslim scholars reject the term and no one can confirm the truth except someone can ask the 19 died terrorists. In brief, I suggest another term (suicide hijackers of Al-Qaeda, etc.) for more factual and neutral point of view. Otherwise, everyone let the bias on the article. — MusenInvincible (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
We aren't going to sugar coat it to appease your unsupported opinion. The reliable sources call it as it is cited in the article. This is not the only article that calls it what it is, namely, Islamic Terrorism as shown here. If you makes you feel any better, we also have articles on Christian terrorism.--MONGO (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I add my complete support for MONGO's comments above. Other editors and admins have already supported the present wording of the article, but MusenInvincible seems unable to accept current consensus. It is really time that he did. David J Johnson (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the reliable sources that don't follow the policy (WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV) with bias. for Christian terrorism, I've never heard any Western media labeling mass-murderer of Las Vegas shooting as "terrorist," but "gunman" instead, while West harshly condemned mass-murderer of 2015 Paris attack as brutal terrorist — MusenInvincible (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. There is a reason that the Las Vegas shooting was not (yet) designated as an act of terrorism. That explanation is easily discovered by a quick search. [8]--MONGO (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we close this, its not going anywhere and is just being dragged out?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support closing.--MONGO (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2020 (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.

The anniversary blames the terrorists not MUSLIMS

Garbled conspiracy theory promotion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First o false, don't delete this talk discussion, it is recommended to me by @Slatersteven:.

let's start:

50p

September 11 attacks, the well planed attack on World Trade Center against Muslims, It is the self done attack by non-muslims or the members of Al-Qaeda, to blame the Muslims, Al-Qaeda works on non-muslims rule, for money.[1] Islam teaches the peace, every Muslim read that "Killing I the biggest sin" ever, in Quran.

Notes

  • Just tell me how the non-muslims series The Simpsons, predicted about the attacks???? The series has also predicted many other events, these are not predictions these are plans.[2]
  • Why does every Muslim blame to be the terrorist, In earth there are so many bigger attacks by non Muslims, in the past why they did not consider as the terrorists.[3]

References

References

  1. ^ "Remembering 9/11 as a Muslim American", aljazeera.com
  2. ^ "Brilliant Analysis on The Simpsons Cartoon Prediction About Pakistan", youtube.com
  3. ^ "ON 9/11 ANNIVERSARY, BLAME THE TERRORISTS, NOT MUSLIMS". sahanjournal.

Talks (by respected users)

Its hard to know where to begin, as (frankly) this is a mess. The aljazeera does not say what you think it says. As to the rest, I am having difficultly trying to figure out what you are trying to say. Our article makes no mention of the Simpsons (or are you saying it should?). Nor does it blame all Muslims, just Islamist terrorists.

Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Visit this link you will, know why I have been mentioned Simpsons series. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to know what edit you want to make.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to made that, 9/11 was a well planed attack to blame Muslims TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Then I suggest you read wp:v and wp:or. As the Irish Times does not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
My edits are reliable, and I have now provided many citations TubeYouTokTik (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
No you have not, YouTube is not an RS, none of the other sources support some conspiracy theory about this being a plot to blame Muslims.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not suggesting, to add YouTube link on, the article, it is just a proof TubeYouTokTik (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
As to that link, seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is based on the episodes of the Simpsons series, which predicted 9/11 TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
What edit do you want to make?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
This encyclopedia article isn't a forum to somehow claim that the writers of The Simpsons are psychic, or that they are conspirators. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
I am not saying that, do I mentioned that??? TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It's hard to make out clearly, but you appear to be promoting a conspiracy theory that 9/11 was a set-up to blame Muslims, and that the Simpsons writers were providing clues in advance. Thar's nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I want to make that 9/11 was the planed attack to blame Islam. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your sources do not support that, you have been asked to read wp:or and wp:v now I am telling you to provide the quote where they say "a planed attack to blame Islam". Until you do I will not respond again.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Oh! Sorry, I have been provided with YouTube as a proof, but you say YouTube, is not RS, I have currently this link only, you can found so many quotes there, other links I will provide you soon TubeYouTokTik (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Not going to be included as everything you are proposing is a conspiracy theory.--MONGO (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For now, I am searching for link, so currently this talk is not open, for me. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes the talk page is still open to you. But before you post anymore Junk sources read the polices I linked to on your talk page or drop this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am currently finding the fully sources the exact thing what I am trying to say, I have currently find this quote:

"While most Americans blamed the attacks on al-Qaeda, not Muslims in general, some commentators stoked ..." On this link that is not correctly saying it was the planned attacks, so I am finding more links, it can took some time TubeYouTokTik (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This does not say it was planned as a false flag operation, so why post it? Please stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: if you are not happy that I am making truth edits on Wikipedia, you can do two of things, no. 1: you can stop the discussion, or, no.2: if you are confused who have done, these attacks (Muslims or Non-muslims), you can write, unconfirmed attacks, I have provided this link, because it says "America blamed al-Qaeda", my mission is not to hurt some, I want to tell that these attacks were a big planed to consider Islam as a terrorism religion, and one more thing the building was not felled like an airplane or helicopter has been crashed on that, the building was felled like, someone destroy the house or building in construction!!! And we all know that CIA I the powerful intelligence agency, it can catch the bird entering in there airspace, and they can't catch the airplane or helicopter is going to destroy the building???? How is that possible?????? And the Simpsons series two times predicted about that attacks, once on magazine, and second I see on the poster that writes "9/11 coming soon", it makes me confused. TubeYouTokTik (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Unusual, but

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ——SN54129 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Calendar dates

How is {{for|the calendar dates}} unnecessary? There would be people looking for the dates not realising this event. Oh and btw please {{Re|GOLDIEM J}} tag me in your replies just no one's been tagging me lately. Thank you. GOLDIEM J (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I have given you a comprehensive reply to your same query on my personal Talk page - although your original query should have been on here. It is totally unnecessary to state "people looking for dates not realising this event". Whatever the date format, people all over the world recognise 9/11 as the date of the terrorist attacks on the US. They are hardly going to look at this page, with its heading to find events connected with the 9th November. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2020

Please add a hatnote for the dates September 11th and November 9th, similar to the hatnote at Seven of Nine. 85.250.37.203 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is already covered by the link to 911 (disambiguation). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I tweaked it slightly, so hopefully it's a little clearer now anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Tuesday?

Can anyone confirm 9/11 was on a Tuesday? Because I’ve seen conflicting information saying it was a Wednesday. — LissanX (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/monthly.html?year=2001&month=9&country=1.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Science behind the building colllapse

There needs to be a section that points to opposing views of the science behind building collapse. Architect s and Engineers for 911 Truth have compelling evidence based on solid scientific facts that fire alone could not have collapsed the buildings. WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG AMG 04:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AE911TRUTH is not a reliable source and it would be inappropriate to include that information here. There isn’t a substantive debate about the cause of the collapse. —AdamF in MO (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
please read wp:rs and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AE911truth is a VERY reliable source, in fact I am member no. 300 out of a current membership of around 3000 worldwide.

To be a member you have to be a licensed engineer or architect with substantial professional experience.

The members of AE911TRUTH include some very high profile and world renowned practitioners who KNOW, simply from the manner of the THREE building collapses that simply could NOT have been due fires overheating the steel frames. A fire induced collapse is extremely rare and has none of the explosive characteristics of all three of the WTC collapses. PaulWM (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

We go with what wp:RS say, so unless you ahve been published by RS your views fail wp:or. Also https://home.akitabox.com/blog/historical-building-design-failures.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
At least that's a change from AE911's previous assertion that steel-framed buildings have never collapsed from fire-induced effects. Who are these "renowned" practitioners? I've never seen any independently notable professionals among AE911 people, and possession of basic professional credentials doesn't make someone an expert. Acroterion (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

"8:46 AM" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 8:46 AM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 28#8:46 AM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ComplexRational (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Neutral article

Every article on Wikipedia should be neutral. Why is the terrorists excluded from the death toll and listed separate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.10.21 (talk • contribs) 05:07, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

For the same reason that many war and battle articles have separate casualty figures for each side and then civilians. Noe do I see how this is a Neutrality issue. Nor are they excluded, as 2,996 is not 2,977.Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

"11-S" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 11-S. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#11-S until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Awkward sentence

The sentence below is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it should be split into two sentences.

"Wall Street was closed until September 17, and the U.S. and Canadian civilian airspaces until September 13." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.146.91 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

checkY Changed, I guess. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020

citation 312 is a dead link, also tied to a weasel word sentence 75.60.103.206 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have perfected the link, but it is a fair summery.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Islamist Terrorist?

Apart from the apparent grammar issue (Islamic) Just because they are Muslims does not mean that they were attacking the trade center for 'Islamic Supremacy' Why can't we just use 'Terrorist Organization'


Please forgive any misspelling, as this was written on an iPhone --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Because RS say they were Islamist Terrorists, they were doing it for a ideology.Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again couldn't we just say they are terrorists? because they were, and their ideology does not matter. They once again they didn't do it for "Islamic supremacy" even if y'all refuse to remove the islam part, at least make it grammatically correct by using 'Islamic'

--246700Sarhan (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

RS think it does, moreover we do tend to say who and why in other articles about terror.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Please provide links to where RS says that Al-Queda was doing it for Islamic Supremacy. --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not say "Islamic Supremacy".Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Please provide links to where RS says that Al-Queda was doing it for their ideology. --246700Sarhan (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Read the motives section, and check the links there.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again just because Bin Laden happened to be Muslim, that does not mean it was Islamic Terrorism. Along with the obvious Islamist Terrorist grammatical error, this article needs to be changed to remove the parts that call it an idelogically charged attack on America. Here is a link to prove Islamic is proper grammar, unlike Islamist, while it says it can be used interchangeably, it rolls off the tongue and sounds proper. I am not a British Person, unlike you- but I do believe that Islamic is more proper than Islamist. https://cgpolicy.org/multimedia/islamic-vs-islamist-in-the-fight-against-terror/

--246700Sarhan (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Islamist does not mean Islamic or Muslim, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/islamist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Islamist does not sound correct. But who am I but a mere student? Islamic sounds correct to me, but if according to you (and because you're older you are always correct) Islamist is correct, I'll back down. Islamic and Islamist can be used interchangeably, but I think for now we should drop this. Islamic would make more sense in my small little brain, but in your gigantic British brain, Islamist is the correct pronunciation, so I guess I'll drop it. --246700Sarhan (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

They're different things. An Islamist is an adherent of Islamism (see the article). All Islamists are Islamic, but not all Muslims are Islamists. Antandrus (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Distinguish template

I removed the distinguish template that has links that read "November 9" and "September 11". This is because September 11 and November 9 are on the disambiguation page, so that way it doesn't make this too redundant. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I also changed the hatnote and made some facts that there are other September 11 attacks on the September 11 attacks (disambiguation) page. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Cancer deaths

Should this article treat deaths after 9/11 (cancer causing early death) equivalently to those who died on 9/11? Apparently more people have died in this manner: https://6abc.com/amp/911-illness-deaths-after-new-york-firefighter/6418931/

I am thinking some of the stats in the infobox could be delineated by type of death. It is not revisionism, it is very much murders by terrorists too. Hemingways pipe (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The deaths are due to cancer from exposure to the collapsed building materials. While that might be worth mentioning as a separate effect, I would not tally it along with the immediate deaths as a result of the direct terrorist actions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The attacks killed about 500 more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941

The attack on Pearl Harbor has nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. I don't see any reason to compare those casualties. This is not a YouTube video that uses random facts to make the content more interesting/shocking. I do understand that both happened in the USA but Pearl Harbor was a war, not terrorism. Unfortunately, there have been other examples of terrorism in the USA. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor; why don't we put it as an example? If you don't mind I will delete this line from the article. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the last fact was not correct but it doesn't change much. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 15:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – per WP:COMMONNAME. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

If there was a separate RM, I would support Neutralhomer's proposal. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
But most Americans would generally pronounce text reading "September 11" as "September 11th" (just like any Month Day date format is pronounced with the "st", "nd", "rd", or "th" whether it is actually written in the text or not), so there is basically an implied "th" there already. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_62&oldid=1093597006"