This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I believe that the "See also" section is unnecessary and it should be erased from the article. Our article is already big and Template:Sept11 has links to other 9/11-related articles. Thoughts? AdjustShift ( talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I want the see also section back. I think it is relevant. I was looking for it and couldn't find it. I wanted to read more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.200.100 ( talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits have bloated this article by 50% to almost 150K—a tad large for my taste. -- Veggy ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's far too much detail about the trials. The material would go better in one of the sub articles, or on a new page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Create a subarticle if you consider it necessary but do not just revert! Olegwiki ( talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would rather advise editors to review the contributions carefully for clarity and verifiability from reliable sources. If everything looks good, we might think about Trials of the planners of the September 11 attacks or some such thing. -- Veggy ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think length means bad things. Yes, it might be a bit wordy, but we also don't want to add another example of an article on an actual event being dwarfed by something more pop culture... -- Tarage ( talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is said in this article as if it were obvious. Is it really the case though? Where is the evidence?
That a good number of intelligence services agree on this throughout the world doesn't imply it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.198.63 ( talk) 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Any one of the sources cited in documentary "Loose Change" for starters. The impartiality of this article is completely lopsided, but with the number of "moderators" who refuse to acknowledge differing views, it is a pointless case to protest. 9/11 has been lidded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesoriolis ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to mention how it was possible for the highjackers to have slipped past airport security on the morning of 11 September- and at four different airports. The article also needs to address the matter of the terrorists' arrivals into the USA and how they obtained the neccessary visas. Why is only one airline pilot's name referred to in the article. The pilots of all four highjacked planes should be cited.-- jeanne ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Olegwiki seems to think that it is irrelevant that the former head of MI5 thinks that the US response was overreacting, and counterproductive. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/18/stella-rimington-9-11-mi5 I would like to rerquest mediation of the multiple deletions of this reference. Pustelnik ( talk) 00:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin Supports A New 9/11 Investigation, I'm not sure why, though? I've heard that very same thing was sought in parliaments of Canada and Japan.
Hope that fine editors here can provide some background.
& do tell, does this article state that 9/11 Commission report failed to mention collapse of WTC 7, ups. Universalsuffrage ( talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, I need to call into question the fact that your account is new, yet you have used it specifically for this article and this article alone, all in the course of a day. You clearly aren't a new user either. Someone should investigate that. -- Tarage ( talk) 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin or any political candidate will say most anything to appeal to voters at a political rally. The question was put to her in a way that if she said "no", it would sound like she's against the victims' families which doesn't seem like a good thing to say to help get more votes.
I remember way back in 2000, Rick Mercer, who is a comedian in Canada, put some questions to George Bush and to Al Gore, during political rallies, for the Talking To Americans part of the show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Mercer traveled around the U.S., asking questions to Americans on the street, as well as some politicians, seeing how ignorant Americans are about Canada. He asked Bush, "Prime Minister Jean Poutine said that he wouldn't endorse any candidate, but that you look like the man who should lead the free world into the 21st century. So what do you think about that?" (the trick was to see if Bush knew that the Prime Minister of Canada was not Jean Poutine - poutine is a popular dish in Canada of cheese and gravy on top of french fries.) Bush replied, "I appreciate his strong statement. He understands I believe in free trade. He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbor to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we will work closely together." Bush totally didn't understand the question, but just wanted say things to please people.
So, I can't help but laugh at the idea of taking Palin's off the cuff statement seriously. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, with Palin, YouTube is not a reliable source and I doubt any reliable source has picked up on this soundbyte from Palin. So, no matter what, mention of this does not belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is just a general overview or WP:SUMMARY of the 9/11 attacks, with many subarticles. I think we do have an article about polls and another about reactions to the attacks, and we have an article about the 9/11 Commission. So, if you have anything reliably sourced and notable, it could go in one of those articles (if not already there). I don't see any point in continuing this discussion on this talk page. -- Aude ( talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin didn't even know that Africa was a continent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 22:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sarah who? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:53, 12 January 2009 (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.
Tell you what, it has been a while since I've read the main article and after just doing so, I'd have to say it's been deteriorating constantly for years.
What is the purpose of this place? It was something about building a consensus on how to provide factually accurate and unbiased historical or contemporary information for all human kind, or something along those lines?
Well, I'm not seeing it happening here, where we have such incredibly unacceptable conduct.
Apart from few sparkling exchanges, there wasn’t a decent discussion on this page for a very long time, yet we can examine healthy debates about 9/11 everywhere, from bbc all the way to the youtube or one of those 'exotic' parliaments.
I'm pretty certain that discussion should be in here, not locked out.
Palin and elections aside, the fact is, people around the world are seeking new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks.
Some editors and administrators should really take a step back and let this place evolve in decent and natural manner. Universalsuffrage ( talk) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Let me know if this is correct - it is your view there is widespread support for a new 9/11 investigation, including statements to that effect from a variety of people including a brief remark by Sarah Palin. Should this be the case, it is your view that it deserves a mention in this article, and that the existing mention saying the 9/11 Commission has been criticised, is too brief and too vague.
If I've got that wrong, my apologies. But if it is an accurate paraphrasing, a couple of points:
These are just some longwinded thoughts. Other views welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We have several (too many) articles on the 911 conspiracy theories. It's not appropriate to further enlarge upon them here. There's a notice at the top of this talk page that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. It may be necessary to seek arbitration enforcement at some point. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
To all who have struggled against a tide of persistent insanity and inanity to keep this article free of conspiracy nuttery. For me it's too close to help (I saw the second plane hit and watched them fall from right across the river) but it is appreciated!-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
the Koran does NOT say kill americans where you see them? 1. Americans wheren't about at the time of the koran and islam is based on equality, killing innocent people is viewed as cowardice and will send you to hell (yess terroists WILL be sent to hell in islam terms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.184.65 ( talk) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (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'll need a clarification on these last actions, as swift as they were.
I'd like a clear and concise explanation on why have you closed the thread without any decent argument whatsoever and a clear pointer on what have I done to provoke these talks about arbitration enforcement? I have strong doubts that arbitrators would allow this sort of action, because it is actually a ban on discussion and one can hardly have a consensus without discussion.
In other words, instead of democracy we have some weird sort of fascism rampaging in here, at least in my experience.
As Peter stated above, we don't need a conspiracy to recognize well referenced call for independent investigation. I was about to take upon recommendation from Euryalus, but some folks just couldn’t wait, now could they? Well, since this was the course you've taken, let me ask you a question Tom. Do tell, how long are you editing here, I remember you from, dear, it was more than a few years ago, you were quick to impose bans at decent folk back then too, no questions asked it was.
This is one lengthy farce, I wonder what are you folks thinking, do you think you can keep this article locked forever?
Do you think that next memorial will not bring another tide, haven’t you noticed that this tsunamis are getting bigger and bigger each and every year?
How exactly can a group of rogue editors enjoy such lengthy hegemony here? Universalsuffrage ( talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Just the facts seen through the eyes of a FDNY FF. "A Survivors Story" - Short film about Billy Green, Engine 6, FDNY. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 12:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You've asked for discussion SheffieldSteel, what would make that summary more neutral? Universalsuffrage ( talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | But note the caveats: reports do not "tell", they merely "suggest".
Perhaps the most infamous PDB also concerns al-Qaeda. It went to President Bush on 6 August, 2001 - just over a month before the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. It contained the headline: "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US". It reads: "FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Extraordinarily prescient? Or vague and unhelpful? |
” |
See subject. I propose that be removed. It is only known that the terrorists were threatening people with these knives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.202.18 ( talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(deindent)For some reason neither the Moussaoui link nor the mirror site will open on this PC. However, there were multiple calls from the planes and even if any one call had some doubt cast upon it, that does not invalidate the others. Also, in general court testimony references only that the person giving the testimony said particular things, not that those things are or are not true. It would appear there is consensus on the calls, and on the attacks on passengers on at least three of ther planes. I'm not sure what can be gained from continued discussion on this point, in the absence of references casting doubt on all the calls, sufficient to outweight the sources supporting their existence and contents. Euryalus ( talk) 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
Download this exhibit. It is a Flash presentation contained in a ZIP file.
This is a 27 MB set of files and may take several minutes to download"
And according to the Moussaoui presentation, there were four calls connected from Flight 77 to unknown numbers. Those could be Barbara Olson's calls? Drawing conclusions from the presentation that her calls did not happen is
original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If your theory had any merit, it would have been covered by newspapers or other reliable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources regarding Olson's calls and none saying that her calls did not occur. --
Aude (
talk)
01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wohaa, I had never realized how people could fight for that, I mean with the common purpose of increasing available knowledge (that is, being in the same tribe). Twipley ( talk) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ---- service."
This is a part of the CIA memo displayed on this page, but isn't mentioned in the motive section. 72.226.188.112 ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to find the cost of the 9/11 that the general public is paying in terms of higher cost and time. I wanted to add the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/sep/05/september112001.usnews and also the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2008_Mumbai_attacks as I feel that they seem to be related.
ATTENTION: Raj.agrawal This is a "tilde" ==> ~ <==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest ( talk) 06:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
What's currently written:
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
To be legally accurate it must read:
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks allegedly by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
Rationale: 1.al-Qaeda as an organization has never been indicted 2. Osama Bin Laden was indicted ONLY "for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania."
Sources: Wikipedia The 2nd source below correctly states "alleged" as this entry should also.
1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Q%27aeda 2. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden#Criminal_charges)
By the way, why was the name of the editor who made the allegedly suggestion, here, deleted, gentlemen? Hello, Mokeyboy. Please consider yourself to be acknowledged for your contribution to Wikipedia. I'm not going to change the article myself, but "legally," he is correct. We wouldn't want any of these dead people to sue us for defamation, but, seriously, it's unencyclopaedic to merely repeat unproven allegations without attribution. Adding allegedly would improve the article, but I'm neither going to change it myself nor demand that it be changed. Regarding OBL, though, if he's alive, it's a BLP violation whether you like him or not. Is he alive or dead? Wowest ( talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. -- I have a new assumption about the name deletion: ATTENTION: MOKEYBOY This is a "tilde" ==> ~ <==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest ( talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Now....
The current caption of the excerpt of the CIA President's Daily Brief ("Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US") says "Exerpts [sic] from a previously classified memo from the CIA warning for [sic] a possible terrorist attack by Bin Laden using a hijacked airplane, dated August 2001." However, the excerpt only says "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists." There is nothing in this excerpt that suggests Bin Ladin wanted to implement a "terrorist attack . . . using a hijacked airplane," which to me implies using the airplane as a weapon. The CIA brief may have been raising only the possibility of hijacking a plane and taking hostages to secure the release of prisoners, as was common in the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the intelligence reporting was several years old and uncorroborated at the time the brief was written. If the foreign intelligence reporting was about a hijacking for the purpose of taking hostages to force a release of prisoners, then I suppose that the reporting was wrong, because Bin Ladin never did that. Perhaps he planned it and did not execute it, but there's no evidence of that. Ketone16 ( talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As I read this article, I was surprised at how lopsided the reporting is. Much of the official 911 story is treated as fact, when there is growing doubt surrounding the official story. I read the discussion page here and i notice that there is a lot of debate over conspiracy theories and what constitutes a reliable source. I just have to wiegh in and say, that when a CNN poll reports that 84% of people believe that there is a government coverup, suddenly all those news headlines in the associated press are called into question... and all the newspapers who carry those headlines, are no longer reliable sources. I just think this article needs to be less biased and use more phrases such as...'it is believed' or 'It was reported that'. Yourliver ( talk) 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Investigations: Here it says that the heat from the fire made the twin towers collapse (the official version). Fire can't be the reason why the buildings collapsed. And besides, if it had melted, the towers wouldn't collapse straight (symetrical) down. It would have chosen the path of least resistance (asymetrical). I am missing eye witness reports. Several say they heard explosions on September 11. http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm , http://www.911rippleeffect.com/ MandreasW ( talk) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Aircraft already in flight were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico.
I think this statement is very condescending. The USA cannot "redirect" flights to Canada or any other sovereign nation. The USA decided to not allow flights already in the air to land anywhere in the USA and Canada kindly allowed these aircraft to land on our territory. Of the 40,000 international travelers that were diverted to Canadian airports, about 6,600 of them landed at Gander Newfoundland, a town of about 9,500 residents.
If these airplanes were dangerous to USA cities, why wasn't it dangerous for them to land in Canada? Thousands of people slept in private Canadian's homes, some for a few days.
Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.
This passage later in the article seems alright BUT under the section "International Response", Canada is referenced along with Zimbabwe. Does this represent what really happened?
Numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaeda ties.
24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
A rumor that the hijackers came into the USA through Canada or that they had some connection to Canada has persisted to this day. Just recently this non-truth was stated by the current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Congressmen and Senators have had to apologize and retract their statements for repeating this fallacy. The 9/11 commission and all other investigations have categorically agreed that none of the 19 hijackers came through Canada or had any connection to Canada what-so-ever.
"For days after 11 September, Canadians came to the aid of men and women and children who were worried and confused and had nowhere to sleep."
"That emergency revealed the good and generous heart of this country, and showed the true feelings of Canadians and Americans toward each other."
These above comments were from President Bush to the Canadian people December 1, 2004.
Canada's response to the 9/11 disaster are unlike any other countries' response and this article should clearly show that.
David F. Clark ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In response to the above 2 comments I will summarize what is wrong with the article.
When people help others, decent people say thank you, they don't spread rumors that Canada was somehow at fault.
Both of the above comments don't respond to my complaint at all. Relevant comments are appreciated.
David F. Clark ( talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments.
However, it was Canada not Mexico that allowed hundreds of planes and thousands of passangers to land during this crisis. My comment about having Canada mentioned in the same sentence as Zimbabwe doesn't mean that that sentence wasn't accurate. That sentence was in the section "International Response" and I would think that what Canada did, deserves a prominent place in this section.
I agree that the wording shouldn't say "thank you" to Canada for what they did but it is hard for me to see why the significant gesture that Canada made (unlike all other countries in the world) doesn't deserve more mention. This article is after all about the 9/11 incident and Canada's contribution should have been mentioned more prominently.
I would suggest the following as the first paragraph in this section called "International Response".
David F. Clark ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As this page is locked to me. (I have read why but haven't been a user for long enough yet.) Could somebody please add the following text to the "International Response" section.
I believe this paragraph will make the story of 9/11 more complete.
Thanks in advance.
David F. Clark ( talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above 3 points are copied verbatim from the "Immediate National Response" section. I agree that my copy and the above copy should be placed as the second paragraph of the "International response" section.
My new content:
The reference to 134 at the end of the first sentence would need to be updated in this copy but I think the rest of the paragraph is ok.
David F. Clark ( talk) 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we include the following in the section "International response"? Cs32en 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
I believe that the "See also" section is unnecessary and it should be erased from the article. Our article is already big and Template:Sept11 has links to other 9/11-related articles. Thoughts? AdjustShift ( talk) 14:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I want the see also section back. I think it is relevant. I was looking for it and couldn't find it. I wanted to read more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.200.100 ( talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits have bloated this article by 50% to almost 150K—a tad large for my taste. -- Veggy ( talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's far too much detail about the trials. The material would go better in one of the sub articles, or on a new page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Create a subarticle if you consider it necessary but do not just revert! Olegwiki ( talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I would rather advise editors to review the contributions carefully for clarity and verifiability from reliable sources. If everything looks good, we might think about Trials of the planners of the September 11 attacks or some such thing. -- Veggy ( talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think length means bad things. Yes, it might be a bit wordy, but we also don't want to add another example of an article on an actual event being dwarfed by something more pop culture... -- Tarage ( talk) 07:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This is said in this article as if it were obvious. Is it really the case though? Where is the evidence?
That a good number of intelligence services agree on this throughout the world doesn't imply it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.20.198.63 ( talk) 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Any one of the sources cited in documentary "Loose Change" for starters. The impartiality of this article is completely lopsided, but with the number of "moderators" who refuse to acknowledge differing views, it is a pointless case to protest. 9/11 has been lidded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesoriolis ( talk • contribs) 06:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The article fails to mention how it was possible for the highjackers to have slipped past airport security on the morning of 11 September- and at four different airports. The article also needs to address the matter of the terrorists' arrivals into the USA and how they obtained the neccessary visas. Why is only one airline pilot's name referred to in the article. The pilots of all four highjacked planes should be cited.-- jeanne ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Olegwiki seems to think that it is irrelevant that the former head of MI5 thinks that the US response was overreacting, and counterproductive. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/18/stella-rimington-9-11-mi5 I would like to rerquest mediation of the multiple deletions of this reference. Pustelnik ( talk) 00:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin Supports A New 9/11 Investigation, I'm not sure why, though? I've heard that very same thing was sought in parliaments of Canada and Japan.
Hope that fine editors here can provide some background.
& do tell, does this article state that 9/11 Commission report failed to mention collapse of WTC 7, ups. Universalsuffrage ( talk) 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, I need to call into question the fact that your account is new, yet you have used it specifically for this article and this article alone, all in the course of a day. You clearly aren't a new user either. Someone should investigate that. -- Tarage ( talk) 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin or any political candidate will say most anything to appeal to voters at a political rally. The question was put to her in a way that if she said "no", it would sound like she's against the victims' families which doesn't seem like a good thing to say to help get more votes.
I remember way back in 2000, Rick Mercer, who is a comedian in Canada, put some questions to George Bush and to Al Gore, during political rallies, for the Talking To Americans part of the show This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Mercer traveled around the U.S., asking questions to Americans on the street, as well as some politicians, seeing how ignorant Americans are about Canada. He asked Bush, "Prime Minister Jean Poutine said that he wouldn't endorse any candidate, but that you look like the man who should lead the free world into the 21st century. So what do you think about that?" (the trick was to see if Bush knew that the Prime Minister of Canada was not Jean Poutine - poutine is a popular dish in Canada of cheese and gravy on top of french fries.) Bush replied, "I appreciate his strong statement. He understands I believe in free trade. He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbor to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we will work closely together." Bush totally didn't understand the question, but just wanted say things to please people.
So, I can't help but laugh at the idea of taking Palin's off the cuff statement seriously. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, with Palin, YouTube is not a reliable source and I doubt any reliable source has picked up on this soundbyte from Palin. So, no matter what, mention of this does not belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is just a general overview or WP:SUMMARY of the 9/11 attacks, with many subarticles. I think we do have an article about polls and another about reactions to the attacks, and we have an article about the 9/11 Commission. So, if you have anything reliably sourced and notable, it could go in one of those articles (if not already there). I don't see any point in continuing this discussion on this talk page. -- Aude ( talk) 12:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin didn't even know that Africa was a continent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 22:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sarah who? SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 20:53, 12 January 2009 (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.
Tell you what, it has been a while since I've read the main article and after just doing so, I'd have to say it's been deteriorating constantly for years.
What is the purpose of this place? It was something about building a consensus on how to provide factually accurate and unbiased historical or contemporary information for all human kind, or something along those lines?
Well, I'm not seeing it happening here, where we have such incredibly unacceptable conduct.
Apart from few sparkling exchanges, there wasn’t a decent discussion on this page for a very long time, yet we can examine healthy debates about 9/11 everywhere, from bbc all the way to the youtube or one of those 'exotic' parliaments.
I'm pretty certain that discussion should be in here, not locked out.
Palin and elections aside, the fact is, people around the world are seeking new and independent investigation of 9/11 attacks.
Some editors and administrators should really take a step back and let this place evolve in decent and natural manner. Universalsuffrage ( talk) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) Let me know if this is correct - it is your view there is widespread support for a new 9/11 investigation, including statements to that effect from a variety of people including a brief remark by Sarah Palin. Should this be the case, it is your view that it deserves a mention in this article, and that the existing mention saying the 9/11 Commission has been criticised, is too brief and too vague.
If I've got that wrong, my apologies. But if it is an accurate paraphrasing, a couple of points:
These are just some longwinded thoughts. Other views welcome. Euryalus ( talk) 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We have several (too many) articles on the 911 conspiracy theories. It's not appropriate to further enlarge upon them here. There's a notice at the top of this talk page that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions. It may be necessary to seek arbitration enforcement at some point. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
To all who have struggled against a tide of persistent insanity and inanity to keep this article free of conspiracy nuttery. For me it's too close to help (I saw the second plane hit and watched them fall from right across the river) but it is appreciated!-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
the Koran does NOT say kill americans where you see them? 1. Americans wheren't about at the time of the koran and islam is based on equality, killing innocent people is viewed as cowardice and will send you to hell (yess terroists WILL be sent to hell in islam terms) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.184.65 ( talk) 10:29, 1 November 2008 (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'll need a clarification on these last actions, as swift as they were.
I'd like a clear and concise explanation on why have you closed the thread without any decent argument whatsoever and a clear pointer on what have I done to provoke these talks about arbitration enforcement? I have strong doubts that arbitrators would allow this sort of action, because it is actually a ban on discussion and one can hardly have a consensus without discussion.
In other words, instead of democracy we have some weird sort of fascism rampaging in here, at least in my experience.
As Peter stated above, we don't need a conspiracy to recognize well referenced call for independent investigation. I was about to take upon recommendation from Euryalus, but some folks just couldn’t wait, now could they? Well, since this was the course you've taken, let me ask you a question Tom. Do tell, how long are you editing here, I remember you from, dear, it was more than a few years ago, you were quick to impose bans at decent folk back then too, no questions asked it was.
This is one lengthy farce, I wonder what are you folks thinking, do you think you can keep this article locked forever?
Do you think that next memorial will not bring another tide, haven’t you noticed that this tsunamis are getting bigger and bigger each and every year?
How exactly can a group of rogue editors enjoy such lengthy hegemony here? Universalsuffrage ( talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Just the facts seen through the eyes of a FDNY FF. "A Survivors Story" - Short film about Billy Green, Engine 6, FDNY. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 12:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
You've asked for discussion SheffieldSteel, what would make that summary more neutral? Universalsuffrage ( talk) 20:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
“ | But note the caveats: reports do not "tell", they merely "suggest".
Perhaps the most infamous PDB also concerns al-Qaeda. It went to President Bush on 6 August, 2001 - just over a month before the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington. It contained the headline: "Bin Ladin determined to strike in the US". It reads: "FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks." Extraordinarily prescient? Or vague and unhelpful? |
” |
See subject. I propose that be removed. It is only known that the terrorists were threatening people with these knives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.202.18 ( talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
(deindent)For some reason neither the Moussaoui link nor the mirror site will open on this PC. However, there were multiple calls from the planes and even if any one call had some doubt cast upon it, that does not invalidate the others. Also, in general court testimony references only that the person giving the testimony said particular things, not that those things are or are not true. It would appear there is consensus on the calls, and on the attacks on passengers on at least three of ther planes. I'm not sure what can be gained from continued discussion on this point, in the absence of references casting doubt on all the calls, sufficient to outweight the sources supporting their existence and contents. Euryalus ( talk) 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"Summary of Flight 77 depicting: the identity of pilots and flight attendants, seat assignments of passengers, and telephone calls from the flight [Listener discretion is advised. This exhibit also includes information about the other three flights hijacked on September 11]
Download this exhibit. It is a Flash presentation contained in a ZIP file.
This is a 27 MB set of files and may take several minutes to download"
And according to the Moussaoui presentation, there were four calls connected from Flight 77 to unknown numbers. Those could be Barbara Olson's calls? Drawing conclusions from the presentation that her calls did not happen is
original research and synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If your theory had any merit, it would have been covered by newspapers or other reliable sources. There are plenty of reliable sources regarding Olson's calls and none saying that her calls did not occur. --
Aude (
talk)
01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wohaa, I had never realized how people could fight for that, I mean with the common purpose of increasing available knowledge (that is, being in the same tribe). Twipley ( talk) 22:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
"After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a ---- service."
This is a part of the CIA memo displayed on this page, but isn't mentioned in the motive section. 72.226.188.112 ( talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to find the cost of the 9/11 that the general public is paying in terms of higher cost and time. I wanted to add the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2002/sep/05/september112001.usnews and also the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2008_Mumbai_attacks as I feel that they seem to be related.
ATTENTION: Raj.agrawal This is a "tilde" ==> ~ <==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest ( talk) 06:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
What's currently written:
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
To be legally accurate it must read:
The September 11 attacks (often referred to as nine-eleven, written 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks allegedly by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
Rationale: 1.al-Qaeda as an organization has never been indicted 2. Osama Bin Laden was indicted ONLY "for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania."
Sources: Wikipedia The 2nd source below correctly states "alleged" as this entry should also.
1. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Q%27aeda 2. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden#Criminal_charges)
By the way, why was the name of the editor who made the allegedly suggestion, here, deleted, gentlemen? Hello, Mokeyboy. Please consider yourself to be acknowledged for your contribution to Wikipedia. I'm not going to change the article myself, but "legally," he is correct. We wouldn't want any of these dead people to sue us for defamation, but, seriously, it's unencyclopaedic to merely repeat unproven allegations without attribution. Adding allegedly would improve the article, but I'm neither going to change it myself nor demand that it be changed. Regarding OBL, though, if he's alive, it's a BLP violation whether you like him or not. Is he alive or dead? Wowest ( talk) 00:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
O.K. -- I have a new assumption about the name deletion: ATTENTION: MOKEYBOY This is a "tilde" ==> ~ <==. You can find it on your keyboard to the left of the number "1" if you hit the shift button. Please type four tildes together at the end of your post so we can see who typed it and when. Wowest ( talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Now....
The current caption of the excerpt of the CIA President's Daily Brief ("Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US") says "Exerpts [sic] from a previously classified memo from the CIA warning for [sic] a possible terrorist attack by Bin Laden using a hijacked airplane, dated August 2001." However, the excerpt only says "We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheikh' 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists." There is nothing in this excerpt that suggests Bin Ladin wanted to implement a "terrorist attack . . . using a hijacked airplane," which to me implies using the airplane as a weapon. The CIA brief may have been raising only the possibility of hijacking a plane and taking hostages to secure the release of prisoners, as was common in the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the intelligence reporting was several years old and uncorroborated at the time the brief was written. If the foreign intelligence reporting was about a hijacking for the purpose of taking hostages to force a release of prisoners, then I suppose that the reporting was wrong, because Bin Ladin never did that. Perhaps he planned it and did not execute it, but there's no evidence of that. Ketone16 ( talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
As I read this article, I was surprised at how lopsided the reporting is. Much of the official 911 story is treated as fact, when there is growing doubt surrounding the official story. I read the discussion page here and i notice that there is a lot of debate over conspiracy theories and what constitutes a reliable source. I just have to wiegh in and say, that when a CNN poll reports that 84% of people believe that there is a government coverup, suddenly all those news headlines in the associated press are called into question... and all the newspapers who carry those headlines, are no longer reliable sources. I just think this article needs to be less biased and use more phrases such as...'it is believed' or 'It was reported that'. Yourliver ( talk) 06:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Investigations: Here it says that the heat from the fire made the twin towers collapse (the official version). Fire can't be the reason why the buildings collapsed. And besides, if it had melted, the towers wouldn't collapse straight (symetrical) down. It would have chosen the path of least resistance (asymetrical). I am missing eye witness reports. Several say they heard explosions on September 11. http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm , http://www.911rippleeffect.com/ MandreasW ( talk) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Aircraft already in flight were either turned back or redirected to airports in Canada or Mexico.
I think this statement is very condescending. The USA cannot "redirect" flights to Canada or any other sovereign nation. The USA decided to not allow flights already in the air to land anywhere in the USA and Canada kindly allowed these aircraft to land on our territory. Of the 40,000 international travelers that were diverted to Canadian airports, about 6,600 of them landed at Gander Newfoundland, a town of about 9,500 residents.
If these airplanes were dangerous to USA cities, why wasn't it dangerous for them to land in Canada? Thousands of people slept in private Canadian's homes, some for a few days.
Canada received 226 of the diverted flights and launched Operation Yellow Ribbon to deal with the large numbers of grounded planes and stranded passengers.
This passage later in the article seems alright BUT under the section "International Response", Canada is referenced along with Zimbabwe. Does this represent what really happened?
Numerous countries, including the United Kingdom, India, Australia, France, Germany, Indonesia, China, Canada, Russia, Pakistan, Jordan, Mauritius, Uganda and Zimbabwe introduced "anti-terrorism" legislation and froze the bank accounts of businesses and individuals they suspected of having al-Qaeda ties.
24 Canadians died in the World Trade Center on 9/11.
A rumor that the hijackers came into the USA through Canada or that they had some connection to Canada has persisted to this day. Just recently this non-truth was stated by the current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano. Congressmen and Senators have had to apologize and retract their statements for repeating this fallacy. The 9/11 commission and all other investigations have categorically agreed that none of the 19 hijackers came through Canada or had any connection to Canada what-so-ever.
"For days after 11 September, Canadians came to the aid of men and women and children who were worried and confused and had nowhere to sleep."
"That emergency revealed the good and generous heart of this country, and showed the true feelings of Canadians and Americans toward each other."
These above comments were from President Bush to the Canadian people December 1, 2004.
Canada's response to the 9/11 disaster are unlike any other countries' response and this article should clearly show that.
David F. Clark ( talk) 22:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
In response to the above 2 comments I will summarize what is wrong with the article.
When people help others, decent people say thank you, they don't spread rumors that Canada was somehow at fault.
Both of the above comments don't respond to my complaint at all. Relevant comments are appreciated.
David F. Clark ( talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for these comments.
However, it was Canada not Mexico that allowed hundreds of planes and thousands of passangers to land during this crisis. My comment about having Canada mentioned in the same sentence as Zimbabwe doesn't mean that that sentence wasn't accurate. That sentence was in the section "International Response" and I would think that what Canada did, deserves a prominent place in this section.
I agree that the wording shouldn't say "thank you" to Canada for what they did but it is hard for me to see why the significant gesture that Canada made (unlike all other countries in the world) doesn't deserve more mention. This article is after all about the 9/11 incident and Canada's contribution should have been mentioned more prominently.
I would suggest the following as the first paragraph in this section called "International Response".
David F. Clark ( talk) 04:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
As this page is locked to me. (I have read why but haven't been a user for long enough yet.) Could somebody please add the following text to the "International Response" section.
I believe this paragraph will make the story of 9/11 more complete.
Thanks in advance.
David F. Clark ( talk) 14:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The above 3 points are copied verbatim from the "Immediate National Response" section. I agree that my copy and the above copy should be placed as the second paragraph of the "International response" section.
My new content:
The reference to 134 at the end of the first sentence would need to be updated in this copy but I think the rest of the paragraph is ok.
David F. Clark ( talk) 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we include the following in the section "International response"? Cs32en 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)