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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I would like to report this site:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and the NIST confirmation about UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 ( talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here you can read something about the author:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Henry62
The author is a forensic ballistic expert, he worked also in the trial against Pacciani, "the Monster of Florence"; he is a consultant of Italian National Broadcasting Corporation and his English articles are in the most important sites about 9/11. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37
I'm not suggesting ANY account should be the default position. But it is, frankly, absurd to conclude that one account, lacking in just as much conclusive evidence as many other accounts, should be the point of all questioning. Do you not see how ridiculous the opening paragraph is, or is presumed doctrine, a betrayal of reason, a way of prematurely easing our conscience of all doubt? 62.56.54.45 ( talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this new section (repeated here below) since it is an important part of the response to the attacks and the fact that senior US politicians (eg: Napolitano, McCain) have repeated this myth as late as April 2009. One editor reversed this section, but I put it back. Are there other opinions?
After the 911 attacks, some US reporters and political leaders claimed that some of the hijackers had come into the United States via Canada, possibly with the help of lax border controls. However, a 9/11 Commission report released in 2004 determined that all of the hijackers had visas issued by the United States, and had arrived in the US from countries other than Canada.[172] Despite this, US sources and even high level politicians occasionally repeat this error. On April 24, 2009 US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain said in a press interview "Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."[173] McCain was speaking in reference to a press interview U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano held in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2009, in which she made the same mistake:
JN: [...] Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there. NM: Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators? JN: Not just those but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It's part of sovereignty. It's part of knowing who's in the country.[174]
Facts707 ( talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the FBI, there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
The statement takes for granted that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack, without referencing it's assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the main body of the article, while containing references, does not cite any assertions of proof, and neglects to reference refutations of the citations, neglecting to cite direct statements and government-provided negations of the references to Al Qaeda's involvement. Finally it neglects to cite Bin Laden's own repeated denials of responsibility.
References to the alleged perpetrators and their association with the Jihadist movement should not be made without also referring to their association with American military and security intelligence agencies, of which there is as much if not more weighted proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long, but this is a sideline for me :) Government statements as covered in presumably reputable news sources repeatedly state the lack of evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm
"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks."
Dick Cheney: Sadam not involved, Osama not involved;
These could once be found on the White House site,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
but have since been moved or removed by the Obama work-over of the site. The statement can still be verified at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5486702338652678634&ei=QkEeSrCIHZjw-QHDoOSLAw
Tony Blair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm
"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially..."
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1961476.stm
"US intelligence officials have admitted they failed to unearth any sort of paper trail leading to the 11 September attacks."
More specifically:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html
"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."
So basically they all state no proof, and proceed to state a conviction, a belief, or other nonsensical assertion of culpability. I don't believe this is a forum, and have found the verifiability of Wikipedia to be a great relief in research. I find the blank assertion that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks on 9-11 to be uncharacteristic; I specifically refer to the USS Cole Attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing as an example where though AL Qaeda's involvement is even more evident than the Setpember 11 attacks, the article does not open with that assertion.
Please refer to links I've posted above; there is more than "some guy" making claims on behalf of unverified or non-public FBI statements concerning the lack of evidence regarding the hijackers, their coordinators and ultimate responsibility for the attacks. Ultimately it's very suspicious that no one has claimed responsibility, and the one video of Bin Laden commending the attacks is not worded or in any explicit way a confession, unfortunately, even if you can verify the translation accurately.
In defense of Jean Chretien, I must say that despite his statement/s (edit: or perhaps because of them), Canada didn't join the war in Iraq. As for the rest, you're right; there are more statements and documented assertions of non-evidence which, if you follow Mueller's line of reasoning for example, could implicate half the Middle East and most of the immigrant populations of North America as potential perpetrators of the attacks.
The one statement made about "following the pattern" of Bin Laden however is misleading, since his attacks always involved government and military targets, whereas the WTC was neither of those; one has to wonder about the pattern of logic used to make the assumptions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess my contributions aren't worth comment since they do not confirm the popular point of view... too bad, wikipedia used to be a verifiable and sourced resarch tool. But "tool" it seems can mean many things...(
talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Siderator (
talk •
contribs)
The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[123][124][125]
This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and extrapolates this to conclude that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere".[125] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."
I think that "and extrapolates this to conclude" needs to be reworded, if it is true, to something that is more solid-sounding.
To all who contributed to this,
I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the articles, materials, and various lists related to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and I want to thank, and to congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job!
Sincerely,
Marc Riddell, Ph.D. --- Michael David ( talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And what's so wrong with this article that it constitutes treason against humanity? -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can fix it since you now what's supposedly wrong with it. -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You must have meant, we can fix it. Why is there no section about 'public doubt' with regards to events transpired? TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd propose that we add a note about Phoenix Memo to the section about investigations. Any objections? TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it that the New York Times' Portraits of Grief are not mentioned in the multimedia resources section? Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/portraits/
Also the Times' 102 Minutes Inside the Towers would be a good addition: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html
I'm just stunned that there's no reference at all to the Times in the resources, considering there's a ton of material that the Times produced on the subject. I have a print copy of the Times' Magazine that was an unbelievable overview of 9-11 and it's impact not just to New York, but to the whole country.
I write this as a former New Yorker, who used to work in 2WTC and lost several friends in the towers that day. CountryMama27 ( talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest we open discussion with some very basic issues, such as narrative. I'll try to illustrate the POV forks in narrative with chapter about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and I'll presume that editors involved are well rounded with regards to various topics. If we examine this chapter closely we see that the section is in clear contempt of court, Mr. Khalid could have confessed from 'A to Z' but he is still 'alleged mastermind of the attacks'. The key word here is alleged, and this word is missing. If we take reports of the most reputable mainstream media sources, as we should, it is easy to see this impartiality which is lacking here where such careful neutrality should count the most. I would therefore suggest a change in narrative which would recognize the factual state of ongoing, or rather, suspended proceedings and state the fact that we're still dealing with 'alleged mastermind'. TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Some seem to: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] -- John ( talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag from the article since there needs to be a more concerted effort to establish that the article is not in compliance. -- PTR ( talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
<- I believe that
this information needs to be restored, perhaps in a shortened form.
Unomi (
talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There may be some doubt as to the legitimacy of his alleged confession, given that it was obtained by torture. "A 2005 US Justice Department memo released in April 2009 stated that Mohammed had undergone waterboarding 183 times in March 2003. Waterboarding Used 266 Times On 2 Suspects -- John ( talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I once edited this page after watching a documentary about global dimming, where after the grounding of all flights for several days after the attacks, scientists got the chance they were looking for to examine the effect of short term pollutants in the sky on levels of sunlight. Apart from reading the wikipedia page on global dimming or recalling the content of the documentary from memory (I'm not a climate scientist), I believe that it is interesting that this rare event had an impact on scientific research. The global dimming page links back here, but not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 ( talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick question: why isn't the December 27, 2001 bin Laden video mentioned in Videos of Osama bin Laden? Unomi ( talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
War on terrorism title itself without quote is non neutral in the first place, because it allegedly presumption There was a "war" on "terrorism". It was just a neoliberal neocon Bush doctrine. Bush family was partner with Laden family in oil business as you all may know.
Kasaalan (
talk) 16:14, 10 June 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
I would like to report this site:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and the NIST confirmation about UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 ( talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here you can read something about the author:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/search/label/Henry62
The author is a forensic ballistic expert, he worked also in the trial against Pacciani, "the Monster of Florence"; he is a consultant of Italian National Broadcasting Corporation and his English articles are in the most important sites about 9/11. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37
I'm not suggesting ANY account should be the default position. But it is, frankly, absurd to conclude that one account, lacking in just as much conclusive evidence as many other accounts, should be the point of all questioning. Do you not see how ridiculous the opening paragraph is, or is presumed doctrine, a betrayal of reason, a way of prematurely easing our conscience of all doubt? 62.56.54.45 ( talk) 20:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this new section (repeated here below) since it is an important part of the response to the attacks and the fact that senior US politicians (eg: Napolitano, McCain) have repeated this myth as late as April 2009. One editor reversed this section, but I put it back. Are there other opinions?
After the 911 attacks, some US reporters and political leaders claimed that some of the hijackers had come into the United States via Canada, possibly with the help of lax border controls. However, a 9/11 Commission report released in 2004 determined that all of the hijackers had visas issued by the United States, and had arrived in the US from countries other than Canada.[172] Despite this, US sources and even high level politicians occasionally repeat this error. On April 24, 2009 US Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain said in a press interview "Well, some of the 9/11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."[173] McCain was speaking in reference to a press interview U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano held in Washington, D.C. on April 20, 2009, in which she made the same mistake:
JN: [...] Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there. NM: Are you talking about the 9/11 perpetrators? JN: Not just those but others as well. So again, every country is entitled to have a border. It's part of sovereignty. It's part of knowing who's in the country.[174]
Facts707 ( talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
According to the FBI, there is no evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11. http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id267.html
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
The statement takes for granted that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attack, without referencing it's assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 05:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the main body of the article, while containing references, does not cite any assertions of proof, and neglects to reference refutations of the citations, neglecting to cite direct statements and government-provided negations of the references to Al Qaeda's involvement. Finally it neglects to cite Bin Laden's own repeated denials of responsibility.
References to the alleged perpetrators and their association with the Jihadist movement should not be made without also referring to their association with American military and security intelligence agencies, of which there is as much if not more weighted proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long, but this is a sideline for me :) Government statements as covered in presumably reputable news sources repeatedly state the lack of evidence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1581063.stm
"There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks."
Dick Cheney: Sadam not involved, Osama not involved;
These could once be found on the White House site,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
but have since been moved or removed by the Obama work-over of the site. The statement can still be verified at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5486702338652678634&ei=QkEeSrCIHZjw-QHDoOSLAw
Tony Blair:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1579043.stm
"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law. Intelligence often cannot be used evidentially..."
BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1961476.stm
"US intelligence officials have admitted they failed to unearth any sort of paper trail leading to the 11 September attacks."
More specifically:
http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-04mueller-speech.html
"In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot."
So basically they all state no proof, and proceed to state a conviction, a belief, or other nonsensical assertion of culpability. I don't believe this is a forum, and have found the verifiability of Wikipedia to be a great relief in research. I find the blank assertion that Al Qaeda perpetrated the attacks on 9-11 to be uncharacteristic; I specifically refer to the USS Cole Attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing as an example where though AL Qaeda's involvement is even more evident than the Setpember 11 attacks, the article does not open with that assertion.
Please refer to links I've posted above; there is more than "some guy" making claims on behalf of unverified or non-public FBI statements concerning the lack of evidence regarding the hijackers, their coordinators and ultimate responsibility for the attacks. Ultimately it's very suspicious that no one has claimed responsibility, and the one video of Bin Laden commending the attacks is not worded or in any explicit way a confession, unfortunately, even if you can verify the translation accurately.
In defense of Jean Chretien, I must say that despite his statement/s (edit: or perhaps because of them), Canada didn't join the war in Iraq. As for the rest, you're right; there are more statements and documented assertions of non-evidence which, if you follow Mueller's line of reasoning for example, could implicate half the Middle East and most of the immigrant populations of North America as potential perpetrators of the attacks.
The one statement made about "following the pattern" of Bin Laden however is misleading, since his attacks always involved government and military targets, whereas the WTC was neither of those; one has to wonder about the pattern of logic used to make the assumptions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siderator ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess my contributions aren't worth comment since they do not confirm the popular point of view... too bad, wikipedia used to be a verifiable and sourced resarch tool. But "tool" it seems can mean many things...(
talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Siderator (
talk •
contribs)
The attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwā issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Ahmed Refai Taha, Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[123][124][125]
This statement begins by quoting the Koran as saying, "slay the pagans wherever ye find them" and extrapolates this to conclude that it is the "duty of every Muslim" to "kill Americans anywhere".[125] Bin Laden elaborated on this theme in his "Letter to America" of October 2002: "You are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind: You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator."
I think that "and extrapolates this to conclude" needs to be reworded, if it is true, to something that is more solid-sounding.
To all who contributed to this,
I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the articles, materials, and various lists related to the September 11, 2001 attacks; and I want to thank, and to congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job!
Sincerely,
Marc Riddell, Ph.D. --- Michael David ( talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And what's so wrong with this article that it constitutes treason against humanity? -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, you can fix it since you now what's supposedly wrong with it. -- Abce2| Access Denied 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
You must have meant, we can fix it. Why is there no section about 'public doubt' with regards to events transpired? TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd propose that we add a note about Phoenix Memo to the section about investigations. Any objections? TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 10:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
How is it that the New York Times' Portraits of Grief are not mentioned in the multimedia resources section? Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/portraits/
Also the Times' 102 Minutes Inside the Towers would be a good addition: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sept_11_2001/index.html
I'm just stunned that there's no reference at all to the Times in the resources, considering there's a ton of material that the Times produced on the subject. I have a print copy of the Times' Magazine that was an unbelievable overview of 9-11 and it's impact not just to New York, but to the whole country.
I write this as a former New Yorker, who used to work in 2WTC and lost several friends in the towers that day. CountryMama27 ( talk) 02:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest we open discussion with some very basic issues, such as narrative. I'll try to illustrate the POV forks in narrative with chapter about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and I'll presume that editors involved are well rounded with regards to various topics. If we examine this chapter closely we see that the section is in clear contempt of court, Mr. Khalid could have confessed from 'A to Z' but he is still 'alleged mastermind of the attacks'. The key word here is alleged, and this word is missing. If we take reports of the most reputable mainstream media sources, as we should, it is easy to see this impartiality which is lacking here where such careful neutrality should count the most. I would therefore suggest a change in narrative which would recognize the factual state of ongoing, or rather, suspended proceedings and state the fact that we're still dealing with 'alleged mastermind'. TheFourFreedoms ( talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Some seem to: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] -- John ( talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the POV tag from the article since there needs to be a more concerted effort to establish that the article is not in compliance. -- PTR ( talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
<- I believe that
this information needs to be restored, perhaps in a shortened form.
Unomi (
talk) 11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
There may be some doubt as to the legitimacy of his alleged confession, given that it was obtained by torture. "A 2005 US Justice Department memo released in April 2009 stated that Mohammed had undergone waterboarding 183 times in March 2003. Waterboarding Used 266 Times On 2 Suspects -- John ( talk) 13:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I once edited this page after watching a documentary about global dimming, where after the grounding of all flights for several days after the attacks, scientists got the chance they were looking for to examine the effect of short term pollutants in the sky on levels of sunlight. Apart from reading the wikipedia page on global dimming or recalling the content of the documentary from memory (I'm not a climate scientist), I believe that it is interesting that this rare event had an impact on scientific research. The global dimming page links back here, but not vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 ( talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick question: why isn't the December 27, 2001 bin Laden video mentioned in Videos of Osama bin Laden? Unomi ( talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
War on terrorism title itself without quote is non neutral in the first place, because it allegedly presumption There was a "war" on "terrorism". It was just a neoliberal neocon Bush doctrine. Bush family was partner with Laden family in oil business as you all may know.
Kasaalan (
talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)