![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Entered (and reverted) according to the Wikipedia principle of WP:BRD. I submit that this topic is of significant importance to the September 11 attacks issue, and the article has a gaping hole in its information without it. I made a good faith effort in writing the section, and I attempted to select reasonably accurate and authoritative references for every element in the topic. I request that it be returned to the article, pending commentary from other editors. Wildbear ( talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I still feel it doesn't belong here. Polls are polls, and can easily be influenced to swing votes on way or another. We've had this debate before, and consensus was not to include. -- Tarage ( talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As well as the intention to kill people, wasn't an important motive the symbolism of the targets? The WTC representing US business, the Pentagon representing the US military and Washington (the Capitol or the White House) representing the US government? I think the symbolism of the particular targets should be noted. Bin Laden was also motivated by revenge for attacks on Lebanon ""While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," [4] -- Flexdream ( talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Basically every source in connection with AE911truth is being said to be non-reliable source. However all those sources supporting the Bush conspiracy theory (the official version, where Al-Quaeda terrorists attack America), aren't though reliable neither.
For short: Why are CNN and NIST accepted as a reliable source but all thbose scientific reports of AE911truth members not? -- 91.138.29.74 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What means of assurance Wikipedia has for its readers about editors who work on this article? Criminalresponsibility ( talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the lead section of the article, on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I've amended the phrase "later it was discovered that there were none" to "no such weapons have been found". While I'm personally of the view (probably shared by most people by now) that the whole WMD scenario was cooked up to provide an excuse for a military incursion already decided on, the problem Iraq had at the start is the same problem we have now: you can't prove the non-existence of something.
In other words, unless someone knows better and can correct me, we have no conclusive way to prove or discover that there were no WMD, but have no evidence to suppose that there were. - Laterensis ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of NPOV, I believe we should refer to the mainstream theory with regard to the September 11th Attacks as the "official conspiracy theory". This is completely accurate, the theory is official and it proposes that a conspiracy (Al-Queda) executed the attacks. People attempt to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to marginalize alternative arguments, but the term can also be applied to the mainstream theory. The majority of people believe in the official conspiracy theory, but it is still a POV to describe it in one way while describing alternative views in another way, using a term with a negative connotation. Adding the term 'Official' shows that the government backs this particular conspiracy theory, so it adds information while using the same term to neutrally describe different views, without taking the POV that one theory is 'true'. Just because the government and mainstream media choose to be biased on this issue doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Mr. Quickling ( talk) 03:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't I edit this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 ( talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can an admin please return the page to semi-protected? A bot got rid of it, and you're seeing the results first hand.
I attempted to do it myself but... well... you can see my failure first hand as well. -- Tarage ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article should remain unprotected until the bias in the writing has been addressed by its Wikipedia editors. It is against the interests of public knowledge and education if people with no credible expertise in knowledge creation continue to censor changes (and challenges) to their article by those that do have such expertise.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
We wouldn't write in the text of the article that 9/11 would be related to the persecution of homosexuals in Iran or to the indignation and outrage in Islamic countries about pictures that ridiculed Muhammed. So we shouldn't have a template in the article that creates exactly this impression. A smaller template, and one that is focused on terrorism, not on "controversies", would be acceptable. If we want to have links to Islam in general, we would need a general template, not a "controversies" template that gives a biased perspective on the topic. Cs32en 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that KSM was anything more than a minor recruiter for the 911 attack. For a man to "mastermind" a massive mission that defeated the entire US fighter jet coverage and all intelligence agencies, there has to be some evidence that he drew up the aerial tactical plan while providing logistical and financial support to 19 separate individuals who entered the US without being detected. Without the use of a legal proceeding, this entire article is nothing more than fancy hearsay from third hand sources that were never cross-examined. In this so-called confession, it has been determined that KSM, a man with no aviation or tactical planning history, was brutally tortured while submitting this "testimony." None of his testimony or confessions would hold up in traffic court but wikipedia has determined that he was the mastermind. Msy2fla ( talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This article on KSM presents the false impression that he has been convicted. I suggest the following addition in order to present a more balanced and truthful account:
Several questions remain in regard to
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s role in the 911 plot. He has not been afforded a criminal trial and therefore has not been convicted of any crimes against the United States. The
911 Commission’s final report stated that KSM admitted that he lied in a interview with
Al Jazeera reporter
Yosri Fouda, that a post-capture claim “may be pure bravado” and that “KSM has provided inconsistent information” about an alleged conversation with Osama bin Laden, who has not been charged with involvement in the 9/11 plot.
[1]
While being held by US intelligence agents at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, it has been widely reported that KSM was a victim of a prolonged series of severe torture and was waterboarded at least 183 times. During this incarceration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to his interrogators that he was responsible for the 911 plot “from A to Z” and to 31 other terrorist plots around the world.
Although the
911 Commission raised concerns about KSM’s credibility, they nonetheless decided to base the majority of the 9/11 plot on his unverified statements given under duress. The Commission published the following disclaimer that preceded statements attributed to KSM:
“Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. . . . Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses . . . is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.“ [1]
The 911 Commission investigation has been criticized by its two co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in a co-authored book entitled “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. ISBN 9780307276636 In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the Pentagon and FAA officials. Both men claimed that the 911 Commission was “designed to fail.”
The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also raised doubts to claims by some U.S. intelligence agents that KSM was the mastermind of the attacks: “Neither the CIA or FBI has been able to confirm that KSM traveled to the U.S. or that he sent recruits to the U.S. prior to 9/11.” [2] The heavily redacted report detailed a different group of suspects in their report. [3]These suspects were affiliated with the Saudi Arabian government and there was no mention of KSM being in contact with Omar al-Bayoumi who was determined to be aiding at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Mr. al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Aviation Ministry, denied knowing KSM. [4]
added by msy2fla
the intro and the info box give 2 confusing figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.221 ( talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that there were indications as far back as June 2001, that a terrorist plot was in the works to attack The United States. Even though there was plenty of viaable indicators from various U.S., Foreign Agencies, and reputable public-private officials, most information was dismissed and/or not taken seriously. One of the failures that lead to 9/11, was various communications breakdowns, the lack of agency inter-sharing between various departments. The reports of vague or not giving enough details as to an absolute time, place, or location. Some U.S. and Foreign officials have complained later, that there were enough indicators to issue an advisory. For the record, a possible threat brief was issued to The White House in as early as a month before the eventual incident. It was reported that approximately 72 hours before the 9/11 incident, a scattered number of U.S. Naval ships and submarines were given orders to re-deploy in various areas, expecting something, but giving no clear indication as to why they were re-deployed for a possible attack. This and other communications breakdowns occured before, during, and after 9/11, that should have been considered normal operational protocol. There was no true indication of a conspiracy, but a series of breakdowns that futher confused and diverted vital backups toward national defences. Though it was investigated later that additional 9/11 plots were aborted that day, many agree that the executed events of what we call 9/11 could have been futher prevented if all involved also thought "Outside The Box". Aedwardmoch ( talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It was concluded in the investigations by the 911 Commission that a series of breakdowns of communications were a major conributing factor before, during, and after 9/11 in various degrees. I think this should be clearly mentioned in the main article as well. Aedwardmoch ( talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
guesss sooo —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.126.80.207 (
talk)
20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's relevant to mention (in the Memorial section and in the article summary) the fact that 9/11 has been declared a National Day Of Service and Rememberance by Congress, and the President. Although there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of this action, this is nevertheless the case. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.115.178 ( talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the source is for the "6291+ injured" claim in the info box.
Thanks. 66.131.197.203 ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
"In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks." Second info paragraph says.
Infobox says 2,995 including the 19 hijackers.
I know its a minor discrepancy, but I'm just curious what the sources are for the separate figures. Technically, both of those should read "confirmed" deaths, yes? The exact figure can never realistically be figured out, so perhaps they should both "approximately ####". 72.145.228.108 ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Eight years after 9/11, it seems to me that the narrative of September 11 attacks is shifting a bit in media. I'd like to include a paragraph or two about multiple questions unanswered by mainstream narrative to this day and source it with these articles from media around the world:
What are your opinions on these sources and on general idea of adding a paragraph or section about unanswered questions? salVNaut ( talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Oneismany, please think about the style of your comment, which may be perceived as condescending. Wikipedia is reporting on relevant views, if their existence can be verified by reliable sources. It's not necessary that these views are correct or "true". We also attribute relevant views to their proponents, so we are just saying: "It's verifiable that XY says Z," we're not saying "Z is true". Cs32en 03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories that surround what happened on 9/11 are going to perpetuate ad nauseum because for some people, it's simply easier to believe in fiction than it is to know facts when you see them. There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books and going to high priced "seminars". But such is the fortune of misinformation and 9/11 CTers aren't alone in their efforts to capitalize on innuendo and fantasy...much money has also been made by those that have "proof" that bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's as well.-- MONGO 04:25, 13 September 2009 (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.
|
![]() | 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 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | → | Archive 55 |
Entered (and reverted) according to the Wikipedia principle of WP:BRD. I submit that this topic is of significant importance to the September 11 attacks issue, and the article has a gaping hole in its information without it. I made a good faith effort in writing the section, and I attempted to select reasonably accurate and authoritative references for every element in the topic. I request that it be returned to the article, pending commentary from other editors. Wildbear ( talk) 05:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I still feel it doesn't belong here. Polls are polls, and can easily be influenced to swing votes on way or another. We've had this debate before, and consensus was not to include. -- Tarage ( talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
As well as the intention to kill people, wasn't an important motive the symbolism of the targets? The WTC representing US business, the Pentagon representing the US military and Washington (the Capitol or the White House) representing the US government? I think the symbolism of the particular targets should be noted. Bin Laden was also motivated by revenge for attacks on Lebanon ""While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," [4] -- Flexdream ( talk) 19:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Basically every source in connection with AE911truth is being said to be non-reliable source. However all those sources supporting the Bush conspiracy theory (the official version, where Al-Quaeda terrorists attack America), aren't though reliable neither.
For short: Why are CNN and NIST accepted as a reliable source but all thbose scientific reports of AE911truth members not? -- 91.138.29.74 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What means of assurance Wikipedia has for its readers about editors who work on this article? Criminalresponsibility ( talk) 23:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In the lead section of the article, on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction, I've amended the phrase "later it was discovered that there were none" to "no such weapons have been found". While I'm personally of the view (probably shared by most people by now) that the whole WMD scenario was cooked up to provide an excuse for a military incursion already decided on, the problem Iraq had at the start is the same problem we have now: you can't prove the non-existence of something.
In other words, unless someone knows better and can correct me, we have no conclusive way to prove or discover that there were no WMD, but have no evidence to suppose that there were. - Laterensis ( talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of NPOV, I believe we should refer to the mainstream theory with regard to the September 11th Attacks as the "official conspiracy theory". This is completely accurate, the theory is official and it proposes that a conspiracy (Al-Queda) executed the attacks. People attempt to use the term 'conspiracy theory' to marginalize alternative arguments, but the term can also be applied to the mainstream theory. The majority of people believe in the official conspiracy theory, but it is still a POV to describe it in one way while describing alternative views in another way, using a term with a negative connotation. Adding the term 'Official' shows that the government backs this particular conspiracy theory, so it adds information while using the same term to neutrally describe different views, without taking the POV that one theory is 'true'. Just because the government and mainstream media choose to be biased on this issue doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Mr. Quickling ( talk) 03:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Why can't I edit this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 ( talk) 20:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can an admin please return the page to semi-protected? A bot got rid of it, and you're seeing the results first hand.
I attempted to do it myself but... well... you can see my failure first hand as well. -- Tarage ( talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
This article should remain unprotected until the bias in the writing has been addressed by its Wikipedia editors. It is against the interests of public knowledge and education if people with no credible expertise in knowledge creation continue to censor changes (and challenges) to their article by those that do have such expertise.
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 10:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
We wouldn't write in the text of the article that 9/11 would be related to the persecution of homosexuals in Iran or to the indignation and outrage in Islamic countries about pictures that ridiculed Muhammed. So we shouldn't have a template in the article that creates exactly this impression. A smaller template, and one that is focused on terrorism, not on "controversies", would be acceptable. If we want to have links to Islam in general, we would need a general template, not a "controversies" template that gives a biased perspective on the topic. Cs32en 00:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence that KSM was anything more than a minor recruiter for the 911 attack. For a man to "mastermind" a massive mission that defeated the entire US fighter jet coverage and all intelligence agencies, there has to be some evidence that he drew up the aerial tactical plan while providing logistical and financial support to 19 separate individuals who entered the US without being detected. Without the use of a legal proceeding, this entire article is nothing more than fancy hearsay from third hand sources that were never cross-examined. In this so-called confession, it has been determined that KSM, a man with no aviation or tactical planning history, was brutally tortured while submitting this "testimony." None of his testimony or confessions would hold up in traffic court but wikipedia has determined that he was the mastermind. Msy2fla ( talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This article on KSM presents the false impression that he has been convicted. I suggest the following addition in order to present a more balanced and truthful account:
Several questions remain in regard to
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s role in the 911 plot. He has not been afforded a criminal trial and therefore has not been convicted of any crimes against the United States. The
911 Commission’s final report stated that KSM admitted that he lied in a interview with
Al Jazeera reporter
Yosri Fouda, that a post-capture claim “may be pure bravado” and that “KSM has provided inconsistent information” about an alleged conversation with Osama bin Laden, who has not been charged with involvement in the 9/11 plot.
[1]
While being held by US intelligence agents at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, it has been widely reported that KSM was a victim of a prolonged series of severe torture and was waterboarded at least 183 times. During this incarceration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to his interrogators that he was responsible for the 911 plot “from A to Z” and to 31 other terrorist plots around the world.
Although the
911 Commission raised concerns about KSM’s credibility, they nonetheless decided to base the majority of the 9/11 plot on his unverified statements given under duress. The Commission published the following disclaimer that preceded statements attributed to KSM:
“Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al-Qaeda members. . . . Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses . . . is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.“ [1]
The 911 Commission investigation has been criticized by its two co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton in a co-authored book entitled “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission”. ISBN 9780307276636 In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated that they considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by the Pentagon and FAA officials. Both men claimed that the 911 Commission was “designed to fail.”
The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 also raised doubts to claims by some U.S. intelligence agents that KSM was the mastermind of the attacks: “Neither the CIA or FBI has been able to confirm that KSM traveled to the U.S. or that he sent recruits to the U.S. prior to 9/11.” [2] The heavily redacted report detailed a different group of suspects in their report. [3]These suspects were affiliated with the Saudi Arabian government and there was no mention of KSM being in contact with Omar al-Bayoumi who was determined to be aiding at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. Mr. al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi Aviation Ministry, denied knowing KSM. [4]
added by msy2fla
the intro and the info box give 2 confusing figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.134.221 ( talk) 20:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a fact that there were indications as far back as June 2001, that a terrorist plot was in the works to attack The United States. Even though there was plenty of viaable indicators from various U.S., Foreign Agencies, and reputable public-private officials, most information was dismissed and/or not taken seriously. One of the failures that lead to 9/11, was various communications breakdowns, the lack of agency inter-sharing between various departments. The reports of vague or not giving enough details as to an absolute time, place, or location. Some U.S. and Foreign officials have complained later, that there were enough indicators to issue an advisory. For the record, a possible threat brief was issued to The White House in as early as a month before the eventual incident. It was reported that approximately 72 hours before the 9/11 incident, a scattered number of U.S. Naval ships and submarines were given orders to re-deploy in various areas, expecting something, but giving no clear indication as to why they were re-deployed for a possible attack. This and other communications breakdowns occured before, during, and after 9/11, that should have been considered normal operational protocol. There was no true indication of a conspiracy, but a series of breakdowns that futher confused and diverted vital backups toward national defences. Though it was investigated later that additional 9/11 plots were aborted that day, many agree that the executed events of what we call 9/11 could have been futher prevented if all involved also thought "Outside The Box". Aedwardmoch ( talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 08:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It was concluded in the investigations by the 911 Commission that a series of breakdowns of communications were a major conributing factor before, during, and after 9/11 in various degrees. I think this should be clearly mentioned in the main article as well. Aedwardmoch ( talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Aedwardmoch Aedwardmoch ( talk) 09:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
guesss sooo —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.126.80.207 (
talk)
20:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe it's relevant to mention (in the Memorial section and in the article summary) the fact that 9/11 has been declared a National Day Of Service and Rememberance by Congress, and the President. Although there is some disagreement over the appropriateness of this action, this is nevertheless the case. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.115.178 ( talk) 15:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the source is for the "6291+ injured" claim in the info box.
Thanks. 66.131.197.203 ( talk) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
"In total 2,993 people, including the hijackers, died in the attacks." Second info paragraph says.
Infobox says 2,995 including the 19 hijackers.
I know its a minor discrepancy, but I'm just curious what the sources are for the separate figures. Technically, both of those should read "confirmed" deaths, yes? The exact figure can never realistically be figured out, so perhaps they should both "approximately ####". 72.145.228.108 ( talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Eight years after 9/11, it seems to me that the narrative of September 11 attacks is shifting a bit in media. I'd like to include a paragraph or two about multiple questions unanswered by mainstream narrative to this day and source it with these articles from media around the world:
What are your opinions on these sources and on general idea of adding a paragraph or section about unanswered questions? salVNaut ( talk) 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Oneismany, please think about the style of your comment, which may be perceived as condescending. Wikipedia is reporting on relevant views, if their existence can be verified by reliable sources. It's not necessary that these views are correct or "true". We also attribute relevant views to their proponents, so we are just saying: "It's verifiable that XY says Z," we're not saying "Z is true". Cs32en 03:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The conspiracy theories that surround what happened on 9/11 are going to perpetuate ad nauseum because for some people, it's simply easier to believe in fiction than it is to know facts when you see them. There are of course a number of conspiracy theorists out there that have a lot to lose if people stop buying their books and going to high priced "seminars". But such is the fortune of misinformation and 9/11 CTers aren't alone in their efforts to capitalize on innuendo and fantasy...much money has also been made by those that have "proof" that bigfoot exists, or the Loch Ness Monster or UFO's as well.-- MONGO 04:25, 13 September 2009 (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.
|