This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 64 |
Do we really need this? [1] Wording aside ('gang of Muslims'), most of these types of incidents in the US were directed towards Muslims, not the other way around, so this seems like a bad example. Given the article's length, I would rather not bog it down with poorly worded, unnecessary, bad examples. Thoughts, everyone? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Following a discussion on Talk:Murder of Ross Parker, I have removed the descriptor Muslim from that article as a BLP concern. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed a newly added section (and related sentence in a different section) about the lawsuit against Iran. The main reason is that it doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion in the article. I've never heard of it, it doesn't seem to be particularly important and hasn't received wide-spread coverage. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan has had a decade of continual, wide-spread coverage and it only gets one paragraph. I don't see why this lawsuit is more important that the Afghan war. Weight continues to be an ongoing issue and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless this is picked up more prominently in the news or history books, it's too great a level of detail for this article. I'd probably support having it in some other appropriate page - maybe Responsibility for...' or Legal cases arising from... Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Will try and put this in the advanced knowledge debate article. Does not merit its own article as we agree the suit by itself is not notable. Edkollin ( talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose the first two sentences of the section should be replaced with this:
The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and culture. Its impact on culture extended to most aspects of life.
No objections were raised in the prior discussion to having that wording in the section, though one editor has since objected to the first sentence.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people.
The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects.
The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and their impact on culture extends to most aspects of life.
I've taken a look at the source AQFK cites above. If we use this, the first sentence or two should be based on the intro to the book. Here are a few quotes that might help.
The second sentence is evidently influenced by Quote 4, but I am not convinced it is encyclopedic to make a similar statement in the editorial voice: the revealing nature of the relationship is the opinion of the source, which requires in-text attribution.
The book discusses the wide range of emotional responses to 9/11, but I did not find reference to "wide-ranging" effects, even though these are evident. Hence I don't see a reason to keep that term, and we may be able to do better using the source material. Geometry guy 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your right I guess the rest of us can moved forward then on the one sentence - as refs opposing your position of 911 no longer being culturally relevant have been provided. So as per "Geometry guy" request above ... requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). Not the exact wording but close... Moxy ( talk) 10:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The War on Terror opened significant new fronts in the culture wars
Since September 11 and the anthrax attacks that quickly followed, the lens of emergency has had a major impact on our culture and law
Consensus through discussion naturally cannot emerge unless we see what changes people approve, your approval would be one step towards consensus and thus you know, you should like, say if you approve or not. ;)-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 attacks have significantly influenced society and this cultural impact extends to many aspects of life.
Sorry for the slow response: arguments over a couple of straightforward sentences are symptomatic of an atmosphere that this talk page needs to outgrow. No blame game: blame it 100% on me if need be. I don't want to have to "prove" anything about the current wording, nor do I want to take sides in a dispute. What I want is to find a consensus wording for the beginning of this section, wording that everyone finds acceptable because it is good wording. I proposed a rewording myself above, and The Devil's Advocate has provided a few alternatives. I prefer these wordings to the current one to the extent that they say less.
So far there seems to be only one relevant source on the table. I am willing for the article to say more, as it does now, based on that source, but in that case, I would favor in-text attribution: "As Quay and Damico note,..." or something like that. However, I would still prefer, if possible, not to rely so much a single source in this way, which can be done by saying less, or by integrating material from other sources. Geometry guy 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Got an idea for a substantial rewrite that integrates a lot of the current and suggested wording.
In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the cultural impact of the attacks demonstrates how they affected society in general.
How about that?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'm lost. Maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be, but would it be possible to get a current list of proposals in a more organized manner? I would love to submit my opinion but I don't know what's new and what's outdated. -- Tarage ( talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a summary of some of the ideas. Feel free to add further suggestions to the list, even if they are just tweaks. Maybe we can reach consensus this way? Geometry guy 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not just have a see also link to List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks at the top of the section and leave it out of the first sentence altogether?-- MONGO 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture in general."
Whatever else is said, I oppose "impacted" in this context. Tom Harrison Talk 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Friends, fellow editors. I have not been active on wikipedia a lot due to Real Life. (Work, Occupymovement, Family life.) I am older and wider now. I fully endorse this page now, its reflecting the official story of the events. It is not wikipedia's role to pioneer. If so, we would fight each other forever, trying to decide which direction to pioneer in!! As long as Mainstream Society and it's Media accepts the Official Story, and keeps disregarding all established facts which invalidate that story, it's not wikipedia's job to correct that. Wikipedia is already doing a good job providing this information, for those willing to look. But we cannot lead. We should follow. That's our job here. So, fellow searchers for beauty: enjoy what is here, and do not try to perfect it here. We should make a perfect world out there, and then wikipedia will follow ! How about 2012 ? It's a nice year to make the transistion and break our chains. With love, Xiutwel-0003 ( talk) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Per WP:BRD, here's the discussion. As of this writing, a degrading and defamatory image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in use in this article. This individual has never been convicted of involvement the 9/11 matter; and as such, presumption of innocence stands. Use of such an adversely biased image should be regarded as a gross violation of the requirements of WP:BLP; and is also not in keeping with the principle of Neutral Point Of View. The image has been commonly used in the pop culture media. If certain media outlets want to wallow in the journalistic gutter, it's their privilege to do so. That doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia to do the same. If an image must be used, one of the available neutral images should be selected. Wildbear ( talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The picture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg is entirely appropriate and adds to the article. The third paragraph is about his arrest, transportation to Gitmo, waterboarding, and confession - events directly relevent to his treatment and condition. The picture gives the reader a better understanding of, and context for, those events. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed "geo" from "geopolitics" in the cultural impact section. The issue is that "geopolitics" is too narrow a term for the political issues that are included in the article. Also, the preceding subsection is about "government policies toward terrorism" and has nothing to do with geopolitics from what I can tell. All we have are mentions of domestic political issues. The aftermath section had a bit more about geopolitics, but it is no longer in that section. Given that the impact was in the broader scope of politics we should not say "geopolitics" in that sentence.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've also been asked to comment, so I'll write some of my thoughts here. I agree that the term geopolitics is technically more narrow than the breadth of the topic might warrant. It reads well in the sentence, since 9/11 might be thought of as largely a geopolitical event. But 9/11 undeniably had considerable political repercussions as well. I'd be concerned that if the term "politics" were used alone, the reader might perceive that as being somewhat provincial, just as "geopolitics" might seem to be too confined to an international view. I don't have a good suggestion at this time, since I feel that adding too much qualification to the term would just slow down the flow in the paragraph, with little beneficial gain. I'm okay with either "geopolitics" or "politics" - I have no preference for either. If anyone comes up with a better idea, I'll be ready to put my support behind it. Wildbear ( talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
World Trade Centre Building fell with freefall acceleration.
World trade centre 7 video analysis
Pentagon attack video footage from this article:
|
In the section "Warnings Before the Attack", Condolezza Rice is listed as the Secretary of Defense. At the time of the attack, Condolezza Rice was the Secretary of State and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It is not clear who actually received the information mentioned in the article. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 ( talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake...at the time of the attacks, Condolezza Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State. She did not become the Secretary of State until GWB's second term in office. My apology for the error. JCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The quote attributed to Sec. Rice isn't in the source cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it [9] per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge appeared to have removed mention of the August memo and replaced it with duplicate material about the July meeting mistakenly. The statement that material was not supported by the source is not accurate. If it is a reference to the "several officials warned or were warned" statement that is a typical WP:SUMMARY of the section's content. Should it be about the "contentious" wording that is supported by the Blanton source. Everything is thus supported by reliable sources and some material was mistakenly removed. As to there not being discussion, that is not a legitimate basis for reverting changes.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one who put this section in the article. I merely clarified a few points. However, it certainly merits inclusion in the article as this is a very significant issue with lots of mainstream coverage. Still not finding a single claim here regarding any specific material not being supported by the sources. AQFK only said the material "may" not be supported by the sources and has so far not quantified that remark.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning
These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news.
The most contentious moments of today's nationally televised hearing of the commission investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks focused on the controversial secret intelligence briefing received by President Bush on August 6, 2001
The subsection Warnings was added by User:Ciroa on 16 Jan. If I'd read that more carefully at the time I'd have seen the Rice quote wasn't in the source cited for it, and I'd have removed it then, so shame on me for not catching that. Having now looked at the references and thought about it, it seems to me this Warnings subsection is too peripheral to the attacks to be included in this article. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems discussion about improving the section is being side-tracked by arguments for excluding the section so here is what I will do: I am going to go ahead and restore the changes I made to the section, since it seems there is no specific objection to those changes that has not already been addressed or cannot be just as easily addressed through further editing and then I will start an RfC on the talk page here about whether there should be a warning section at all.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference to a "debate" article on CT nonsense is not conducive to the warning section in a factual article. I stubbed out an article on September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks as the appropriate article. It can see also to the "debate" article. We can keep Non-debateable facts in the stubbed out article and this article and leave the nonsense in the CT articles. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit unclear to me which times are used throughout the article. Maybe it's a good idea to add something like EST (and GMT as well)? 109.178.164.59 ( talk) 19:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
IMDB has a page on this documentary, a bizarre event which happened on 9/11/2001. http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi3759118873/
This is where I first learned of this: http://jeromestueart.com/2011/09/13/the-other-hijacked-airliner-story-whitehorse-yukon-911/
99.9.112.31 ( talk) 20:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)NotWillRiker
Thanks; I hadn't looked hard enough for that wikipedia article. The filmmakers claim it couldn't have been a translation error. But what you state seems plausible. I'd never heard of this. --NotWillRiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 ( talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Will put a couple of lines about it Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks here Edkollin ( talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:SEEALSO:
“ | The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable quantity. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. | ” |
I've removed one link that was already present in the article text and several that are extremely unlikely will ever be integrated into the article text. That leaves us with two links:
I haven't looked yet, but if anyone can spot a place where these two links can be integrated, please do so. If they're not going to be integrated into the article, they should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
See Also section should list 9/11_conspiracy_theories because it is such a huge and growing topic. Thanks. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 ( talk) 08:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Should this article continue to include this section noting prior warnings of an attack?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an existing section Hand, so I will just direct people to that.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
@Dhey My "expansion" was nothing more than adding contextual information and a summary of the section. The change I made didn't even add half a kilobyte. As to the claim that I would use an endorsement from this RfC as an endorsement of my changes, my changes aren't the subject of the RfC so I wouldn't claim that. If I wanted to claim that I would have made it about my changes specifically. You can refuse to believe me, but don't expect that your suspicions will be well-founded.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is to oppose including it. Closing. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to resume working on getting the article up to Good article status. Here's the link to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The major issue at the last GA reassessment has been addressed with the cultural impact section. The other major issue was the FAQ (it was out of date and caused more confusion than it solved) and I believe that has been fixed as well. I don't think there are any major issues with the article (although I could be wrong). I think it's mostly clean-up we need to do, and fixing any new issues that have popped up since the GA reassessment. We're over WP:SIZE, for example. I've started working on fixing broken links. Just wondering who else is interested in helping out? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
File size: 616 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 83 kB
References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
Wiki text: 155 kB
Prose size (text only): 49 kB (7994 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1457 B
Images: 531 kB
Comments on prose, just covering the lead section.
Yes, it's a direct quote, but it is easy enough to figure out how to shorten that quote to avoid three uses of "despite" in two lines. And is it really "once against"? Is that part of the quote? If so, a "sic" is needed.In the 1998 fatwa, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans: "despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million ... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres,
I've removed "led by Osama bin Laden" from "Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden" in the info box. [16] The reason why is although Bin Laden was Al Qaeda's leader, he wasn't the leader of the attacks themselves. He approved and financed the attacks, but my understanding is that Mohammed Atta or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led or organized the attacks. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this page about the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York. Myplanet123 ( talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article detail the events of how the terrorists and their weapons got past security? (Would seem particularly notable considering the various air transport security measures that were altered in the aftermath.) Cesiumfrog ( talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead describes the 4 attacks as "striking the area of New York City and Washington". Technically that's incorrect. Although United 93 was intended to strike Washington, it did not and, of course, crashed in Pennsylvania. Better wording might be to add the region of Pennsylvania where 93 went down. 70.72.223.215 ( talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a small suggestion, and I understand why this article is locked. The caption should read "From top to bottom, left to right," as the explanation of each image is formatted in this way. These images may seem self explanatory now, but in ten years, or twenty, or a hundred, they may not be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.168.157 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, March 21, 2012 Correction: I disagree with this it should be left "September 11th 2001 Twin Towers" Chrisloveswow ( talk) 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Chris
I am proposing merging the contents of Stairwell A to this article because there is a absolutely nothing significant about that staircase other than it helping saved 18 lives on 9/11. I do not think anything else happened on it before the attacks that is worth mentioning. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect the staircase article to this one and put the contents here, which can easily be done since the staircase article is extremely short and not likely to be expanded. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better. If there is an informal penalty or reluctance to allow a re-creation, the I OPPOSE merger because there is plenty to write about this topic, the reasons while the structure held, the metallurgy, etc. Auchansa ( talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better.- There's only so much that can be said about the subject. In the context of this article, it doesn't deserve more than a paragraph or so. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the link for terrorists incorrectly links to the terrorism article and not the terrorist one which is strange. I am not sure how you change the link so could someone else do this please? Tcla75 ( talk) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, I have recently found an Israeli website www.debka.co.il, which is written in English and in Hebrew. In English the site is called debkafile, in Hebrew tikdebka. The Hebrew version gives under "mi anachnu" (who are we - or - about us) an interesting text. It says, that debka had foreknowledge of the attacks, already in May 2000, 16 months before the actual attacks. I would like to translate this Hebrew text for Wikipedia. Since this is the first time that I ever try to edit a text in Wikipedia I just start by writing this here. Greetings, Martin Peaceinchrist ( talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
12.7.3 from September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack, Collapse of the World Trade Center: The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers likely would have remained standing.[262] A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.[263][264]
Aviation fuel (Jet fuel/ Jet A-1 is a mixture of kerosene and antifreeze) Kerosene burns at 430*F. Gasoline burns at 500*, wood and books burn at 450*, acrylic plastic burns at 560*, nylon at 530*, cotton at 250*, rubber at 320*, vaporized LNG (Methane) 1K* F; most of the jet fuel/kerosene ignited in the 200x400 ft fireballs outside the towers on impact. There was nothing really in the towers to burn at the +1,000*F to weaken 47 three inch thick CORE box column beams and worldwide in the ten years since, how many other building have fallen demolition style like the three did in one day Sept 2001, esp since one of the three was not even hit by an airplane? Bhug ( talk) 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to be of minor relevance for a very general article such as this one. It's also unclear whether there was a separate investigation on the stairwell. Cs32en Talk to me 21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Stairwell A
|
---|
Stairwell AStairwell A was the lone stairway left intact after the second plane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks. It was believed to have remained intact until the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am. 14 people were able to escape the floors located at the impact zone (including Stanley Praimnath, who saw the plane coming at him), and 4 people from the floors above the impact zone. Numerous police hotline operators who received calls from individuals inside the South Tower were not well informed of the situation as it rapidly unfolded in the South Tower. Many operators told callers not to descend the tower on their own, even though it is now believed that Stairwell A was most likely passable at and above the point of impact. [1] Note Stairwell A is different from the so-called Survivors' Staircase. |
Here's a slight rewrite to the motivations section. The new material is Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism. There's a little rearrangement, but most of the rest is formatting. Feel free to make changes to the page in my userspace. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's problematic that, under Attackers and their Background, the fact that the U.S. supported the mujahadeen (and indirectly Osama bin Laden) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the Cold War isn't mentioned. This is a prime example of how shotty and desperate U.S. foreign policy contributed to the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and does a disservice in documenting and explaining the reprehensible 9/11 attacks. -- Retrospector87 ( talk) 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The 757 is not a widebody aircraft, which is typically defined as a twin-aisle plane. If this has been previously posted, my apologies. I looked for 15 minutes or so and could not find another similar reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.231 ( talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The Iconography of 9-11 is a short article with, I believe, some good content, but not enough for an independent article. There has been some discussion on that Talk page with, at this point, no dissent to the suggestion. Comments? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I think the "date" bit in the infobox should be changed. It currently says the attacks began at 8:46 a.m., the time the first flight hit the World Trade Center, but it actually began much earlier. According to the timeline the first aircraft (Flight 11) was hijacked at 8:14, so I would propose changing the start time to 8:14. Thoughts? Michael5046 ( talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
September 11 is U.S. date standard |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The title is wrong it should actually be 11 September, the day comes BEFORE the month!!-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
In the name of impartiality, there should be mention of the hotly disputed attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Millions if not billions of people think it was an inside job. Given that the opening paragraph assumes the official story, it would add more credibility to Wikipedia to mention that a false flag operation is suspected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.254.5 ( talk) 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting comments from this section, saying that there are personal attacks. On the other hand, someone call pseudoscience / denialism to peer reviewable scientific papers.
So, now for some science:
Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11, June '09 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.81.42.85 (
talk) 23:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the poster at the top. The science for the official theory is bad science, very bad science. Its been proven there were controlled demolitions. But consider this: too much has happened since 9/11 based on 9/11 in fact justified by 9/11 that when the bad science is exposed the criminals will be tried. They know this. Hence they man this site and keep up the charade. So be it, lets let it play out. Only bout 46% of the population accept the official Al Q conspiracy, and shrinking....tick tick times running out baddies -- HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 08:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is terribly biased. There are two main oppositions to the official story neither of which is mentioned in the article. One is the idea of a False Flag attack, which is to say that the US Government had advanced knowledge of the attack, but chose to ignore it for political reasons. The other is the Inside Job theory, that the US Government itself was behind the attack. Neither of these are mainstream, but both have enough visibility that it is irresponsible not to mention them and to add links to the main articles. Mthed ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article very very unbalanced which is against Wikipedia policy. So called minority views are supposed to be represented. 30% believe Israel the USA and another did it. (see Wikipedia stats) 25% dont know who did it, but dont accept that it was Al Q. The CIA Bin Laden Tapes. Scroll down and go to A - E Bin laden and spot MR McGoo Bin Laden. The bin Laden tapes are frauds it seems. BTW I request we have this in the article, with some reliable refs of course. Discussion please. The http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_binladen01.htm HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution. Just saying. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ But wait theres more. In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail." Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote that the US government made "a decision not to tell the truth about what happened," and that the NORAD "tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Kean said, "We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth." Comments? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually thats good faith. If people block reliable referenced material in wiki that is against policy. If the other version of 9/11 is proven in time the criminals will be a new set of criminals. Thats all Im saying. The article is unbalanced and needs a major overhaul. I dont have time to do it BTW, hopefully someday someone will. Im amused also, at you. Laughs all round. IMHO Its just amazing so many have been fooled for so long and how they defend the system that has duped them. Less than 46% believe the official version, (from Wikipedia). That is not a majority. BTW dont vandalize this page again with the hat tag. Its very childish. I note you have many warnings about personal attacks and other editing complaints. You seem to have an attitude problem based on past edit warnings HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What is a static? Some sort of POV acronym? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the main point, you have had several editors tell you that your requested edits are not in line with Wikipedia policy. You seem to have been around long enough to understand this, so I hope you will simply let it go and move on. However, if you do continue to try to push POV onto this page, you may find yourself under sanctions. Perhaps I should add that warning to your talk page since you seem unaware. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't really been following this discussion, but the "set up to fail" quote is
not important enough to include in this article. I'm surprised this discussion has lasted as long as it has. Someone should close it down. It's a waste of time to dwell on this further.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
ps. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium.
HumusTheCowboy (
talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article. The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. So NPOV could be easily incorporated here in this article but for unknown reasons its not. These reasons seem to be emotionally charged and POV. They may be related to previous edit conflicts. But whatever they are they have no place in Wikipedia. The defence to not have a NPOV using WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE is unfounded. Re WP:DUE 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents' . As evidenced by these New York polls. The first Zoby poll in August 2004, found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent. The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. 42% think 9/11 was a Cover-up. Responses: 43% Not Aware of World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11. The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Re Humus, 'you seem to think this article is run by paid operatives of the US government or that we are high-level government officials'. Not so Toa, I sense you are looking for an excuse to tag another thread prematurely. Why is that BTW? NO Reread more carefully, I know its subtle, but its called critical thinking
HumusTheCowboy (
talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I in fact offer you only the chance to upgrade the article to true NPOV status. I confess to that as an agenda. Do not lecture as if Im at the wrong Encyclopedia Acroterion. Ask instead yourself questions, perhaps the first being, why are you all so edgy about making this article NPOV? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 01:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway boys. Lets keep this openness up and see who else comes in to add to it in the interest of Wikipedia and knowledge, which is why we are here after all. Now like you all, being the Amatuer editors we are, I have Commitments now HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Not moved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – This could be a little more specific, because an "attack" could be something as simple as punching someone. This was far, far more than that. Unreal7 ( talk) 10:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I know everyone knows what it is. I just meant it could be a little better described. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Date of Bin Laden death is correct | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
The second paragraph of this article states that bin Laden was located and killed in May of 2011, which is incorrect. The correct year should be 2012. |
There might have been a fifth to-be hijacked flight, United Flight 23, see ABC 7 WJLA Were there other planes on September 11?. 71.231.224.182 ( talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The wording "political arena" replaced "geopolitics" following a discussion on the talk page about the wording. An editor subsequently restored the old wording and I do not see any indication that the revert was discussed here, though the editor said there was another discussion which got consensus for the change. I think "geopolitics" is far too narrow a term for what we are saying in that sentence and the previous wording should be restored. Thoughts?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no "POV-pushing" angle here, dude. Tarage has basically said "do it", and I happen to agree that I should be able to just fix it, but I know that is just going to mean one of you reverts it with the typical "no consensus" argument. A whole lot of energy has been wasted just to keep this small change from sticking, based off little other than "I just don't like it" arguments. No decent argument has been given for keeping "geopolitics" here.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Here is some text from an old article, in case you would like to use any of it here. As you will see, it is very light on for references unfortunately. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_September_following_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=517485208 Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following addition: [22]
The Hamburg cell in Germany included radical Islamists who eventually came to be key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. "The Hamburg connection". BBC News. August 19, 2005. Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and sixteen others were all members. Chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report detailing the history of the Hamburg Cell". 9/11 Commission.
Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 ( talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and sixteen others were all members. | ” |
Read it here: [23]. (paywalled, sorry). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the following addition to the lead might be informative:
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours, and the debris from the collapse destroyed all the other buildings in the complex.
It seems to be a widely held misconception amongst "conspiracy theorists" that only three of the buildings were destroyed, and a widely held misconception elsewhere that no other buildings surrounding the towers were destroyed. Adding this information to the lead may highlight a fact which seems to have been overlooked. At the same time, I am not sure whether this information is important enough to merit inclusion in the lead; Wikipedia isn't really about "writing for an audience", is it. What do you think? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't see how there could be so much destruction without the complex being destroyed. I tend to favor something like the proposed wording, but am open to other ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
@TDA...Not an exaggeration in the least...your side view of 6WTC doesn't show that the center of the building, including 80% of the roof was crushed all the way to below street level. The Marriott image shows only the bottom few floors...it used to be a 22 storey building! None of the buildings survived the attacks...they were all either already collapsed or in danger of doing so and HAD to be removed...are you arguing just to be contrary or unable to properly examine even basic photographic documentation?-- MONGO 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Two commercial airliners were hijacked, and each was flown into one of the two 110-story towers. The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building. As the towers collapsed, massive debris clouds consisting of crushed and broken building components fell onto and blew into surrounding structures, causing extensive collateral damage and, in some cases, igniting fires and causing additional collapses. In total, 10 major buildings experienced partial or total collapse and approximately 30 million square feet of commercial office space was removed from service, of which 12 million belonged to the WTC Complex. — Executive Summary, FEMA 403
a collapse or partial collapse of a building represents a 100% damage ratio, while moderate damage would be an approximately 20% damage ratio.[p.8]...Overall, property damage in the devastation zone surrounding the WTC complex totals $22.7 billion.[p.9]
— Source: Grossi, P. (2009). "Property Damage and Insured Losses from the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks" (PDF). Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. 15 (2). doi: 10.2202/1554-8597.1163.
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Debris from the collapse of the towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex and major damage to ten other major structures in the area.
Other suggestions, corrections, or tweaks are, of course, more than welcome. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 64 |
Do we really need this? [1] Wording aside ('gang of Muslims'), most of these types of incidents in the US were directed towards Muslims, not the other way around, so this seems like a bad example. Given the article's length, I would rather not bog it down with poorly worded, unnecessary, bad examples. Thoughts, everyone? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Following a discussion on Talk:Murder of Ross Parker, I have removed the descriptor Muslim from that article as a BLP concern. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 19:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed a newly added section (and related sentence in a different section) about the lawsuit against Iran. The main reason is that it doesn't seem to be significant enough for inclusion in the article. I've never heard of it, it doesn't seem to be particularly important and hasn't received wide-spread coverage. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan has had a decade of continual, wide-spread coverage and it only gets one paragraph. I don't see why this lawsuit is more important that the Afghan war. Weight continues to be an ongoing issue and this seems to be a step in the wrong direction. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless this is picked up more prominently in the news or history books, it's too great a level of detail for this article. I'd probably support having it in some other appropriate page - maybe Responsibility for...' or Legal cases arising from... Tom Harrison Talk 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Will try and put this in the advanced knowledge debate article. Does not merit its own article as we agree the suit by itself is not notable. Edkollin ( talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose the first two sentences of the section should be replaced with this:
The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and culture. Its impact on culture extended to most aspects of life.
No objections were raised in the prior discussion to having that wording in the section, though one editor has since objected to the first sentence.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The impact of 9/11 extends beyond geopolitics into society and culture. The wide range of cultural effects of the attacks reveal how they influenced ordinary people.
The 9/11 attacks have influenced society significantly and their impact has extended beyond geopolitics into wide-ranging cultural effects.
The 9/11 attacks have had a significant effect on society and their impact on culture extends to most aspects of life.
I've taken a look at the source AQFK cites above. If we use this, the first sentence or two should be based on the intro to the book. Here are a few quotes that might help.
The second sentence is evidently influenced by Quote 4, but I am not convinced it is encyclopedic to make a similar statement in the editorial voice: the revealing nature of the relationship is the opinion of the source, which requires in-text attribution.
The book discusses the wide range of emotional responses to 9/11, but I did not find reference to "wide-ranging" effects, even though these are evident. Hence I don't see a reason to keep that term, and we may be able to do better using the source material. Geometry guy 22:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your right I guess the rest of us can moved forward then on the one sentence - as refs opposing your position of 911 no longer being culturally relevant have been provided. So as per "Geometry guy" request above ... requiring sources ("significant effect", "wide range", "most aspects"). Not the exact wording but close... Moxy ( talk) 10:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The War on Terror opened significant new fronts in the culture wars
Since September 11 and the anthrax attacks that quickly followed, the lens of emergency has had a major impact on our culture and law
Consensus through discussion naturally cannot emerge unless we see what changes people approve, your approval would be one step towards consensus and thus you know, you should like, say if you approve or not. ;)-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 attacks have significantly influenced society and this cultural impact extends to many aspects of life.
Sorry for the slow response: arguments over a couple of straightforward sentences are symptomatic of an atmosphere that this talk page needs to outgrow. No blame game: blame it 100% on me if need be. I don't want to have to "prove" anything about the current wording, nor do I want to take sides in a dispute. What I want is to find a consensus wording for the beginning of this section, wording that everyone finds acceptable because it is good wording. I proposed a rewording myself above, and The Devil's Advocate has provided a few alternatives. I prefer these wordings to the current one to the extent that they say less.
So far there seems to be only one relevant source on the table. I am willing for the article to say more, as it does now, based on that source, but in that case, I would favor in-text attribution: "As Quay and Damico note,..." or something like that. However, I would still prefer, if possible, not to rely so much a single source in this way, which can be done by saying less, or by integrating material from other sources. Geometry guy 02:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Got an idea for a substantial rewrite that integrates a lot of the current and suggested wording.
In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the cultural impact of the attacks demonstrates how they affected society in general.
How about that?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 23:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay I'm lost. Maybe I'm not as sharp as I used to be, but would it be possible to get a current list of proposals in a more organized manner? I would love to submit my opinion but I don't know what's new and what's outdated. -- Tarage ( talk) 00:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Here is a summary of some of the ideas. Feel free to add further suggestions to the list, even if they are just tweaks. Maybe we can reach consensus this way? Geometry guy 01:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Why not just have a see also link to List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks at the top of the section and leave it out of the first sentence altogether?-- MONGO 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"In addition to the political ramifications of 9/11, the attacks have had a broad impact on society and culture in general."
Whatever else is said, I oppose "impacted" in this context. Tom Harrison Talk 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:DNFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Friends, fellow editors. I have not been active on wikipedia a lot due to Real Life. (Work, Occupymovement, Family life.) I am older and wider now. I fully endorse this page now, its reflecting the official story of the events. It is not wikipedia's role to pioneer. If so, we would fight each other forever, trying to decide which direction to pioneer in!! As long as Mainstream Society and it's Media accepts the Official Story, and keeps disregarding all established facts which invalidate that story, it's not wikipedia's job to correct that. Wikipedia is already doing a good job providing this information, for those willing to look. But we cannot lead. We should follow. That's our job here. So, fellow searchers for beauty: enjoy what is here, and do not try to perfect it here. We should make a perfect world out there, and then wikipedia will follow ! How about 2012 ? It's a nice year to make the transistion and break our chains. With love, Xiutwel-0003 ( talk) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Per WP:BRD, here's the discussion. As of this writing, a degrading and defamatory image of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in use in this article. This individual has never been convicted of involvement the 9/11 matter; and as such, presumption of innocence stands. Use of such an adversely biased image should be regarded as a gross violation of the requirements of WP:BLP; and is also not in keeping with the principle of Neutral Point Of View. The image has been commonly used in the pop culture media. If certain media outlets want to wallow in the journalistic gutter, it's their privilege to do so. That doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia to do the same. If an image must be used, one of the available neutral images should be selected. Wildbear ( talk) 04:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The picture Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg is entirely appropriate and adds to the article. The third paragraph is about his arrest, transportation to Gitmo, waterboarding, and confession - events directly relevent to his treatment and condition. The picture gives the reader a better understanding of, and context for, those events. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed "geo" from "geopolitics" in the cultural impact section. The issue is that "geopolitics" is too narrow a term for the political issues that are included in the article. Also, the preceding subsection is about "government policies toward terrorism" and has nothing to do with geopolitics from what I can tell. All we have are mentions of domestic political issues. The aftermath section had a bit more about geopolitics, but it is no longer in that section. Given that the impact was in the broader scope of politics we should not say "geopolitics" in that sentence.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 04:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I've also been asked to comment, so I'll write some of my thoughts here. I agree that the term geopolitics is technically more narrow than the breadth of the topic might warrant. It reads well in the sentence, since 9/11 might be thought of as largely a geopolitical event. But 9/11 undeniably had considerable political repercussions as well. I'd be concerned that if the term "politics" were used alone, the reader might perceive that as being somewhat provincial, just as "geopolitics" might seem to be too confined to an international view. I don't have a good suggestion at this time, since I feel that adding too much qualification to the term would just slow down the flow in the paragraph, with little beneficial gain. I'm okay with either "geopolitics" or "politics" - I have no preference for either. If anyone comes up with a better idea, I'll be ready to put my support behind it. Wildbear ( talk) 06:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
World Trade Centre Building fell with freefall acceleration.
World trade centre 7 video analysis
Pentagon attack video footage from this article:
|
In the section "Warnings Before the Attack", Condolezza Rice is listed as the Secretary of Defense. At the time of the attack, Condolezza Rice was the Secretary of State and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. It is not clear who actually received the information mentioned in the article. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 ( talk) 13:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
My mistake...at the time of the attacks, Condolezza Rice was the National Security Advisor, not the Secretary of State. She did not become the Secretary of State until GWB's second term in office. My apology for the error. JCF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.226.19 ( talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
The quote attributed to Sec. Rice isn't in the source cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it [9] per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge appeared to have removed mention of the August memo and replaced it with duplicate material about the July meeting mistakenly. The statement that material was not supported by the source is not accurate. If it is a reference to the "several officials warned or were warned" statement that is a typical WP:SUMMARY of the section's content. Should it be about the "contentious" wording that is supported by the Blanton source. Everything is thus supported by reliable sources and some material was mistakenly removed. As to there not being discussion, that is not a legitimate basis for reverting changes.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one who put this section in the article. I merely clarified a few points. However, it certainly merits inclusion in the article as this is a very significant issue with lots of mainstream coverage. Still not finding a single claim here regarding any specific material not being supported by the sources. AQFK only said the material "may" not be supported by the sources and has so far not quantified that remark.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," had generated the most contentious questioning
These contrasting interpretations dominated the weekend's news.
The most contentious moments of today's nationally televised hearing of the commission investigating the September 11th terrorist attacks focused on the controversial secret intelligence briefing received by President Bush on August 6, 2001
The subsection Warnings was added by User:Ciroa on 16 Jan. If I'd read that more carefully at the time I'd have seen the Rice quote wasn't in the source cited for it, and I'd have removed it then, so shame on me for not catching that. Having now looked at the references and thought about it, it seems to me this Warnings subsection is too peripheral to the attacks to be included in this article. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 12:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems discussion about improving the section is being side-tracked by arguments for excluding the section so here is what I will do: I am going to go ahead and restore the changes I made to the section, since it seems there is no specific objection to those changes that has not already been addressed or cannot be just as easily addressed through further editing and then I will start an RfC on the talk page here about whether there should be a warning section at all.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The reference to a "debate" article on CT nonsense is not conducive to the warning section in a factual article. I stubbed out an article on September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks as the appropriate article. It can see also to the "debate" article. We can keep Non-debateable facts in the stubbed out article and this article and leave the nonsense in the CT articles. -- DHeyward ( talk) 01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit unclear to me which times are used throughout the article. Maybe it's a good idea to add something like EST (and GMT as well)? 109.178.164.59 ( talk) 19:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
IMDB has a page on this documentary, a bizarre event which happened on 9/11/2001. http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi3759118873/
This is where I first learned of this: http://jeromestueart.com/2011/09/13/the-other-hijacked-airliner-story-whitehorse-yukon-911/
99.9.112.31 ( talk) 20:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)NotWillRiker
Thanks; I hadn't looked hard enough for that wikipedia article. The filmmakers claim it couldn't have been a translation error. But what you state seems plausible. I'd never heard of this. --NotWillRiker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 ( talk) 00:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Will put a couple of lines about it Closings and cancellations following the September 11 attacks here Edkollin ( talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:SEEALSO:
“ | The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable quantity. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section. | ” |
I've removed one link that was already present in the article text and several that are extremely unlikely will ever be integrated into the article text. That leaves us with two links:
I haven't looked yet, but if anyone can spot a place where these two links can be integrated, please do so. If they're not going to be integrated into the article, they should be deleted. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
See Also section should list 9/11_conspiracy_theories because it is such a huge and growing topic. Thanks. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 ( talk) 08:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Should this article continue to include this section noting prior warnings of an attack?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an existing section Hand, so I will just direct people to that.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
@Dhey My "expansion" was nothing more than adding contextual information and a summary of the section. The change I made didn't even add half a kilobyte. As to the claim that I would use an endorsement from this RfC as an endorsement of my changes, my changes aren't the subject of the RfC so I wouldn't claim that. If I wanted to claim that I would have made it about my changes specifically. You can refuse to believe me, but don't expect that your suspicions will be well-founded.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is to oppose including it. Closing. -- DHeyward ( talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to resume working on getting the article up to Good article status. Here's the link to the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The major issue at the last GA reassessment has been addressed with the cultural impact section. The other major issue was the FAQ (it was out of date and caused more confusion than it solved) and I believe that has been fixed as well. I don't think there are any major issues with the article (although I could be wrong). I think it's mostly clean-up we need to do, and fixing any new issues that have popped up since the GA reassessment. We're over WP:SIZE, for example. I've started working on fixing broken links. Just wondering who else is interested in helping out? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
File size: 616 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 83 kB
References (including all HTML code): 20 kB
Wiki text: 155 kB
Prose size (text only): 49 kB (7994 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 1457 B
Images: 531 kB
Comments on prose, just covering the lead section.
Yes, it's a direct quote, but it is easy enough to figure out how to shorten that quote to avoid three uses of "despite" in two lines. And is it really "once against"? Is that part of the quote? If so, a "sic" is needed.In the 1998 fatwa, al-Qaeda identified the Iraq sanctions as a reason to kill Americans: "despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million ... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres,
I've removed "led by Osama bin Laden" from "Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden" in the info box. [16] The reason why is although Bin Laden was Al Qaeda's leader, he wasn't the leader of the attacks themselves. He approved and financed the attacks, but my understanding is that Mohammed Atta or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed led or organized the attacks. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this page about the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York. Myplanet123 ( talk) 06:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article detail the events of how the terrorists and their weapons got past security? (Would seem particularly notable considering the various air transport security measures that were altered in the aftermath.) Cesiumfrog ( talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The lead describes the 4 attacks as "striking the area of New York City and Washington". Technically that's incorrect. Although United 93 was intended to strike Washington, it did not and, of course, crashed in Pennsylvania. Better wording might be to add the region of Pennsylvania where 93 went down. 70.72.223.215 ( talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a small suggestion, and I understand why this article is locked. The caption should read "From top to bottom, left to right," as the explanation of each image is formatted in this way. These images may seem self explanatory now, but in ten years, or twenty, or a hundred, they may not be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.168.157 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, March 21, 2012 Correction: I disagree with this it should be left "September 11th 2001 Twin Towers" Chrisloveswow ( talk) 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Chris
I am proposing merging the contents of Stairwell A to this article because there is a absolutely nothing significant about that staircase other than it helping saved 18 lives on 9/11. I do not think anything else happened on it before the attacks that is worth mentioning. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect the staircase article to this one and put the contents here, which can easily be done since the staircase article is extremely short and not likely to be expanded. The Legendary Ranger ( talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better. If there is an informal penalty or reluctance to allow a re-creation, the I OPPOSE merger because there is plenty to write about this topic, the reasons while the structure held, the metallurgy, etc. Auchansa ( talk) 06:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is merged, then there should be no penalty or debate if someone re-writes it to be much longer and better.- There's only so much that can be said about the subject. In the context of this article, it doesn't deserve more than a paragraph or so. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 07:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the link for terrorists incorrectly links to the terrorism article and not the terrorist one which is strange. I am not sure how you change the link so could someone else do this please? Tcla75 ( talk) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hallo, I have recently found an Israeli website www.debka.co.il, which is written in English and in Hebrew. In English the site is called debkafile, in Hebrew tikdebka. The Hebrew version gives under "mi anachnu" (who are we - or - about us) an interesting text. It says, that debka had foreknowledge of the attacks, already in May 2000, 16 months before the actual attacks. I would like to translate this Hebrew text for Wikipedia. Since this is the first time that I ever try to edit a text in Wikipedia I just start by writing this here. Greetings, Martin Peaceinchrist ( talk) 16:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
12.7.3 from September_11,_2001_Terrorist_Attack, Collapse of the World Trade Center: The NIST found that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, had this not occurred, the towers likely would have remained standing.[262] A study published by researchers of Purdue University confirmed that, if the thermal insulation on the core columns were scoured off and column temperatures were elevated to approximately 700 °C (1,292 °F), the fire would have been sufficient to initiate collapse.[263][264]
Aviation fuel (Jet fuel/ Jet A-1 is a mixture of kerosene and antifreeze) Kerosene burns at 430*F. Gasoline burns at 500*, wood and books burn at 450*, acrylic plastic burns at 560*, nylon at 530*, cotton at 250*, rubber at 320*, vaporized LNG (Methane) 1K* F; most of the jet fuel/kerosene ignited in the 200x400 ft fireballs outside the towers on impact. There was nothing really in the towers to burn at the +1,000*F to weaken 47 three inch thick CORE box column beams and worldwide in the ten years since, how many other building have fallen demolition style like the three did in one day Sept 2001, esp since one of the three was not even hit by an airplane? Bhug ( talk) 06:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
This section seems to be of minor relevance for a very general article such as this one. It's also unclear whether there was a separate investigation on the stairwell. Cs32en Talk to me 21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Stairwell A
|
---|
Stairwell AStairwell A was the lone stairway left intact after the second plane hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks. It was believed to have remained intact until the South Tower collapsed at 9:59 am. 14 people were able to escape the floors located at the impact zone (including Stanley Praimnath, who saw the plane coming at him), and 4 people from the floors above the impact zone. Numerous police hotline operators who received calls from individuals inside the South Tower were not well informed of the situation as it rapidly unfolded in the South Tower. Many operators told callers not to descend the tower on their own, even though it is now believed that Stairwell A was most likely passable at and above the point of impact. [1] Note Stairwell A is different from the so-called Survivors' Staircase. |
Here's a slight rewrite to the motivations section. The new material is Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism. There's a little rearrangement, but most of the rest is formatting. Feel free to make changes to the page in my userspace. Tom Harrison Talk 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's problematic that, under Attackers and their Background, the fact that the U.S. supported the mujahadeen (and indirectly Osama bin Laden) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the Cold War isn't mentioned. This is a prime example of how shotty and desperate U.S. foreign policy contributed to the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and does a disservice in documenting and explaining the reprehensible 9/11 attacks. -- Retrospector87 ( talk) 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The 757 is not a widebody aircraft, which is typically defined as a twin-aisle plane. If this has been previously posted, my apologies. I looked for 15 minutes or so and could not find another similar reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.231 ( talk) 01:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The Iconography of 9-11 is a short article with, I believe, some good content, but not enough for an independent article. There has been some discussion on that Talk page with, at this point, no dissent to the suggestion. Comments? David_FLXD (Talk) 17:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I think the "date" bit in the infobox should be changed. It currently says the attacks began at 8:46 a.m., the time the first flight hit the World Trade Center, but it actually began much earlier. According to the timeline the first aircraft (Flight 11) was hijacked at 8:14, so I would propose changing the start time to 8:14. Thoughts? Michael5046 ( talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
September 11 is U.S. date standard |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The title is wrong it should actually be 11 September, the day comes BEFORE the month!!-- Collingwood26 ( talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC) |
In the name of impartiality, there should be mention of the hotly disputed attribution of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Millions if not billions of people think it was an inside job. Given that the opening paragraph assumes the official story, it would add more credibility to Wikipedia to mention that a false flag operation is suspected by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.254.5 ( talk) 01:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting comments from this section, saying that there are personal attacks. On the other hand, someone call pseudoscience / denialism to peer reviewable scientific papers.
So, now for some science:
Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
29 Structural/Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Destruction of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11, June '09 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
188.81.42.85 (
talk) 23:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the poster at the top. The science for the official theory is bad science, very bad science. Its been proven there were controlled demolitions. But consider this: too much has happened since 9/11 based on 9/11 in fact justified by 9/11 that when the bad science is exposed the criminals will be tried. They know this. Hence they man this site and keep up the charade. So be it, lets let it play out. Only bout 46% of the population accept the official Al Q conspiracy, and shrinking....tick tick times running out baddies -- HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 08:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is terribly biased. There are two main oppositions to the official story neither of which is mentioned in the article. One is the idea of a False Flag attack, which is to say that the US Government had advanced knowledge of the attack, but chose to ignore it for political reasons. The other is the Inside Job theory, that the US Government itself was behind the attack. Neither of these are mainstream, but both have enough visibility that it is irresponsible not to mention them and to add links to the main articles. Mthed ( talk) 17:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This article very very unbalanced which is against Wikipedia policy. So called minority views are supposed to be represented. 30% believe Israel the USA and another did it. (see Wikipedia stats) 25% dont know who did it, but dont accept that it was Al Q. The CIA Bin Laden Tapes. Scroll down and go to A - E Bin laden and spot MR McGoo Bin Laden. The bin Laden tapes are frauds it seems. BTW I request we have this in the article, with some reliable refs of course. Discussion please. The http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_binladen01.htm HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution. Just saying. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ But wait theres more. In their book, the chairman and vice chairman, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail." Senior counsel John Farmer, Jr., wrote that the US government made "a decision not to tell the truth about what happened," and that the NORAD "tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public." Kean said, "We to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth." Comments? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 08:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually thats good faith. If people block reliable referenced material in wiki that is against policy. If the other version of 9/11 is proven in time the criminals will be a new set of criminals. Thats all Im saying. The article is unbalanced and needs a major overhaul. I dont have time to do it BTW, hopefully someday someone will. Im amused also, at you. Laughs all round. IMHO Its just amazing so many have been fooled for so long and how they defend the system that has duped them. Less than 46% believe the official version, (from Wikipedia). That is not a majority. BTW dont vandalize this page again with the hat tag. Its very childish. I note you have many warnings about personal attacks and other editing complaints. You seem to have an attitude problem based on past edit warnings HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
What is a static? Some sort of POV acronym? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Getting back to the main point, you have had several editors tell you that your requested edits are not in line with Wikipedia policy. You seem to have been around long enough to understand this, so I hope you will simply let it go and move on. However, if you do continue to try to push POV onto this page, you may find yourself under sanctions. Perhaps I should add that warning to your talk page since you seem unaware. -- Tarage ( talk) 06:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I haven't really been following this discussion, but the "set up to fail" quote is
not important enough to include in this article. I'm surprised this discussion has lasted as long as it has. Someone should close it down. It's a waste of time to dwell on this further.
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
ps. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium.
HumusTheCowboy (
talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
|
WP:NOTAFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article. The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. So NPOV could be easily incorporated here in this article but for unknown reasons its not. These reasons seem to be emotionally charged and POV. They may be related to previous edit conflicts. But whatever they are they have no place in Wikipedia. The defence to not have a NPOV using WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE is unfounded. Re WP:DUE 'If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents' . As evidenced by these New York polls. The first Zoby poll in August 2004, found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent. The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. 42% think 9/11 was a Cover-up. Responses: 43% Not Aware of World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11. The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30% of those polled seek immediate impeachment. HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 23:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Re Humus, 'you seem to think this article is run by paid operatives of the US government or that we are high-level government officials'. Not so Toa, I sense you are looking for an excuse to tag another thread prematurely. Why is that BTW? NO Reread more carefully, I know its subtle, but its called critical thinking
HumusTheCowboy (
talk) 01:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I in fact offer you only the chance to upgrade the article to true NPOV status. I confess to that as an agenda. Do not lecture as if Im at the wrong Encyclopedia Acroterion. Ask instead yourself questions, perhaps the first being, why are you all so edgy about making this article NPOV? HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 01:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway boys. Lets keep this openness up and see who else comes in to add to it in the interest of Wikipedia and knowledge, which is why we are here after all. Now like you all, being the Amatuer editors we are, I have Commitments now HumusTheCowboy ( talk) 02:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Not moved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC) September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks – This could be a little more specific, because an "attack" could be something as simple as punching someone. This was far, far more than that. Unreal7 ( talk) 10:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I know everyone knows what it is. I just meant it could be a little better described. Unreal7 ( talk) 20:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
|
Date of Bin Laden death is correct | ||
---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||
The second paragraph of this article states that bin Laden was located and killed in May of 2011, which is incorrect. The correct year should be 2012. |
There might have been a fifth to-be hijacked flight, United Flight 23, see ABC 7 WJLA Were there other planes on September 11?. 71.231.224.182 ( talk) 23:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The wording "political arena" replaced "geopolitics" following a discussion on the talk page about the wording. An editor subsequently restored the old wording and I do not see any indication that the revert was discussed here, though the editor said there was another discussion which got consensus for the change. I think "geopolitics" is far too narrow a term for what we are saying in that sentence and the previous wording should be restored. Thoughts?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 22:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no "POV-pushing" angle here, dude. Tarage has basically said "do it", and I happen to agree that I should be able to just fix it, but I know that is just going to mean one of you reverts it with the typical "no consensus" argument. A whole lot of energy has been wasted just to keep this small change from sticking, based off little other than "I just don't like it" arguments. No decent argument has been given for keeping "geopolitics" here.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Here is some text from an old article, in case you would like to use any of it here. As you will see, it is very light on for references unfortunately. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_for_September_following_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=517485208 Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 11:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following addition: [22]
The Hamburg cell in Germany included radical Islamists who eventually came to be key operatives in the 9/11 attacks. "The Hamburg connection". BBC News. August 19, 2005. Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and sixteen others were all members. Chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report detailing the history of the Hamburg Cell". 9/11 Commission.
Any objections to adding it in? Tobby72 ( talk) 20:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
“ | Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Ziad Jarrah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Said Bahaji, and sixteen others were all members. | ” |
Read it here: [23]. (paywalled, sorry). -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps the following addition to the lead might be informative:
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours, and the debris from the collapse destroyed all the other buildings in the complex.
It seems to be a widely held misconception amongst "conspiracy theorists" that only three of the buildings were destroyed, and a widely held misconception elsewhere that no other buildings surrounding the towers were destroyed. Adding this information to the lead may highlight a fact which seems to have been overlooked. At the same time, I am not sure whether this information is important enough to merit inclusion in the lead; Wikipedia isn't really about "writing for an audience", is it. What do you think? Narssarssuaq ( talk) 01:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Can't see how there could be so much destruction without the complex being destroyed. I tend to favor something like the proposed wording, but am open to other ideas. Tom Harrison Talk 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
@TDA...Not an exaggeration in the least...your side view of 6WTC doesn't show that the center of the building, including 80% of the roof was crushed all the way to below street level. The Marriott image shows only the bottom few floors...it used to be a 22 storey building! None of the buildings survived the attacks...they were all either already collapsed or in danger of doing so and HAD to be removed...are you arguing just to be contrary or unable to properly examine even basic photographic documentation?-- MONGO 19:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Two commercial airliners were hijacked, and each was flown into one of the two 110-story towers. The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building. As the towers collapsed, massive debris clouds consisting of crushed and broken building components fell onto and blew into surrounding structures, causing extensive collateral damage and, in some cases, igniting fires and causing additional collapses. In total, 10 major buildings experienced partial or total collapse and approximately 30 million square feet of commercial office space was removed from service, of which 12 million belonged to the WTC Complex. — Executive Summary, FEMA 403
|
a collapse or partial collapse of a building represents a 100% damage ratio, while moderate damage would be an approximately 20% damage ratio.[p.8]...Overall, property damage in the devastation zone surrounding the WTC complex totals $22.7 billion.[p.9]
— Source: Grossi, P. (2009). "Property Damage and Insured Losses from the 2001 World Trade Center Attacks" (PDF). Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy. 15 (2). doi: 10.2202/1554-8597.1163.
The hijackers intentionally flew two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center complex in New York City; both towers collapsed within two hours. Debris from the collapse of the towers fell onto or initiated fires in several surrounding buildings leading to the partial or complete collapse of all the other buildings in the complex and major damage to ten other major structures in the area.
Other suggestions, corrections, or tweaks are, of course, more than welcome. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)