![]() | 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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the "Effects" chapter contain a sub-section about conspiracy theories? Smitty121981 ( talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed text for inclusion (please see above for a lengthy discussion on the matter):
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. [1] [2] Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, [3] [4] alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. [1] [5] None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. [2] [5] [6] [7]
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Smitty121981 ( talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"This suspect interaction between recourse to allegedly defensive wars and the pursuit of imperial foreign policy goals has contributed to a widespread distrust of the official version of the nature of the 9/11 attacks, a lingering deep suspicion among large sectors of the public shared by some former government officials, which put forward the startling claim that this spectacular terrorist assault on the United States was either pre-arranged in some way or allowed to happen by those in authority. There were other causes of this atmosphere of societal suspicion and anti-government radicalism that has led defenders of the established order to adopt a posture of extreme defensiveness. Anyone daring to question the official account of 9/11, for instance, is immediately branded as 'a conspiracy theorist' without making an accompanying attempt to provide convincing answers to the now considerable body of evidence advanced by the 9/11 doubters."
Professor Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001–04). He retired from teaching in 2001. He is a member of the Editorial Boards of The Nation and The Progressive, and Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is a former advisory board member of the World Federalist Institute and the American Movement for World Government. He is Distinguished Visiting Professor in Global & International Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara . During 1999–2000, Falk worked on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo.
Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials, and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse.
- Abstract, pg. xiii.
- This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.
- E.3 Summary of findings, pg. xxxviii
- NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition | proposed paragraph |
---|---|
"From the day after the attacks on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories appeared and began to spread" | "Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon." |
"The conspiracy theorists started with a hypothesis challenging the official version" | "Conspiracy advocates state that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials" |
"arguing that jet fuel alone could not cause the extensive damage" | "and that criticisms have been made of the scientific theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse." |
"Any data that did not conform to their preconceived ideas were discounted ... Dewdney's theory lacks credibility for a number of reasons" | "None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities" |
"Media in both France and the United States have attacked [Meyssan's] book for its bizaare claims ... Although critics have dismissed them as unfounded" | "and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories." |
9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.
— The page
{{
Main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
should cover it. I would not include much detail, per
WP:UNDUE. The idea I see too much of above is that we shouldn't be covering this stuff at all, but that's a discussion for an AfD of
9/11 conspiracy theories, an article I would keep. I have actually used it in real life as a WP reader to catch up on what these conspiracy theories are and why they're off base, as I sometimes encounter people who subscribe to one or another of them. It's important that it be findable from this article. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)9/11 conspiracy theories are an insignificant minority. NPOV explicitly states "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not".
Now, you've argued that you want it included not as a POV, but as an effect, which is fine. Except we already cover 9/11 conspiracy theories as an effect. It's in the article right now. There's no reason why we need to expand the coverage we already provide. If readers want to know more about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they can simply click on the link and it takes the reader directly to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
The fact is that most editors disagree with your suggested change. You need to accept that consensus has gone against your suggestion and move on. Is there anything else in the article you would like to work on besides expanding the amount of coverage that
fringe theories get?
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
21:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources that mention 9/11 conspiracy theories within the general context of 9/11, or that otherwise place significance on them | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title of source | Type of source | Publisher/journal | year | coverage | MIHOP/LIHOP? |
The 9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2011 | significant mention in preface, and a several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories" | yes |
September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2010 | several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories", and a spotlight essay on "9/11 Truth Movement" | yes |
9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2011 | paragraph in Cultural section | yes |
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition | reference book | SAGE | 2011 | 9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "Terrorism in Popular Culture" | no |
Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, Volume 1 | reference book | SAGE | 2012 | 9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "September 11 Attacks (Aftermath)" | no |
Remembering September 11, 2001: What We Know Now | grade 6-12 textbook | Enslow Publishers | 2010 | several paragraphs | yes |
(Re)imagining Humane Global Governance | academic text | Routledge | 2013 | paragraph within a chapter about 9/11 | yes |
9/11 Culture | academic text | Wiley | 2011 | several pages, calling them a "major social force" | yes |
The Impact of 9/11 on Psychology and Education | academic text | Palgrave Macmillan | 2009 | brief mention | yes |
9/11 and the Literature of Terror | academic text | Oxford University Press | 2011 | several paragraphs in Introducion | MIHOP only |
The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden | book | Random House | 2011 | full chapter | yes |
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 | book | Penguin | 2009 | mentioned in Introduction | no |
The Contested Meaning of 9/11 | peer-review journal | Duke University Press, Radical History | 2011 | three paragraphs | yes |
The Never-ending Disaster: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and the Integration of Activist Documentary on Video Websites | peer-review journal | Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on Loose Change) | no |
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories | peer-review journal | NIH, Frontiers in psychology | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on internet comments) | no |
‘How do the American people know…?’: embodying post-9/11 conspiracy discourse | peer-review journal | Springer, GeoJournal | 2010 | dedicated article | unable to access |
Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies | peer-review journal | Wiley, Human Communication Research | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on innoculating against Loose Change) | unable to access |
Literally countless numbers of news articles/programs | news media | National Geographic, History Channel, Popular Mechanics, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, C-SPAN, etc | 2005-present | dedicated articles/programs | sometimes |
Specifically, "9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide" By Tom Lansford. [1] However, it's important to note that their paragraph matches the content of my proposal nearly identically (pg 34).
— User:Smitty121981 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Text | Lansford Source |
---|---|
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. [2] [3] Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, [4] [5] alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. [2] [6] None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. [3] [6] [7] [8] | "The 9/11 attacks produced a number of conspiracy theories. Most fall into one of two categories. The first is that the Bush administration or elements of the U.S. intelligence community were aware in advance of the attacks and allowed them to happen. The second group of conspiracy theorists contends that the WTC and the Pentagon were destroyed by explosives planted by government operatives. Both groups argue that the attacks were carried out in order to create public support for military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to expand or protect American economic or energy interests in the Middle East. Experts and scholars dismissed these ideas, and their proponents failed to produce compelling evidence." [1] |
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Hi, I was just wondering why the section on the FBI investigation makes no mention of the well reported fact that several of the alleged hijackers on their list of nineteen later seemed to turn up alive and well. This was reported at the time, and then explained as identity theft or mistaken identity, which means that the real identities of the hijackers are still in doubt (lacking any official rectification of the original list). BartiDdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I did actually include sources in my original comment here, but they seem to have been erased. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm http://www.thedossier.info/articles/latimes_fbi-chief-raises-new-doubts-over-hijackers-identities.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html 187.189.142.212 ( talk) 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) BartiDdu
![]() | This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: It should be noted in the article that the "September 11 attacks" are known as "11 September attacks" in English, e.g. see news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1857699.stm. Please help improve this article if you can. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.100.186 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of victims is wrong. There's at least one that's not there. She was nine, and visiting her dad at work. Friendoflexi ( talk) 08:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering why Pearl Harbor wasn't added in terms of perspective because it was the most foreign destruction act on American soil right next to 9/11. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
They are not "just opinions and not based on facts", they are opinions based on facts. So the relevant policy is weight - are these opinions so significant they should be included. Different opinions could be based on the same facts. There is a difference btw between a military attack by a world power during a world war designed to destroy US power in the Pacific and an attack by a small group of terrorists. If you had secondary sources, they would explain this and then we could determine what weight to provide different views. TFD ( talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: [19] "Asahi Shimbun and The New York Times: Framing Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks", comparisons on treatment of the two events do appear to be more than simple opinion as a result. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." this statement is so subjective wikipedia just got knocked off its pedestal in my paradigm. Now wikipedia is just another information source you have to be critique of... Thx, for all the good years wiki:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.109.126 ( talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..." Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there? 67.247.63.92 ( talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Attack Type: - Islamic Terrorism
Jihadism Sunni Muslim extremism
Dsarkosky ( talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Cannolis (
talk)
16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic. Dornicke ( talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is pointless and has gone on long enough.
|
---|
"Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks"Is there anything to support the above claim? Something like the sentence of a tribunal based on factual evidence? 37.133.53.224 ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Weapons
Boeing 767-200's Boeing 757-200's Pocket knifes Utility knifes
Don't you think it is ridiculous to call a boeing full of people a weapon? It has been used as a weapon but still Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 13:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For other uses, see September 11 attacks (disambiguation). Page semi-protected September 11 attacks A montage of eight images depicting, from top to bottom, the World Trade Center towers burning, the collapsed section of the Pentagon, the impact explosion in the south tower, a rescue worker standing in front of rubble of the collapsed towers, an excavator unearthing a smashed jet engine, three frames of video depicting airplane hitting the Pentagon. Top to bottom, left to right The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on fire; Collapsed section of the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC; A fireman requests help at Ground Zero; An engine from Flight 93 is recovered; Flight 77's collision with the Pentagon as captured by CCTV. Location New York City; Arlington County, Virginia; vicinity of Shanksville, Pennsylvania Date Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 13 years ago 8:46 – 10:28 am (UTC-4) Attack type Aircraft hijackings Suicide attacks Mass murder Terrorism Deaths 2,996 (2,977 victims, 19 hijackers) Non-fatal injuries 6,000+ Perpetrators al-Qaeda[1] (see also responsibility and hijackers) The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.[2]
Four passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both 110-story towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington, D.C.,[3] but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[4][5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.
Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda. Although the group's leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004, he claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by U.S. forces in May 2011.
The destruction of the Twin Towers and other properties caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan and had a significant effect on global markets, closing Wall Street until September 17 and the civilian airspace in the U.S. and Canada until September 13. Many closings, evacuations, and cancellations followed, out of respect or fear of further attacks. Cleanup of the World Trade Center site was completed in May 2002, and the Pentagon was repaired within a year. Numerous memorials have been constructed, including the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York, the Pentagon Memorial, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.
On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began at the World Trade Center site.[6] The building was officially opened on November 3, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asher678 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
±
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i can see this because i don't non whats happend in 11 septembre 2.193.73.238 ( talk) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add some useful information and write an essay 5181boss ( talk) 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
49 instances of the word terror... in this article in (174,168 bytes) and two mentions in the lead in the narrative voice of the article: " The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
See WP:TERRORISM, WP:ASSERT and WP:MORALIZE. Also the section a section in the article "terrorism" called " Pejorative use". Also ths extract from the article " Bombing of Dresden in World War II" (citation there):
Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation"
The problems with excessive use of terrorism used to be more common on Wikiepdia than it is now and there used to be more guidance on it See for example here which explains how to replace the word terrorist with factual descriptions such as hijacker, bomber etc.
It an article such as this it will not be possible or desirable to remove all mention of the word terrorist and from the article but it should be possible to write it from neutral point of view.
The first paragraph states:
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.
This can be written from a NPOV position by changing it to
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that everyone felt "deep shock and revulsion at the cold-blooded viciousness of this attack" and the United Nations security council unanimously "unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms the[ese] horrifying terrorist attacks".
-- PBS ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any basis for calling 9/11 anything other than terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
PBS...usually lede sections of even FA level articles do not recommend references in the introductions since the introduction is merely a summary of the article and the references are found there. The article appears to have multiple references that label his act as terrorism including references from almost all world leaders at the time and the UN Security Council unanimously called it terrorism. It would be a fringe view to promote concepts that this was not an act of terrorism.-- MONGO 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation" (See above for the fuller quote from Donald Bloxham). From the terrorism article:In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism
There is no reason for Wikipedia to use the word terrorism and terrorist in the passive editorial voice when the same point can be asserted as a fact using in-text attribution. -- PBS ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. A total of 43 EMT's and Paramedics died on 9/11. The FDNY lost two EMS workers, and 41 EMT's and Paramedics were killed from other hospital/private/volunteer units. I do not know why it says eight. Permission to have this edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:B80:85B:9EC:9BDA:A3D7:4DD0 ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
keeep the date updated. september 2011 was 14 years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.46.169 ( talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It says online whether it is 246 or 265 people perished in the 9/11 attacks. Currently, 2,996 people were instantly killed in the attacks as most articles say but that is if you add 265 in the four planes then add up to the total of people killed in all situations, it's 2,996. On the articles of Flight 11, Flight 77, Flight 175, and Flight 93, respectively, 87, 64, 60, and 40 (including the 19 hijackers who were also passengers) were killed. Add the numbers up together and you got 246 people. However, that would mean that 227 were the victims, meaning that if you take that number, it would mean 2,958 victims killed. It looks like the death toll of 2,996 as it stands in the article now needs to a little bit of revising or debate. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually made a Wikipedia account explicitly to comment here and as such I would like to self-identify as an amateur to the open-source encyclopedia concept. Amateurism acknowledged, I find the conclusion of the first paragraph of this article reprehensible. This page opens with key summary information about the attacks in an opening paragraph that concludes, "The attacks killed 2,996 people (including 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage."
This information is sourced to an online-published Institute for the Analysis of Global Security article that happens to loosely confirm the monetary amount of property and infrastructure damage, but fails to mention in any way lives lost in the attacks--certainly a significant component of the sentence referenced. I'm certainly not here to split hairs about property loss and I find the the aforementioned figure to be sufficient evidence of property loss for the article's purpose.
However, I do not accept an unattributed statement of lives lost in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Moreover, and most significantly, I object to an inclusion of the act of not only "terrorism," but a perversion of the human spirit and humanity at large being included in a tally of the souls lost in the September 11th attacks on the United States. Hijackers and conspirators in the attacks of 9/11 deserve no equal space in the volumes of our history, and I will not allow it. I abhor even the most open of discussions that places those who would knowingly violate, eliminate, and desecrate the American public to be on the same plain as the law abiding, god fearing, and America loving citizens who lost their lives on that faithful day.
I certainly hope I will not be absorbed as a radical or someone "off his rocker." I'd like to bring attention to this particular issue and hope it is remedied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemcsparin ( talk • contribs)
The lead as currently written suggests that the American invasion of Afghanistan, and the launch of the war on terror, was after Osama taking responsibility for the attacks. This is clearly incorrect, given that the invasion and the war began in 2001, and as the lead of this article itself says, Osama made that statement in 2004. Given that this is a controversial article, I did not want to mess with it myself. Does a regular editor want to take a look? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the reason why I put "members" because they are already terrorists by default when they happened to be part off. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 21:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an odd and wrong sentence: "In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 245 civilians, a law enforcement officer, and the 19 terrorists aboard the four planes." This implies a single LEO died. Follow the link through to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and it specifies 343 firefighters and 71 cops. What gives? - 2.216.90.223 ( talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add at the end of the 'motives' section the sentence 'Among Muslim publics, approval of attacks on civilians as occurred on 9/11 is not related to perceptions of controversial US policies toward Israel, Middle Eastern oil, or the perceived attempt to weaken and divide the Muslim world. Instead, support for such acts of violence is limited to those who hold negative views of US freedom of expression, culture, and people or believe the United States to be generally hostile to democracy in the Middle East.' The relevant reference is this Journal of Peace Research article https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States
Please include under 'further reading': Berger, Lars (2014), Foreign policies or culture – What shapes Muslim public opinion on political violence against the United States? 51:6, 782-796 The relevant hyperlink is https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States
Thank you very much!
LGBWi2015 ( talk) 11:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this. I should have a comprehensive review in about a day.
Rainbow unicorn, I see that you haven't contributed to the article before nominating, do you or does anybody else know the main contributors to this who might be willing to handle my future comments?
JAG
UAR
11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On hold for now. I'll come back to this later and make a decision whether or not to gather second opinions on this. JAG UAR 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the delay here but it took me a while to do a source check and I don't think we need a second opinion any more as I'm happy that this article now meets the GA criteria. The sources, a great number reliable and detailed all provide enough information on the content in this article. Given the complexity and controversy with this article I was cautious to leave it on hold for a second opinion, but after reading it again if dawned on me that it is well-written and comprehensive, the two most important things of the criteria. Well done on all the work! This one is well deserved.
JAG
UAR
22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
9/11 has the largest realm of conspiracy theories ever, to be clear. Why, then, is it confined to one sentence? I know there is a separate article on it completely, but I think I remember this article containing a full section on conspiracy theories at one point. Why would it have been removed? Oh, and why did someone remove my adding of '9/11 Conspiracy Theories' to the 'See Also' section? I am not necessarily pledging support for conspiracy theories, but they are vast enough to have their own section in a Wikipedia page about 9/11. Iheartthestrals ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
For mobile, why is the head picture of Osama bin Laden? 9/11 was a terrorist attack, yes, but this article isn't about bin Laden's role in the attack, it's about the attack itself. Iheartthestrals ( talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
SCATANA (Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids) is an American policy. So how did it ground aircraft in the USA, Canada and "other" countries? That is not possible. 122.59.140.215 ( talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In a recent edit, Deor removed two sets of coordinates – Shanksville's and the Pentagon's – from the bottom of the header because it is bad practice to have more than one of these coords displayed in the title, and in his edit summary, he also suggested a talk page discussion. I removed the WTC coords because it is of the same importance as the other two.
I suggest one of three options:
Fellow editors, what do you think? Epic Genius ( talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should the death toll in the infobox be updated if somebody (e.g. Marcy Borders) dies from chronic illness caused by the effects of the attacks? If the numbers in the infobox already reflect this, then please change “2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)” to “2,997 (2,978 victims + 19 hijackers).” 71.178.182.110 ( talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Inomyabcs (
talk)
10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar: "towers collapsed with debris" -> "towers collapsed, with debris" 85.178.207.154 ( talk) 07:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Done thanks for the suggestion -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In my last edit I cited this new york times article in calculating the total costs of 9/11. I'm wondering if using this figure was appropriate? 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl ( talk • contribs)
User User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge is freaking out and is adamant that this false wording be inserted into the page in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories:
despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=682180627
The previous wording was also false, claiming that there was "negligible" support. The citation given is from a CBS story that's an editorial written by one guy named "Joshua Norman", who is not an expert on any of these topics, and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge wants to put this one non-expert's opinion as dogma on the page versus 2349 expert engineers, scientists, and experts.
This violates multiple Wikipedia policies, least of which is WP:NPOV. This is shameful propaganda and I expect better from Wikipedia.
itistoday ( Talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is just part of the weirdness of my particular brain, and the collision there between
(Not Goethe, but Marlow, i think) and
but i'm convinced that "Twin Towers ... burning" is factually equivalent, and a touch more effective than "Twin Towers ... on fire". Maybe just because it's a one word, maybe because "burn" is a verb. And maybe it's too effective. I won't pretend to know.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article - under 'cultural' - claims "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." and this is supported by a reference to a CBS News Channel which then refers readers to a popular magazine. This claim is factually inaccurate.
Three independent scientific peer-reviewed studies all reached the conclusion that thermitic reactions as a result of the presence of nanothermate were found at the base of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. As these scietific papers reveal, these reactions could not occur as a result of jet fuel or any process that does not use thermate. Nanothermate is a substance manufactured under licence in the US and is not generally available. The strongest evidence for (nano)thermate is found in scientific analysis of dust retrieved from the base of the World Trade Centre buildings that collapsed. The analyses found microscopic iron particulates that could only be formed by molten metal. This evidence was peer-reviewed a second time at the 9/11 Toronto hearings by four legal / university academics of the highest standing. The findings were confirmed, and this leads to a consensus in a scientific community that nanothermite was instrumental in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Centre complex.
Secondly, consensus has emerged that the NIST report and independent peer-reviewed research both confirm that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. The conference dealt with a mismatch between public statements about the NIST report and NIST's own research findings. It reached a consensus that the inside pages of the NIST report - which shows WTC7 reaching free fall speeds for several seconds - is a more truthful representation of what occured than the public statements of NIST's official speaker on this matter. In presenting the NIST report, false statements were made to undermine the NIST report's own findings that WTC7 fell at freefall speeds. This innaccuracy results from a false claim that the building took longer to collapse than it actually did. A top mathmetician presented findings at the 9/11 Toronoto hearings (supported by extensive video evidence) that the period of time of the fall is less relevant than the rate of acceleration. The NIST report confirms his own study of the rate of acceleration - both report that free-fall speeds were reached. Free fall speeds only occur when there is a controlled demolition. Numerous engineers/architects - one of whom reported the finding of their professional association of 1500 architects/engineers - confirmed that this is their view as well. As the conference also noted, the peer-reviewed papers that have been published (and indeed the conference procedings themselves) have a higher standing in the scientific community than the FEMA and NIST reports. The FEMA / NIST reports were not peer-reviewed before publication, and a new consensus amongst engineers, architects and the scientific community has emerged.
The article needs correcting. I suggest leaving in the CBS News report reference as evidence of an initial claim, but that a new sentence should report the conclusions of the 9/11 Toronto hearings. My edit will accurately report the level of concern in a scientific community about some 9/11 issues, and that their concerns are supported by scientific peer-reviewed research. The peer-reviewed research was presented at a university hosted conference, with the proceeding recorded on video for full transparency. The findings have been published in a book by the conference committee.
I have already attempted to make the relevant edit, but it was reversed. I am now following editors' guidance by posting this information to the article's Talk page. Article contributors have questioned YouTube as a legitimate source. As the video is a video of conference procedings, it is a valid source - it is the content of the video, not the video itself that attests to its credibility. Academic conference proceedings are sources of integrity and - in this case - support the case for an article revision. Conference proceedings can be included in 'research excellence' submissions by UK universities (Research excellence evaluations are conducted every 6 to 7 years in the UK). A video of the proceedings of scientific conference in which already published peer-reviewed papers are peer-reviewed for a second time by long-standing professors and a supreme court justice are highly credible. They are MUCH more credible than a CBS News report or magazine article.
The panel convened to review the research have credentials that are impeccable. They included a Supreme Court Justice (from Italy), who has already had experience of conducting legal proceedings in cases of terrorism. In addition, there were three Emeritus Professors. The names of panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Following the conference, each panelist presented their findings, conclusions and recommendations in a book, drawing only on peer-reviewed research presented in the hearings as evidence.
As for myself, I am an experienced academic (Associate Professor at Sheffield Hallam University, twice returned by my university in the UK for 'Research Excellence', and a winner of three research awards). I am responsible for the training of doctoral students in my university department and I am currently supervising 8 PhD students. I have supervised students to PhD completion and been an external PhD examiner in the UK, Scotland and Ireland. In my opinion, there is no question that the 9/11 Toronto hearings are a much more credible source than a CBS News report. When we teach research students about the reliability of sources, peer-reviewed journal articles are at top of a list of examples we give our students to examine / comment on. News reports come near or at the bottom (in both our, and our PhD students, estimation).
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
![]() | 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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the "Effects" chapter contain a sub-section about conspiracy theories? Smitty121981 ( talk) 01:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed text for inclusion (please see above for a lengthy discussion on the matter):
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. [1] [2] Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, [3] [4] alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. [1] [5] None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. [2] [5] [6] [7]
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Smitty121981 ( talk) 01:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"This suspect interaction between recourse to allegedly defensive wars and the pursuit of imperial foreign policy goals has contributed to a widespread distrust of the official version of the nature of the 9/11 attacks, a lingering deep suspicion among large sectors of the public shared by some former government officials, which put forward the startling claim that this spectacular terrorist assault on the United States was either pre-arranged in some way or allowed to happen by those in authority. There were other causes of this atmosphere of societal suspicion and anti-government radicalism that has led defenders of the established order to adopt a posture of extreme defensiveness. Anyone daring to question the official account of 9/11, for instance, is immediately branded as 'a conspiracy theorist' without making an accompanying attempt to provide convincing answers to the now considerable body of evidence advanced by the 9/11 doubters."
Professor Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus at Princeton University, and was Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara (2001–04). He retired from teaching in 2001. He is a member of the Editorial Boards of The Nation and The Progressive, and Chair of the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He is a former advisory board member of the World Federalist Institute and the American Movement for World Government. He is Distinguished Visiting Professor in Global & International Studies, University of California at Santa Barbara . During 1999–2000, Falk worked on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo.
Conspiracy advocates state that there is evidence of insider trading before the attack, that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials, and that criticisms have been made of the prevailing theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse.
- Abstract, pg. xiii.
- This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings; whether the fatalities were low or high, including an evaluation of the building evacuation and emergency response procedures; what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the towers; and areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and practices that warrant revision.
- E.3 Summary of findings, pg. xxxviii
- NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition | proposed paragraph |
---|---|
"From the day after the attacks on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories appeared and began to spread" | "Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon." |
"The conspiracy theorists started with a hypothesis challenging the official version" | "Conspiracy advocates state that public objections have been raised by hundreds of professionals and officials" |
"arguing that jet fuel alone could not cause the extensive damage" | "and that criticisms have been made of the scientific theory that the WTC destruction was the result of fire-induced progressive collapse." |
"Any data that did not conform to their preconceived ideas were discounted ... Dewdney's theory lacks credibility for a number of reasons" | "None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities" |
"Media in both France and the United States have attacked [Meyssan's] book for its bizaare claims ... Although critics have dismissed them as unfounded" | "and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories." |
9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.
— The page
{{
Main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}
should cover it. I would not include much detail, per
WP:UNDUE. The idea I see too much of above is that we shouldn't be covering this stuff at all, but that's a discussion for an AfD of
9/11 conspiracy theories, an article I would keep. I have actually used it in real life as a WP reader to catch up on what these conspiracy theories are and why they're off base, as I sometimes encounter people who subscribe to one or another of them. It's important that it be findable from this article. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
01:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)9/11 conspiracy theories are an insignificant minority. NPOV explicitly states "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not".
Now, you've argued that you want it included not as a POV, but as an effect, which is fine. Except we already cover 9/11 conspiracy theories as an effect. It's in the article right now. There's no reason why we need to expand the coverage we already provide. If readers want to know more about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they can simply click on the link and it takes the reader directly to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
The fact is that most editors disagree with your suggested change. You need to accept that consensus has gone against your suggestion and move on. Is there anything else in the article you would like to work on besides expanding the amount of coverage that
fringe theories get?
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
21:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources that mention 9/11 conspiracy theories within the general context of 9/11, or that otherwise place significance on them | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title of source | Type of source | Publisher/journal | year | coverage | MIHOP/LIHOP? |
The 9/11 Encyclopedia Second Edition | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2011 | significant mention in preface, and a several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories" | yes |
September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2010 | several paragraph entry "Conspiracy Theories", and a spotlight essay on "9/11 Truth Movement" | yes |
9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide | reference book | ABC-CLIO | 2011 | paragraph in Cultural section | yes |
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Terrorism, Second Edition | reference book | SAGE | 2011 | 9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "Terrorism in Popular Culture" | no |
Encyclopedia of Consumption and Waste: The Social Science of Garbage, Volume 1 | reference book | SAGE | 2012 | 9/11 Truth movement mentioned within entry "September 11 Attacks (Aftermath)" | no |
Remembering September 11, 2001: What We Know Now | grade 6-12 textbook | Enslow Publishers | 2010 | several paragraphs | yes |
(Re)imagining Humane Global Governance | academic text | Routledge | 2013 | paragraph within a chapter about 9/11 | yes |
9/11 Culture | academic text | Wiley | 2011 | several pages, calling them a "major social force" | yes |
The Impact of 9/11 on Psychology and Education | academic text | Palgrave Macmillan | 2009 | brief mention | yes |
9/11 and the Literature of Terror | academic text | Oxford University Press | 2011 | several paragraphs in Introducion | MIHOP only |
The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden | book | Random House | 2011 | full chapter | yes |
The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 | book | Penguin | 2009 | mentioned in Introduction | no |
The Contested Meaning of 9/11 | peer-review journal | Duke University Press, Radical History | 2011 | three paragraphs | yes |
The Never-ending Disaster: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and the Integration of Activist Documentary on Video Websites | peer-review journal | Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Film and Media Studies | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on Loose Change) | no |
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories | peer-review journal | NIH, Frontiers in psychology | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on internet comments) | no |
‘How do the American people know…?’: embodying post-9/11 conspiracy discourse | peer-review journal | Springer, GeoJournal | 2010 | dedicated article | unable to access |
Inducing Resistance to Conspiracy Theory Propaganda: Testing Inoculation and Metainoculation Strategies | peer-review journal | Wiley, Human Communication Research | 2013 | dedicated article (focus on innoculating against Loose Change) | unable to access |
Literally countless numbers of news articles/programs | news media | National Geographic, History Channel, Popular Mechanics, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, C-SPAN, etc | 2005-present | dedicated articles/programs | sometimes |
Specifically, "9/11 and the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: A Chronology and Reference Guide" By Tom Lansford. [1] However, it's important to note that their paragraph matches the content of my proposal nearly identically (pg 34).
— User:Smitty121981 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Proposed Text | Lansford Source |
---|---|
Conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 have become a widespread social phenomenon. [2] [3] Conspiracy theorists dispute the findings of the official investigations, [4] [5] alleging that the US government either allowed the attacks to happen or actually carried out the attacks themselves. [2] [6] None of the 9/11 conspiracy theories have been accepted by the academic and scientific communities, and several mainstream news sources have published full-length articles dedicated to rebuking the most common theories. [3] [6] [7] [8] | "The 9/11 attacks produced a number of conspiracy theories. Most fall into one of two categories. The first is that the Bush administration or elements of the U.S. intelligence community were aware in advance of the attacks and allowed them to happen. The second group of conspiracy theorists contends that the WTC and the Pentagon were destroyed by explosives planted by government operatives. Both groups argue that the attacks were carried out in order to create public support for military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq to expand or protect American economic or energy interests in the Middle East. Experts and scholars dismissed these ideas, and their proponents failed to produce compelling evidence." [1] |
{{
cite web}}
: |last=
has generic name (
help)
Hi, I was just wondering why the section on the FBI investigation makes no mention of the well reported fact that several of the alleged hijackers on their list of nineteen later seemed to turn up alive and well. This was reported at the time, and then explained as identity theft or mistaken identity, which means that the real identities of the hijackers are still in doubt (lacking any official rectification of the original list). BartiDdu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 06:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I did actually include sources in my original comment here, but they seem to have been erased. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm http://www.thedossier.info/articles/latimes_fbi-chief-raises-new-doubts-over-hijackers-identities.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/1341391/Revealed-the-men-with-stolen-identities.html 187.189.142.212 ( talk) 14:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) BartiDdu
![]() | This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: It should be noted in the article that the "September 11 attacks" are known as "11 September attacks" in English, e.g. see news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1857699.stm. Please help improve this article if you can. |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.100.186 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of victims is wrong. There's at least one that's not there. She was nine, and visiting her dad at work. Friendoflexi ( talk) 08:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I was just wondering why Pearl Harbor wasn't added in terms of perspective because it was the most foreign destruction act on American soil right next to 9/11. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 00:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
They are not "just opinions and not based on facts", they are opinions based on facts. So the relevant policy is weight - are these opinions so significant they should be included. Different opinions could be based on the same facts. There is a difference btw between a military attack by a world power during a world war designed to destroy US power in the Pacific and an attack by a small group of terrorists. If you had secondary sources, they would explain this and then we could determine what weight to provide different views. TFD ( talk) 06:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
FWIW: [19] "Asahi Shimbun and The New York Times: Framing Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 Attacks", comparisons on treatment of the two events do appear to be more than simple opinion as a result. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite negligible support for such views from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." this statement is so subjective wikipedia just got knocked off its pedestal in my paradigm. Now wikipedia is just another information source you have to be critique of... Thx, for all the good years wiki:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.45.109.126 ( talk) 21:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, the second paragraph of the "Memorials" section contains a sentence which reads "...Plans for a museum on the site have been put on hold..." Is this not incorrect, since a museum now exists there? 67.247.63.92 ( talk) 03:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Attack Type: - Islamic Terrorism
Jihadism Sunni Muslim extremism
Dsarkosky ( talk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Cannolis (
talk)
16:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)We have here an article about one of the most relevant events in contemporary history. A governmental commission that was created to investigate the events and publish an official report that was later largely used by mainstream sources to establish what happened in 9/11, was marked by a series of controversies and subject of lots of criticsm related to conflict of interests, unreliable evidence, limited scope and budget, etc. And that fact is not even mentioned in the main article about the attacks? No problem with having an entire article about that. But the fact is that those controversies regarding the commission are pretty much characteristic of the commission itself. Not informing the readers about this highly significative fact makes this article biased, and not representative of factual reality. This is the so-called whitewashing. It's rewriting history by selecting only the "good parts". Mentioning the commission is important (BTW, one paragraph? Four paragraphs about health effects, five paragraphs to economic effects, one paragraph fo the Commission?), but problems of the commission are not? It distorts reality. It's highly anti-scientific and anti-encyclopedic. Dornicke ( talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is pointless and has gone on long enough.
|
---|
"Bin Laden, who orchestrated the attacks"Is there anything to support the above claim? Something like the sentence of a tribunal based on factual evidence? 37.133.53.224 ( talk) 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
|
Weapons
Boeing 767-200's Boeing 757-200's Pocket knifes Utility knifes
Don't you think it is ridiculous to call a boeing full of people a weapon? It has been used as a weapon but still Tetra quark ( don't be shy) 13:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
"9/11" redirects here. For the date, see September 11 or 9 November. For other uses, see September 11 attacks (disambiguation). Page semi-protected September 11 attacks A montage of eight images depicting, from top to bottom, the World Trade Center towers burning, the collapsed section of the Pentagon, the impact explosion in the south tower, a rescue worker standing in front of rubble of the collapsed towers, an excavator unearthing a smashed jet engine, three frames of video depicting airplane hitting the Pentagon. Top to bottom, left to right The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on fire; Collapsed section of the Pentagon; Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC; A fireman requests help at Ground Zero; An engine from Flight 93 is recovered; Flight 77's collision with the Pentagon as captured by CCTV. Location New York City; Arlington County, Virginia; vicinity of Shanksville, Pennsylvania Date Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 13 years ago 8:46 – 10:28 am (UTC-4) Attack type Aircraft hijackings Suicide attacks Mass murder Terrorism Deaths 2,996 (2,977 victims, 19 hijackers) Non-fatal injuries 6,000+ Perpetrators al-Qaeda[1] (see also responsibility and hijackers) The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.[2]
Four passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists to be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both 110-story towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington, D.C.,[3] but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[4][5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.
Suspicion quickly fell on al-Qaeda. Although the group's leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004, he claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. The United States responded by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded law enforcement powers. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by U.S. forces in May 2011.
The destruction of the Twin Towers and other properties caused serious damage to the economy of Lower Manhattan and had a significant effect on global markets, closing Wall Street until September 17 and the civilian airspace in the U.S. and Canada until September 13. Many closings, evacuations, and cancellations followed, out of respect or fear of further attacks. Cleanup of the World Trade Center site was completed in May 2002, and the Pentagon was repaired within a year. Numerous memorials have been constructed, including the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York, the Pentagon Memorial, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.
On November 18, 2006, construction of One World Trade Center began at the World Trade Center site.[6] The building was officially opened on November 3, 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asher678 ( talk • contribs) 21:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
±
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i can see this because i don't non whats happend in 11 septembre 2.193.73.238 ( talk) 18:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add some useful information and write an essay 5181boss ( talk) 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
49 instances of the word terror... in this article in (174,168 bytes) and two mentions in the lead in the narrative voice of the article: " The lady doth protest too much, methinks".
See WP:TERRORISM, WP:ASSERT and WP:MORALIZE. Also the section a section in the article "terrorism" called " Pejorative use". Also ths extract from the article " Bombing of Dresden in World War II" (citation there):
Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation"
The problems with excessive use of terrorism used to be more common on Wikiepdia than it is now and there used to be more guidance on it See for example here which explains how to replace the word terrorist with factual descriptions such as hijacker, bomber etc.
It an article such as this it will not be possible or desirable to remove all mention of the word terrorist and from the article but it should be possible to write it from neutral point of view.
The first paragraph states:
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage.
This can be written from a NPOV position by changing it to
The September 11 attacks (also referred to as September 11, September 11th, or 9/11) were a series of four coordinated attacks by al-Qaeda on the United States in New York City and the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that everyone felt "deep shock and revulsion at the cold-blooded viciousness of this attack" and the United Nations security council unanimously "unequivocally condemned in the strongest terms the[ese] horrifying terrorist attacks".
-- PBS ( talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any basis for calling 9/11 anything other than terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
PBS...usually lede sections of even FA level articles do not recommend references in the introductions since the introduction is merely a summary of the article and the references are found there. The article appears to have multiple references that label his act as terrorism including references from almost all world leaders at the time and the UN Security Council unanimously called it terrorism. It would be a fringe view to promote concepts that this was not an act of terrorism.-- MONGO 18:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
"in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation" (See above for the fuller quote from Donald Bloxham). From the terrorism article:In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:
On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism
There is no reason for Wikipedia to use the word terrorism and terrorist in the passive editorial voice when the same point can be asserted as a fact using in-text attribution. -- PBS ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. A total of 43 EMT's and Paramedics died on 9/11. The FDNY lost two EMS workers, and 41 EMT's and Paramedics were killed from other hospital/private/volunteer units. I do not know why it says eight. Permission to have this edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:B80:85B:9EC:9BDA:A3D7:4DD0 ( talk) 00:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
keeep the date updated. september 2011 was 14 years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.46.169 ( talk) 11:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It says online whether it is 246 or 265 people perished in the 9/11 attacks. Currently, 2,996 people were instantly killed in the attacks as most articles say but that is if you add 265 in the four planes then add up to the total of people killed in all situations, it's 2,996. On the articles of Flight 11, Flight 77, Flight 175, and Flight 93, respectively, 87, 64, 60, and 40 (including the 19 hijackers who were also passengers) were killed. Add the numbers up together and you got 246 people. However, that would mean that 227 were the victims, meaning that if you take that number, it would mean 2,958 victims killed. It looks like the death toll of 2,996 as it stands in the article now needs to a little bit of revising or debate. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually made a Wikipedia account explicitly to comment here and as such I would like to self-identify as an amateur to the open-source encyclopedia concept. Amateurism acknowledged, I find the conclusion of the first paragraph of this article reprehensible. This page opens with key summary information about the attacks in an opening paragraph that concludes, "The attacks killed 2,996 people (including 19 hijackers) and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage."
This information is sourced to an online-published Institute for the Analysis of Global Security article that happens to loosely confirm the monetary amount of property and infrastructure damage, but fails to mention in any way lives lost in the attacks--certainly a significant component of the sentence referenced. I'm certainly not here to split hairs about property loss and I find the the aforementioned figure to be sufficient evidence of property loss for the article's purpose.
However, I do not accept an unattributed statement of lives lost in the September 11th terrorist attacks. Moreover, and most significantly, I object to an inclusion of the act of not only "terrorism," but a perversion of the human spirit and humanity at large being included in a tally of the souls lost in the September 11th attacks on the United States. Hijackers and conspirators in the attacks of 9/11 deserve no equal space in the volumes of our history, and I will not allow it. I abhor even the most open of discussions that places those who would knowingly violate, eliminate, and desecrate the American public to be on the same plain as the law abiding, god fearing, and America loving citizens who lost their lives on that faithful day.
I certainly hope I will not be absorbed as a radical or someone "off his rocker." I'd like to bring attention to this particular issue and hope it is remedied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakemcsparin ( talk • contribs)
The lead as currently written suggests that the American invasion of Afghanistan, and the launch of the war on terror, was after Osama taking responsibility for the attacks. This is clearly incorrect, given that the invasion and the war began in 2001, and as the lead of this article itself says, Osama made that statement in 2004. Given that this is a controversial article, I did not want to mess with it myself. Does a regular editor want to take a look? Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the reason why I put "members" because they are already terrorists by default when they happened to be part off. XXzoonamiXX ( talk) 21:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is an odd and wrong sentence: "In total, 2,996 people died in the attacks, including the 245 civilians, a law enforcement officer, and the 19 terrorists aboard the four planes." This implies a single LEO died. Follow the link through to Casualties of the September 11 attacks and it specifies 343 firefighters and 71 cops. What gives? - 2.216.90.223 ( talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add at the end of the 'motives' section the sentence 'Among Muslim publics, approval of attacks on civilians as occurred on 9/11 is not related to perceptions of controversial US policies toward Israel, Middle Eastern oil, or the perceived attempt to weaken and divide the Muslim world. Instead, support for such acts of violence is limited to those who hold negative views of US freedom of expression, culture, and people or believe the United States to be generally hostile to democracy in the Middle East.' The relevant reference is this Journal of Peace Research article https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States
Please include under 'further reading': Berger, Lars (2014), Foreign policies or culture – What shapes Muslim public opinion on political violence against the United States? 51:6, 782-796 The relevant hyperlink is https://www.academia.edu/6264219/Foreign_policies_or_culture_What_shapes_Muslim_public_opinion_on_political_violence_against_the_United_States
Thank you very much!
LGBWi2015 ( talk) 11:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jaguar ( talk · contribs) 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take this. I should have a comprehensive review in about a day.
Rainbow unicorn, I see that you haven't contributed to the article before nominating, do you or does anybody else know the main contributors to this who might be willing to handle my future comments?
JAG
UAR
11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
On hold for now. I'll come back to this later and make a decision whether or not to gather second opinions on this. JAG UAR 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the delay here but it took me a while to do a source check and I don't think we need a second opinion any more as I'm happy that this article now meets the GA criteria. The sources, a great number reliable and detailed all provide enough information on the content in this article. Given the complexity and controversy with this article I was cautious to leave it on hold for a second opinion, but after reading it again if dawned on me that it is well-written and comprehensive, the two most important things of the criteria. Well done on all the work! This one is well deserved.
JAG
UAR
22:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
9/11 has the largest realm of conspiracy theories ever, to be clear. Why, then, is it confined to one sentence? I know there is a separate article on it completely, but I think I remember this article containing a full section on conspiracy theories at one point. Why would it have been removed? Oh, and why did someone remove my adding of '9/11 Conspiracy Theories' to the 'See Also' section? I am not necessarily pledging support for conspiracy theories, but they are vast enough to have their own section in a Wikipedia page about 9/11. Iheartthestrals ( talk) 17:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
For mobile, why is the head picture of Osama bin Laden? 9/11 was a terrorist attack, yes, but this article isn't about bin Laden's role in the attack, it's about the attack itself. Iheartthestrals ( talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
SCATANA (Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids) is an American policy. So how did it ground aircraft in the USA, Canada and "other" countries? That is not possible. 122.59.140.215 ( talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
In a recent edit, Deor removed two sets of coordinates – Shanksville's and the Pentagon's – from the bottom of the header because it is bad practice to have more than one of these coords displayed in the title, and in his edit summary, he also suggested a talk page discussion. I removed the WTC coords because it is of the same importance as the other two.
I suggest one of three options:
Fellow editors, what do you think? Epic Genius ( talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Should the death toll in the infobox be updated if somebody (e.g. Marcy Borders) dies from chronic illness caused by the effects of the attacks? If the numbers in the infobox already reflect this, then please change “2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)” to “2,997 (2,978 victims + 19 hijackers).” 71.178.182.110 ( talk) 22:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Inomyabcs (
talk)
10:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
September 11 attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Grammar: "towers collapsed with debris" -> "towers collapsed, with debris" 85.178.207.154 ( talk) 07:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Done thanks for the suggestion -
Arjayay (
talk)
07:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In my last edit I cited this new york times article in calculating the total costs of 9/11. I'm wondering if using this figure was appropriate? 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakesyl ( talk • contribs)
User User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge is freaking out and is adamant that this false wording be inserted into the page in reference to 9/11 conspiracy theories:
despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=September_11_attacks&diff=prev&oldid=682180627
The previous wording was also false, claiming that there was "negligible" support. The citation given is from a CBS story that's an editorial written by one guy named "Joshua Norman", who is not an expert on any of these topics, and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge wants to put this one non-expert's opinion as dogma on the page versus 2349 expert engineers, scientists, and experts.
This violates multiple Wikipedia policies, least of which is WP:NPOV. This is shameful propaganda and I expect better from Wikipedia.
itistoday ( Talk) 02:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is just part of the weirdness of my particular brain, and the collision there between
(Not Goethe, but Marlow, i think) and
but i'm convinced that "Twin Towers ... burning" is factually equivalent, and a touch more effective than "Twin Towers ... on fire". Maybe just because it's a one word, maybe because "burn" is a verb. And maybe it's too effective. I won't pretend to know.
--
Jerzy•
t
01:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article - under 'cultural' - claims "9/11 conspiracy theories have become social phenomena, despite lack of support from expert scientists, engineers, and historians." and this is supported by a reference to a CBS News Channel which then refers readers to a popular magazine. This claim is factually inaccurate.
Three independent scientific peer-reviewed studies all reached the conclusion that thermitic reactions as a result of the presence of nanothermate were found at the base of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. As these scietific papers reveal, these reactions could not occur as a result of jet fuel or any process that does not use thermate. Nanothermate is a substance manufactured under licence in the US and is not generally available. The strongest evidence for (nano)thermate is found in scientific analysis of dust retrieved from the base of the World Trade Centre buildings that collapsed. The analyses found microscopic iron particulates that could only be formed by molten metal. This evidence was peer-reviewed a second time at the 9/11 Toronto hearings by four legal / university academics of the highest standing. The findings were confirmed, and this leads to a consensus in a scientific community that nanothermite was instrumental in the controlled demolition of the World Trade Centre complex.
Secondly, consensus has emerged that the NIST report and independent peer-reviewed research both confirm that WTC7 fell at free-fall speed. The conference dealt with a mismatch between public statements about the NIST report and NIST's own research findings. It reached a consensus that the inside pages of the NIST report - which shows WTC7 reaching free fall speeds for several seconds - is a more truthful representation of what occured than the public statements of NIST's official speaker on this matter. In presenting the NIST report, false statements were made to undermine the NIST report's own findings that WTC7 fell at freefall speeds. This innaccuracy results from a false claim that the building took longer to collapse than it actually did. A top mathmetician presented findings at the 9/11 Toronoto hearings (supported by extensive video evidence) that the period of time of the fall is less relevant than the rate of acceleration. The NIST report confirms his own study of the rate of acceleration - both report that free-fall speeds were reached. Free fall speeds only occur when there is a controlled demolition. Numerous engineers/architects - one of whom reported the finding of their professional association of 1500 architects/engineers - confirmed that this is their view as well. As the conference also noted, the peer-reviewed papers that have been published (and indeed the conference procedings themselves) have a higher standing in the scientific community than the FEMA and NIST reports. The FEMA / NIST reports were not peer-reviewed before publication, and a new consensus amongst engineers, architects and the scientific community has emerged.
The article needs correcting. I suggest leaving in the CBS News report reference as evidence of an initial claim, but that a new sentence should report the conclusions of the 9/11 Toronto hearings. My edit will accurately report the level of concern in a scientific community about some 9/11 issues, and that their concerns are supported by scientific peer-reviewed research. The peer-reviewed research was presented at a university hosted conference, with the proceeding recorded on video for full transparency. The findings have been published in a book by the conference committee.
I have already attempted to make the relevant edit, but it was reversed. I am now following editors' guidance by posting this information to the article's Talk page. Article contributors have questioned YouTube as a legitimate source. As the video is a video of conference procedings, it is a valid source - it is the content of the video, not the video itself that attests to its credibility. Academic conference proceedings are sources of integrity and - in this case - support the case for an article revision. Conference proceedings can be included in 'research excellence' submissions by UK universities (Research excellence evaluations are conducted every 6 to 7 years in the UK). A video of the proceedings of scientific conference in which already published peer-reviewed papers are peer-reviewed for a second time by long-standing professors and a supreme court justice are highly credible. They are MUCH more credible than a CBS News report or magazine article.
The panel convened to review the research have credentials that are impeccable. They included a Supreme Court Justice (from Italy), who has already had experience of conducting legal proceedings in cases of terrorism. In addition, there were three Emeritus Professors. The names of panelists were: Ferdinando Imposimato, former Senior Judge and Honorary President of the Supreme Court of Italy; Herbert Jenkins, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at McMaster University, educated at Oberlin College and Harvard University; Richard Lee, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at the University of Toronto and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, previously positions at Harvard, Rutgers and Columbia University; and David Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Tennessee and former President of the U.S. Fulbright Association, educated at Yale and Cornell. Following the conference, each panelist presented their findings, conclusions and recommendations in a book, drawing only on peer-reviewed research presented in the hearings as evidence.
As for myself, I am an experienced academic (Associate Professor at Sheffield Hallam University, twice returned by my university in the UK for 'Research Excellence', and a winner of three research awards). I am responsible for the training of doctoral students in my university department and I am currently supervising 8 PhD students. I have supervised students to PhD completion and been an external PhD examiner in the UK, Scotland and Ireland. In my opinion, there is no question that the 9/11 Toronto hearings are a much more credible source than a CBS News report. When we teach research students about the reliability of sources, peer-reviewed journal articles are at top of a list of examples we give our students to examine / comment on. News reports come near or at the bottom (in both our, and our PhD students, estimation).
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 07:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)
Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Sheffield Business School 12:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryridleyduff ( talk • contribs)