Misplaced Pages

Talk:September 11 attacks: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:22, 11 March 2007 editLovelight (talk | contribs)1,461 edits →Ambiguity in BBC on-scene reporting: disturbing!← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:33, 26 December 2024 edit undoHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,123 edits →RfC on lead collage of photos: Indent 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{controversial}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{FAQ}}
|action1=RBP
{{American English}}
{{Article history|action1=RBP
|action1date=January 19, 2004 |action1date=January 19, 2004
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion
|action1result=kept |action1result=kept
|action1oldid=2188400 |action1oldid=2188400

|action2=FAR |action2=FAR
|action2date=February 26, 2004 |action2date=February 26, 2004
Line 12: Line 15:
|action2result=demoted |action2result=demoted
|action2oldid=2553382 |action2oldid=2553382

|action3=FAC |action3=FAC
|action3date=January 10, 2005 |action3date=January 10, 2005
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1 |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1
|action3result=failed |action3result=failed
|action3oldid=9272183 |action3oldid=9272183

|action4=FAC |action4=FAC
|action4date=29 December 2006 |action4date=29 December 2006
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2 |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive2
|action4result=failed |action4result=failed
|action4oldid=96577662 |action4oldid=96577662

|action5=GAN |action5=GAN
|action5date=27 January 2007 |action5date=27 January 2007
|action5result=failed |action5result=failed
|action5oldid=103691180 |action5oldid=103691180

|action6=GAN |action6=GAN
|action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32 |action6date=2007-02-14, 01:40:32
|action6result=failed |action6result=failed
|action6oldid=107932109 |action6oldid=107932109
|currentstatus=FFA
}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{USProject}}
|2={{WikiProject Terrorism}}
|3={{WikiProject New York|class=B|importance=Top}}
|4={{WPNYC|importance=top|class=B}}
}}
{{Off topic warning}}
''An event mentioned in this article is a ]''.


|action7=GAN
-----
|action7date=October 16, 2007
'''Please remember -- this talk page is for discussing the mechanics of the article (what to include, how to include it) only and not a place to discuss the events of 9/11''' ] <small>(])</small> 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
|action7result=failed
|action7oldid=164806833


|action8=GAN
According to which policy? Is this page not just for 'discussion' or 'Talk' as the title suggests? ] 07:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
|action8date=May 19, 2008
:It's a place to discuss the article. Not to discuss the topic. --] 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
|action8link=Talk:September 11%2C 2001 attacks/Archive 42#GA review
:I agree with Sdedeo WP:TALK Guidelines (See ]). There it clearly states that 'Talk pages are not for general conversation', so keep it to a minimum, there must be 1000s of forums for general conversation relating to this topic, plus overtime if this happened to all articles, surely the servers would collapse. ] 18:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
|action8result=listed
-----
|action8oldid=213408835
{{archive box |The archives of the discussion of the '''September 11, 2001 attacks''' article may be found here:<br>
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ],
], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]}}
{{todo|1|small=yes}}
{{WPCD|small=yes}}
{{FAOL|Bosnian|bs:Napadi 11. septembra 2001.|lang2=Swedish|link2=sv:11 september-attackerna|lang3=Malayalam|link3=ml:സെപ്റ്റംബര്‍ 11ലെ ഭീകരാക്രമണം|small=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=A|category=History|small=yes}}


|action9=PR
__TOC__
|action9date=01:58, 29 May 2008
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive1
|action9result=reviewed
|action9oldid=215415204


|action10=FAC
== Ungrammatic title ==
|action10date=02:53, 10 July 2008
The entry title ought to be “September 11, 2001''',''' attacks” if the date format is going to be Mmmm DD, YYYY. However, beyond making this note, I am not going to try to wrestle with anyone over this issue. —] 13:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11, 2001 attacks/archive3
:Previously discussed. This is the same style Misplaced Pages uses for ] etc. ] 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
|action10result=not promoted
::Absolutely false. “DD Mmmm YYYY” ≠ “Mmmm DD, YYYY”. In the latter case, the year is ''offset'' by a comma. A title “11 September 2001 attacks” would be grammatic, and “September 11, 2001, attacks” would be grammatic, but “September 11, 2001 attacks” is not. (Now, I need to work on my resolve to let this go.) —] 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
|action10oldid=224667994
:::Is "Ungrammatic" even a word? ] (]) 05:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Sheesh. Just let it go. The "issue" here basically boils down to a difference in the way Americans write (and, to some extent, "say") dates. A far more idiosyncratic "American" title would, in fact, be ] or ](s) or even ](s). For the record, "ungrammatic" is not, in fact, a word. "Grammatically incorrect", perhaps, yes..."antigrammatical", still, albeit "unused", is correct. "Ungrammatic" is, unequivocably, ''not'' a word. In light of that simple fact, this is probably a good place, if there were ''ever'' a good place to point this out, I think that perhaps a far more important focus for committed WP editors should be proper grammar within articles, rather than whether article titles reflect a single editor's particular ideas about the proper use of punctuation. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 08:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::For the record, “ungrammatical” is certainly a word, and can be found in such authorities as ''The American Heritage Dictionary''. (I am appalled at how often WIkipedia editors make pronouncements without checking references.) This corresponds to one of the definitions of “grammatical”, namely
::::::'''2.''' Conforming to the rules of grammar.
:::::Nor is the primary issue here one of British versus American dating conventions. In both England and America the two conventions that the section creator proposed are correct, and the absence of the comma in the form used in the article title is incorrect. And the proper way to settle the matter is not to ''sneer'' at the challenge; nor is it to talk through one's hat!
:::::The ''proper'' way to settle with issue with such references as the (very ''American'') ''Chicago Manual of Style'', which in 6.46 plainly states
{{cquote|In the month-day-year style of dates, the style most commonly used in the United States and hence now recommended by Chicago, commas are used both before <u>and after the year</u>. In the day-month-year system—sometimes awkward in regular text, though useful in material that requires many full dates—no commas are needed. Where month and year only are given, or a specific day (such as a holiday) with a year, neither system uses a comma. }}
:::::(Underscore mine.) —] 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
*We all know this is an article title, not a full sentence, right? ] 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::We all noticed that the ''Manual of Style'' didn't draw exceptions for titles, titles-about-Tuesdays, &amp;c, right? —] 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


|action11=GAR
===More complaining about the title===
|action11date=21:18, 20 August 2008
There is one major difference between the title of this article and "]" - and that is the location. Surely the article should be ]" <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 09:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
|action11link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA1
:Ask someone anywhere in the world what happened on July 7 2005 and I would wager most people outside the UK would not know. Ask anyone what happened on Sept 11 2001 and far more people would know. --] 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
|action11result=kept
|action11oldid=233054238


|action12=GAR
==Possible to make this page perma-protected ?==
|action12date=19 June 2010
Is it possible to "vote" on one version of this article and make it perma-protected? I know this is against everything that wikipedia stands for, but this article has been the center of argument for years, there is 26 pages of archived material (Granted, users on this talk page archive quite frequently). These years long arguements have had a ripple effect across wikipedia.
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/1
|action12result=delisted
|action12oldid=365085475


|action13=GAC
anyway, just a suggestion. Personally, I have never got involved in these really high-profile pages such as ] and ]. It seems like a waste of time to be edit warring over one page indefinetly...] (]) 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|action13date=5 July 2011
|action13link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA2
|action13result=not listed
|action13oldid=437810140


|action14=GAN
:See ]. Never got very far. ] 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|action14date=20:05, 25 July 2011
::Hmmm... thanks again Thatcher131. ] (]) 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
|action14link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA3
|action14result=listed
|action14oldid=441341484


|action15=PR
:::It's ''Stub-Class''. It's ''perma-protected'' (]?) ''stub'' and I'm not sure why would you ask for something we already have. This is rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. I'd suggest we stick that ''pov'' tag and turn this into the ''Start-Class'' article. ] 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
|action15date=11:51, 23 August 2011
|action15link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/September 11 attacks/archive1
|action15result=reviewed
|action15oldid=446303582


|action16=FAC
== Kamikaze? ==
|action16date=14:43, 30 August 2011
|action16link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive1
|action16result=not promoted
|action16oldid=447487536


|action17=GAR
I believe I read somewhere that the terrorists were inspired by the Kamikaze attacks during World War 2, but I can't verify this anywhere.. Has anyone else ever read that?
|action17date=16:23, 25 September 2011
|action17link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2
|action17result=delisted
|action17oldid=452181614


|action18=GAN
Hubert Shiau, AIM: hmshiau 13:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
|action18date=May 24, 2013
:I've never heard that. However, I ''have'' heard that kamikaze attacks were essentially the "invention" of suicide bombing. I don't think it needs to be mentioned, though. ]] 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
|action18link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA4
:Suicide attacks were no longer a novelty in 2001. ] 22:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
|action18result=not promoted
|action18oldid=556498139


|action19=GAN
==GA nomination on hold==
|action19date=July 13, 2015
This article covers the event very well, but I have put it on hold for now with a few suggestions on improving it further before passing it as a GA.
|action19link=Talk:September 11 attacks/GA5
*All wikilinks should be checked for redirects, that should be really easy to fix.
|action19result=promoted
*"According to the transcript of Flight 93's recorder, one of the hijackers gave the order to roll the plane once it became evident that they would lose control of the plane to the passengers." Rolling the plane should be clarified with a definition or wikilink for readers unfamiliar with the term.
|action19oldid=671152132
*Add a comma to the number of fatalities in the World Trade Center (in the fatalities section) to keep it uniform with the other numbers.
*"Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds." This statement should be fixed up, this seems POV about stereotypes of hijackers/terrorists.
*"Osama bin Laden's declaration of a holy war against the United States, and a Fatwa signed by bin Laden and others calling for the killing of American civilians in 1998, are seen by many as evidence of his motivation to commit such acts." Are seen by many who?
*"In response to this speech ("Bush's claim that we hate freedom"), Bin Laden remarked in 2004, "Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden."" Remove extra space between citation right after this statement.
*"Blood donations also saw a surge in the weeks after 9/11." Where did they surge at? Within New York City, around the country/world?
*Possibly expand the Civilian aircraft grounding section or move the statement to another section.
*Remove extra space for citation in the 4th and 5th paragraph of the Potential health effects section and move the see also link to the end of the section.


|topic=World history
Sources should be added to these statements:
|currentstatus=GA
*"Bomb threats were made on three of the aircraft, but not on American 77."
|action20 = FAC
*"As many as 600 people were killed instantly or trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower (2 WTC). Only about 18 managed to escape in time from above the impact zone and out of the South Tower before it collapsed."
|action20date = 2018-10-27
*"Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., an investment bank on the 101st–105th floors of One World Trade Center, lost 658 employees, considerably more than any other employer. Marsh Inc., located immediately below Cantor Fitzgerald on floors 93–101 (the location of Flight 11's impact), lost 295 employees, including one on Flight 175. Additionally, Marsh lost 38 consultants. Approximately 400 rescue workers, most of them of the FDNY, died when the towers collapsed."
|action20link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/September 11 attacks/archive2
*"According to the Associated Press, the city identified over 1,600 bodies but was unable to identify the rest (about 1,100 people)."
|action20result = failed
*The damage section also needs sources, covert the link into an inline citation.
|action20oldid = 865779234
*"27 members of al-Qaeda attempted to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks, only 19 participated."
*"When the stock markets reopened on September 17, 2001, after the longest closure since the Great Depression in 1929, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (“DJIA”) stock market index fell 684 points, or 7.1%, to 8920, its biggest-ever one-day point decline. By the end of the week, the DJIA had fallen 1369.7 points (14.3%), its largest one-week point drop in history. U.S. stocks lost $1.2 trillion in value for the week."
*"The winning design of the World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition was Reflecting Absence created by Michael Arad. It is expected to open in 2009."


|otd1date=2003-09-11
This is a very well-written article that just needs a few modifications. Although some of my suggestions are very minor (I'm sure you'll enjoy fixing those ones), I'll wait to pass the article when the other ones are fixed. There are many sources available for these events and I'm sure it shouldn't be too much of a problem to find some for the statements above. So, for right now I'll put the article on hold for seven days until they are fixed. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --] 05:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd1oldid=1418792
:I hope don't alter the above observations by increasing the flawcount for the article. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
::This article is US territory, there is no consensus, just enforcement.., no wonder people are steering away from it… and about this good article nomination, at this in time? ] 15:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yeah...shocking... ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 02:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


|otd2date=2004-09-11
== What went wrong? ==
|otd2oldid=9955831


|otd3date=2005-09-11
I'm sure this question has been raised before, and it's no doubt been lost in arguments over conspiracy theories, but isn't there a section missing on the security, intelligence and defence establishment failures related to 9/11? There are bit about it in the sub-article on responsibility, but it seems to me that this article so far has left out even the 9/11 Commission's slap on the wrist for the intelligence community. What sorts of barriers to introducing that sort of section do people here see? I.e., we need a section about "what went wrong" inside the US, which made 9/11 possible.--] 15:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd3oldid=23006719
:I thought we had a page on intelligence failures, but I can't find it now. We might begin by assembling somewhere a list of pages with material on the subject. There may be something already that is just not linked in. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::I dont see any barriers either, I think as Tom see's it, its just a matter of an editor creating a nciely written and sourced paragraph to introduce into this article. Sourcing being the most important issue I believe. Tom, since you replied first, do you have any particular issue against including material regarding the failures of the intelligence community in relation to 9/11? Any thoughts you would like to share or items you would like to see appear in it? --]<s>]</s> 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm afraid that I don't agree with the whole "intelligence failure" meme. I work in the defense industry, and while I certainly see a fair share of ineptitude, I think it's highly implausible that every facet of government intelligence "stood down" that day. I think that there was far too much money to be made (at least half a trillion US$) from 9/11 to simply believe that we "overlooked" the years of planning, "missed" the months and weeks of preparation, or "failed" to prevent the acts of a group that had been under either our control or watchful eye for almost 20 years. I'm not even mentioning the fact that our trillion-dollar "defense" system also failed from end to end as well. I'm fairly busy right now, but I think a well-sourced article on this subject will be good for this article--not just for this area, but also for the "conspiracy" area, which has been decimated by the apparently overwhelming zeal to lump the "thermite demolition" and "Pentagon cruise missile" crowd in with the "why did Bush delay the creation of and then refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission" worriers.] 02:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:We might already have a page that is just not well-linked to other articles. I would say the way to begin is to put together an inventory of articles that include information on the topic. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
::That is a good idea. I am currently rewriting and source a section for another article, but will jump on creating a section on this article right afterwards. Do not think we need to make such an inventory however, you already searched and were unable to find anything, I am sure as an admin you have more tools to locate pages at your disposal then I do. So I will see if I can write something up and source it accordingly then plop it in. Considering the subject does anyone have a reccomendation where I should put it when done, or Thomas if he writes it up? --]<s>]</s> 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


|otd4date=2006-09-11
:No, there's no special admin search tool. The way to begin is to find out what we have already. Once we have an ennumeration of internal links that talk about the idea, we will better know what we need to summarize and link to from here. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd4oldid=75188318


|otd5date=2009-09-11
::Sorry I think you were mistaken, I didnt say there was a special admin search tool, I just stated you would be able to search things I could not, like deleted articles etc. I tried some basic searches much like you above and came up blank. As I stated, I will start on something, if you find an article let me know and I can incorporate its ideas and sources. Thanks. --]<s>]</s> 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd5oldid=313246231


|otd6date=2012-09-11
Thanks for these comments. My idea now is to add a section about "vulnerabilities". I want to give the reader a sense of how difficult it must have been to carry out the attacks and/or how lucky the terrorists were. Basically: (1) they did not get caught in the planning/training stages (though Able Danger seems almost to have caught them), (2) they got past airport security (not too suprising given the very little weaponry to make them suspicious), (3) they successfully hijacked four planes (and there is no solid evidence of any unsuccessful cells), (4) their planes were not intercepted (due either to following standard operating procedures, failure to follow them, or distractions by war games), (5) they managed to hit three of their targets, and (6) the worst possible thing, namely, total collapse, happened to two of them (with the no doubt completely unexpected bonus of building 7 thrown in). So there were intelligence failures, security failures, air traffic control failures, air defence failures, and even engineering (or at least building) failures that all seemed to max out on 9/11. This is important because much of the post-9/11 reaction of course had to do with tightening these areas up (everything from improved airport security to new building codes). If anyone has a good idea for a heading, I'm all ears.--] 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd6oldid=511650593
:Just keeping to the vulnerabilities would keep things simply I believe, adding in engineering failures, if any were present, would require moving and shifting within the article. However a section on vulnerabilities seems important as you stated, much went into fixing these failures, the Patriot Act, new airport security regulations, the orange green blue security codes, not sure about fixes from air traffic controller standpoint however. If you need any help at all let me know. I have written and sourced a few smaller articles and would be glad to help in any way I can. Luckily there has been so many WP:RS sources on the topic that it will not be hard to create an entirely verifiable section. --]<s>]</s> 20:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:Very good points. The lack of proper dealing with those failures, like <i>at least</i> acknowledging them officially, is another reason for the emergence of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Having those vulnerabilities described in this article would definitely take out some tension from it. This is just a side argument to the obvious one, that most factors that had led to the attacks should be described here. ] 22:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


|otd7date=2013-09-11
==Failed GA==
|otd7oldid=572507707
It appears that there have been no changes to the suggestions listed above so at this time I am going to fail the article. The article is very well written and covers it in detail, however, it does need more sources to pass. Please fix the above suggestions before nominating again. --] 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


|otd8date=2017-09-11
== fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers ==
|otd8oldid=800113517


|otd9date=2018-09-11
This needs a definite source. To my knowledge it is merely a popular myth/presumption. While there have been reports (from family members talking on cell phones) and ambiguous indications from the black box recording, there is yet to be any definitive proof that the passengers on this flight attempted a takeover of the plane, or to what extent such an attempt had on the ultimate fate of the plane. The speed with which this myth propagated is what makes it problematic -- it served to instill patriotism and courage in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, when details were still extremely sketchy, and people simply accepted it as fact. Even assuming this was what happened, important questions like "did the passengers onboard approve of this course of action, or was it instigated primarily by a handful of glory-seekers?" have never been asked in the popular press. The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs. For now, I'm going to remove this line from the article, though if anyone feels strongly enough to add it back (and I suspect at least one person will be) then I'll leave it alone and you can continue the discussion here. ] 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd9oldid=859078369
:"The fact is that nobody knows for sure what happened on that plane, nor of the circumstances that would define those passengers as heroes or egomaniacs." Yet you already characterize it as a 'myth' so you seem to have a pretty good idea what happened. --] 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


|otd10date=2020-09-11
==Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks==
|otd10oldid=977871368


|otd11date=2023-09-11
''ok'', I believe that should go in, please read through it (carefully) and address your concerns. You see, while I'm well aware that we have ''the other'' article I'd weigh that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong. I'd also say that the failure of 911 Commission should be pointed (and not directed) out (of) here. Share your thoughts, if you will… ] 09:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd11oldid=1174521963
:''that there is not enough emphasis on the conspiracies here,where they naturally belong'' The link is '''entirely''' about conspiracy theories - they don't "naturally belong" in the article with "conspiracy theories" in the title? Anyway, the whole point about conspiracy theories is that they go beyond and/or contradict historical fact, so "key events" are not important even to the conspiracy theorists. ] 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


|itn1date=2001-09-11
==Core vs. peripheral events==


|itn2date=2002-09-11
Most of this article is about the effects of 9/11, not the events themselves. That problem should perhaps be fixed by establishing some more subarticles, or moving more material into the existing ones. In any case, as far as I can tell, based in part on the anniversary coverage last year, one of the important consequences of 9/11 has been to bring together a number of projects at the far left and far right of the political spectrum and, it seems, to strengthen these projects immensely. To not notice the effects of 9/11 on the internal resistance to the US government (i.e., American dissidence) is a bit myopic. Many on the more established left (and to a lesser extent right) are deeply concerned about what 9/11 has done to the prospect of long-term social change, i.e., its effect on the overall concentration of power. They have ''also'' noted "conspiracy theories" as one of the problems that it has led to, since these theories (they argue) hold out too little hope for the mainstream political process. As Time magazine put, "this is mainstream political phenomenon." That, in itself is a remarkable effect of 9/11: it has caused (as some have argued) a rebirth of the "paranoid style". Now, paranoia is of course no guarantee that they're not after you. But it doesn't really matter what the "reality" about 9/11 is. Conspiracy theories are part of political reality. Or so, in any case, is how the argument for giving them more space here should go. (No political project has ever depended on being right, or even realistically possible, in order to be considered notable.)--] 15:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|otd12date=2024-09-11|otd12oldid=1245107774
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|listas=September 11 attacks|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident=yes}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=top|importance=Mid|serialkiller=yes|serialkiller-imp=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid|suicide=yes|suicide-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Firefighting|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid|Islam-and-Controversy=yes|Salaf=y|Sunni=yes}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=GA|Intel=yes|US=yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|911=yes|911-importance=Top|UShistory=yes|UShistory-importance=top|DC=yes|DC-importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Virginia|importance=mid|northern virginia=yes}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Press
| title = On Misplaced Pages, Echoes of 9/11 ‘Edit Wars’
| author = Noam Cohen
| date = 11 September 2011
| month = January
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/business/media/on-wikipedia-911-dissent-is-kept-on-the-fringe.html
| org = ]


| author2 = Brian Keegan
:Fascinating topics, but as pointed out, the article is already insufficiently focused on the actual attacks. Very little, if any, of the ] is '''solely''' in consequence of the attacks. ] 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| title2 = How 9/11 Shaped Misplaced Pages
::'''I agree''' with Thomas. & Peter your dismissal is predictably vague - as always… Perhaps all of the regulars, to name a few… Aude, Peter, PTR, Mongo, Morton, Tom Harrison… should take a leave from this article; they have imposed their opinions long enough. Let's find another set of editors to work on this. How about that? ] 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/11/wikipedia-september-11-breaking-news.html
| date2 = November 17, 2020
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = September 9, 2021


| author3 = Stephen Harrison
::I like the idea that "political reality" is an oxymoron! You're right that the first order of business might be to refocus the article on "what happened", without interpretation. Of course, the moment "what happened" comes to include "islamic extremists" the can of worm opens. "Islamic extremists" are only as "real" as "political reality". Even "terrorism" is a politically loaded term. So I don't think we can keep the article clear of politics. Once introduced, there must be balance.--] 18:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| title3 = How Misplaced Pages Grew Up With the War on Terror
:::I found your comment kind of striking. It seems to suggest you plan to add material trying to legitimize conspiracy theories to articles like this one. I would not support that. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| org3 = ]
::::And I find your remarkably striking. Legitimize the conspiracy theories? What is that Tom? Does that mean that they are illegal to begin with? ] 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| url3 = https://slate.com/technology/2021/09/wikipedia-september-11-20th-anniversary.html
:::::No, not illegal, just stupid. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| date3 = September 8, 2021
::::::Tom you shouldn’t call people stupid, not on the open ground anyway… & I thought it's Morton's job to , a bit disappointed with your hasty edits Tom, as with Aude's, you should exclude yourselves from all this, honestly. ] 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| quote3 =
:::::::The people aren't stupid, just the theories. Neither are you stupid; you pretend to misunderstand so you can pretend to take offense and complain of my behavior. That's a waste of everyone's time. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| archiveurl3 =
::::::::No, I'm not saying anything, you decided to show your own bias… & I'm ok with such behavior… however, ''imo'' folks who have memorial boxes on their pages about 911 events, folks who were there that very day might be emotional about all this, which is a state where you cannot keep a cool head & you cannot be objective about things, right? As for your edits, again, it's a bit like that Regebro fellow, who stated that he has no issues with conspiracy theories, while writing how the people who are pondering upon em are nothing but "Deaf dumb and blind basketcase(s)"… but, never mind, I do agree, this is a waste of time… ] 19:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| archivedate3 =
::::::::::It's not our fault that you are uneducated. The hope is that this article, by only giving due weight to nonsense (ie, minimal coverage), that we can try and provide folks like yourself with an education. I wonder where you are from...it seems the loudest voices on this page that are attempting to continue to increase the coverage of conspiracy theories happen to not be from the U.S. When persons come here and continue to POV push things that they can't prove, it becomes disruption...don't be disruptive.--] 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| accessdate3 = September 9, 2021
:::::::::::I'm from Mars, and you are way out of line… ] 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I plan to add verifiable, informative and relevant materials to this article regardless of whether it strengthens or weakens the case for any particular theory of what happened on 9/11. I don't think the question of whether any particular fact "legitimizes" any particular theory should be used to assess its value for the article. The question is only whether or not it improves the reader's understanding of the events. The comment Tom refers to was about perfectly good facts that, so far, can only be learned (on Misplaced Pages) by reading articles about "conspiracy theories".--] 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| author4 = Alex Pasternack
:::::As you mention at the top of this...Far left and far right...in other words, if you don't like George Bush or the more recent political decisions made by the current administration or have an anti-American bias, then you're more likely to believe the conspiracy theories. Thanks.--] 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| title4 = How 9/11 turned a new site called Misplaced Pages into history’s crowdsourced front page
::::::Yes, and if you are American patriot willing to blindly go over lie after lie after lie… hmm… then you have some serious problem:). Anyway, I'd hope we are all mature enough, enough to work with facts and leave our allegiances (and biases) at home… or in the pub… ] 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| org4 = ]
:::::::If your bias is keeping you from being able to understand facts and work collectively to create a fact based encyclopedia, then your purpose here must be one of disruption. Sometimes I wonder when intelligent persons like yourself edit here knowingly adding what has no basis in fact...it has all the appearance of disruption, not the fundamental priciple of Misplaced Pages which is a collaborative effort to build a fact based encyclopedia.--] 22:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| url4 = https://www.fastcompany.com/90674998/how-9-11-turned-a-new-site-called-wikipedia-into-historys-crowdsourced-front-page
::::::::Why are you doing that? We know each other for some time now; remember how u resisted that contribution to the War on terror section? If someone has issues with facts, if someone is inviting politics into all this, if someone is disrupting… it certainly isn't me. ] 23:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| date4 = September 11, 2021
:::::That sort of depends on the conspiracy theory. If it's the "Bush did it" theory then, yes, I guess you'd in a trivial sense find it easier to swallow if you didn't like Bush. (Some, however, stopped liking him only after they became CTists.) But the anti-American label doesn't stick here very often, I think. As far as I can tell, the CTs are doing very well in the hands of "true Patriots" and the perpetrators are often referred to as "traitors". Many people who believe 9/11 CTs think there is "something terribly wrong with the country they love", etc.--] 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| quote4 =
::::::Nah, the facts are that Democrats are more likely to believe the CT issues. Sheen, Asner, and all the other persons who are known that have spoken that the CT stuff is true are all well known liberals.--] 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
| archiveurl4 =
::::::::'''You might want to read this, MONGO. ''' Education is a '''good''' thing, no? - ] 02:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
| archivedate4 =
:::::::::I said "more likely"...simple English 101.--] 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
| accessdate4 = September 13, 2021
::::::::::The question of whether there is a distinct left or right bias in the conspiracy community is, I take it, an empirical one. Mongo, you might want to offer a source for you claim of "more likely" so that the effects of 9/11 can be located as precisely as possible on the political spectrum. My sense is that CTs live mostly to the left ''and'' right of center. I don't have any reason to think either direction is stronger. If you have a source that says "30-25-20-25" (green, democrat, republican, libertarian) or something then your "most likely" is true, but a bit trivial. Simple Statistics 101.--] 10:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
:::::::::Plenty of liberals like David Corn, Christopher Hitchens, and recently George Monbiot have condemned these conspiracy theories. Matt Taibbi in ''Rolling Stone'' wrote that ''""I have no doubt that every time one of those Loose Change dickwads opens his mouth, a Republican somewhere picks up five votes."'' Conspiracism was for a long time the province of the far right. Now some on the left, afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome maybe, have fallen into the same epistemic swamp. Something similar could be said about the ]. The responsible adults on the left know how this stuff plays with most people, and are keen to distance themselves from it. Liberals per se are no more prone to conspiracism than conservatives, but it should not be a huge surprise that opponents of President Bush are more likely to cast him as the villan in their conspiracy theories. Or maybe that's just what they want me to think. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=tpm|consensus-required=yes}}
::::::::::From what I've read of the various polls, people who are more likely to believe conspiracy theories are:
::::::::::# People who use the Internet as the main source of their news, especially "alternative" news sources and not mainstream news sources.
::::::::::# Young adults
::::::::::# People with lesser amounts of education (e.g. only high school)
::::::::::That's not to stereotype those demographic groups. It's likely that large portions or majorities of these groups do not buy into the conspiracy theories. Regardless, I think this main article is long enough, and such details like this need to in the subarticle. --] <small>(])</small> 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::Generalizing is a bad thing. On the same side of the fence there are people with uncommonly high IQ taking for example . --] 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


{{pp-move-indef}}
== October 2006 New York Times/CBS News poll ==
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|


{{All time pageviews|89}}
In case anyone wanted to discuss it rationally:
{{Annual report|]}}

{{Top 25 Report|Sep 8 2013|Sep 7 2014|Sep 6 2015|Sep 4 2016|Sep 11 2016|Sep 10 2017|Sep 9 2018|Sep 8 2019|Sep 6 2020|Sep 13 2020|Aug 29 2021|until|Sep 12 2021|Sep 8 2024}}
Text of survey question: "81. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"
<!-- {{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on the page, click ] instead.}} -->

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn| target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index| mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=no}}
(And that's not even getting into the sampling bias.) ] 18:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Old moves|list=

* RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Moved''', 17 January 2004, ]
:Excess details about conspiracy theories don't belong in the main article. That said, the poll found that 53% believe members of the Bush Administration are '''mostly telling the truth''' but hiding something. That does not jive with "84% of US citizens are questioning mainstream account of the attacks." --] <small>(])</small> 18:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, '''Not moved''', 21 October 2004, ]
::Here is a -- ] 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, '''Moved''', 20 August 2008, ]
:::Which excess details Aude? There aren’t any… ] 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 October 2010, ]
::On May 17, 2002, Bush discussed the situation, saying, "The American people know this about me, and my national security team, and my administration: Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 31 March 2014, ]
:::In other words, he didn't know that the attacks were coming, unless of course someone has trouble understanding plain English.--] 22:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 13 February 2021, ]
::::Haven't noticed this one, Mongo, stay on topic… we are talking about the '''public poll where 81% of people don't believe one word of that sentence.''' ] 22:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, '''Not moved''', 14 February 2021, ]

* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, '''Procedural close''', 23 February 2021, ]
I searched for "84" in the source and did not find it relating to 9/11. Bush's approval rating was 84% the week of 9/11 was the only hit of 84 related to 9/11. This is too primary of a source anyway. A notable statistician would need to make the claim, not someone synthesizing a value from raw poll numbers. --] 21:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, '''Not moved''', 26 January 2024, ]
:84? Its 81... do search again… ] 21:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
* RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, '''Not moved''', 9 February 2024, ].
:R u searching? are to ] 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|collapse=yes}}
:::: I think you need to reread the edit I reverted . It claimed 84%. I would expect that number to be in the source that was used to make the claim "84%". Since it wasn't in the source, it must have been completely made up. ] 00:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Merged-from|World Trade Center/Plane crash|date=11 September 2001|talk=no}}
:::::As I stated bellow, my apologies, I was ] 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Merged-from|Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks|date=22 October 2015}}<!-- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Slogans_and_terms_derived_from_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=687019474 -->
::People's opinions on a poll are no more notable than the poll itself...and that is all we can go on. Nothing about a poll either proves or disproves the facts of the case.--] 22:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
{{section sizes}}
:::Yes, but I'm not sure why you've pointed that out, since this is about recognition of public opinion, not about acknowledgment of the facts. It's a bit like control demolition hypothesis, it doesn’t serve as a proof, it serves as hypothesis… ] 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
::::Precisely for the reasons I did. Who cares that there is a poll? The poll does nothing except state an opinion. I haven't seen a poll recently about the number of folks who believe in UFO's...but I bet the number is high, yet there is zero proof that UFO's exist.--] 22:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
:::::Who cares about the poll? Everybody, ask your governments, they breathe and act by public opinions, or at least they should… Well Mongo, I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you cannot dismiss opinions of millions because ''you'' don’t care… ] 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|target=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive index
::::::Well Lovelight, the opinion is noted but inadmissable since it doesn't do anything to enhance this article. Precisely, most people believe in UFO's, yet there isn't any proof of them. Thanks.--] 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|mask=Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive <#>
:::::::Please, quit with the UFO's, its boring tactic to say the least. Stay on the topic, if you can, to parry on this I'll simply add that there is not a single proof that this… this "official" take on events is true. Not a single one Mongo. That's the main reason that we have (& disputes too). ] 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes
:The poll question, in fact, offers very little supporting any particular conclusion. The results simply say 81% of respondents (not the population at large) believe that someone close to Little George has not admitted to how much they knew before the attacks, for any reason. I can't imagine what the other 19% were thinking, this is documented fact in the case of Condoleeza Rice. ] 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
}}
::I've already gave you a reference, the question is clear: "When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?" ] 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
{{User:MiszaBot/config
:::I agree with Peter. I read the statement that 81% are “questioning mainstream account of the attacks” and was very surprised that the figure was that high. But when I went to the cited source and read all the 9/11 related questions, I saw nothing that was related to the statement – the closest question being that most think (myself included) that the Bush admin. was/is “hiding something.” I would hope that they don’t tell up 100% of everything they know… if for no other reason than security, but that does not make this group doubt the mainstream account of what happened; it's a stretch and jump to get to the sentence in the article. The 81% statement is bogus and should be either left out of the article or reworded to reflect what the poll question really says.] 23:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
::::Yes, I realize that it was extremely poor wording, I did carry it from and that was a mistake. Nevertheless you've seen the other polls and the numbers are equally surprising everywhere, I'd say it's notable enough to be recognized in the article. ] 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
|maxarchivesize = 200K
::::As a matter of fact, since I've never seen you here, I'd deeply appreciate if you choose to do it. ] 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|counter = 64
:::::Thanks for asking. Well? I don't know that it '''is''' notable. As I stated, it's no surprise that our government official know stuff that they don't want to pass on; that's the nature of the jobs that they hold. In fact, it is naive to think that they ''should'' tell us everything. However, having said that, there has to be a fine line as to what the public should demand to know. I would guess that your 81% statement on the number that doubt the mainstream account of what happened is closer to 20%. ] 00:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|minthreadsleft = 5
::::::No, you have those references above and it's obvious that the #'s are much, much higher, but those won't meat WP:RS… hmm, that will leave us with zogby polls and similes. Think it's about third of population, but I haven’t checked that in a while… ] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|algo = old(30d)
:::::: It would make sense, since we live in this unhealthy dichotomy… ] 00:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|archive = Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive %(counter)d

}}
So, are we going to recognize the public opinions or not? Peter? Aude? Tbeatty? Anyone... ] 00:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
__TOC__
:Whenever you are ready… ] 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd support it if you'd be willing to use the 3 terms used in the source instead of polarizing the results in your favor. --]] 18:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Hey, be kind and assume good faith, here, have my third apology, along with further explanation and clear disclaimer… I don't have a need to state anything but the facts. The fact is… I've implement those edits hastily and without decent check of I'm aware how it may look, and I was so disturbed by my own action that I've choose to block myself willingly for 48 hours, so that I would learn the lesson. Anyway, thank you for your understanding as well as for recognition of the informative nature of such addition. ] 05:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

==Conspiracy Theories Section==

The September 3rd, 2006 edition of Time Magazine, a major news publication in the United States, reported that "A Scripps-Howard poll of 1,010 adults last month found that 36% of Americans consider it "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that government officials either allowed the attacks to be carried out or carried out the attacks themselves."

Owing to this high number, what justification do this page's contributors have for limiting the Conspiracy Theories section to one small paragraph? ] 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:Funny, I thought we had a sizable article on conspiracy theories. --] 10:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::There is no justification, I'll look this up and implement it in the article, you could do it too… ] 16:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not opposed to doing it, but I don't think what I'd write would make everyone happy. And Golbez, yes we have a conspiracy theories page- but the lead in on the main page ought to be proportionate to the importance of the sub-page - whether you like it or not, the conspiracy theories are always going to play a big role in everything surrounding 9/11 ] 17:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Not gonna happen. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 18:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes it will, yes it will… if it doesn’t happen 911 will happen again & no one would like that, right? Anyway, its good to see some fresh opinions here… yes it is. ] 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:I'd support adding this.(either this or the one above if Lovelight is willing to use the source's actual language and distinctions) The conspiracy section is small, it doesn't need to be huge or anything, but a mention of some public opinion would be helpful in my opinion. --]] 18:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::We have two articles: (1) this one, for the facts; and (2) the other one, for all of the "theories". That arrangement has wide consensus. Any attempt to change that will be met with stiff opposition. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, I fully support keeping the theories and all that stuff in that other article(s). I just happen to think that mentioning one of the two aforementioned public opinion polls could be informative. --]] 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I think it's better to discuss the polls on the conspiracy theories subarticle. The scripps poll seems to be most on point and specific about conspiracy theories. For comparison purposes and perspective, they also ask respondents about other things like if the federal government is withholding evidence of extraterrestrial life. The Scripps poll also gives a breakdown of which demographic groups (e.g. young adults, lesser educated, etc.) who are more likely to agree with conspiracy theories. All this details are suitable for the subarticle. --] <small>(])</small> 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Why are you painting pictures Aude? People draw their own details… as for writing, anyone can do it… ] 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::The general population are not experts. The Zogby poll found that 43% of Americans are not aware that a third building -- ] collapsed. I don't think so much weight needs to be given to these polls. Discussing the details in the subarticle is sufficient. --] <small>(])</small> 19:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::It is not a question of expertise it is a matter of opinion. It's informative, as well as notable. Not to say that it's ultra-minor addition. ] 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::...and about WTC7, don't you think it's time to "educate" the public? ] 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: New to this discussion. There's already a conspiracy theory article. Polls like this can be parked, there. ] 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why we have to continuously revisit this issue, take a look at this citation which Lovelight graciously posted here earlier: , where it provides instructions on how to insert 9/11 CT propaganda into Misplaced Pages articles. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
:This reference, which Morton threw in just so that the muddy waters would be muddier, was taken from my talkpage… I'd encourage anyone who has any doubts to look at the ] 05:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to initiate a vote on the expansion on the main page of the Conspiracy Theories section to a second paragraph to make mention of public opinion. ] 21:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For:
] 16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot prove that the 9/11 attacks did not involve a conspiracy, then how can you let the theory that it was a terrorist attack be written as fact?
:Exactly. There is not a shard of physical evidence that points to Al-Qaida as a suspect. This is "Jack The Ripper" all over again. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 22:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
Might I add that there was no mention of Al-Qaida as an organization until the early 2001 trial fo the 1993 WTC bombers !?! And sorry for not signing the comment above --] 23:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

==Foreknowledge (take #247)==

Yes Morton I agree, this one is about the facts and facts say that certain amount of people are skeptical of official take on events. I'm not sure why would facts be met with such stiff opposition, but I do understand your efforts and your POV. Well since we're examining the facts, how about a fine factual section on that foreknowledge? Regardless of perspectives recent BBC's documentary (my condolences to fine journalism, but have courage, after all, the minority is to blame…) did illustrate that there was a sheer failure to act. This failure should be recognized not only here, but on all related pages… such as of Dr. Rice's, signor Rumsfeld's, Monsieur Cheney's und der Herr Bush's of course… How about such facts? Those have nothing to do with conspiracy. Since yesterday, I'd also say that building 7 deserves a bit more room. It's been neglected for a while, and at least we'll have something to do while we wait for final report. No conspiracy there, just recognition of a very peculiar fall. I'm sure they'll explain it, eventually… ] 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

== Background section (draft) ==

While the September 11 attacks were in the first instance an act of external aggression on US targets, their deeper motivation and remarkable success cannot be attributed to the acts and intentions of the hijackers alone. The events of that day must be understood on the background of a series of systemic failures of both a social and technical nature, which include the military establishment, the intelligence community, the law-enforcement community, and the civil aviation industry.

US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target.

The events of September 11, 2001 revealed that the United States was much more vulnerable to terrorism than had been imagined. Despite awareness of the threat, terrorist cells that would eventually carry out the attacks were able to live and even train for their mission in the US, without being thwarted by intelligence or law-enforcement agencies. The background for this failure seems to have been poor communication between agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA.

Airport security and air defence in the US also seemed ill prepared to prevent the events of that day. Four hijackings we able to occur and proceed unhindered toward their targets. In both cases, authorities had apparently expected a different sort of enemy. Hijackers were expected to take hostages and make demands, not use the airplanes to inflict immediate damage; enemies from the air were expected to come from outside US airspace.

Finally, three of the biggest skyscrapers in the world proved to be unable to survive the attacks, even though the possibility of aircraft collisions had been considered in their design, as had the need to survive hurricanes and earthquakes.

===Comments on draft===
The above section has been reverted twice now by Aude. First he said it was "not ready"; then he said: "unreferenced, editorial (not encyclopedic) tone, no consensus". Okay. Have at it. What parts are written in an editorializing tone? Can they not be fixed by replacing a few words? The account presented here can be sourced 90% (I'm guessing) to the official 9/11 commission report, and the rest can be found in some of the mainstream, booklength treatments of the events. It's common knowledge, relevant, well written (if I may so), and completely encyclopedic. Moreover, it establishes a frame of failures on that day that guides a reading of the rest of the article.--] 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

:Nicely written, but it's entirely opinion, which we don't allow here on Misplaced Pages. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
::But it's the opinion of every expert that's looked at this topic. Is it ''my'' opinion that US foreign policy is not well received in the middle east? Is it my opinion that this has been a motive for terrorism against the US?--] 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There clearly needs to be a section on the background of the attacks. An article on 9/11 that doesn't do anything (and this article doesn't do anything) to answer the question ''How could this have happened?'' is not good enough. This article needs to help the reader put 9/11 in perspective.--] 00:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:I think the "attacks" section needs to be first, as it is now, and then go into discussion of motives, responsibility, and why the attacks happened. Such background should discuss ] and ]. We already have a section on ], which discusses their view of U.S. foreign policy, as well as responsibility. There is also an article on ] which can be improved, and maybe something can be added to the ] section. --] <small>(])</small> 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::P.S. You may for the deleted page to find out who deleted it and why. --] <small>(])</small> 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::There's a whole article over at ]. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::That's a good place to work from. There is also an article on ]. I have tried separating the motives section from "responsibility" and added links to both the background history and planning articles. I think a one paragraph summary of those could fit under the "Background history" heading. Thoughts? --] <small>(])</small> 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Following on my last edit, I moved things back closer to where they where with "responsibility" and "motives" under the same heading, while still linking to the "background history" and "planning" articles. This seems to be a more logical way to organize the article. --] <small>(])</small> 02:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::I've read through Thomas's draft repeatedly and have no issues with it, this article is very small in size as it is (especially so with regards to the gravity of the events), so these constant redirections are not good way to go. Properly referenced and cited with some minor rewording draft would certainly (and notably) improve the article. That said, Aude has repeatedly shared this puzzling (not ready) explanation? Since I've seen it (experienced it) before, think we are all entitled to some decent answers. Aude who decides when are we ready, and what exactly are we waiting for? Finally, I'm certain that fair amount of people are watching developments here, so let me remind you folks, this is not a Big Brother, chip in, have your say. ] 05:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Basbolls draft above is horribly POV and completely unacceptable. The U.S. and many western nations have faced terrorism since 1950's Algeria. The U.S. has been ungoing attacks off and on for almost as long as that, escalating in 1983 and again in the 90's, and the attacks have become more widespread. The draft Basboll proposes is way off focus for this article, which needs to concentrate on the events of one day, with only minor mentions of planning and after effects, which are already covered in other articles as mentioned in the dialogue above.--] 07:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see how these details are at odds with the statement I propose: "US foreign policy has long been the focus of deep resentment in the Middle East and much of the third world. Terrorism has been a well known manifestation of this resentment and had, already before September 11, 2001, been regularly directed at US targets. The 1993 World Trade Center bombings demonstrated the threat of foreign terrorism against targets also inside the United States and indicated the World Trade Center itself as a target." My way of putting has the virtue of being centred on the topic of the article, but otherwise I think we're saying the same thing here.--] 08:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::No reason whatsoever to discuss the U.S. policies in the Middle East in this article. This article is about what happened on 9/11 and much of the rest of the issues of why, who, and whatnot deserve a breif mention and a link to other articles that already examine these issues you just mentioned. If they aren't adequately addressed in those articles, then create one. Lets stay focused on the day.--] 08:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

===Comments on draft (continued) ===
I can see this is going to be a long process. As I understand it, the standardly accepted account includes an understanding of how US authorities failed to prevent the attacks (failed in the sense that the buildings also "failed", i.e., not necessarily with any suggestion that they ''should have'' behaved differently--though that question must of course be noted). Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm looking for; it is in the Encyclpaedia Britannica article on Pearl Harbor:

:"The extent of the disaster and the unpreparedness of the U.S. military provoked considerable criticism. Adm. Husband Kimmel and Gen. Walter Short, the Navy and Army commanders on Oahu, were relieved of duty, and official investigations were begun at once. Some historians and others went so far as to accuse President Roosevelt of having invited the attack (or at least done nothing to stop it) in order to bring the United States into the war against the Axis." (Enc. Britannica)

Reading this article about 9/11, however, one gets no sense that anything "went wrong" on 9/11 other than whatever went wrong in the minds of the terrorists. (As if the decisive factor was the ''motive''.) This article therefore does not really help the reader to understand a very important historical event, i.e., it does not present a even a cursory overview of the factors that contributed to the catastrophic consequences of the hijackers' actions. It simply summarizes the actions and the consequences. It doesn't demonstrate an understanding of the event. It occurs to me that Misplaced Pages is here running into one of its intrinsic limits. Perhaps an event like 9/11 simply can't be understood by collective effort. But let's work on it for few weeks and see what we can come up with.--] 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:The fault of the attacks is with the terrorists. What you're suggesting indicates you want to split the blame. I think I have stated repeatedly that the U.S. knew for some time prior to the 9/11 attacks that there were targets in the U.S....they did try and blow up one tower in 1993 afterall, but nothing that came to happen on 9/11 was sufficiently known by intel to be able to prevent it from happening. Besides, I think you must still miss the point...this article is about the events of one day and what you seem to want to expand on is very peripheral to that specific focus.--] 07:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::Well, the article (as it stands) is also about the consequences of those events. Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed. But (like I just suggested above) that would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor. A nation's defences are entrusted with defending a nation (truism but true). Such defences can therefore fail. When they do, historical events occur. Accounts of those events should include the failure of defence systems to prevent them. The alternative is ignorance, which isn't really one of the goals of Misplaced Pages.--] 08:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::"''Right now, the article is clearly written from the POV that only the terrorists can be blamed''"...who else is to blame? Again, you are getting off focus of where the article should be focusing on...the events of 9/11. "That would be a bit like saying only the Japanese were responsible for Pearl Harbor? I see...so their rape of Nanking and our efforts to demonstrate to them that we disapproved of their invasions and genocide by trying to isolate the Japanese economically makes the U.S. responsible for them attacking Pearl Harbor? If you want to expand on where the u.S. intel failed, then I suggest one of the other articles linked above.--] 08:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Here they are again...], ].--] 08:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Nope, we need to expand this article so it would make sense, we need this background as we need to mention those war games, explain the failure of commission and so on… in other words we'll need to make it more encyclopedic… lots of work. ] 08:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::None of that belongs in this article...there are other articles that these issues are already examined in.--] 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Don't worry Mongo, all this can be done with just a few sentences, people can then examine further… with interest. And please, do unlock this page, these monologues are a bit boring… ] 08:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Wow. "The Rape of Nanking". I'm not going to discuss who's the bad guy and who's the good guy in world history, Mongo. That won't get us anywhere. The point is that if any country is successfully attacked by a well known enemy (as in the cases of Pearl Harbor and 9/11) then leaders of the nation's defences will be held in part accountable by the people or their representatives (as happened in the case of Pearl Harbor) or at least by historians (as has happened in the case of 9/11). Not for the attack, of course, but for its relative success. The US was surprisingly vulnerable in all sorts of ways to this particular sort of action. This article gives us little sense of how difficult and/or easy it was for the hijackers to pull it off. Yes, I am suggesting that it is reasonable to spread the blame for the damage the attacks caused around a little. In so doing I'm following a pretty mainstream approach to history. This was a complex event.--] 10:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Maybe there is a middleground to be reached partially, and then possibly expanded later. While MONGO does not own the article and therefore cannot tell anyone what its scope is, for now we can possibly work in that scope. The war games that took place on 9/11 are events that took place on that day, failures of the control towers to respond properly as well as the military to respond fast enough are also items that can be included and examined in a section, as they happened on that day. Later other options can be looked at such as a RfC or Arbcom hearing regarding expanding the article to cover everything about 9/11 instead of just the day. So what do people think about limiting the section proposed to just failures that happened in that day, flight controllers, military readiness/wargames, local authorities radio systems etc. Part of me finds it odd that anyone can say blame should not be spread around since people have been fired since and an entire institution was created. Apparently even the administration feels something was lacking. --]<s>]</s> 13:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
*The "draft" is vague and one-sided, and would only serve to dilute the focus of this article. Still, there probably is a case for mentioning the role of complacency and/or negligence, but the undue weight rule should limit that to a quick summary of a specialized sub-article. ] 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

::I think I see what you mean about one-sided (though I would argue that it is simply pulling in the article back towards a more balanced view). Perhaps a paragraph about the background conditions that fostered these especially effective terrorists would help here. The only problem with that is that their operation seems suprisingly crude. Their flight training was elementary (just enough to get the job done, it would seem) and they overpowered the flight crew by sheer force and using simple weapons. While this may sound polemical, I think I'm arguing that as the article stands it gives undue weight to the actions of the terrorists, which were almost magically successful when we consider the results. Once the background of complacency and negligence, as you put it, along with some larger systemic problems (especially in the area of inter-agency cooperation), and perhaps the wargames at the time (exacerbating the "fog of war"), are taken into account, however, the effectiveness of the attacks begin to be comprehensible. It should be the task of the article to help the reader understand the attacks.--] 13:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::It is going to be a challenge to inject "the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong," and it is something I do not support. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I think you're taking that a bit out of context. In ''this'' context it just means making use of whatever close readings of the official record there are and to make use of the information that this yields in an appropriate manner.--] 14:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::That sounds like a job for an investigative journalist, with an independent editor providing oversight. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Maybe someone like ] would be interested in such matters.--] 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The keys of the succes of the terrorists were two :

-In USA there was not any control in the airports and you can go into the plane with everything you want. In the rest of the world since the 1970s the control was much exhaustive.

-The procedure in case of hijaking that was given to the pilots by the air companies was to not resist and to follow the instructions of the hijakers to protect the plane and the passengers.

Apart from that, the fact that these planes were so easy to pilot helped a lot.

The governement ignored some warnings that seen from now look clear but in the middle of all the inteligence noise were not so easy to see. Even if the governement agencies would have ringed the alarm, it is very doubtful that the air companies would had allowed the kind of control in the airports that was necesary to stop the terrorists. In Europe was the same in the 1970s : until some planes were destroyed in Beirut in a famous hijaking, the aiports do not spent the money for security.

It was a very easy operation once you have the suicidal guys prepared. The enormity of the results must not mislead about how operationally easy was. The mistake was to not force the security in aiports in the 1970s when all the countries in the world did after 1973 wave of hijakings by PLO. To say that "the terrorist were able to live in USA" is absurd since the majority were innocent before 9/11 and they live as such.

The draft goes too far away IMO about how many things should have been done since only doing what all the airports in the world were doing would have been enough. The fact that many people supports Al-Qaeda around the world does not helped the attacks since the same 20 guys alone would have been able of doing the same thing. The hostility vs. USA in Middle East is a problem for the deployement of USA foreign policy in the area but is not in itself a "sine qua non" for 9/11. Terrorist organisations do not need people support to live as the countryside guerrillas do.--] 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

== "Accounted For" ==

I believe that the phrase "about 2,973 people are accounted for" is unclear. The 2,973 are, I believe, dead for whom at least some remains have been identified. Would "about 2,973 dead have been accounted for" be more or less useful? ] 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

==Lucky # 7 (take #973)==

There are two notable '''hypothesis''' about the fall of building 7. Neither is currently provable. I'd like to hear some opinions, ''imo'' we should recognize both '''hypothesis''', for I see no reason to implement NIST and neglect the other one.

Anyway, this sentence:

"A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m., after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires. Numerous adjacent buildings to the complex also had substantial damage and fires and had to be demolished."

Won't suffice. It is written as (or at least it implies) some sort of proof. NIST clearly stated that it's a '''working hypothesis''', not a proof of any kind. Let's be factually accurate about these things. Or is that too much to ask (in one day)? ] 06:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:I can't see any reaosn to remove what should be common knowledge.--] 07:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::No need to remove anything, we need to add the other hypothesis and reformulate the wording so it wouldn’t be misleading - as it is now. ] 07:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::No we don't. --] 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes we do. ] 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::No we don't. --] 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::] 08:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) .od ew seY

& I'm open for suggestions since if I'm about to reformulate it, it will say something like: "The building fell in manner which is consistent with controlled demolition hypothesis."; however some may prefer to state that "the collapse of WTC 7 is still to be (un)explained." or something along those lines (I'm ''ok'' with most options as long as they imply word hypothesis). Anyway, current state of that sentence simply won't suffice; it cannot be more misleading and inaccurate than it is, there is a much better conclusion in the investigation>collapse of the towers section, we should be consistent… Peter, I'm certain you are aware of the flaw. Care to fix it? ] 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:Except you're simply wrong. The "fell down because broken towers hit it" notion is far more powerful than the idea that it fell down because of controlled demolition. We don't give random hypotheses equal footing. --] 17:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::This is nonnegotiable, I gave you folks open hands, I don't care how you fix it, but fix it. Again, this particular sentence is not acceptable, it implies way too much without offering anything in return. I've told you how I would put it, if you need to pull it differently, do so, but do it soon. ] 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::For once, you're absolutely right - it ''is'' non-negotiable. :) --] 20:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::''ok'', then I'll fix it as I see fit, and if you interfere we'll have the silliest ArbCom ever. :) ] 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:Lovelight, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. The sentence as written is factual and doesn't assert any kind of 'proof'. The superficial ressemblance to (uncontrolled) demolition only indicates that the point of failure was near ground level, where, surprise, it was struck by debris from 1 WTC. We can state that the exact deatils of failure are not as well understood as in the case of 1 WTC and 2 WTC, but then NPOV requires also pointing out that there is no evidence supporting any other explanation. ] 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::: There is no evidence whatsoever that gold-seeking river dwarves did not undermine the foundation of WTC Building #7 with their junior pickaxes. If Lovelight's hypothesis goes into the article, I feel we should mention the dwarves possible contribution as well. ] 21:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sir are you aware that the dwarf lobby will have your head --] 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I very much look forward to it. --] 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you boys having fun? Peter, you are well aware of the flaw in the sentence, it validates something which is not factually accurate. Again, I don't care how you choose to do it, as far as I'm concerned leave them both, or remove them both (hypothesis, that is). But at its current state the sentence won't suffice it’s nothing but a '''false claim''' and '''we cannot have false claims in our encyclopedia.''' ] 21:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:You constantly avoid specifics so as to obstruct counter-argument. You haven't even named the two alleged "notable hypothess" you want people to discuss. I believe you do not have any good faith objection and are merely attempting to engage in vandalism. Prove me wrong: what, exactly, is false? ] 22:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::Please, don't play milli vanilli on me; I'm certainly not talking about dwarfs. I'll add the airplane to the sentence… as if "A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC), which wasn't hit by an airplane collapsed… into oblivion. ''ok''? ] 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::: I object to ]'s summary dismissal of the devious river-dwarf hypothesis regarding building 7's demise. It has never been disproven that river dwarves did not accidentally fell building 7 during an ill-fated dig for precious gold bullion. The theory should be given the same amount of space as Lovelight's. ] 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
::::If you can cite to a reputable source which supports the controlled demolition notion, then we have something to discuss. But I think you can't, so the whole discussion is moot. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 22:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Oddworld's Abe it's not my theory, and we don't have a theory… we have different hypothess, if you can cite your dwarf hypothesis, cite it. Morton, just reformulate the sentence so it would reflect the fact that we are talking about '''NIST's hypothesis''', we cannot have this sort of construct. Again, if I'll be forced into edit warring I'll use the term "control demolition", it doesn't have to be that way, however, if we are to remain NPOV and if we are to stick to the facts, this structure is no good, it implies that building fell due to debris and disel fuel and such unverified claim has no room here. I'm interested, what exactly is the cause of this resistance? Would you like to discuss the freedom agenda? The fall? Domino effect? What would you like to discuss? Think-tankit if you must, discuss how unsustainable it all is, ponder upon why it may reoccur in the future. I don't care, this has nothing to do with perspectives, it's about the factual accuracy and known facts. We are not going to have another 911, ever. So fix that sentence, don't mention anything for all I care, but don't say that building fell "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires." Because that isn't verifiable, or true. ] 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::But that's exactly what the reputable sources say. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::No, the reputable (or is it disputable?) source clearly states: "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." ] 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::You're speaking as if NIST is the only reputable source discussing the issue -- it isn't. There are literally tens of thousands of articles in the mainstream media that have discussed this issue -- not one of them support a notion of controlled demolition. Please understand that Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to ferret-out the truth -- that's the job of journalism and scientists. Our job is to summarize what other '''reputable''' sources say about a subject. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::We are talking about existing reference, if you wish to add alternative, please, do so. ] 02:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::::Not only are none of these theories currently provable, they will never be provable. So we're left with evidence and the opinion of experts working in their field. At the moment the great preponderance of expert opinion lays (roughly) around what the NIST is likely to find and consider CD ]. To give them equal footing, or to even mention CD in this context seems unencyclopedic (POV) and not NPOV. ] 02:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::They will certainly be provable… at some point in time… The fact is, if we won't NPOV then we have to say it as it is. That is, we have no valid explanation for the collapse of WTC 7, we have hypotheses… If we are about to mention NIST's working hypothesis in such assembly as the one we are discussing, then we are liars. This needs to be addressed, decently, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages and all that. There is nothing beyond the factual accuracy; there is no need to impose opinions. I'm not pushing for CD, it's already referenced in the article, I'm saying that the sentence is misleading… all the way to hell… and I'm a bit tired of repeating all this, since the flaw in the flow is painfully clear. ] 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*If you're "tired of repeating" yourself, how about '''identifying''' the problem, rather than just whining about it. Or is being factual what you are ultimately unhappy about? ''we have no valid explanation for the collapse of WTC 7'' In fact, we have a valid and complete theory as to the cause of structural failure. We had it before the building even collapsed - professional firefighters concluded the structure was at risk and abandoned the building. Now, that doesn't by itself demonstrate that other possibilities are untrue, and people are free, nay, encouraged, to contemplate other explanations and seek other evidence. But so far no-one has come up with any evidence of either demolition or dwarf excavation. ] 03:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
**Or remarkable structural failure due the fires and debris. ] 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
**And you better show me this '''theory''' you speak of. I'd be interested to see… ] 03:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
**''btw'', since there were no firefighters in the building, what did Silverstein pull? ] 03:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Please don't remove references from reputable sources, thanks...] 04:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, so Peter, where is this theory of yours? Those reputable sources have nothing to do with our statement about mechanics of collapse. I'm still expecting for this to be fixed, with full respect to the actual facts and NPOV. ] 12:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:You are the one challenging consensus - identify what specifically is inaccurate or concede you don't have a real objection. And what exactly is ''our statement about mechanics of collapse'' - mechanics is not a subject you've demonstrated much understanding of. ] 12:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::Listen, I don't appreciate your tone, I've been holding my temper for a while, while you are whining and beating around the scrub. Just take a look at the very beginning of the discussion and read it thoroughly; things should be clear, if not, you've got some unrelated issues you need to deal with. I'm not the one who is claiming to have valid (provable) theory about the collapse of WTC7, you are. Either you prove me you are right, and that building fell "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires." Either state what you're reputable source is actually stating, and that is: "The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available." Anyway, quit with the insults, from my perspective you're ignorance with the regards of mechanics of the collapse is unbearable, but this is not the point of the discussion, you brought it up yesterday, claiming that you have some sort of '''theory''', while there is none. To make things clear, one more slap from you, and I'll slap back, honestly. ] 13:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::You need to do more research before you start making more ridiculous allegations here and wasting everyones time. The NIST report is due sometime in Spring 2007 and we'll need to wait for that to be released to absolutely confirm what happened. Until then, to quote from a NIST presentation,
::::''The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster(Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
::::*''An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
::::*''Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up tothe east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
::::*''Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest
:::Thats what they said in 2004. They confirmed to Popular Mechanics,
::::''"The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
::::''NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
::::''According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
:::. Nice article. You should read it.
:::So is that technical enough for you? Or do you want proof about Mr.Froman's dwarf theory as well?--]<sup>( <font color="#339966" face="Constantia">]</font> / <font color="#CC0099" face="Constantia">]</font> )</sup> 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::I know all that, only thing in which I'm interested is '''working hypothesis''' part, thanks for your effort, though. ] 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::Wait, is all this nonsense just that Lovelight doesn't understand the difference between a professional working hypothesis and an unfounded speculative folk hypothesis? ] 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, it's because of the fact that we cannot use either hypothesis without noting that we are talking about hypothesis, not about the proof, as Snowolf just implied. ] 16:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't understand how you can insist that these two theorys be treated on an equal basis...one is accepted (whether officially offered at this time or not) by reputable sources and experts working in their field. The other is not accepted by reputable sources and experts working in their field. That's the only thing we need to know about all this. ] 16:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
::::::Again, I'm not insisting on anything, I'm not pushing the other hypothesis, I'm saying that the disputed sentence is deliberately misleading and it needs to be changed… ] 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
*Alternate hypothesis, in the context of the NIST investigation, means things like the failure started in the south-east corner versus started in the south-west corner. "Deliberately misleading" is trying to suggest the basic outline is still in doubt. ] 16:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
**Of course that it is in doubt, it’s a hypothesis, all these alternatives need to be tested (as in future), we cannot use preliminary hypothesis to explain the collapse as we did here. It's not factually accurate. I've said it before, I don’t care how you choose to fix it, either recognize that we are talking about the hypothesis, either remove that sentence, either add alternative CD theory, but don't keep insisting that buildings fell after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell and subsequent fires. There is no proof for such claim. Here is a I suggest you read the final page (L.3.6.). ] 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am suspicious of Peter Grey's anti-science stance. A working hypothesis by NIST must not be presented as fact, but as a working hypothesis. Just as creationism should be presented as a working hypothesis by creationists. ] 21:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Frak

=="Background History" Section and A Recommendation==

I highly disapprove of this section, reorganized by AudeVivere. The timing closely coincides with my movement of 'Conspiracy Theories' to the reactions section. These theories need not be correct-but they are assignments of responsibility and belong in that section. Putting Conspiracy Theories in the 'reaction' section seems only to dismiss theories that have some meat to them. And i'm not sure how 'responsibility' goes into 'background history' anyway. A poor edit.

I've thought lately, perhaps it would be a good idea to settle the conspiracy theories mention on the main page with, or course, the brief mention, but also a section detailing the contradictions, flaws, and irregularities in the official account ''without'' mention of the theories claiming to account for them. I'm sure that nobody who's contributed to this article, which is and should be more than a bare-bones account of the events and background, hasn't come across some of the contradictions in the official story (WTC7, Pentagon damage anomalies, etc.) Instead of claiming "Bush did it!" or "mini-nukes" on the main page, why can't we mention these? The official story isn't perfect, and so the wikipdia article which follows the official story closely if not to-a-T needs to make mention of it. ] 03:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
:What is this "official story" that you keep talking about? Seems to me that you are trying very hard to marginalize the facts here, when this is one of the most-reported-upon stories of this century. The 9/11 Commission Report does exist, but it's hardly the last word on the subject. There are literally tens of thousands of mainstream accounts of what happened that day, and none of them support the so-called "alternative theories", except to make light of their frailty. The common account of September 11th, on the other hand, is backed by the consensus of thousands of objective journalistic reports -- reports that we can ] upon here in fashioning this encyclopedia. </font><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small><font color="#ffffff"> · </font> 21:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
::Why, the official account covered in this article is the official account I'm referring to. And no, there are accounts which differ from this view. These include those from firemen inside the building who reported explosions, individuals who report strange security conditions in the towers in the days prior to the incident, individuals who cite interference by authorities on the ground outside the Pentagon. Look around for them, they're there. Do you really believe everything you read? ] 04:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should also mention that the perpetrators of this event have never actually been convicted, or proven guilty. Obviously, evidence and motives have been presented to make this theory appear possible, but the claim is mere heresy. Until there is no dispute, this article should not portend this theory of 19 highjackers commandeering four commercial aircraft into the most protected airspace in America, with no response to FAA communication, and executing complex maneuvers that these men, according to flight instructors, could not do. Once we understand what did not happen, then every other scenario must be deemed as possible. Ipso facto, if we do not know who actually carried out this atrocity, then every other scenario is in the realm of possibilities, and should be investigated in a balanced manner, giving equal light to every angle.
] 22:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages doesn't ''investigate'' anything. We're a tertiary source, relying on trustworthy secondary sources. Yours is an odd use of the word "heresy," which means "any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position." This would mean that any theories ''but'' the dominant theory, that 19 hijackers (no g, one h) commandeered four airplanes, etc., etc, is heresy. Misplaced Pages operates off of reliable sources and verifiability, and the dominant theory has plenty of sources that satisfy these requirements. The vast majority of alternate theories do not. Prettymuch all of them, actually. So, no, we're not going to give them equal footing. ''']''' <small>]</small> 07:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this page to be riddled with weasel words, to such a degree that I refuse to cite them in the face of their grotesque ambiguity. If this simple reality is unrecognizable to the intelligent and enlightened group of wikipedia architects then I am right to feel the intense sickness and sadness I feel for the fate of our species. Shame on us for allowing this darkness. Shame on us for our intense cowardice. -Bill Switzer- 02-24-07 03:12
:So noted. --] 11:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

==9/11 Question moved to Reference Desk==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous
-] 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

== I hope ==

some day the truth comes to light

Woefully misguided are those that trust Bush's government.


Remember kids; relatives of deceased loved ones are more inclined to be vocal.

The only place ostensibly containing info from relatives of 9/11 passengers is the 9/11 memorial page with every victim.

Someone should ask that guy where he got the pics from and if we could speak to those people. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

== 1 March reverts ==

I'm really curious now: what is the disagreement all about? ] 19:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:I reverted since it moves the items around in the TOC and puts CTs under Responsibility instead of Reactions. I don't think it belongs under Responsibility and I think if this is going to be moved we should have a chance to discuss it. --] 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

::I have been engaging into what has become an edit war from some time on this. I am not amused by the quick willingness of some fellow editors to ask for talk page consensus on how we should reorganize this article when a reorganization that added a strange "Background History" section, which included in that section accounts of the actual day of the attacks (thereby being nonsensical), attracted no such calls for a consensus. The edits I have made reflect the belief that the "Conspiracy Theories" are best thought of as assessments of responsibility coupled with alternative accounts of the events before, during, and after the attacks. Placing "Conspiracy Theories" in the "Reaction" section is nonsensical, seeing as the official accounts are not included under the umbrella term "Reactions." Moreover, I'm sure that fellow editors are aware of the effect of placing the Conspiracy Theories section and link in the reactions section: it treats such Conspiracy Theories as simple, predictable, organic reactions to be expected in the wake of a catastrophic event. It does not treat the theories, which have weight and adduce evidence the official account cannot explain, as epistemically equal, but in effect demeans them. I am open to the view that Conspiracy Theories be given its own main section in the 9/11 article, and be expanded on the main page to perhaps 2 or 3 paragraphs summarizing the anomalies, theories, and criticism of the theories if need be. ] 22:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:Conspiracy theories are obviously reactions, since they are expressions of paranoia. There is an argument that the 9/11 Commission is also a reaction, particularly since it worked under limitations which appeared politically motivated. I didn't see any logic in the other rearrangements. ] 22:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

:::...That's exactly the point I just made. They both fall under reactions. So either we include both under the heading or find a more suitable place for them. The 9/11 Commission got its own section - why not the conspiracy theories? And yes, conspiracy theories can be expressions of paranoia, but it isn't exactly like 9/11 conspiracy theories are so unfounded as to be judged only as reactions. If we had termed them "Alternative Theories" would your first reaction have been to dismiss them as paranoia? ] 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are predictable reactions to catastrophic events, and there are numerous citations to academic literature saying so. They are not epistemically equal, they are epistemically flawed. In any case, I oppose any expanded presentation of them in this article. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
:Nonsense about conspiracy theory folklore aside, anything in response to the attacks could qualify as a reaction; maybe there is some value in clarifying where "Reactions" fits into the story. ] 23:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, how do I initiate a vote on this? I'm trying to have the Conspiracy Theories section moved to Responsibility. ] 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
:] are reactions; they are not good faith inquiries into issues of responsibility. ] 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
::That has precisely nothing to do with the vote on this topic. ] 16:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
===Conspiracy theorist motivations===

The conspiracy theories are nothing but an attempt to make a buck off the deaths of thousands of people. Anyone trying to make these profiteers lunacy more notable is probably being paid by them to do so. 9/11/2001 conspiracy theories=make a fast buck. There is nothing reactionary about them, only evil profiteering.--] 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:What does this have to do with the article? And who are these individuals profiting? Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries, for instance, weren't made by studios but by independent filmmakers who mostly drew together secondary video footage. And do you actually know what reactionary means? ] 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

:For many of the promoters, I think listing with 'Opportunists' is appropriate. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

::Opportunists... what are they taking advantage of to further interests of their own? It isn't possible that proponents of conspiracy theories just want the truth and haven't been satisfied by the commonplace viewpoint? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Fascinating questions, but are they relevant to this article? Whether money, sensationalism, or good faith pursuit of truth, conspiracy theories are still wrong. ] 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, that's intelligent. Where did you go to school? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::: So childish you are. Do you really think that something like this could have happened without the foreknowledge of Mossad - for example ? Wake up people, Osama Bin Laden is still working for the CIA - like he officially did for 12 years.--] 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

More sheer stupity I see here by the conspiracy theory make a buck people. Mossad knew this was going to happen? Osama was a CIA operative...hahahahaha.--] 13:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

== Related Books ==

An ideal related book--on topic and fulfilling Misplaced Pages's content criteria-- is The New York Times' ''A Nation Challenged: A Visual History of 9/11 and its Aftermath.'' It contains many searing definitive photos and concise narrative. Also it is based on that paper's Pulitzer Prise winning coverage. One of the glories of Misplaced Pages is its linkages and extensions. This general article needs more of these. {{unsigned}}

==excessive archiving==
* This page was mention here: ] Why is this page archived so much? Anyone else have any theories? ] (]) 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
**I think it's mainly the quantity of talk, which is a result of the polarized nature of the talk. Sometimes the archiving leads to arguments being repeated, leading to long speeches, then more archiving, etc. ] 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Hijackers ==

At this point this seems like such a stupid question,but there seems to be little in this article about it.Does anyone know exactly '''how''' the commercial airliners where hijacked by the terrorists?even on this article and even on the timeline section it simply states that they took over the plane,but how did they manage to smuggle weapons on board a plane? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

'''Osama bin lauden listed as perpetrator'''

According to the FBI site USAMA BIN LADEN (their spelling) is not wanted for 9/11 as stated on their site. Therefore I state that the information stated in this article that Osama, as listed as a perp for this crime is not accurate.

Nowhere does it state that Osama is wanted for 9/11, that is an assumption without facts nor evidence. It is based on supposition, no fact. IT does say that he is wanted for other attacks throughout the world. If the FBI had the information stating that this person was wanted they would have posted an update, therefore I submit that the official record on wikipedia stating that osama bin lauden planned and perpatrated is not correct until the FBI can provide proof as well as the other gov't services of the United States.

I submit, that anyone that can provide proof that this man was responsible for this with absolute proof, and proof stated by the FBI, who is stating this man is wanted and offering a reward. IF the FBI were to have proof and know the facts that this person was wanted by the FBI then they would have posted such information on their website. They have not. All I say is proof is needed.


{{unsigned|Panacheweb}}
:Thanks...we can click the link above so no reason to copy and paste their info again. Osama is wanted mainly for the Embassy Bombings since that makes it easier to try him in International Court. The evidence that he was behind the 9/11 attacks is in the article.--] 07:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
::Oh, so the evidence is in the article... but there is not enough evidence to even try to convict him in the court... Possibly some wouldn't ever like September 11 trial to begin. There would be soo many problems with explaining how things happened exactly... and there is no Osama. ] 09:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no Osama? What the heck is this guy thinking?--] 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

== Why is the word 'terrorist' used in the lead-in section? ==

This word is used twice in the lead-in section - as an adjective to describe the attacks and as a noun to denote the hijackers. Terrorism is a loosely defined concept - the word 'terrorist' is used when you think a violent act is unjustified. We cannot have a neutral Misplaced Pages article that says that the 9/11 attacks were unjustified. I think they were and you think they were but that is just our point of view. It really sticks out when I see this article. Why can't the article say who called the attacks terrorist rather than taking a non-neutral stance. Maybe I'm missing something here but it looks very strange to me. ] 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, you have missed something if you think that people not belonging to any army from a legitimate country who kill more than 2000 people are not terrorists. Misplaced Pages must be neutral but from the standpoint of the mainstream of the human kind and respecting the meaning of words. If this guys had been uniformed people from a country's army, it would have been a war crime. Since they were just civilians, what they did was terrorism.--] 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::Check out the talk page archives at the top of this page for a lot of discussion on this subject. While some people inevitably disagree, an overwhelming number of sources calls it terrorism. Misplaced Pages works by ]. I have a sinking feeling this is one of those discussions that needs to happen every two weeks... ] 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I'll have a look at the archives. So if most sources say something then that makes it neutral and Misplaced Pages can say it as a fact - is that how it works? ] 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

::::What change do you want to make to the article? ] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::This is what it says now:

''''The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists on the United States on September 11, 2001. The victims were predominantly civilians.''''

''''On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners''''

:::::I think it should say something like:
''''The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks on the United States by Islamic militants using hijacked planes on September 11, 2001. The victims were predominantly civilians.''''

''''On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers affiliated with al-Qaeda gained control of four commercial passenger jet airliners. The attacks were denounced by mainstream media and governments worldwide as terrorist acts. Subsequent to the attacks, the Bush administration declared a war on terror.''''

:::::comments? ] 17:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Consensus was for 'terrorist', and it's not clear how 'militant' would be different. ] 03:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:'''Militants''' is simply vague and not neutral, not accurate, nor verifiable. If you want to re-open the "terrorism" debate, please read the archive. ] 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::OK, I have read all the archived debate and I can see that there was a majority of editors, if not a consensus, in favour of describing the event as 'terrorist' and the attackers as 'terrorists' in the narrative voice of the article. I disagree with the majority view but I am going to accept the majority opinion. I have read plenty of newspaper article in the Arabic press that do not view the attacks as terrorist. Do these sources count? I'm not sure the presence of differing opinions in published sources is even relevant here. Even if all sources agree that a certain actress is beautiful, Misplaced Pages would not describe her as such in an article - rather it would attribute that subjective judgement to the best sources. So as terrorism is a relative subjective word, it just shouldn't be used without attribution, regardless of how many sources concur. ] 13:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::As this is an English language encylopedia, English language sources are going to take precedence. As for Arabic press not calling the attacks terrorist, I have little doubt that the of the article gives more weight to Arab press sources. Remember, after hearing of the attacks there were people dancing in the streets in several countries. One culture's terrorist is another culture's hero, so there will be divergence in the encylopedias that service those cultures. It is just the nature of human group think. --] 13:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::The refs in the are in English: prisonplanet.com, propagandamatrix.com, ], conspiracy blogs, molten steel, the works... With sources like that it's no wonder there are people who are surprised by the English article. ] 14:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::The Google translator is blocked for me here, but it may be interesting to look through of the Arabic article to see what it says about the attacks. --] 14:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::Cool, I didn't know Google did Arabic. The article is much better than the refs made me fear! It is sort of this article and the conspiracy theory article rolled into one, but still quite nice if the reader has some ability to tell reality and the theories apart. ] 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::The conspiracy theory section is the only part of the article that has inline ]. The intro of the Arabic article provides a timeline of events, war on terrorism, and Osama claiming responsibility for the attacks. The second paragraph of the WTC section says "the two planes that crashed into the the WTC did/may not have had windows, the bottom of one of the planes had a bulge, making some believe they were missiles." - that is a more extreme theory that was popularized by ] and has solidly been debunked. The third paragraph of the WTC section talks about whether plane impact combined with fires could have caused the collapse with some skeptism and cites Leslie Robertson who agrees with the explanation from ]. Fourth paragraph talks about "molten metal" The fourth paragraph talks about the collapse appearing like an explosion. The fifth paragraph talks about how steel loses strength when heated. Fifth and sixth paragraphs talk more about the fires and collapse. The next section is about the Pentagon, which questions whether ] really crashed there? This has been widely debunked, with numerous witnesses seeing the airplane, debris found on the Pentagon lawn, DNA recovered of all passengers on the plane, etc. The last section is devoted to conspiracy theories, with references to PrisonPlanet and other sites. And that's it for the article. --] <small>(])</small> 15:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I hope I'm reading you wrong here, Aude. Are you saying that the sections of the article outside of conspiracy theories talks about planes with no windows, molten metal, and flight 77 not really crashing? If so, the article is even worse than I feared. --] 17:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Much of the material was added by ] who has an account here and on arwiki. An anon. came along after this user and tagged the article. On January 21, a user came along in two possibly test edits and removed the tag. I just tagged the article again, but really don't have the ability to edit the article and fix the problems. As an aside, the article in ] has problems too, with a whole paragraph in the "responsibility" section talking about Osama not wanted by the FBI, because of his top ten most wanted poster, and since debunked BBC reports of hijackers still alive. I may attempt to fix that. --] <small>(])</small> 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::I do not concede the point you raise namely that application of the word "]" is ''per se'' subjective. Part of the debate, for which you have accepted the outcome, was that "terrorist" is a real word in English conveying a meaning without ambiguity, and the application of that word to the ] is supported by the facts, verifiable, and sourced. It is beyond subjective opinion. StuffOfInterest, that there was dancing in the streets when news of the attacks reached the Muslim media is not a refutation that the attackers were not terrorists, it rather is an affirmation that the attacks were successful. ] 13:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

:::"Terrorist" is a real English word - that is not disputed. Beautiful and unjust are also real English words but they are non-neutral. Calling an event terrorist means you think the violence was unwarranted or unjustified or illegitimate. All of these concepts are subjective and unprovable - they change between countries, ethnic groups, legal systems, moral systems and so on. The article gains nothing by using the word terrorist in its narrative. It is now an editorial. It makes Misplaced Pages look like a joke when one of its most prominent articles reads like it was written by a government PR department. ] 15:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

::::The characterization of the attacks as terrorist in nature was the determined by the government in the jurisdiction where they took place after a lengthy investigation. What appears to me to be a ''joke'' is to dispute that, and substitute that conclusion with an equivocation that an unidentified ''"some"'' believe the attacks were warranted, justified, and legitimate. ] 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

== **New** section!: "Effects in popular media" ==

Hello, I would like to present to you this new section about effects in popular media (sub-section of "Long-term effects"). Please include more examples in the "examples" section if you can find any. Note: For the 2 examples I already put there, I copied some text directly out of the articles linked to about those examples (but not where I put "citation needed" templates).
Enjoy! --] 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


== Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all ==
:The "effect" seems to be a hightened sensitivity to terrorist violence. Certainly a valid point, although cataloguing all the examples might be excessive. Combining Effects in popular media and Effects on morale into, say, "Effects on popular culture" might be a good fit. ] 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
{{hattop|]. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 15:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)}}
Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless ''something'' is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.


But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.
:Effects on popular culture is a good topic, but details I think are suitable for the subarticle - ] and not the main article. As such, I have moved the paragraph to the subarticle and provided a link in the main article to it. In the main article, a one or two sentence summary of the subarticle (per ]) would be okay. Effects on morale seems subjective, but possibly okay if ] properly. It could probably be mentioned in the popular culture subarticle. --] <small>(])</small> 16:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. ] (]) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
==Ambiguity in BBC on-scene reporting==


:Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Here's something for that brand new & "refreshing" section…
::Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.
::The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.
::I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. ] (]) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. ] (]) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka ]. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:We go by what RS say we are not ] just to appease some people's feelings. ] (]) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
{{hatbottom}}


== "]" listed at ] ==
:
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


== "]" listed at ] ==
& here are some initial reactions to it:
]
: petition. ] 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7#2001 terrorist attacks}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024 ==
There was confusion and misinformation on the scene of a major disaster? You don't say! Why are you still here? --] 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:What are you mumbling about? We are here to resolve all that confusion and misinformation you speak off, of course. ] 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::What's to resolve? They overheard that 7 collapsed, then reported it. But it was incorrect. 7 had not collapsed yet, but it was being emptied because they anticipated one. Which happened. The misinformation ended 20 minutes later.


{{edit semi-protected|September 11 attacks|answered=yes}}
:::After the bus crash in Atlanta last week, one news source gave a death count one higher than the number that had actually died - and another person died some days later. Was this a conspiracy worth investigating? Did they have foreknowledge of this person's death? No, it was misinformation in the height of a major incident. Not on purpose - but because shit gets confused in something like that. --] 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." ] (]) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)


== Hatnote ==
Ambiguity? What is there to doubt? Those folks reported collapse of a steel frame building before it happened; they did it very accurately, clairvoyantly, as if they had some sort of preliminary NIST report. It is obvious from the "initial reaction" that the "cock-upped" response given by the BBC is not acceptable. The only question is who? Who was the source of that information? ] 03:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Someone online told me the World Trade Center had collapsed before it did, should I investigate them? --] 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::This place is really falling apart, we are talking about the BBC here. Do you copy? Can you understand that? Listen, I'll go and stretch my fingers elsewhere for a while, let me know when you make a decision with regards to that ''plot''. ] 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::So when the BBC gets a story wrong, it's a conspiracy, but when some schmo online gets it wrong, it's irrelevant. Where is the border? Should we investigate whenever the Washington Post is incorrect in the heat of the moment? The Washington Times? The National Enquirer? C'mon, man, inquiring minds want to know. --] 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:WTC7 was the third steel frame building to collapse that day. Considering the other two had already fallen, it wasn't very strange to anticipate the collapse of WTC 7 especially if it was being evacuated due to catastrophic damage. There were a lot of people who anticipated that Flight 93 was going to be crashed into a building before it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. The fact that planes hadn't been used before that day played no bearing on that. And the lack of NTSB report also played no part. There is nothing strange in predicting that WTC7 would collapse nor would it be surprsing if there were erroneous reports about its early demise. --] 04:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::''we are talking about the BBC here'' Wrong, the BBC has ]. ''What is there to doubt?'' That's certainly my question here. A reporter, at the time '''not allowed access to the site''', with even telephone communications compromised, reported a building had already collapsed when actually the collapse, '''which was anticipated''', had not yet occurred. ] 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Who anticipated the collapse? Steel framed buildings don't collapse in symmetrical fashion and with freefall speed, not even if they are stricken by an airplane. BBC provided way to (in)accurate information, way to early… and Flight 93 didn't crash in Pennsylvania, there is no wreckage there… ] 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::: For something not to fall at the free fall speed requires resistance to the collapse. With the amount of mass, there is nothing that would prevent it from falling at free fall speed. There is also no lateral force to make it fall non-symmetrically. Once the support strucutre failed, it could do nothing but fall straight down at the rate gravity dictates. This is the finding of NIST and all the engineering reports. there is no controversy about those facts. --] 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::''Who anticipated the collapse?'' Emergency response personnel who are trained to anticipate the possibility. ''Steel framed buildings don't collapse in symmetrical fashion and with freefall speed'' And why not, exactly? Can you calculate the second moment of area of the floor plan and demonstrate a way that a building with that geometry was '''not''' going to fall straight down? Do you know the exact acceleration of the top floor, and is it noticeably different your precise calculation of the failure of the structure under impact loading? If you believe these myths, at least say so clearly so we don't have to go through another 20kb of talk page before we can figure out if you have a point or not. ] 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::: What myths? The myth that building 7 freefell due to debris and fire? Please explain? ] 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::Please don't use article talk pages for soapboxing. Soapboxing can be removed from talk pages, so please focus on the article Lovelight, thanks. ] 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::He's not here to "improve" the article...he's here to POV push conspiracy theories.--] 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::I know. Being blunt is not my strong suit, he swept in and started putting hoax tags on the article page. I think he's making downpayments on one of those new fangled community bans they're offering these days. Looking at his edits tonight (and warnings, since removed) it's something we might raise up the flagpole if it keeps up. ] 06:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yup...--] 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


@], the reason given for the addition of the {{tlx|Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You folks can take that & go into oblivion with it, I'm out of here… this is not a 💕, this is a place which '''deliberately''' spreads lies, the place that only few may edit, the place where brute and uncivil minority of MONGO's is suppressing and oppressing the whole wide world of free minded editors. Good morning & good luck. ] 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:I think otherwise, but whatever. - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:What lies might those be? That airplanes were hijacked and crashed and buildings collasped as a result, killing thousands of people?--] 10:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
::Exactly, except that last part.. State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable. ] 19:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:::Yup, hence the invasion of Afghanistan to try and neutralize the Taliban, who were/are sheltering OBL.--] 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


== RfC on lead collage of photos ==
:Misplaced Pages is a 💕 that contains verfiable facts. It is not the blog of "free minded editors." Free minded editors can use their own time and resources for their own free minded ideas. The internet is a big place and I am sure there is lots of space for free-mindedness but Misplaced Pages is not the forum for it. If you would like to contribute using neutral, verifiable facts then Misplaced Pages will welcome it. --] 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
<!-- ] 03:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1738033268}}
::As you've just seen in that little "live experiment", you (I'd say we, but it would be a lie) don't care about facts, at all. Prove me wrong. Well, no decent ''academic'' will reference all this... all this… pardon me for being a bit upset… ''crap'', anyway. ] 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
{{rfc|hist|rfcid=92F7E6E}}
I'd like to understand why we don't keep than the image montage in the article at the moment. The is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. ] (]) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – ] 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. ] (]) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. ] (]) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Ah, no worries. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. ] (]) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? ] (]) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Do you have any alternative suggestions? ] (]) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. ] (]) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
: Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.<span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strongly oppose:''' There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. ] (]) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::@] And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the '''exact moment''' the plane crashed into the WTC? ] (]) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. ] (]) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:33, 26 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions

Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.

To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.

Q1: Is the article biased against conspiracy theories? A1: Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Although reliable sources have repeatedly reported on conspiracy theories, reporting on conspiracy theories is not the same thing as advocating conspiracy theories or accepting them as fact. The most recent discussion that resulted in the current consensus took place on this talk page in December 2011. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources. Q2: Should the article use the word "terrorist" (and related words)? A2: Misplaced Pages:Words to watch states that "there are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages". That being said, "terrorism" is a word that requires extra attention when used in Misplaced Pages. The consensus, after several lengthy discussions, is that it is appropriate to use the term in a limited fashion to describe the attacks and the executors of these attacks. The contributors have arrived at this conclusion after looking at the overwhelming majority of reliable sources that use this term as well as the United Nations' own condemnation of the attacks.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleSeptember 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleSeptember 11 attacks has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
February 26, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
January 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 27, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 16, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
July 10, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 20, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
June 19, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
July 5, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
July 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 23, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 24, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2015Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 11, 2001, and September 11, 2002.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2003, September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, September 11, 2009, September 11, 2012, September 11, 2013, September 11, 2017, September 11, 2018, September 11, 2020, September 11, 2023, and September 11, 2024.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article
This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAviation: Accidents
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconDeath: Suicide Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconDisaster management Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFirefighting High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam: Islam and Controversy / Salaf / Sunni Islam Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Salaf task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sunni Islam task force.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Intelligence / North America / United States / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Intelligence task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconNew York City Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPennsylvania Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York (state) High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkyscrapers High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia / September 11 / History Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconVirginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 89 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2011.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 14 times. The weeks in which this happened:
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
  • RM, September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Moved, 17 January 2004, Discussion
  • RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks, Not moved, 21 October 2004, Discussion
  • RM, September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11 attacks, Moved, 20 August 2008, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Not moved, 13 October 2010, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 31 March 2014, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 13 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11th attacks, Not moved, 14 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks, Procedural close, 23 February 2021, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → 9/11, Not moved, 26 January 2024, Discussion
  • RM, September 11 attacks → September 11 terrorist attacks, Not moved, 9 February 2024, discussion.
The contents of the World Trade Center/Plane crash page were merged into September 11 attacks on 11 September 2001. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history.
The contents of the Slogans and terms derived from the September 11 attacks page were merged into September 11 attacks on 22 October 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Section sizes
Section size for September 11 attacks (45 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 19,430 19,430
Background 5,368 55,357
Osama bin Laden 7,896 7,896
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al-Qaeda members 4,597 4,597
Motives 20,052 20,052
Planning 9,949 9,949
Prior intelligence 7,495 7,495
Attacks 3,414 74,754
Crashes 27,987 27,987
Casualties 30,667 30,667
Damage 9,984 9,984
Rescue efforts 2,702 2,702
Reactions 3,391 57,859
Immediate response 8,781 8,781
Domestic reactions 7,805 17,806
Hate crimes 5,471 5,471
Discrimination and racial profiling 1,846 1,846
Muslim American response 1,681 1,681
Interfaith efforts 1,003 1,003
International reactions 17,734 17,734
Military operations 10,147 10,147
Aftermath 88 44,372
Health issues 9,907 9,907
Economic 7,127 7,127
Effects in Afghanistan 7,023 7,023
Cultural influence 4,157 4,157
Government policies towards terrorism 9,749 9,749
Legal proceedings 6,321 6,321
Investigations 21 32,122
FBI 9,379 9,379
CIA 2,195 2,195
Congressional inquiry 6,274 6,274
9/11 Commission 4,194 4,194
National Institute of Standards and Technology 6,076 6,076
Alleged Saudi government role 3,983 3,983
Rebuilding and memorials 32 20,064
Reconstruction 8,774 8,774
Memorials 11,258 11,258
See also 1,222 1,222
References 17 76
Notes 28 28
Citations 31 31
Bibliography 10,519 10,519
Further reading 2,890 2,890
External links 5,115 5,115
Total 323,780 323,780

Settling the "Islamist" debate once and for all

WP:DROPTHESTICK. This conversation has been done to death and we will not repeat endless debates because of one user's obstinance. — Czello 15:23, 18 September 2024 (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.

Would it really be so bad if the article merely addressed this controversy, without picking a side? It's clearly a contentious issue among editors and unless something is done, it's just going to be a recurring issue on this talk page forever. I propose that yes, the word "Islamist" should be removed from the initial paragraph because it doesn't sufficiently contextualise the term, which is why it's considered stereotyping and offensive by some editors.

But to make up for it, a paragraph could be added explaining that Misplaced Pages editors are in disagreement over whether to call the attacks "Islamist", presenting a detailed overview of the pros and cons of each side. This will of course mention the main argument on the pro-Islamist faction, that being that reliable sources use the term. If anyone wants to workshop this idea into a full paragraph with me, that would be very helpful.

I'm not here to pick a side, I want to come up with a compromise that works for everyone. I'm personally neutral on this, but I hate to see edit warring and recurring talk topics raised on it. Put aside your personal investment in your "side" "winning" and lets have a proper discussion like adults. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Where's there a debate? Do we have any sources for this? Moxy🍁 00:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Removing "Islamist" from the article has been edited into the article and reverted many times. Any time it has gone to the talk page it has been rejected with seemingly no progress on addressing the grievances of the multiple different editors who object to the phrasing of this article's opening paragraph. They usually say that it violates NPOV and perpetuates unfair stereotypes of Islam.
The editors changing it back assert that because reliable sources use the term "Islamist", it does not need qualification or justification in this article.
I'm hoping that some compromise between removing and not removing "Islamist" from the opening paragraph can be reached and editors can stop being so all-or-nothing about the issue. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I guess welcome back is in order...... but you are correct..... it has been removed a few times resulting in blocking of editors. You are free to present any source that there is a debate in this topic. Moxy🍁 01:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not referring to some debate off-wikipedia, I am talking about this article's talk page and its edit history. 94.196.3.224 (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
We do not add paragraphs to an article just to outline a debate Misplaced Pages editors are having on the Talk page. Plus, the debate wrapped up months ago, you're dragging out something that died off because it didn't have support, aka WP:DROPTHESTICK. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
We go by what RS say we are not wp:censored just to appease some people's feelings. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"2001 attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"2001 terrorist attacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2001 terrorist attacks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 7 § 2001 terrorist attacks until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the bottom of the rebuilding and memorials section, add "The Onion satirical news source made humor out of the whole situation. They are still cherished today." Fedmonger (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote

@FlightTime, the reason given for the addition of the {{Distinguish}} hatnote was not reasonable: this event was not even a "bombing" as such. Especially given the distinct titles of the two articles, there's no real justification to me that these two would be confused in the context of how this hatnote is used. Remsense ‥ 论 08:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think otherwise, but whatever. - FlightTime (open channel) 08:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC on lead collage of photos

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I'd like to understand why we don't keep this photo collage much more representative than the image montage in the article at the moment. The main image I suggested is obviously better in terms of framing and resolution, as well as showing the exact moment when the second plane crashed into the WTC. Chronus (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. I prefer your version; it's a better representation of each attack. – Anne drew 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
I prefer the current version. And how is the current version "old-fashioned"? — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds "Old-fashioned" in the sense that there are much better images that have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons since the time this collage was created. Chronus (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
That's... a very unique use of the term "old-fashioned". — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@HandThatFeeds I'm Brazilian and my level of English is intermediate. I apologize for the misuse of the term. Chronus (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, no worries. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Even on my reasonably sized laptop, and with my prescription glasses, to my aging eyes the pics in the collage are too small to be meaningful. HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 What about the tiny photocollage images that are currently in the article? Aren't they “too small to be meaningful to your aging eyes”? Chronus (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I object to pretty much all collages in Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 Do you have any alternative suggestions? Chronus (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Obviously. In every case, choose a single high quality, representative image. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Anything is better then the current teeny images there are now.Moxy🍁 00:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Strongly oppose: There is nothing wrong with the collage that's shown in the article now. It's about representing the event, not about the image quality or the size. I do agree that there should be image description for those who have bad vision, but that about it. Additionally, the image you suggested for the impact of United 175 looks like a bomb going off in the South Tower and I don't think that should be used. It'll just egg on` the conspiracy nutjobs. Butterscotch5 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Butterscotch5 And what could be more representative of the event than a photo of the exact moment the plane crashed into the WTC? Chronus (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it's not "the exact moment". It only depicts the fireball, not the plane, hence Butterscotch's comment. — The Hand That Feeds You: 18:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I prefer the status quo, apart from how small the pentagon images are (the “collapsed pentagon” could be replaced by the bottom right mini one and get rid of the other mini ones?). The main image in the status quo is much more iconic. It’s the image that became seared into peoples minds as they all turned on the news that day, and encapsulates a collective trauma. I also like the aesthetics of having the captions all at the bottom, in the proposed version the captions take up too much space imo. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: