This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 6 July 2010 (→This article is not neutral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:10, 6 July 2010 by A Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs) (→This article is not neutral)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
| 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. |
|
| 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  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject September 11Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: invalid parameter
 | Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): ]
For help fixing these links, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem |  |
 | September 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, and September 11, 2009. |
| 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. |
|
| 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 |
Carried out by al-Qaeda - Fact?
This Article seems to say that it is a known fact that it was carried out by al-Qaeda. I agree that it is widely believed, especially in the Intelligence Community, and most likely true, but to be a fact doesn’t it needs to be proved beyond doubt. No one creditable has directly taken responsibly or convicted of this crime.
The planning part is almost pure speculation most of this is based on reports by the US government, which are credible but not a fact as they themselves reply on third hand and unclear sources. As we know, we had many creditable reports for US agenesis about WMD.
If there is a murder, and you probably know who did it, the Police may write many reports on who and why, but until that person is convicted in a court of law or admits his crime, you always have to be careful about reporting it as a fact. I think this article needs to qualify a lot of the "facts" its layout by naming sources directly.
To be a true academic source for the event we need to state facts proved beyond doubt, otherwise qualify statements we make. e.g. "Widely believed.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.246.41 (talk) 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Very good point. The FBI has stated it has no evidence to tie Bin Laden to the attack and does not name the WTC attacks as one of the crimes he is accused of. In addition, several of the alleged hijackers are still alive as reported by many world news agencies. To say that the official version of the conspiracy behind this attack is an established fact is completely false. Furthermore, while NIST did say that it found no evidence for explosives, this article fails to point out that it admitted it did not even look for it. Moreover, the article fails to mention the empirical evidence published in scientific journals that confirm highly engineered explosive material was found in the debris dust or other published studies that refer to EPA studies which also presented evidence for explosives.
217.74.68.2 (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. We say what the reliable sources say, and the reliable sources overwhelmingly say that al-Qaeda was responsible. As for the FBI stating they have no evidence, and the hijackers being alive, you are going to have to back these up with reliable sources, because this is not what the majority of sources say. You two are new editors, so please take some time to search the archives, because the points you are attempting to make have already been addressed and dismissed. --Tarage (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The 9 11 attacks were carried by Al-Qaeda. There is no scientific, reliable evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, in addition to Bin Laden's own admissions, there is tons of audio, video, and scientific evidence to show Al-Qaeda carried out this attack. We could say that global warming "might be true" because a few people do not believe this; however, because every credible scientific source has confirmed global warming, wikipedia states it as a fact. The same applies with dozens of articles, we can mention conspiracy theories, but their presence cannot affect the entire tone of the article.JakeH07 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
A bunch of cheap-shotting anti-freedom Muslim extremists with links to other cheap-shotting, anti-freedom Muslim extremists attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001. Write the article that way, because it is 100% truth. You might want to add that they killed over 2000 innocent civilians and not a single soldier on active duty during their "holy war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.206.134 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't logic reliable reference? There are bunch of testymonies from employees, architects, firemen and investigators. Bah, they all are lying. The official explanations, tough disputed with logic and literaly no proof are allways right, just like goverment. "Conspiracy theories," tough make more sense, are NOT right as they are just conspiracy theories. They are wrong by nature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdS_0DdEL0s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.77.72 (talk • contribs) 17:31, June 13, 2010
- There is a lot of testimony, but some of it must be mistaken, as it is contradictatory. We must accept the mainstream view as to which testimnny is mistaken, with some reference to minority views. (Youtube videos are rarely even suitable for external links; even more rarely can they be used as evidence supporting anything.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Youtube is not serving as evidence, it is just point of my sarcasm. So, mainstream view of Jesus is, to be born on June 25, youl 1. Does that make him realy born on that day? On pictures of crash site from flight 93 there is wow, a piece of window, a piece of engine and a piece of metal... That's some hard evidence. And so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.83.152 (talk • contribs) 11:32, June 15, 2010
- I don't know why I'm replying to you. Suffice it to say that the mainstream view is that "alternative theories" do not explain the facts, and hence should not be considered. We, on Misplaced Pages, are constrained to report only what is said in reliable sources, not repeating gossip or implausible theories. If you can produce a theory which is accepted by some reliable source, we can report on it in this article. And, if it's not about youtube, why do you add youtube references? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yotube was NOT a reference. Let me explain a "cospiracy theory": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2428170847743595902# There's bunch of book reference about it on end of full movie. That looks totaly plausible to me. And I will not bother with it any more. I am starting to feel like a 3-year-old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.62.124 (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know why I'm replying to you. Suffice it to say that the mainstream view is that "alternative theories" do not explain the facts, and hence should not be considered. We, on Misplaced Pages, are constrained to report only what is said in reliable sources, not repeating gossip or implausible theories. If you can produce a theory which is accepted by some reliable source, we can report on it in this article. And, if it's not about youtube, why do you add youtube references? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Good article reassessment
See Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1
Not all alternative theories involve conspiracies
In fact, the mainstream theory for the attacks is a conspiracy theory (a conspiracy between Arab terrorists). Isn't it a bit of an Appeal to ridicule, or Spotlight fallacy, to call all alternative theories "conspiracy theories"?
It seems to me that the page would be a bit less biased if the "Conspiracy theories" section were renamed, "Alternative theories", and that lines such as "Some conspiracy theorists claim" be changed to "Some claim". The Mortal Seraphim (talk) 09:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, what alternative theories aren't speculated to be the result of a conspiracy? Or is there a theory that says all these buildings fell down on their own? Rklawton (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You don't have to explain who did something to disagree with one part of the mainstream theory. For example, to claim that it was a controlled demolition is not the same as claiming that it was an "inside job". Who caused it is an entirely different question from what caused it. It doesn't matter if it was done by a group of people working together within the country, out of the country, or by a magical wizard.173.67.21.10 (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The reasons given by the mainstream media and government agencies for the total collapse of the three buildings is unreasonable. There are many people who think that there were bombs in the buildings who are very credible, and likewise mainstream investigations do not adequately explain the cause of the collapses.
The use of the term "conspiracy theory" is biased and really reflects the lack of neutrality of this article. Since there are two major opinions both should be addressed appropriately and fairly. Naturally, if 9/11 was orchestrated by members of certain governments, Misplaced Pages should have room for logical arguments against the mainstream theory. 174.89.53.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- That statement has been rejected by WP:CONSENSUS, many times. If you have evidence relating to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines which would support a change in consensus, please present it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Why No Discussion of Norad Training Exercises on 911
It has been reliably reported in many news media that the Pentagon was conducting as many as 5-6 war game drills on 9-11, one of which involved simulated slamming airplanes into buildings to blow them up. Why does the article not have a section on this? --BenJonson (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- War games yes, simulated slamming airplanes into buildings maybe, but not at that date. See United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001 and U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
FAQ
I've edited the FAQ to take out the Yes/No answers, while taking care not to alter the meaning of the response. I believe that these did more harm than good. Most reasonable people who disagree with the yes/no answers will understand the more detailed rationale, if they are prepared to take thirty seconds to read it. By contrast, glancing at the questions and reading those yes/no's could lead a reader to think that there is some sort of agenda.
I don't watchlist this page, but feel free to contact me on my talk page if you would like me to return here to explain further. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Under the damage section, the article states that the Twin Towers are the only example of progressive collapse of steel framed buildings. WTC 7 should also be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.182.95 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not neutral
There are plenty of reasonable sources which could support the possibility of the attacks themselves to be a false flag. This tactic is well known and used deep into history. I'm just pointing out that the word "conspiracy theories" and the like are actually derogatory and very insulting to the serious nature of the event, and the use therefore constitutes to the biased nature of the authors of this article.
You cannot come to a consensus amidst so much debate, and those who participated in such consensus only constitute a minority. Those who refute reliable sources and logical arguments with a single line of "conspiracy theories" simply prove their lack of understanding of not only world affairs, but the phrase itself. Or they represent a body of people who knowingly participate in the spreading of disinformation and inaccurate assessments.
We cannot allow personal feelings to interfere with facts here.
As well what gives user 2over0 the right to censor my comments? That clearly wasn't trolling, I left after writing it. You people are insane; there's something called democracy...174.89.58.24 (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia, which means we present the mainstream account based on mainstream sources. Yes, there are alternatives theories to 9/11 but Misplaced Pages's policy on Neutral point of view requires that we present mainstream accounts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was trying to make a point that there are, in fact, mainstream sources which could really be used to strengthen the article, including books.
I will give some examples and tell me what is wrong with them:
- Jesse Ventura
- Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
- Andreas von Bülow
- Steven E. Jones
- Paul Craig Roberts
- Webster Tarpley
- Yukihisa Fujita
The 9/11 commission has been critically discussed in foreign parliaments and media, including the National Diet of Japan on January 10, 2008, Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan.
These are all mainstream sources; of educated and experienced, professional people who chose to write books and articles about the subject in recent years. Jesse Ventura is a mainstream figure and has appeared on many shows.
The 9/11 Commission and the NIST report conclude that fire can implode three steel-frame buildings, of which the World Trade Centre buildings were the first and only in history to completely collapse due to a fire, in such an organised and swift manner.174.89.56.140 (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. We run on reliable sources. Your arguments are stale and have been presented many times before. They have all been rejected. Please do not use this talk page as a soapbox. --Tarage (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:RS, and also Implosion and Collapse, which, as you will see, are not synonyms. 134.106.40.32 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Given the number of eye witnesses who support the "mainstream" view (not to mention the overwhelming physical evidence), it's reasonable to conclude that other views are conspiracy theories promulgated by utter morons or people by people with political agendas. And the phrase "conspiracy theory" is how these theories are typically classified. Since these views have become notable, we have articles on them. However, we don't need to make the mistake that many media outlets make and give them equal standing within the main article. We simply allow the article to branch into other articles in case folks are curious. Rklawton (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- 174.89.56.140: For the purposes of Misplaced Pages, people are not considered sources, only published works are considered sources. And not all published sources are considered reliable, only those with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Basically, this meams mainstream news sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Rklawton, your assertions are both incorrect and deeply offensive. Please refrain from posting this kind of personal commentary, and stick to discussion which relates to improving the article. Wildbear (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are we particularly concerned about offending morons or people who have come here to push their POV? They tend to cause us a lot of extra work. Or have I managed to offend productive editors somehow? If so, I didn't mean to. Rklawton (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- We're still supposed to be welcoming and civil. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, you're right. My bad. Rklawton (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
According to our FAQ, "This article represents the mainstream version of the events with clear supporting evidence. While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis the article rightly excludes conspiracy theory speculation as it is unsupported in the mainstream media. The article has a section directing to conspiracy theories and this is sufficient and appropriate. If there are any points supported by the mainstream media but not included then bring it up with evidence and a reason why it should be included. Just because it is true is not a reason, it should be relevant and it should not include speculation on the implications provided by truth websites, this is what the various conspiracy articles are for. Claiming censorship and bad faith in your initial post will discourage anyone from listening to your suggestions so be civil and WP:AGF until replies give you reason not to but regardless, ALWAYS try to remain civil. If you want to be taken seriously when posting try to leave out uncivil rhetoric and present your case calmly." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- "While it does often omit some details because they are seen by some editors as implying that some minor conspiracy theories may have some basis..." You just admitted to censorship there. The article is not NPOV at all if you can't even include the full mainstream story because it's so weak.
- You can't omit details you don't like. What kind of ground do you have for this? Are you an educated engineer or architect? Were you or relatives of yourself there on 9/11? Have you even done research on the subject?
- Clearly I'm not the only one who has come here to state this view, so you cannot say there is a consensus, but rather a small group of members who regular this article to impose their POV.
- These events happened almost ten years ago, there are plenty of mainstream sources by now, including books. The 9/11 commission is not clear supporting evidence, and there will need to be more logical arguments made, including the trigger of the collapse, and the reason for such a catastrophic structural failure.
- Like I asked above, how is the Japanese legislator not a mainstream source? None of you really did answer my question but dodged it. How about books written by the aforementioned people?
- These are not fringe theories, these are respectable, mainstream people. You clearly did not look into the sources I presented here. There are more foreign and non-english sources though, and my point was that outside of the USA 9/11 is considered to be a fraud or a staged false-flag event.
- It is clear WP is not a democracy, but you simply cannot refute mainstream sources because YOU can't agree with them. By hiding or insulting the opposition you show weakness. I really doubt you even looked into the sources I was talking about, lest you could explain why they cannot be used in the main article.
- A link or small paragraph for the opposition is not enough, especially when new mainstream sources are refused despite being used on other WP articles. Like I stated above, We cannot allow personal feelings interfere with the facts.
- And Rklawton, I want to respond to you specifically:
- You didn't produce a compelling argument at all. Your rhetoric is worse than mine (at least I use sources). If there is so much evidence to prove these buildings pancake-collapsed due to fire alone, why could you not provide any kind of example or details? The 9/11 witnesses and first responders started the 9/11 Truth movement, MORON (pardon me there, but he used it first). At least I can comprehend world affairs. You resort to name-calling because you can't handle the truth, kid.174.89.54.33 (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- 174.89.54.33: I am trying to help you. Accusations of censorship and POV-pushing will not help your cause. I suggest that you take a break and familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on neutral point of view, reliable sources and fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly not. You keep dodging my question. I'm not pushing my POV, I'm asking why certain mainstream sources aren't allowed to be used, after I already reviewed the rules about reliable sources neutral point of view and fringe theories. You are making inapplicable and off-topic remarks. Can you please address my original statements/questions. 174.89.54.33 (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- 174.89.54.33: OK, then I will give you the most direct answer that I can. You have not cited a single reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well said, AQFK (and FAQ). Here's my take on it. Many individuals, myself included, simply want to know (accurately) what happened, and want truthful investigation and reporting by government and media. It's speculative (and inaccurate) to assume a political agenda or stupidity, as this is definitely not always the case. I want the official story to be true, but I have studied the evidence in depth over multiple years (from reliable sources and others), and the evidence simply doesn't support the official story in its entirety, much as I and others would like it to. Attention is seldom drawn to the inconsistencies by government or media, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not there. I accept that Misplaced Pages will generally only use material from media and government on this topic, but Misplaced Pages's editors should be cautious while using that information, and respectful of other editors. Rklawton, your response was honorable. Thank you. Wildbear (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Intro to "Motives" section
Arthur Rubin: Do you have some concerns about adding an intro sentence to the "Motive" section? The Motivations of the September 11 attacks article is more complete and lists five motives, and has more references. Omitting an intro sentence makes it harder for the reader to understand how the section is laid out. Also, why did you change "main" template to "see also"? --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Top-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- High-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Mid-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Skyscraper articles
- High-importance Skyscraper articles
- WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)