Talk:September 11 attacks

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

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 Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The archives of the discussion of the September 11, 2001 attacks article may be found here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19

---

Query about fatality figures: hijackers

A thought just occurred to me. Do the fatality figures for the planes given on this page include the hijackers? 'cos I'm not sure if they should. Either way we should make it clear whether or not they do. Kingal86 23:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

September 11, 2001 attacks → September 11, 2001, attacks. Commas in dates, geographical locations, &c., function as marks of parenthesis. The parenthesis has be closed by a second mark. Think of it like "September 11 (2001) attacks" and the "Arlington (Virginia) Pentagon". We don't leave off ")"—so we don't leave off the comma. Just as we write "Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A., is the location of the Pentagon" and "Tuesday, September 11, 2001, was an important day", we also do this when the multi-word term functions attributively. Associated Press example from late March 2005: "Four suspected Islamist radicals went on trial in Paris on charges that they provided false documents to two Tunisians who posed as journalists and killed the celebrated Afghan resistance hero Ahmed Shah Massoud two days before the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States." — President Lethe 21:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Strong Oppose There is only one problem with the proposed change: it's not English, the misguided punctuation of some AP transcriber on autopilot to the contrary. But I think this is fatal. Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Pmanderson. I had to read the proposal three or four times just to understand what it was trying to say! -- MisterHand 16:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose; per above (what you say?) Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • typa-typa)} 21:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: September 11, 2001 is a single semantic unit, therefore matching parenthetical commas is irrelevant. Peter Grey 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree* See my entry under "Title is incorrectly punctuated" on this discussion page. It is, admittedly, slightly awkward to punctuate correctly when using "Septebmer 11, 2001," as an adjectival phrase (i.e., modifiying "attacks" in "the September 11, 2001, attacks were devastating"). There are three ways to avoid that awkwardness: (1) rephrase as "the attacks of September 11, 2001, were devastating," which is not much better, (2) write in the European manner as "the 11 September 2001 attacks were devastating," or (3) follow the suggestion below and drop the year, as in "the September 11 attacks were devastating." The third suggestion is probably best. (No one will confuse these attacks with the "September 11 attacks" of some other year.) Otherwise, we should punctuate correctly with two commas. 66.146.213.165 17:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: compare: Pearl Harbour, attack — Xiutwel (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. chocolateboy 22:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

A change to September 11 attacks would remove this figment; is it not done because of some ambiguity? Septentrionalis 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I like September 11 attacks. Maurreen 10:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also agree with this alternative, but I would prefer "9/11 attacks" even more as it is far and away the most common name and has, because of use in media, become widely understood even abroad. Jonathunder 21:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Request:not moved

It is clear that this is not supported, and I agree with the arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What "arguments"? I see arguments here in favor of punctuating correctly (i.e., with commas setting off the year, a parenthetical element), but I haven't seen any "arguments" in favor of sticking one comma in the middle of the sentence for no reason. There are a few general refusals to change, but saying "no, you're wrong" is not an "argument." Find one authoritative source that supports using one comma in this way, and I'll give it up.65.107.70.253 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

See also The 9/11 Commission Report, Preface at xv: "September 11, 2001, was a day of unprecedented shock and suffering in the history of the United States." Anyone have any reputable counter-examples?65.107.70.253 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream

Read about the mainstream coverage:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CDCC04E2-8DE8-4625-B380-DD74EC0F3AC9.htm

Its a disgrace for wikipedia that the Charlie Sheen and Alex Jones interviews are deleted as non-notable when aljazeera stats:

Sheen, star of the TV sitcom Two and a Half Men, provoked a media storm in March by calling in interviews for an independent investigation.--Striver 12:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

oh well, we'll manage somehow. --Golbez 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Media storm" is rather subjective, but it might have a place in one of the secondary articles. I would point out that calling for an independent investigation is nothing unreasonable, only calling for an independent investigation with the presumption of what it might find. Peter Grey 15:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The Falling Man

We've got a lot of pictures on this page. Does anybody object to the removal of that one? I know it has meaning and stuff, but it seems excessive for it to be on the page. It's like a shock photo. Graphic and disturbing. I think we should just link to it's page. SkeenaR 04:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse for examples. --Mmx1 04:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to be snide, Skeena, but 9/11 was graphic and disturbing. The photo bothers me, too, but I feel pretty strongly that it should stay. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 04:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I don't feel that strongly that it should be removed. But, just so you know what I mean, in the case of the torture photos I think the graphic imagery is more pertinent to the article. The imagery is the proof, and the imagery is what caused the controversy. I think this is different. I don't think anyone would argue that we need severed limbs or entrails in this article either. SkeenaR 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can replace it with a picture that more accurately covers the tragedy and number of deaths related to 9/11 then I say go for it. This is a famous picture depecting a time period during the event (the jumpers) that should be included in the article. The fact that the picture has its own article is almost enough to retain the picture in the main article. --Mattarata 16:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. SkeenaR 20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You may recall that there were two brothers who filmed inside one of the lobbies. In that footage, which was broadcast on the CBS network during prime time in 2002, there are the regular sounds of many bodies regularly crashing through a glass atrium. So a photo of one person falling may misrepresent the actual event on the low side. I was sort of surprised that the man could not be identified for us, which would help make the events more real.

Another one

Here guys, another one you can insult: [1]--Striver 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Challenging misinformation does not require insults. Peter Grey 16:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what are the credentials of this musician to make opinions about engineering. did he study in architecture or engineering at which university? Mieciu K 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical problem

There is an obvious mathematical error under the first subheading ("The attacks"). The fatality total is listed as 2986, made up of the sums of 265, 2595, and 125. The problem is pretty clear: 265 + 2595 + 125 = 2985, not 2986.

I attempted to fix this error by adding one to the plane total (I based the 266 number on the fatality table in the "fatalities" section of the entry), but another editor erased my correction and changed the "fatalities" section to reflect a 265 number. I do not dispute this change, as it was cited and appears to be correct. However, because the 2986 number was likely based on the faulty flight fatalities, I am going to revise the total casualty number down by one.

I have not provided a source for the 2985 number because, frankly, sources conflict. I have begun to look for a reliable source for fatality numbers, and if I find a good one I will revise all the numbers to reflect it. However, given that we have conflicting sources, I think it makes sense to make the Wiki entry internally consistent. Right now there is a blatant mathematical error on the page, which is a major problem. If anyone does not like my revision, please feel free to fix it--but re-creating an obvious math error on a major wiki page by reverting to the old version is NOT a "fix." We should not have a total that is different from the sum of its supposed parts.

Looks like I forgot to sign my entry. I originally posted this the evening of June 28, 2006. SharkAttack 15:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Pentagon

Guys, look what Alex linked to: [2]. Lately, Alex have leand more and more to including material that supports that the pentagon was hit by a plane. I find the arguements compelling. I have never been to sure regarding either version, and i still have unanswered questions regarding Pentagon, but if asked, i now support that it was hit by a plance. --Striver 13:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a blog. What you think/your own theories are original research. And we do not add original research to wikipedia. Mieciu K 01:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Although original research and opinons aren't allowed, you have to develop and hold your own opinions about the way a subject is presented in order to improve an article. So if you think other theories should be covered, then you must find outside research that supports your opinion, such as the Zogby poll mentioned above that find 42% believe the 9/11 Commission was a cover-up. Incidentally, the animate video is one of the best and most thorough examples what the 9/11 Commission says happened to the jet that hit the Pentagon.

External Link

I want to add...

http://www.socialistworker.org/Featured/WarOnTerror.shtml#Sept11

Can I get permission?

You don't really need permission: be bold! EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. What makes this website significant that we should add a link to this website? Mieciu K 00:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Responsibility

I think wikipedia should try and remain unbiased, even if such emotionally disturbing topics are involved. Widely disputed facts should not be presented as "the truth" without reservation. Please someone tell me what happend to bin Laden. Is this what kidney-dialasis will do to your face? Still of 2004 Osama bin Laden video. — Xiutwel (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

File:Osama-med.jpg Osama bin Laden

Widely disputed? No, strongly disputed by a small, dedicated group of propagandists relying on disreputable sources. There is no dispute among reports by mainstream, verifiable media sources about who is responsible: Osama Bin Laden. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Morton/Matt, I've moved your comment here, as you inserted it in the middle of my comment. Now my reaction: mainstream reports are citing the government view, without much of a dispute. So far I agree. This makes the media sources verifiable, but not necessarily trustworthy. About the propagandists: you are entitled to your view about this. The LA conference end of June however made headlines in the major newspapers here in Holland, I think mainly because of the size of the conference (1200 participants). It is not just a few internet freaks and paranoid people, but it also includes former ministers Michael Meacher and Andreas von Bülow so I maintain my view that the dispute is not only strong, but also wide. And this means that wikipedia must be very careful in presenting the facts, and not beliefs as if they were facts. The mainstream view is a belief as much as the "propagandists'" view. That's my opinion. — Xiutwel (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The media may adopt the same narrative as the US Government, but not necessarily by blind repetition - it may be that they've independently reached similar conclusions. It does not make them absolutely trustworthy, but it does mean your personal scepticism is unfounded. In theory, it's great that people question the account, and explore other possibilities; however, no evidence challenging the mainstream story has yet been found. Peter Grey 22:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

X, I don't know if you understand how the American media works -- the press does not stand there waiting for the Government to hand them news stories. Some information is fed through official channels, but it's an ultra-competitive marketplace -- with competition even among federal agencies and even intra-agency -- on the source side, if there is a story to be leaked, and you can gain personally or your agency can gain from leaking it, then it's often leaked. There is no such thing as monolithic thinking in the American psyche -- we thrive on feathering our own nests, and we can be counted upon to do just that. On the journalist side, we have the same ultra-competitiveness operating, with journalists and news organizations striving to beat the other side to the story, or often, to embarass other news organizations by revealing how the other organization "got it wrong". Even with consolidation and mega-media-giants, and maybe especially because, there are immense competitive pressures to out-do the other shops and "get to the real truth." Every J-School grad dreams of the day he will find his Deep Throat and expose another Watergate -- Abscam, Iran-Contra, Enron, et al. The American Experience is replete with infamous examples of journalists "taking down" the rich and powerful -- that's the core of who we are. That's how we know that the mainstream media account is the truth, and the conspiracy theories are without merit. Yes, there's room for doubt -- but that doubt operates every day to sharpen the story, not just when conspiracy theorists conjure it. Morton Devonshire^Yo

I completely agree with Morton on this. In the U.S., there are plenty of independent reporters that are not hampered by the corporate world of mass media, and they have every reason to try for their own personal gain, to find any and all evidence that would contradict the known evidence.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

ha ha. Just so long as none of this goes into the article. SkeenaR 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes , and those independent reporters can be found on the internet, in places like Alternet etc. The big media are owned by a very small group of people, and individual reporters working for those media won't get their stories published if they go against the stream of what the government 'likes'. If people (or a newspaper) publish stories the white house doesn't like, they lose their buddies or contacts in the White house or the other parts of the government, who won't give them their stories any more. This is not to say you can't publish it any more, just that the incentive is very strong not to do it.

About the widely suported doubts on the official story, please see this Times Herald story on public opinion split over 9/11 report. More than 40% of Americans believe the 9/11 report is a cover-up. I can guarantee you, this percentage is much more outside of the US. So to say there's no wide support, is an unfounded statement when considering public opinion. And an unfounded statement when looking at the true independents on the internet, those who are unbiased by the big bucks... Sacca 10:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 911Truth.org sponsored it, the questions may have been leading, but more importantly, it does not distinguish between those believing the report was a cover-up of negligence or political opportunism, and those believing the report was a cover-up of pre-meditated murder and treason. Peter Grey 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it mentions cover-up, so it definately is not a case of political opportunism, no cover-up is needed for that. Cover-up means there is something rotten. But thinking about it: 45 percent of Americans believe there is a conspiracy in the US government on 9-11. Sacca 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions cover-up - there is no indication whether the poll mentioned it or not. Peter Grey 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Zogby is reliable pollster. If you dispute that 42% say there is a cover-up, then ask yourself whether the ccover-up topic should be included if only 33% said there was a cover-up. Incidentally, some of the analysis in this section strays quite far from the topic and should probably be included in an area on theories about American journalism.

revert

# (cur) (last)  15:01, 4 July 2006 Tom harrison (Talk | contribs) (rm conspiracy theory; rm promotional link)
# (cur) (last) 14:51, 4 July 2006 Xiutwel (Talk | contribs) (→Responsibility - see bin Laden article)

I've re-inserted the fact that the FBI does not accuse bin Laden of 911-involvement. Personally, I presume this can only be so if they too believe the confession-video could be a fake. They would have enough evidence, if he confessed, wouldn't they?

I am not, for the moment, reinserting doubts on the confession video's. Let's leave that for a later stage.

• Please consult the Osama bin Laden page and its talk page for this debate, before editing.
• please do not revert without due explanation on this talk page.

Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasons for this is because the links of Osama to the embassy bombings is conclusive, so in order to fully prosecute the hunt for Osama it's best to do so under the best potential for later prosecution. If ever captured alive, they can try him for the embassy bombings, which are prior to 9/11 and for which the evidence is conclusive, whereby, the evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 attacks is less conclusive...but that doesn't mean that the FBI, INTERPOL and other agencies think Osama had nothing to do with 9/11, so that needs to be understood.--MONGO 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Depressing

It's actually quite depressing that Wikipedia is still not able to present a decent, unbiased, article about 9-11. The bias pervades the whole article, Dick Cheney might have written it himself! It's very proper that this article was taken out of the category of featured articles. Sacca 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is there not any template that can be applied to this article? Widely disputed article for example? Just so that the people who read it are aware?Sacca 11:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are such tags, and would be properly used here.

Actually, it's time the tag went up for sure, because the neutrality is heavily disputed as one can see from reading this talk page. But I'm willing to bet if the tag was placed at the top of the article, it would be removed without explanation. SkeenaR 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, quite funny eh? Put up a tag and it disappears without any explanation. Surely some evil-doers are on the roll here!  ;-)

But off course, this is not what Wikipedia is for, it really needs this {neutrality} tag.Sacca 19:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Let's see what happens when I put it back.

---

Some proposal by Xiutwel

Dear Sacca,

• why did you add

[[Image:Example.jpg]]

on 13:15, 8 July 2006 Sacca  ?

• Actually, I did not add this image about example. Check it again, it must have been somebody else.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• History comparison indicates you inserted it, but this comparing is prone to bugs, so let's just forget about it. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree there are many disputed claims presented as facts. I propose the following solution:
  1. make a list of quotes from the article which do so
  2. try and reach consensus here on talk that these "facts" are widely disputed
  3. try and refrase the presenting of this information in the article in a neutral, encyclopic way.

• yes, very good ideas.

• Remember, that a majority of wikipedians takes the government story as either true or mostly true.

• When I read the talkpage here I would say there's a lot who don't take the government story as true also.

• From that perspective, it is only logical to dismiss any dispute as "conspiracy theory".

• And therefore I do not agree with this statement at all. You are talking as if this talk-page does't even exist. take a look and read. this is all written by wikipedians...

• For practicle purposes, I propose we leave all theorizing and accusations to the separate conspiracy article. However, the facts in this article should be above dispute (for so far as the dispute is founded on traceable evidence or logic).

• Actually, if you're not going to accuse, you cannot include the '19 terrorists' or 'Al Queda' also. How can you write an article on this without putting in information about who did it?

Another funny thing is how can you be against theories and for logic? They go together. theories come from logical thinking. Logical thinking ends up in logical theories, so maybe what you mean is not to include unlogical theories, only logical ones?

• I would support including the "disputed" tag only after we tried and failed solving things here in good cooperation. — Xiutwel (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• The 'disputed' or 'neutrality' tag should be there now, because it is disputed now and it is not neutral now. If that changes in the future, it can be removed. The article as it currently is should currently be labaled as biased. Right now it's just misleading - not indicating the bias of a biased article.Sacca 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also there's actually no good cooperation here, if tags are removed without concern for the talkpage which indicated this page is HEAVILY in need of a TAG.

Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth", but instead is based on verifiable, reliable sources. As such, no 'disputed' tag is needed. If you think mainstream, reliable sources are in error, take it up with them. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say the 9-11 report is reliable? Many sources exist which indicate it is in fact not. You know, professors of physics and other sciences, former ministers, independent journalists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your TV! If those university professors think something is very flawed and biased about the 9-11 report and the mainstream US media, their opinions need to be reflected in the article.

The data in this article is very flawed because it is very biased. And there are some controllers here who keep it biased, it's very natural that those do not like to accept their biase-ness. So, even though the neutrality tag is removed very quickly everytime, this artcle badly needs it. Sacca 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you were citing sources which satisfy Wikipedia standards of verifiability and reputable sources, then nobody would be reverting you. Blogs and other sites which do not employ objective editorial oversight do not satisfy Wiki standards -- you can't add material from unverifiable and disreputable sources. Morton Devonshire^Yo

re: Some proposal by Xiutwel

1. I was not as clear as I intended to be. I meant: seen from the standpoint that the White House is bona fide in this, it is logical to dismiss anything else as conspiracy theory. I was not intending to say, that this should be the wikipedia policy on this subject! I am hoping we can find a way to write together a page that satisfies wikipedia criteria according to all wikipedians.
2. My feeling is that 70-90% of wikipedians choose to believe the government point of view, judging from the edits. Just a guess. That leaves a significant minority who think it is possible that the White House mounted a cover-up. As was said earlier:
   1. either they're covering up how they distorted the truth about 911 in order to go to war (but this would not be covering up about 911, so this is irrelevant concerning the poll mentioned above)
   2. or they're covering up that they were inadequate in preventing bin Laden from doing this
   3. or they're covering up they did this themselves and blamed it on bin Laden, or a combination
3. verifiable sources: I would say we can go no further that establish whether some info, whether true or not, was presented in some widely recognized source, such as a newspaper, news program or document report. Absent these, a "conspiracy web page" must do but this is not very helpful since this will be disputed instantly.
4. reputable sources: there aren't any. Period. Not about the guilt behind 911. Since the guilt is being denied by all involved, Bush and bin Laden alike. We should therefore restrain ourselves to summing up who said what and when. The sayings themselves are facts; what is said are not facts but possibilities.
5. I think it is fair to put the tag up now, but it would be better to be the wiser party and first get going with specifying in detail which remarks in the article merit the tag. A general reference to this talk page as a whole is too easy, since theoretically the article might have been adapted according to discussions here on talk.
   • I just made archive 19 of this talk page, so it definitely will not suffice, just referring to the talk page as a whole. We need to be specific. Let us first reach consensus, that due to the opposing interests, government sources can not be seen as reputable, except for declaring what the government wants to declare.— Xiutwel (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
   • I would agree with that. Sacca 14:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Due to holiday I guess I'll be offline for a month or so. Hope the USA still exists when I return. Best wishes from Holland. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed: Proposal to include Molten Metal reference

I think it is clear to everyone involved that this page is highly disputed. That said, I would prefer if we can avoid resorting to adding Disputed Tags to the article - at least until we try harder to gain consensus over how NPOV and Verifiability apply in this case. As a specific example of a disputed fact is the continued exclusion of all reference to mainstream media accounts of Molten Metal sightings at Ground Zero on and after the attacks. For more detail on the Molten Metal discussion, see [[3]] For mainstream source material, see: [[4]]

This is a clear example of a Disputed Fact. It is well documented by multiple credible mainstream sources, but has been excluded from Wikipedia because it may not fit the official account of events. It is clearly a violation of NPOV to exclude this notable and verifiable fact: "Molten Metal was observed at the site of Ground Zero for days and weeks after the attacks.

Whether or not you agree that reference to Molten Metal should be included in the article. Does anyone wish to argue the fact that it isn't even disputed? Digiterata 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this is the primary article on this subject, that level of detail might not be appropriate, particularly since . It would also be necessary to explain why it's noteworthy, what it implies about conditions in the building, and, because many conspiracy theory argments include the observation, to point out that it actually contradicts the conspiracy theory scenario and supports the mainstream account (and I suppose the "official" account as well, whatever that is). Peter Grey 00:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. Molten metal is another subject which should be included in the article. If people want to know a lot of detail they can click on the link (Wikipedia uses links) at molten metal at WTC or something like it. Again the previous comment by Peter Grey may be creating more disputes and not solving any; shows just how much the 'disputed' tag is needed (it should have been there ages ago). Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

by the way Peter you didn't tell us yet why detail should not be incorporated into the article. There is a notable emptiness after the words partiularly since... it's almost funny :-) Sacca 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right Digiterata, it seems the reference to molten metal is disputed. (Just like the rest of the article and the whole article itself.) It seems Peter Grey has a very different idea about it (it's supportive of the official account - but he doesn't want to mention it strangely enough) than for example me (it's supportive of some of the alternative accounts). The fact that it's not in the article is one of the many instances of the biased-ness of the article, and the fact that you and me want it in but others not is an axample of one of many disputed issues in this article. greetings Sacca 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This main article needs to be concise, written in Wikipedia:Summary style. Details on the Collapse of the World Trade Center should go in that article. And, molten metal is something discussed in context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, so discussion of molten metal should go there. There are many other aspects of 9/11 that are covered in summary style in the main article. -Aude (talk contribs) 13:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean it is also discussed in the alternative theories. That's again very convenient, that anything which is discussed in the alternative theories doesn't have a place in the main article. That's the best way to keep this article biased, for sure! Congratulations, you've found it! Sacca 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Collapse of the World Trade Center would be the logical place for this kind of detail. Since the molten metal phenomena (there are two - something metallic falling from the building during the fire and hot and/or painted orange metal present at the site after the collapse) are real, documented events, but they are non-notable, not really implying anything beyond a) fire and b) collapse, which are not "disputed". Peter Grey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal appears when using explosive materials, not in a fire caused by a relatively short burst of large quantities of fuel. The molten metal is one very controversial subject because it points back to the method of controlled demolition which was used to take down the World Trade Center. The molten metal was not only seen dripping out of the building, but also encountered in large quantities in the basement, where there was no fire, but where large explosions are reported (verifiable) to have occurred. Together with the speed with which the WTC collapsed (free fall), it is one of the main indicators which betrays the true cause of the coming down of the WTC. But anyway not to worry, I've decided not to come back here since I don't want to waste any more time going over the same arguments time and time again with a limited group of people only aiming to keep certain data out. Keep it as biased as you want, but please notify me when there's some kind of vote because I'll happily join in that. bye bye for now... Sacca 17:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal does not imply any of these things; that is one of the leaps of faith the conspiracy theorists use, hoping that the average member of the public will not notice the gap in the argument. Peter Grey 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hijackers

It's interesting that nobody bothers to show any evidence for who the hijackers actualy were. It's even more interesting when you consider that the FBI admited that the hijackers were using assumed names and fake IDs. In fact, the 19 names of suspected hijackers released by the FBI don't even appear on the passenger lists of the hijacked planes. So, who were they, really? If Wikipedia is going to say that these men were "Affiliated with Al-Quieda" then it damm well better back that up with some evidence. So far, all I see in this regard is a lot of alegations and not much evidence. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers_flt_175.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/U175pass.html

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

--Allthenamesarealreadytaken 04:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

To keep the lead section concise, I have removed the following:

• "(targeting random civilians and the heaquarters of the US military and legislature)"
• The attacks fall under the legal definition for a crime against humanity.

I don't think it's necessary to add what was in parentheses. For example, simply saying the Pentagon is much more concise way of saying "headquarters of the US military". The part about "crime against humanity" is also too detailed for the intro section (and should be cited). -Aude (talk contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Absurd claim of attack as crime against humanity is not even supported by the cite. Crimes against humanity are on the scale of genocide as defined by the UN and international law. Please, the attack was bad enough without this hysterical hyperbole. --Cberlet 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil's advocate: When you have well-established editors labeling the killing of 23 people or 1 as "crime against humanity", why does the killing of 3000 not count? Because the U.S. isn't the aggressor? --Mmx1 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not be snide given the horror of the terrorist attack on 9/11. OK?

Why? Because the killing of 3,000 compared to the population of the United States does not approach the scale of genocide, either historically or according to the UN definition. Because there is no cite to a reputable published source making the claim. Because the only definition offered here is to an internal Wikipedia link. Because it is therefore uncited Original Research.--Cberlet 22:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Security council condemnation; repeatedly those that made comments declared the event as a crime against humanity, or similar along those lines. Kofi Annan "A terrorist attack on one country was an attack on humanity as a whole" [5] I concur that the event wasn't genocide, but I disagree that ir wasn't a crime against humanity. If others want to post that the U.S. has commited a crime against humainity on other articles, that is not my concern, so long as it is sourced. This article is about the events of 9/11.--MONGO 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Let's roll"

It's not original research but common knowledge. Is there a dispute regarding The term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? patsw 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

We now have an infobox... on terrorist attacks? Oy vey. Is this *really* needed? --Golbez 07:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is bad tasty.--Pokipsy76 13:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree they are so ugly and plus the official death toll is 2,986 not 2,976!! Litte Spike 2:37am EST, July 15th, 2006

Terrorism

'Terrorism' is a highly subjective term, and I do not think it has a place in a NPOV article unless it is in a quote attributed to a specific person. Therefore, could the presumed attackers be described as 'Islamic militants' instead?

I realise this is an emotional subject for many of you, but that is no reason to throw away objectivity. Damburger 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Messed Up Article Now

I noticed that some individuals destroyed this site!! The death toll is stated at 3,000, than 2,985, and than 2,976 all in the same article!! Whats up with this Wikipedia? This article is one of the most important ones on Wikipedia at this time and its filled with mis information and in reality the actual official death toll is 2,986!! - Litte Spike 3:46pm EST, July 15th, 2006