Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 5 September 2010

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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Template:September 11 arbcom

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 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. United States High‑importance This 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This 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) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City Top‑importance This 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skyscrapers High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Template:WP1.0 Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

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.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Kept February 26, 2004 Featured article review Demoted January 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 29, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 27, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 16, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed May 19, 2008 Good article nominee Listed May 29, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 10, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 20, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept June 19, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Good article reassessment

See Misplaced Pages:Good_article_reassessment/September_11_attacks/1

Two glaring omissions

The iconic photo of the 3 firefighters raising a flag in the rubble symbolized 9/11. It would be odd to talk about iwo jima and not mention the iconic photo of that battle. Someone please post it to this site.

Also, there is no mention of the Iraq War in this entire article. The US invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein as part of the War on Terror...I think that at least merits a sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.62.76 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Iwo Jima photo was entirely separate from this, and was 55 years before the 9/11 photograph. Although I can see the resemblance, the two are unrelated. However, if you know of a reliable source stating that, it would be an excellent addition. As for the Iraq War... the problem is that there are connections, but no good way to state them without synthesis, which is not permitted. George W. Bush and his administration decided to go in based on other, entirely unrelated reasons (i.e. atomic weapons suspicions, genocide (that's undeniable, look at the Marsh Arabs), and Saddam's odd behavior in response to accusations) that had nothing directly to do with 9/11, which was al-Qaeda's work. If you want more of an explanation, check out the reference desk and ask there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Two sources for the perceived similarity of the raising of the flag at Ground Zero and a Iwo Jima are this New York Times article and this New York Daily News article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, looks like we might have something here. I was 11 at the time, so I wasn't too in tune with the ongoing reports, but now that I've read those articles, the comparison makes some sense. It seems like it would be more relevant to the Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks article, so I'll see if I can add I have added it it in there; if you think it fits here, see if you can add it in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 9/11 was not the factual reason for the initiation of the Iraq war. However, 9/11 was used as a justification, and even after it became known that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the argument that the world would have changed after 9/11 has been used to argue for a more agressive U.S. foreign policy, an argument that was not limited to parties linked to 9/11. Given that connection in the public discourse, it seems appropriate to add information about how the Iraq war and 9/11 are related. This article is not about the facts only, it includes the reception and aftermath of the event (including such receptions and uses which had little or nothing to do with what actually happened).  Cs32en Talk to me  19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... well, again, I was young when all this happened, and I'm not as familiar with that, so I could be wrong. However, wouldn't that fit better in the War on Terror#US and NATO-led military operations article? This article is already massive, bordering on tl;dr territory. There could be a brief mention here, but it seems like the above article would be the better place to add that. It's a good piece of information, but probably fits better elsewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We could add a sentence after the first paragraph of the section "Military operations following the attacks", with links to Iraq war, Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq and possibly other relevant pages.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, perfect. Seems like the best way to do it; what I should have said above is that the other article was the better place to expand on it. Any opinions on my addition to Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit. I've tweaked the text a bit and added the New York Times reference.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually just realized my mistakes and was going over to fix it, and saw you had already done it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Major omission?

As an independent Australian observer, I'm extremely surprised to see that this article makes no mention of the WTC buildings' owner Larry Silverstein. I recall that, immediately following the disaster, Silverstone was very much a subject of debate, concerning the short term of his ownership, his prior changes to insurance cover, his talk of "pulling" WTC7, and his subsequent legal battle and mammoth settlement. At the very least, imho, there needs to be a link to Silverstein under "See also". But let's discuss it first, eh? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Silverstein never talked about “pulling wtc7”, but the firefighters’ contingent out of the building, to avoid further human loss. Also, I don’t see how Silverstein is related directly to the attacks, you could put in the incipit that the WTC was at that time “owned” by Silverstein. (He didn’t really “own” it, it was put up for lease anyway).--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, where it belongs. Silverstein is only relevant because conspiracy theorists made him; the significance is discussed at the aforementioned page. But yeah, that could be put in a "see also" section, that makes sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話すください) 20:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, I think his ownership rates a bit more prominently than a fanciful swine-flu allegation (which I for one had never heard of). But thanks to all for the essential agreement. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the "see also" section would be more fitting.--Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Opinion seems to be in favour of a 'See also'. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WTC 7

I'd like to know, how come that we don't have elaborate section on WTC 7? People should read how 9/11 Commission forgot all about WTC 7… or that it was missed by the planes. There should be some sentences in adequate space.

If you do a ctrl+f for wtc 7, this article will offer two hits, such miss, and both hits are in references.

This alternative spelling editors use appears 4 times.

How come that Misplaced Pages still exists? It is obvious that it serves as some sort of equivalent to Big Brother… it would be good to know why people support it, if it sells every space that really counts.

So, if the editors involved would kindly explain, where is the seven? CardinalCross (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See 7 World Trade Center, a featured article. Acroterion _(talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was, where is a contest on WTC 7?, here, after all its main feature. Why is there no sentence that no plane hit that building? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ola, Acroterion, where is a bit on wtc 7? Eh? You folks didn't find it noteworthy What is it, is it irrelevant? 78.0.205.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

The reasons for the collapse of Building 7 are amply described: the mention of some non-existent plane is completely pointless. I assume that's what you're talking about - it's hard to make sense of what you say (and, no, I didn't follow the link: say what you have on your mind without posting off-wiki links. Acroterion _(talk) 01:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Have some sense, where is a chapter about fall of wtc 7? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly in the main article, with a link to the 7 World Trade Center article, where it is discussed in detail. Acroterion _(talk) 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that, and I'm asking on what grounds? I've asked, do fellow editors find it irrelevant? Or would you prefer to deny any outside sources? 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a .gif(t) of wtc 7 collapse embedded in this article, if we would be doing what we're designated to do. Who is obstructing our work and with what authority? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.205.207 (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

78.0.205.207, taking an adversarial position won't get you anywhere here, except possibly banned from editing the encyclopedia. In making proposals and edits, you need to use your head. I recommend starting by watching how things work here and studying Misplaced Pages's introductory pages, and gaining some editing practice by working on non-9/11 related articles. The most important thing to understand about how Misplaced Pages documents 9/11 and similar topics is that it states (and to some degree cherry-picks) what mainstream sources say; those sources being mainly the mass media and government. If the mainstream sources say that WTC7 fell due to fire, then that's the (artificial) reality that Misplaced Pages documents. If you want to change how it's documented here, you will probably need to start by first getting the government and mass media to change their story, before it will change at Misplaced Pages. That's not to say that there aren't improvements which can be made here; but it needs to be taken slowly, respectfully, and with understanding. Wildbear (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see "obstruction"? I believe the consensus of editors on this article (which is the sole "authority") is that WTC 7 was a secondary event which does not require the same level of attention as the primary events. Others may disagree: you are welcome to discuss it in positive terms, rather than positing a conspiracy to keep such mention out of the article. Acroterion _(talk) 02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. This is the page on the 911 attacks. WTC7 was not attacked, it fell as a consequence of the attacks. Including it here would make a page that's already quite big even bigger by information that's better fit elsewhere. Hope this short answer helps. 134.106.41.232 (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to Motive section?

Tallicfan20: Your changes may be great .. I dont quite see the improvement tho. Can you explain here? Also, we should ensure consistency with Motives for the September 11 attacks‎ article. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Better references needed

The first line in the attacks section reads: Early on the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. (Washington Dulles International Airport).(ref) The cited reference is a press release from the UN Security Council. It says nothing at all about "early on the morning"; it says nothing about nineteen hijackers; and it says nothing about "en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C." It basically doesn't support the preceding sentence at all. I propose that a better reference is needed for this line. Also, the first two lines in the article also use this same citation for a reference, and their content is similarly not well supported by it. Without support from that reference, that leaves the first two lines only supported by an article quoting Osama bin Laden.(ref) I don't trust Osama bin Laden to be a truthful man or a reliable source — do you? Do we know that this bin Laden video, which leads this important article as its introduction to what happened, is even real, and not a forgery? I think that the first two lines of the article should have more solid and reliable support for the assertions being made. Wildbear (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a tad sick of the constant POV pushing by you folks. If you have a problem with a source, state it, and we'll either confirm that there is a problem and find a different source or reject the claim. We're done soapboxing. I will remove ANY comment of the sort. Understand? You've had your warning. Enough. --Tarage (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wildbear on the UN reference. It says nothing of the details stated in the article. Need a better source. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Added new section on Cordoba House mosque.

I've added a new section on the 9/11 mosque(ground zero mosque). Good if anyone can improve on the related Park51 article. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed Main Article text to "Park51," as that is the accepted title of the main page. - Alexguitar594 (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the title of the section to be problematic. The phrase Ground Zero Mosque is very inaccurate and was created by those on one side of a controversial issue. It should be titled either Cordoba House or Park51. Also there are other minor changes to the text I would make if I had edit privs, here they are:

There has been a proposal to build a Muslim community center in the neighborhood where the World Trade Center once stood. Referred to by its opponents as the Ground Zero Mosque. The community center has become a focal point of tension leading up to the November 2010 elections in the U.S.. Opinion polls suggest that while a large majority of people in the U.S. are against this project , the plan is supported by a majority of people living in Manhattan and has gained very vocal support from Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg,. President Barack Obama has hence stressed upon America's commitment to religious freedom.--Ericfg (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of whom the name was popularised by, the popular name remains Ground Zero Mosque. I guess this is more relevant in Misplaced Pages. MikeLynch (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not the popular name although it is a commonly used name, however only one side of the debate uses the phrase, so to use that title implies agreement with that side. It is also factually inaccurate as a description. I'm new to editing/writing/adding[REDACTED] content, but I thought the goal was to be as accurate possible. Especially because the page this section links to is not called Ground Zero Mosque, I believe the title of this section should be changedEricfg (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of that section because it is neither an accurate description nor a neutral one. Also, 'The Cordoba Initiative' is its official working name. I think that it is in the interest of remaining professional to use the official term. sxebill (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This section has nothing at all to do with the article's subject and should therefore not be here at all. I suggest making it a 'See also', as was suggested when I proposed some mention of WTC owner Larry Silverstein. (See above.) Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur...removed. I don't even think a see also is needed...it is not related to the events of the day.--MONGO 03:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, is it not related to the events of the day? May I bring to your notice that the protests(and support) happening with regards to the mosque is due to the fact that it is a 'peace memorial'? How can anyone say that it is not relevant? MikeLynch (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the title of the section was changed to be neutral and accurate. Thank you. I also think that this section should be deleted entirely. This community center project has nothing to do with the events of Sept 11 2001. The connection is being created by those that are against the project. As such, even including this section at all seems to me to lack neutrality.Ericfg (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't related to the events of the day. Part of the problem with this article is that it is too broad. As the title states, September 11 attacks...so the focus should be on that, and much less other issues. The mosque isn't a memorial...the is debate among some circles that the mosque is even at ground zero, though I disagree with that argument. The article is better without going off on this tangent.--MONGO 05:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why have a memorial section? If you look at one memorial, then you have to look at the other. Cordoba house is inseparably linked to 9/11. In fact, the founder intended it as a place of peace. The controversy is due to the fact that it is so near Ground Zero, and that the founder intends it to be a symbol of harmony after 9/11. I'm sure there would be lesser controversy if the same plan had been proposed in Buffalo or San Deigo. MikeLynch (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the September 11 attacks, a series of coordinated suicide attacks on September 11, 2001. Park 51 was not part of the 9-11-01 attacks, and it is not a memorial, rather it is a community center and mosque which includes a 9-11 memorial, among other things. I think it would be valid as a see also link because some people object to the project on the basis of the fact that it's close to the WTC site and it's Muslim-related, but I don't think it's necessary to have a section on Park 51 in this article. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless MikeLynch, the article is and has for a long time been been poorly focused and needs major revamping to follow Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (summary style) guidelines...--MONGO 07:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@Exploding Boy: Then the article should contain info just on the attacks itself and not of its consequences? MikeLynch (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Park51 is not a consequence of the attacks. At best it's tangentially related, which is why I suggested a see also link. Also, please use colons (:) rather than asterisks (*) to indent your talk page posts; asterists create bulletpoints, making talk pages harder to read. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Very well. @MONGO, I'll have to agree with that. Article is poorly written. @ Exploding boy: In that case, sections on Rebuilding and memorials should be entirely rid of. MikeLynch (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't follow at all. In any case, Park51 has nothing to do with rebuilding the WTC site, and it's not a memorial. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But it includes a memorial, as was pointed out. MikeLynch (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Which isn't the same thing at all. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem forking some of the sections but what needs to be done to reestablish focus is for the editors to all get together and gently discuss major changes that would reduce some sections to little more than a brief discussion with links to main articles that cover the subtopics in greater details. Perhaps I can set aside some time to try and create a new outline for this page but I don't have much time to spare at present for such a big undertaking.--MONGO 07:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: It doesn't have to have the words" '9/11 Memorial' written all over to be a memorial. MikeLynch (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. But containing any kind of memorial does not make a building a memorial. Park51 is not primarily intended as a memorial. It isn't a memorial in disguise. It isn't a memorial that happens to have a 500 seat auditorium attached to it. It is a community center and mosque which, besides an auditorium, a theater, a performing arts center, a fitness center, a swimming pool, a basketball court, a childcare area, a bookstore, a culinary school, an art studio, a food court, and a prayer space, contains a September 11 memorial. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But as pointed out, yes I guess we need major changes in the outline of the article. I'd be happy to help. MikeLynch (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine...but I see no mention of the mosque being a memorial, least not in our article here...has been described as a community center, a mosque etc. by proponents...but not as a memorial.--MONGO 07:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, that article is improperly referenced. And if you will please, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. MikeLynch (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein

Use reported speech for official versions of widely questioned events

Failure to prevent the attacks

It seems to me that the article is rather light on what should be one of its main themes, namely the failure of all those agencies charged with preventing just such an attack as happened on 9/11. I wouldn't claim to be an expert on this, but in my understanding the following agencies had a responsibility for preventing aircraft crashing into buildings, either deliberately or accidentally:

The CIA

The FBI

The NSA

The police

The FAA and Air Traffic Control

NORAD

The Department of Defense

The US Air Force

Airport Security at Boston, Newark and Washington

Airline Security (e.g. at check-in and boarding) at United and American

The cabin crew and flight crew operating the relevant flights.

The success of 3 of the 4 hijackings implies that, during the planning and implementation of the attacks, the hijackers outwitted or evaded all of the above agencies. The article only mentions investigation of the performance of the CIA; it would be useful to add descriptions of the investigations into the performance of those other agencies, and the outcomes of those investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.209.122 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

If you provide some sources, then it would be easier to see from those sources what could and could not be added.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking over control of the aircraft

It would be useful for the article to provide more detail in this area ... " ... the hijackers used weapons to stab and kill aircraft pilots ...": what were these weapons: the box-cutters that have often been mentioned? Does "aircraft pilots" refer to the full flight crew (pilot + co-pilot + engineer if applicable) of all the affected flights? How long did the killings take? How long did it take for the dead crew to be removed from their seats so that the hijackers could occupy those seats (if that's what happened) and during this time how were communications from the aircraft to Air Traffic Control affected? Did any of the pilots have time to send emergency signals to ATC before being killed?

Much of this is covered in as much detail as sources can provide, at each of the 4 flights' articles.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. As far we know, the only mentions of boxcutters being wielded by the "terrorists" were from phone conversations of CNN commentator Barbara Olson to her husband, then Solicitor General of the United States Ted Olson. Mrs. Olson was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 which is reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, and Mr. Olson claimed that he had two conversations with his wife after the airplane had been hijacked. It is not clear whether Mr. Olson claimed those conversations were made with Mrs. Olson's cell phone or with an on-board seat-phone because his story changed a few times on that matter.

At the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui in 2006, the FBI did confirm that not two but a single phone call was made from Mrs. Olson to her husband; they also stated that the duration of that call was 0 (zero) second. The mainstream media (aka Reliable Sources) never picked up on this oddity. At any rate, the only mention of boxcutters on 9/11 was what Ted Olson said he heard from his wife on that fateful day. No other phone call from any other passenger ever mentioned the now world-famous boxcutters.

As a WP:RS, I offer an image extracted from the official FBI documentation tabled at the Moussaoui trial and which shows that Barbara Olson made a single call at 9:18:58 to someone (presumably her husband) at the Department of Justice and that this call lasted 0 seconds: http://i52.tinypic.com/331zyoz.png).

I know, I know, YouTube videos are frowned upon by Misplaced Pages for some reason or other but I respectfully submit that anyone interested in this matter should at least take a glance at this interview that the CBC's Fifth Estate public affairs program did with Dr. David Ray Griffin on this very subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjImLL4NnwA. The CBC is a crown corporation of the Government of Canada and should be considered a Reliable Source, I should think. Oclupak (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview would only be a source for Mr. Griffin's opinion on the topic. If the video is usable (e.g. no copyright violations), it is so only in the article on 911 conspiracy theories. 77.10.186.8 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as much detail as sources can provide. Obviously we'll never know everything, but the phone calls and in the case of United 93, the black boxes, provide the details that were reported by Reliable sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Official version"

The article includes "Some question the official version of the bombings". But no reference or source is given for "offical version". So where can one find the official version of the bombings? Is the Misplaced Pages article itself the official version? If so, that should be stated somewhere.

86.179.209.122 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What "bombings"? The article is clearly off the mark on this one. No one ever alleged that there were any kind of "bombings" on 9/11. The Official Conspiracy Theory (OTC) states that the attacks were the result of "19 Muslims who hate our freedoms" hijacking 4 aircrafts and slamming three of them into buildings while a fourth crashed in Pennsylvania farmland. No bombing there. The most prevalent alternative conspiracy theories entertain the possibility that the WTC buildings that collapsed had previously been rigged with explosives and that the airplanes were mostly there for show. Even though nano-thermite or thermate might be described as explosive substances, I doubt their ignition would be called a "bombing". The terminology used in this case is "Controlled Demolition", not "bombings". Other theories involving mysterious energy weapons, such as the one proposed by Dr. Judy Wood, do not mention anything about "bombings". As for the Pentagon attack, no one claims any "bombing" was involved either, unless a cruise missile can be categorized as a bomb. Frankly, I can't imagine how the notion of "bombings" ever made it into the article. So thanks for pointing out that inconsistency, 86.179.209.122. It definitely should be remedied but first, we must discuss it among ourselves in order to reach consensus. I hope we'll have resolved the issue in time for the 9th anniversary of those horrible events, which is barely a week away. Oclupak (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-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)