Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Source

In the lead, the source for the act been done by "Islamic terrorists" is: Security Council Condemns, 'In Strongest Terms' Terrorist Attacks on the United States. United Nations (September 12, 2001). Retrieved on 2006-09-11.. Can someone provide a quote of where exactly the terrorists are descried as "Islamic". Thanks.Bless sins 14:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This source by the CBC, about bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attacks calls al-Qaeda a "militant Islamic group." This source is used about midway through the second sentence of the article. There are probably many more sources in the article that describe the perpetrators as such. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
An asside... isn't it funny how when something like this happens, the group most closely linked to the people involved continue to question over and over again who actually caused the event? Example, Germany/Nazis and the Holocaust. So much "Are you sure we did it? I don't remember it... perhaps you could provide more evidence..." Anyway, sorry, just going off on a tangent there. --Tarage 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny? Hardly. It is essential that "the group most closely linked to the people involved" in the attrocities of 9/11 continue to blame the nineteen alleged hijackers and Muslims in general. They promised war in Afghanistan two months before 9/11. They had their troops positioned. All they needed was the pretext to avoid having it called a "war of aggression." Yes. You are right. There is a parallel with Nazi Germany. Hitler made a deal with Stalin to partition Poland. He needed a pretext for war. The SS, under a program called "Operation Himmler" staged two dozen raids on Germany, pretending they came from Poland. For the final event, the Gleiwitz incident, the SS dressed a prisoner named Honiok in a Polish uniform, shot him, and left him at the radio station in Gleiwitz after they seized the station, broadcast in Polish for fifteen minutes, urging citizens of Upper Silesia to revolt against the Nazis, and then "took the station back." Honiok's body was PROOF that Germany needed to protect itself from state sponsored terrorism, and the next morning, three thousand German tanks, which were coincidentally, positioned on the Polish border, rolled into Poland, starting WWII. You can look that up on Wikipedia. Upper Silesia? That's where Prescott Bush, "Hitler's American Banker," set up factories, with slave labor from the concentration camps, to manufacture war materiel for the Reich. That's how the Bush family fortune was made. Funny? Hardly. We could improve the article by listing the Bush family's intimate connections to Hitler's rise to power. Source? http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm
Wowest 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh stop it. This is not the place to discuss politics or to promote your ideas - get a blog. Does the article blame Muslims in general? No. Mr.Z-man 13:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? I didn't bring up any "politics." Just documented, historical facts, nor did I being up any of my own ideas, except to suggest improving the article by pointing out the Bush family's connection to the financing of the Third Reich. If our readers have access to all the facts, they can draw their own conclusions, don't you think? Wowest 16:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You and the rest of us have a vasly different idea of what 'historical facts' are. You are spouting conspiricy theories trying to link the Bush family to Hitler, as if there is any corilation at all. Again, if you wish to soapbox, take it elsewhere. We're sick of it. --Tarage 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the book -- "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography." There is no "conspiracy theory" involved in pointing out Prescott Bush's Nazi affiliation, but he wasn't unique. A bunch of American companies including ALCOA, Ford, DuPont and GM sold weapons and war materiel to both sides of the conflict. The book is online. If you can't be bothered to read it, what are we to make of your opinions? Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize we now took one source as the official 100% truth. Why... if I wasn't mistaken, we could also say the same thing about the 9/11 comission report! You can't have it both ways, my friend. The VAST majority of sources do not back up that 'Bush is a Nazi'. You seem to play free and loose with the lable 'conspiricy theory', throwing it onto anything you don't agree with, yet arguing with it when someone uses it on something you believe. I think, once again, you need to understand that Wikipedia is not your soapbox, you need multiple sources before barging in here with outrageous claims, and before you bring up something you feel is 'new', you need to check the archives. Nothing you have said is new, well sourced, or anything BUT soapboxing. Please cease this disruptive behavior. --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not discussing politics? From the bottom section: "Islamo-fascist? George W. Bush uses that term. It's part of the OCT. To be fair to high school students writing papers, then, this article should begin with the explanation: "This article contains only official propaganda from the Bush regime" Mr.Z-man 04:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to quote me out of context, there is nothing else for me to say, is there? "haha" you say? Interesting. The paragraph I was saying contained no political statements contained no political statements. Wowest 04:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Calling this article 'official propaganda from the Bush regime' implies that we editors who support the current form are somehow connected to the Bush regime. Can you say Cabal? Again, stop the soapboxing, stop the poorly sourced arguments, and stop the redundancy. We aren't asking much for you to atleast attempt to follow Wikipedia guidelines... --Tarage 09:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am really annoyed by the fact that supporters of the official story quickly labels anyone who questions or doubts or realizes the vast amounts of anomalies, inconsistencies, coincidences (in fact too many coincidences.. if anything it is NOT a coincidence that there are too many coincidences) and improbabilites in the official account, as "conspiracy theorists". Do bare in mind the official account is ALSO a conspiracy theory - the official conspiracy theory. The word 'official' makes it sound sane and reasonable and logical because the word 'conspiracy' sounds crazy and something bordering on lunacy. Keep this in mind: There is a difference between someone who is doubting the official story AND someone who is advocating an actual ALTERNATIVE (as opposed to the official CT) conspiracy theory. In fact, alternate CTs are just simply labelled as Conspiracy Theories - further making the associations to alternate theories as very negative and something idiotic, while the official theory gets the label 'Official Story' and staying away from that dirty word 'Conspiracy'. If one were to doubt the official government theory of the aluminium nose of Flight 77 ripping through the steel-reinforced concrete of three rings of the Pentagon, then that is a justified stance. However, if one were to answer to someone who, upon hearing one's doubts regarding the plane's nose ripping through 3 rings of the Pentagon, then asks the doubter as to what hit the Pentagon then if it was not a plane that caused it, the answer to that question would be a conspiracy theory. I hope this stops people going around labelling anyone who has something to say that is contrary to the official story (having full of gaping holes) as 'conspiracy theorists'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful source, report on fox news about israelian intelligent agency and their knowledge

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo --Englishazadipedia 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To repeat what Tarage said before his edit was reverted, YouTube is not a citeable source. I won't go so far as to remove the link, but it should be known that this shouldn't be used a source based on current Wikipedia policies (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --clpo13(talk) 07:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

References change

There are currently 181 cited sources on this page. This takes up lots of space, so I think that we should change the references section to a scrollable divider, an example is on the Michael Jackson article. All you do is add the following text.

<div class="reflist4" style="height: 220px; overflow: auto; padding: 3px" > {{reflist|3}} </div>


What do you think? Noahcs 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that repeatedly undone because the scrollbar doesn't work universally, I think. --Golbez 03:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Hijackers

It says nothing in the article about the hijackers being muslim. I think that this is an important fact that should be include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.161.6 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point this seems would like such an important and obvious element of the events, but the means of exactly how hijackers over took the planes seems to be highly overlooked, in this article and the sub-sections.How exactly did they take control the planes?, simple brutality seems highly unlikely.They must have had something with them that they used to intimidate or threaten the passengrs and crew, but what could they have had that couldn't be stopped by security?.Did they manage to sneak some type of weapons or devices past the checkpoints?, they were already under closer watch at that point. Rodrigue 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The official story is that they used box cutters. This should be in the article or a related article somewhere. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
   And they brought fake bombs to scare the people on the planeJuanfranciscoh 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Who coined the term 9/11?

I am sure the term wasn't espontaneously used by everyone all of a sudden. So, who coined the term? Shouldn't that be add to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.243.77 (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm... not sure how important 'who coined the term' would be. If anything, it would go in a trivia section, and Wikipedia has been frowning upon such sections lately. --Tarage 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Since 9/11 is just the date it happened on, and not a totally new word, it would probably be next to impossible to determine who first used it to describe the attacks. If I had to guess, I'd say it evolved as shorthand from the phrases "the attacks on 9/11" and "the 9/11 attacks." But that's just my speculation, I doubt there is a reliable source for that. Mr.Z-man 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It was probably a news station that first used it to refer to the attacks during the period when these were the only things on the news. It was probably used intentionally as a meme. --Xer0 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the article not open to all to edit?

Why am I unable to edit this article? And why are so many facts overlooked? Sfkismet 08:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What facts are those?--MONGO 08:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There are many facts, and other statements of varying degrees of reliability, considered in the talk page archives. If something has actually been overlooked, please identify it. Peter Grey 08:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editing has lead to vandalism. If you wish your edits to be seen, simply talk about them here(which is what you should ALWAYS do before editing such a high priority article), or register an account(Which isn't a lot to ask). --Tarage 08:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I find the decision to not allow to edit this very biased article preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please add (in the section about wiretapping): The declassified "Transition 2001" report by the NSA reveals vast data-mining activities began shortly after Bush was sworn in as president and the document contradicts his assertion that the 9/11 attacks prompted him to take the unprecedented step of signing a secret executive order authorizing the NSA to monitor a select number of American citizens thought to have ties to terrorist groups. The report says that the "Director of the National Security Agency is obligated by law to keep Congress fully and currently formed of intelligence activities." But that didn't happen. News of the NSA's clandestine domestic spying operation, which President Bush said he had authorized in 2002, was uncovered in December of 2005 by the New York Times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.209.70 (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Linking to "Kamikaze" article removed

What occured on 9/11 had nothing to do with the suicide attack tactics of the Japanese kamikaze pilots in the Pacific Theatre of World War II. The kamikaze were uniformed members of the Japanese military. The kamikaze attacks rarely (if ever) targetted civilians delibrately. Despite their politics and choice of alligiences, they should not be put in the same category as the perpatrators of 9/11.

For the record, I am not Japanese.

Roswell Crash Survivor 10:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no link to Siege of Vienna?

The battle of Vienna on Sept. 12, 1683 was the key battle that ended 1000 years of Islamic armies trying to take over Europe. Osama Bin Laden picked Sept. 11 because he wanted to continue a holy war that has been going on for a long time. The date Sept. 11 was not an accident. Shouldn't it be mentioned? Glenn, Texas, Nov. '07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.81.252 (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. If you can find a WP:RS to the effect that bin Laden picked the date for that reason, list it here, and we'll certainly consider the information. However, with so many dates in Islamic history to choose from, we'd be sure that the whatever date chosen would be near (note, it's the day before — the same day or the day after would be more appropriate for a continuation) some significant date. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
For those who want a shortcut, the relevent article is Battle of Vienna. — Arthur Rubin |


Bin Laden "admitted" involvement?

I'm sorry,but I just do not see that in the sources' transcripts. It seems some summaries are saying that but the actual transcripts do not. Mr.grantevans2 23:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What the sources' transcripts show is his admiration,praise and maybe even foreknowledge but they do not include an admission of responsibility by bin Laden. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He admitted involvement multiple times:

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken...I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind...So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs.

And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.

[1]

--Aude (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Bin Laden admitted involvement, but he has also been evasive as to the extent of his involvement. Lots of people seem to read a little too much into his statements. Peter Grey 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Those translations have been disputed by independent translators. They claim those parts are inaudible in the tapes and according to them "wishful thinking" on the part of the original translators. There is no authenticated statement by bin laden that indicates foreknowledge. Wayne 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Yet somehow I suspect that if someone ever translated a video of his to say "I had no involvement," you wouldn't hold the same doubt. --Golbez 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
From the comments above, and assuming the original translations are the best source(which I have no opinion about), I'd suggest the word "claim" rather than "admit". Since Bin Laden has been self-contradictory as to his responsibility, I see no reason to assert that his claims of responsibility are truer than his denials, which is what,I think, the word "admit" confers. Also, "claim" is the better opposite to "deny", I believe. I will try the "claim" word and see how it reads. Mr.grantevans2 10:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please, let's be real, here. Osama bin laden's obituary appeared in various Afghan and Egyptian newspapers, according to Fox News and the BBC, indicating that he died from a lung infection on the way out of Tora Bora in 2001, and was buried in Afghanistan in an area which was subsequently bombed. Various foreign officials stated that this was probably true, because he was on kidney dialysis in conditions in which he couldn't obtain sterile water easily. Several translators have indicated that the U.S. Government took inappropriate liberties with the translation of the "Osama" "confession" video. Nothing in the original Arabic on the tape even indicates foreknowledge of the events. Additionally, apart from the hat and SOME of the features of the beard, the guy in that video doesn't really look like Osama. Thirdly, Kevin Barrett PhD, who has transcribed earlier tapes of bin Laden indicates that the voice on this tape and subsequent audio/video tapes "of bin Laden" are not bin Laden. This does not prove who made them. The last word from bin Laden was around October, 2001, when he criticized the attacks and said he had nothing to do with them. The U.S. government prevented that tape from being played in the U.S. claiming it might contain codewords to tell sleeper cells to launch additional attacks. The last video -- the guy with the black beard looked a lot more like Osama than the first impersonator, and nobody would have noticed if there hadn't been the earlier fraud, but his nose is noticeably wider at the nostrils than Osama's. Also, people who speak Arabic indicate that besides not sounding like bin Laden, the speaker on the tape doesn't use Osama's "flowery rhetoric" and doesn't talk about any issues that concerned bin Laden. Instead, he goes out of his way to sound like a liberal Democrat. You tell me why radical Islamists would create a fake tape like that. IMHO Osama is Big Brother Bush's Emmanuel Goldstein. If necessary, we'll be looking at new "bin Laden" out video tapes (or whatever technology comes next) for the next 200 years. Wowest 17:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I see reliable sources for one side of this discussion — and a lot of them — but not the other. --Haemo 20:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of sources, I noticed there is nothing in the article about how the CIA and Pakistani Intelligence financed and supplied the islamic extremists (including bin Laden) in Afghanistan during the Russian occupation. This 1999 article is a particularly good source for that. Mr.grantevans2 23:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Fox News and the BBC aren't good enough for you, Haemo? Wowest 01:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Linky linky? Fox News and the BBC reporting that a bunch of local paper ran obits for Osama Bin Laden does not support the contention that he's actually dead, and it's been a big US government snow-job in the meantime. In fact, they don't even support the contention that he's dead. --Haemo 01:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you some linky-linky shortly. Meanwhile, you're saying that there is no such thing as "evidence?" People have been executed for murder in this country on a lot less evidence than the available evidence that Osama is dead.
I'll bet that you believe that whatever you believe is true, because if it weren't true, you wouldn't believe it. Right? Wowest 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how you could possibly construe what I said to mean "there is no such thing as evidence", but feel free to tell me more about what I believe; it's definitely a profitable way forward. --Haemo 02:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be best to simply stick to the actual event that took place on 9/11 for this article, and argue about who did what or who supported who before and after in other articles, such as in the Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks article?--MONGO 04:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. But what do we know? Four aircraft were reportedly hijacked. Two aircraft, of an unknown type, subsequently hit the WTC. Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon. It was reported that a passenger airplane had been vaporized there -- except for American DNA, of course. Most the aluminum and all of the steel and titanium in the engines was reported vaporized. Somewhere in Pennsylvania, something caused a hole in the ground. Apparently, most of it was vaporized too. Except for the American DNA, of course. Arab DNA is clearly inferior. Their passports are fire-proof, however. None of the black boxes was recovered. A few years later, it was revealed that a cockpit voice recorder from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had been recovered. Instead of recording the conversation in the cockpit, however, it recorded voices in the back of the passenger cabin, and the last five minutes was missing. Did I miss anything here? Wowest 05:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"Two aircraft of an unknown type"???? "Something caused an explosion at the Pentagon"????? Look, if you don't want to contribute to the article and use facts to back up your contributions, then maybe you're on the wrong website. Seems you have missed about every fact we know, and replaced it instead with ridiculous conspiracy theory notions...at least based on your comments you just posted.--MONGO 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that Wowest is not so alone in his skepticism and I don't think it's constructive for the "conspiracy theory" characterization to be thrown out as often as it is as a strawman. I don't see where Wowest is putting forth any theory at all; he seems to me to simply be challenging some of the ingredients of the conventional theory. His point about the miraculously surviving hijacker passport is thought provoking enough in itself to raise eyebrows about some of the ingredients of the conventional theory, so lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to his comments. Having said that, there is the reliable sources issue which,I think, should be the driving force in terms of article content. Mr.grantevans2 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I heard that a tornado once blew a Rooster into a jug, and another blew a cow 2 miles and set it down without a scratch! That raised my eyebrows! But does it mean we should be looking for other explanations about tornados? RxS 16:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, "I once heard that" is not equatable with the passport ingredient which has reliable sourcing. Secondly, it's not our function to be looking for any explanations about anything, that would be OR. Thirdly, I think it is our job to construct articles with reliable sources which theorize as little as possible, even if it's a conventional theory and the theorizing is coming from reliable sources (like Colin Powell sitting in the UN presenting "irrefutable proof" of Saddam's WMD's)Mr.grantevans2 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and this line of inquiry is not getting us anywhere even close to reliable sources or any concrete changes to the article, so I think we should probably let it be. --Haemo 18:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
They haven't produced a single reliable source yet.--MONGO 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
MONGO,I resent being conflated into a "they". I think we are all working together here. Also, I kind of agree with Haemo on this matter; It's really like pissing in the wind to try to discuss this issue outside the box. Most everybody has already got their opinions and supporting sources lined up like snowballs. Mr.grantevans2 21:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Having said that, I do think there should be a lot more attention in the article to the creation and financing of the 9/11 attackers (assuming it was bin Laden's crowd) and there are reliable sources [2] that we could use in that effort. Mr.grantevans2 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I think we've (you, specifically) just added about all that can be said without straying into undue weight or summary style issues. It's sort-of-related to the attacks, as events, but much more critically related to the motivation and responsibility for those events and just be covered on the subpage in more depth. --Haemo 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely...a lot of this argument has little to do with what happened on 9/11...the day of the attacks. Other deatils are mentioned, perhaps in too much detail, as a lot of that should be summarized and redirected to other articles that already exist that discuss peripheral issues, such as the involvement of bin laden, etc. in greater detail.--MONGO 06:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
While the particular roles of bin Laden and the various other perpetrators are certainly worthy subjects, there seems to be very little verifiable information. Peter Grey 07:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I have come to agree with all 3 comments directly above and with the current content of the article. Mr.grantevans2 11:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)