Talk:September 11 attacks

Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks/Footer template - moved out of main namespace.

Old talk archived at Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive and Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2

Article Title

There isn't going to be any convincing of Wik, so we need to have a discussion instead of a move-war about this, please. In the form of a vote. Personally I find the whole debate a shining example of doublespeak, George Orwell would be proud, and it is sickening to me, but let's have the debate and *vote* somewhere, please. Tempshill 08:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A good idea, and one that will (hopefully) bring this whole pedantric matter to a close. My prediction is that "keep the terrorist word in" side will win handsomely. Arno 09:21, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK. Let's do it. Tannin

The Word "Terrorist"

Err .... but I better point out that it is not pedantic. "Terrorist" is a value-laden, emotive word. It doesn't describe a type of action, it describes a type of judgemet about that action, and as such is inapropriate for use as an article title here. Tannin

Disagree with the latter sentence, and even Wik conceded that the attack was, objectively, a terrorist attack. Certainly it is emotionally loaded, but still is accurate. It is a disservice to truth to sanitize your vocabulary for fear of offending someone. Hence my vote for including "terrorist" in the title. Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I only said it was terrorist by any technical definition that ignores the judgemental content of the word. Otherwise, will you agree to call the Dresden bombings terrorist, or Israeli bombings of civilian areas in Palestine? This would be just as "accurate". --Wik 18:26, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I will agree to have this same debate on each bombing you cite, yes, but not to make a sweeping declaration that nothing (or everything) must be called "terrorist" or "massacre" or "murder" because these words are judgmental. Tempshill 19:58, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We should be consistent. Either we avoid the term generally or we use it in every case where the technical definition applies. --Wik 20:12, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Encylopedias are not about technical definitions, they are about common usage. Anthony DiPierro 20:51, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What does common usage mean, the common usage of the commissars of the corporate media, or the usage of the common man. The view of the one billion of the world's Muslims is more common than those of the 1/4 billion Americans. I am American and I don't consider an attack on a military target like the Pentagon "terrorist". And as far as civilian casualties - Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Japan, the bombing of Hanoi...are these all terrorist actions as well? -- HectorRodriguez 02:20, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interlude

Err... yes it is pedantric, but let's vote rather than argue. Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sheesh - that last suggestion was certainly Canutelike. Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After Interlude

The arguments for terrorist have all been made to the point where I feel anything I write would be redundant. These were obviously terrorist attacks; as mentioned on Talk:Osama bin Laden, even bin Laden calls them terrorist. The comparison to Dresden, Israel, etc., only serve to underscore this fact, which is to say, seeking to call such things terrorist in no way alters the terrorist nature of other acts, but in fact reinforces it. The argument goes something like: If blowing up a passenger bus in Tel Aviv is an act of terrorism, then isn't the Israeli military's raid on Jenin also because of so-and-so similarities? By analogy, consider (say) an issue in the California recall election. While called by some auto registration fees, others called those fees a car tax. The same argument could be made: How is that not too a tax, just like, say, the income tax? This does not function as an argument for not calling the income tax a tax because tax is "controversial" or "emotive"; rather, it makes it clear that the income tax is a tax, and puts forth a (potentially controversial) argument for extending the term tax to other fees. But it would put forth a POV, the view which accepts this parallel, to have titles such as "Jenin terrorist raid" and "Dresden terrorist bombing", but in no way is POV to call the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks exactly what they were. -- V V 01:06, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're mistaken on several points. 1) Actually, Bin Laden said this: "They rip us of our wealth and of our resources and of our oil. Our religion is under attack. They kill and murder our brothers. They compromise our honor and our dignity and dare we utter a single word of protest against the injustice, we are called terrorists. This is compounded injustice." Does this sound as if he accepts this term? When accused of terrorism, he may play along and say something like "If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism then history should be a witness that we are terrorists." But other than in response to such questions he does not see himself as a terrorist. 2) Wrong analogies. No one denies the income tax is a tax. The controversy here only starts when the word is to be applied to things which can be easily argued to be substantially different (such as user fees). But you have not made a case for how Dresden is substantially different from 9/11. Calling it terrorism is POV in both cases. If 9/11 is supposed to be "objectively" terrorism, then Dresden and Jenin must be too. You'd have to make up some arbitrary definition to make it apply to one and not the other. --Wik 01:42, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the cases of Dresden and Jenin, but were civilians intentionally targetted in those cases, like that of 9/11? If so, then I'd be fine with calling it terrorism. Because, there's nothing at all arbitrary about that definition. Again, I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th. I'm talking about a real definition, one that you're going to stand behind, not "well a couple nutcases think it's fine to kill innocent people," because those nutcases aren't going to be reading Wikipedia and even if they did I really don't give a s**t about them. Anthony DiPierro 04:54, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist should be in the title. As Anthony says 'I challenge you to come up with a definition of terrorism that does not apply to September 11th.' : ChrisG

I challenge you to come up with a definition of "incident in which a number of passenger airliners were hijacked and used as weapons to destroy and seriously damage buildings" that does not apply to September 11th, but I still don't think that needs to be in the title of the article if there's a reason to leave it out. Onebyone 11:41, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not passenger airliners, but planes used as projectiles against military and non-military targets, discounting the idiot who crashed his micro-light into the Whitehouse and think about a small nation who is sending unarmed troups to Irak, Japan. Seriously damage buildings, cruisers, minesweepers, etc. Webhat 05:13, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

Uhm, the Wik quote above from U/OBL is in english. He doesn't seem to speak english in any of the Al Jazeera tapes I've seen. Should we not also be cautious about translation issues? For example, are mujahadeen being translated as "soldiers", "warriors", or terrorists? I'm not saying it's one or the other, but that translation issues can play a major role, and we have to work harder than normal to find equivalent terms when tranlating languages, which may have different POV terms than english. Ronabop 08:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Google Hits

"september 11" - 3,940,000 (I think we can safely throw this one out as incidental - 151.204.210.18)

Very much so, the September 11 in this range of articles could mean anything from the terrorist attacks to the birthday of someone's pet budgie, as well as sentences such as "Last September, 11 cars were sold." Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Potential titles

"september 11, 2001" - 2,220,000

"september 11, 2002" - 384,000 (for comparison)

"september 4, 2002" - 199,000 (more comparison)

"september 11th" - 1,390,000 (this one too --Wik)

"september 4th" - 121,000 (more comparison)

"events of september 11" - 472,000

"Attack on America" - 316,000

"Attack on America" September 11 - 76,600

"september 11 attacks" - 289,000

"events of september 11, 2001" - 139,000

"september 11 terrorist attacks" - 125,000

"september 11th, attacks" - 67,800

"september 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 40,800

"september 11, 2001 attacks" - 30,200

"september 11th, terrorist attacks" - 28,700

"September 11: Attack on America" - 1,760

"september 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks" - 1,100

"september 11th, 2001 attacks" - 1,060

but...Pfortuny 20:04, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(BTW, what about titles that have 11 September in them.... or shouldn't I ask?) Arno 06:58, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"11 september" - 1,680,000 (including German results)

"11 september 2001" - 402,000

"11 september 2002" - 83,500

"11 september 2000" - 36,900

"11 september 2001 attacks" - 3,740

"11 september attacks" - 24,300

"11-9 attacks" - 119 (oh... that was neat ^^)

Now the yyyy-mm-dd format (used in East Asia and other countries... I think)

"2001-09-11" - 352,000

"2002-09-11" - 522,000 (what's so special about that date? Maybe just more people on line)

"2000-09-11" - 216,000

"2004-01-24" - 223,000

"2001-09-11 attacks" - 20

Sabbut 14:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I guess I should not have asked. Arno 11:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Poll on page title

Feel free to change your position at any time based on new arguments.

September 11, 2001 attacks

Tannin 09:22, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Delirium 18:34, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 19:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
SimonP 19:02, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (I would also drop the 2001)
Lou I 19:12, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Arwel 20:18, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
WormRunner 21:19, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Kokiri
Jia ng 00:24,18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (other encyclopedias use it, but count this vote and disregard the other provided that terrorist not be removed from the text)
Meelar As long as the word "terrorist" is in the article, we don't need it in the title
☮ Eclecticology 01:05, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)
mav This whole thread is operating on a hugely misinformed assumption; that NPOV applies to titles. It cannot, nor should it ever. If it did, then titles would have to be very long and near impossible to remember. We have to choose just one term for every title and that is inherently a POV process. The convention we have decided to use in these cases is common usage among English speakers with caveats for ambiguity and unreasonable offensiveness. So if a term happens to have "terrorist" or "massacre" in its most common name, then we use that term as the page title. With that said, it does appear, that, in this case, the word "terrorist" is neither more common, nor needed for disambiguation for this title. On that basis, and on that basis alone, should it be removed. As a matter of fact, this may work for most other cases where "terrorist" is in the title (but not so for "massacre").
This sounds like grounds for voting for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks! Arno 07:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sorry - no it isn't. It is an argument for following common usage and not having titles longer than they need to be. --mav
Dpbsmith No need for the word "terrorist" to appear in the title. Doesn't make the article any easier to find.
Jade Hamblyn 02:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
.^·. Optim 02:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) .^·.
Flockmeal 04:47, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
The term terrorism is POV. Kingturtle 06:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. See my message above. --mav
Should be at the most likely to be searched for term. It's nothing to do with POV. Secretlondon 07:32, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)
Look at google hits. The other term is searched for more often.
Bill 12:33, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Fellowship of the Troll 13:53, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)Searches isn't a problem, we can have as many redirects as we can eat. The term is POV, and the precident of 'this was so terrible that POV doesn't matter here' will cause problems elsewhere if we apply it fairly.
Those of you claiming the term is POV really should explain that somewhere on the talk page. I can think of no definition of terrorist for which the 9/11 incident does not apply. Starters would be coming up with one. Anthony DiPierro 16:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Toby Bartels 00:25, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC) -- This is among the options listed, with the term "terrorist" being the main point of contention. In all, I know of 5 points of contention in the title, and I agree with this version only on 3 or 4 of them.
Lord Emsworth
Jeroenvrp 03:46, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
ChrisO 17:13, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) The description "terrorist" seems a bit redundant, to be honest - everyone knows what category the attacks fall into, surely?
UtherSRG I'd like to vote below, but mav's argument is most compelling. Thanks mav!
"terrorist" is controversial and unnecessary in the title. The article (or a linked article) should explain the controversy. --Ellmist 03:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Tompagenet 17:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
MikeCapone 04:29, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sabbut 14:19, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nico 18:46, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation 07:41, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
HectorRodriguez 02:15, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) (ohne terrorist)

September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks

Arno 09:29, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC) This sets a silly precedent for political correctness, in my view.
PMA 15:13, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Rmhermen 15:24, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Tempshill 18:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
—Eloquence 19:10, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC) (if used consistently for CIA-sponsored terrorism as well)
WhisperToMe 19:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Maximus Re x 00:20, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jia ng 00:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (see conditions above)
Dori
V V 00:45, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC) (I'd be open to dropping the 2001 however)
Ruhrjung 13:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) - me too ;)
Binky 07:29, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC). Attacks is already point of view, may as way go all the way.
Crusadeonilliteracy 12:48, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Jordan Langelier
jengod 06:36, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC) It's what Osama would want.
Hmmm, voting the right way for the wrong reasons....Arno 07:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
ChrisG Political correctness gone mad.
Hear hear!! Arno 23:52, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Ilyanep Really.
Lirath Q. Pynnor Who doesn't think those were terrorist attacks? Whether American, Israeli, Afghani, Palestinian, Iraqi, or Saudi Arabian in origin -- surely they were still terrorists.

September 11, 2001

Anthony DiPierro 19:47, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Webhat 05:03, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)
Jack 01:38, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC) and I'd like to give a big ol' "Me Too!" out to ADP (I call it "9/11")
Lirath Q. Pynnor

"Don't Care"

—Noldoaran (Talk) 04:10, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC) - I don't think it matters as long as the one that isn't chosen becomes a redirect page to the other.
Moriori 20:27, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC). I tend to agree, but also support Anthony DiPierro re the word terrorist remaining in the text itself. The key for me is the answer to the following question. "Were the people who carried out the attacks terrorists"?
Martin 20:15, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note that this vote is solely for the title. I don't think the word terrorist should be taken out of the text itself. If there are credible arguments that the attacks were not terrorism, they can be included. In any case, that is a separate vote. Anthony DiPierro 19:50, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the poll

I think it is a nice thing to have exceptions in any policy, and this one seems good enough for me. This explains my vote above. Pfortuny 19:56, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that calls for the term terrorist be applied consistently are politics in a thin disguise. It is fortunate that in this case, specifying "attacks" rather than "terrorist attacks" is sufficient to identify what the article is about, so I think that in the interests of avoiding a spree of people adding "terrorist" to various articles in order to make political points about government-sponsered terrorism we should just do the simple thing. Furthermore, talking about "the" definition of terrorism is disingenuous, since various groups have produced different definitions according to their biases and their aims, to reflect the different things that they mean when they talk about terrorism. Onebyone 20:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think calling them merely "attacks" dilutes the reality of the situation. Specifying "September 11, 2001" is likewise sufficient to identify what the article is about. As for "the" definition of terrorism, Wikipedia is based on common usage, isn't it? What this event is referred to as should be the only question. Even if it definitively wasn't terrorism, if it's overwhelmingly referred to as such that's the title we should use. We still call it Manifest Destiny, don't we? Anthony DiPierro 20:45, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not "overwhelmingly" called terrorism. --Wik 20:51, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

It is overwhelmingly regarded as a terrorist act. --mav 02:24, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nor is it "overwhelmingly" called "September 11, 2001 attacks." If you noticed, I didn't vote for either. Anthony DiPierro 20:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No one made that claim. There is no "overwhelmingly" used name, so we should just describe it in a concise and NPOV manner. --Wik 20:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that neither title is NPOV. And my point about "overwhelmingly" was to defend the statement that definitions are meaningless. Anthony DiPierro 21:05, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree they would be meaningless if there were an overwhelmingly used name. But there isn't, so they aren't. And I don't see what's not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks". --Wik 21:23, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I still say they're meaningless. But I guess I can't use the Manifest Destiny argument any more. In any case, I find it hard to see a definition of terrorism that doesn't include this event. Do you know of one? And what is not NPOV about "September 11, 2001 attacks" is that it implies that the attacks were not terrorist, especially when you type in "September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks" and get redirected. Finally, I don't see the problem with using "September 11, 2001." Anthony DiPierro 21:30, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The most common definition of "terrorism" implies condemnation, just like "murder" means an unjustified killing and those 9who support killings in certain circumstances won't ever call those killings "murder"; likewise those who support those attacks don't call them "terrorism". So the common definition doesn't include this event for those who support it. As to the other point, while not every "attack" has to be a "terrorist attack", every "terrorist attack" is also an "attack", so the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" does not imply that they were not terrorist. By the same logic, your proposed version "September 11, 2001" would imply that there wasn't even an attack! --Wik 01:12, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the WTC attack was justified? Does anyone on here support this? Should we stop calling murderers murderers because hey somewhere someone thought what they did was OK? As to not implying that it is not terrorist, changing the title from "terrorist attack" to "attack" because some nutball out there thinks that it's fine to intentionally kill innocent victims most certainly implies that it's not terrorist. Implying that it is not an attack does not at all follow from the same logic. You just don't understand my logic. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a United States "news" channel. Let's try to just be a little objective about this. If we label this page with the word "terrorist" included then all other instances of "terrorist" attacks covered in the WP should also have their names changed, including "terrorist" acts perpetrated by the United States(plenty of those). So why not just keep it simple. By the way someone whose opinion differs from yours is not automatically a "nutball". Its not like the U.S. hasn't done anything to upset the people that attack it. Jade Hamblyn 05:18, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. If you have such an instance, then go ahead, label it terrorism. No, someone whose opinion differs from mine is not automatically a "nutball." But someone who defends the murders which took place on 9/11 is. I don't care how much you upset someone. Killing thousands of innocent civilians is not the answer. Anthony DiPierro 05:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The US government, over and over again, has targeted civilians. Putting aside events like My Lai, which they attribute to people not following orders (although it seems a natural consequence of the operation it was part of Wheeler Walawa), the US government has targeted civilians over and over again - Dresden and other German cities, Hiroshima, Nagaski, the firebombing of Tokyo (and other Japanese cities), the bombing of Hanoi, the attacks on dams to cause floods and famine in Korea and Vietnam and so on and so forth. The idea that the US has never targeted civilians is ludicrous. By the way, the CIA was who brought over the sheikh who plotted the first bombing of the WTC and the CIA with MAK is who trained and armed Al Qaeda to fight in Afghanistan against the communist government with. Please spare us your horror about killing innocent civilians, as there is no government in the world currently which has more blood on it's hands then the USA. -- HectorRodriguez 05:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

9/11/01 Was indeed a terrorist attack. It should be identified as such. Political correctness should not be our goal. Our goal is to be subjective and this is a 'terrorist' attack! Ilyanep 16:55, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dates

The designation as "9/11" is so universal that I wonder whether the title shouldn't use this term rather than "September 11." Also, the title should distinguish the article from articles about any other events that might have happened on the same day. I don't think "terrorist" helps to do this, but I wonder whether "World Trade Center" shouldn't be in the title. Dpbsmith 02:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The bastards attacked the Pentagon too, so if you mention the WTC, you gotta mention the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 04:41, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Right - the Pentagon is the Jan Brady of September 11 PMA 05:29, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

As for universality... in Spain, where I live, people call the fatidical date "11-S", and few people know what "9/11" means. IMO, "9/11" should be a redirect... or the title of an article about the fraction "nine elevenths". I'll stick with "September 11"... no need to abbreviate it and confuse readers whose main language isn't English. Sabbut 13:18, 2004 Jan 18 (UTC)

But this is the English version of the encyclopedia. Why can't we confuse readers whose main language isn't English? Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 9/11 is the US date format. Elsewhere, (eg down under) the format is 11/9. September 11 is rather less ambiguous and more universal. BTW, if you mention the Pentagon and the WTC, let's not forget Flight 93. Arno 07:59, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Flight 93 was part of the attack on the Pentagon. Anthony DiPierro 02:07, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Flight 93 was supposed to strike the Capitol. See the Flight 93 article and September 11 (terrorist) attacks artivle ("Recent statements and revelations"). The terrorists called it the "faculty of law" in their communications. The Pentagon had a different code name. Arno 06:41, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fine, attack on the Pentagon, WTC, and the Capitol. Just more reason not to use such a title. September 11, 2001 is the only reasonable title right now. Anthony DiPierro 13:26, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

More general discussion

I think we should be thinking about this in a global sense and avoid possibly nationalistic notions of the "universality" of a term to describe this event, as people from different countries refer to it using a multitude of terms. The name of an article referring to this event should just be concise.--Jade Hamblyn 03:52, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Anthony wrote: All instances of "terrorist" attacks which are indisputably terrorism (intentionally target civilians to create terror for political purposes) should be labeled as such. OK. Let's go with that, shall we? Hmmm ... that will give us:

Shall I go on? Tannin

Apparently you don't understand what the word indisputably means. Let's take Hiroshima. The US govt claims that this was targetted as a military base. So using the term terrorist is disputed.

Furthermore, labelling as such doesn't necessarily mean in the title. In the case of 9/11, it was already in the title, and is just as popular in the title as not, so I don't have a problem with it.

I obviously don't feel that "terrorist" has to be in the title. Actually my suggestion, September 11, 2001, which no one has even commented on, doesn't contain the word terrorist in it. Isn't the word "attack" POV? Maybe we should just September 11, 2001 self-defense... Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do not forget please

Shall I go on? Pfortuny 14:55, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

However, probably the only way you could disagree the sep 2001 incident was a terrorist attack would be if you wished you were personally carrying out the next emulation of it. This raises interesting questions regarding the whole NPOV theory. Crusadeonilliteracy

Thankfully, not every word that we agree could legitimately descibe the event needs to be in the title, noone is arguing that it should be Awful, horrific, tragic, terrorist attacks (Sept 11). The Fellowship of the Troll 15:01, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This goes for lots of things, Warsaw Pact is the opposite of Warsaw Treaty. I've never heard of anybody signing a peace pact... but if you ever want to get into a treaty with the Devil... Terror is POV, however terrorists are described in one of the many Geneva pacts. AFAIK freedom fighter/terrorist can stand in a busy street and blow himself up and be considered a soldier in an armed conflict, by international law, if he announces that he is a member of blah army before he starts shooting/exploding at the military target. And ofcourse his leaders have to have informed the enemy that they are at war. Perhaps it should be September 11, 2001 Horiffic acts of War. Webhat 04:59, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

But it is commonly accepted that 9/11 was terrorism. Nobody's saying to rename WWII to Hitler's terrorism tries to 'perfect' the world. In any case, this is getting way too far. Ilyanep 19:11, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Justification for one pollee's vote

Since I'm in the poll, I should summarise my reasons.

Short version:

The shorter title is at least as common as the longer title.
Shorter titles, when disambiguous, are a Good Thing.
Titles should be restrained in their implicit claims.

Long version:

The attacks were definitely terrorist.
However, calling them terrorist without attribution is POV.
However, mav is right that article standards of POV can't apply to titles.
This is why we fix arbitrary naming conventions, although they are of little help here.
1. The default naming convention is common usage.
2. However, common usage in this case can't make the decision.
  1. Someday we may have a fixed, standardised name (like St. Valentine's Day Massacre), but we don't have that now.
  2. While Google indicated a preference, the difference was below any threshold of trusthing Google to report general usage.
3. We have no specialised naming convention for this situation.
But there are some good naming principles that we can apply.
1. Shorter names will almost always be used more often than longer names.
2. NPOV can apply in a lesser sense, in calling for titles to be moderate.
These principles, while not universal, can help us decide to remove "terrorist".

My position is explained more fully on the wikiEN-L thread.

-- Toby Bartels 01:02, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I voted for September 11, 2001 for most of the same reasons (except I disagree with 2, and 4.2 doesn't apply). We do have a clearly most commonly used and unambiguous title. Anthony DiPierro 06:53, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist Attacks

The attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There is no doubt for that! And I hope it will never happen again. But the title "September 11, 2001 attacks" is shorter and better. There is really no need to add the word Terrorist, since everyone knows it is terrorism. Optim 01:20, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But mention of it being terrorism should not be removed from the text. --Jia ng

If it is NPOV, yes ("it is generally accepted in USA and most parts of the world that these attacks were terrorist in nature"). Citing quotes of politicians saying that these attacks were terrorist would be great. (note: I haven't really read the article). Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Calling it terrorist is NPOV. As you said yourself, the attacks were for sure terrorist attacks. There's no serious dispute over whether or not the attacks were terrorist. They were. There's no need to qualify the statement. In and of itself it is a fact. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, if the standard is to exclude 'what everybody knows' the page would just be called "September 11". Jordan Langelier

No. in Chile they use this date for another political event. Also, we already have a September 11 article. Optim 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

To extend on this , "September 11" is too vague and could apply for any event indicated in the September 11 article. Arno

We don't have an article for September 11, 2001, though. Actually, we do, it just points to this page already. Anthony DiPierro 05:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the main title of the article being just a date. We know perfectly what September 11, 2001 stands for, but we may have to think for a while for other important dates in history like August 6, 1945, and even many of us don't really know what happened back then. IMO, we should specify that there was an attack on Sept. 11, but it may be unnecessary to call it "a terrorist attack". So, I go for "September 11, 2001 attacks" (the current name of the article). Sabbut 18:25, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Unlike Hiroshima, September 11th is commonly referred to by the date. In fact, there is no other widely accepted name for the incident. Even the term "events of september 11, 2001" receives far more google hits than "september 11, 2001 attacks." I highly doubt that 60 years from now many people who have heard about the attacks would hear the date and not know what was being referred to. Going back to the example, Hiroshima is a city. By your argument, we move the discussion of the bombings to a page called August 6, 1945 attacks. I'm open to other suggestions, but of the three choices, I think September 11, 2001 is the best. Maybe September 11: Attack on America would be better? Anthony DiPierro 02:27, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Linking on the page

I don't care who you attribute the word "terrorist" to but it must be linked on this page.--Jia ng 20:46, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Terrorism in title issue

Okay, so this has been sitting for a few weeks, and we need to come to a decision. People continue making changes without a consensus. The poll indicated a majority favors the new name, although I'm suspicious of many of these "users", but anyway I don't see a poll as being the answer. The goal should be consensus, and this has just turned into a straw poll on anti-US sentiment, which of course is going to go badly given the leftist predominance among Wikipedians. We might as well take a poll on whether Bush should be called "stupid" in his article. The facts, however, remain:

Wik's massive changes were made without prior discussion, and the arguments he presents betray a failure to understand the basics of this project; in particular, claiming there is no difference between the fire-bombing of Dresden and 9/11 demonstrates his lack of grasp of the notion of POV.
No one has provided any argument that the attacks were not "terrorist attacks". Brevity is the only vaguely relevant argument (though not persuasive - attacks is too general). Nevertheless, there has been an attempt to pull the word "terrorist" from all the articles.

So I think it should be changed back, and this page should not be used for people's individual rants about how much they hate America. -- V V 18:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I love America and I am a very patriotic American. Yet I voted to leave out the word 'terrorist' in the title because it is not needed for disambiguation nor is this event more commonly refereed to with it. The poll was needed because Step 1 of Wikipedia:Conflict resolution broke down so we went to Step 2 (poll). --mav 21:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not saying all who voted that way are America-haters, but this debate has sure flushed them out. And, as I noted above, the brevity argument holds some water, but attacks is a bit too general, like calling it the September 11, 2001 incident or the September 11, 2001 event. -- V V 22:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wik did not compare 9/11 to the US government bombing of Dresden (and Tokyo, and Hiroshima, and Hanoi), I did. As far as "lack of grasp of the notion of POV" for this comparison on a discussion page - clearly NPOV must be in place on article pages - are you saying this must be stated in every comment in a talk/discussion pages now as well? As far as no one providing arguments that this was not a terrorist attack, I did, and I know you read it as you mentioned it. First, the Pentagon was hit in the attacks, this is clearly a strike against a military target as far as most people are concerned. And as I said, the US has targetted civilians in every war it's ever fought - Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, Hiroshima. Osama Bin Laden was doing the same kind of attacks against communist Afghanistan when the US was aiding him, but Reagan called the mujahideen he was in "freedom fighters". Apparently he only became a "terrorist" when he turned his guns on his old allies. -- HectorRodriguez 21:53, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your first argument is valid. Calling the attack on the pentagon "terrorist" is POV at best, incorrect at worst. However, the attack on the WTC is indisputably terrorist. If you'd like to provide verifiable opinions otherwise, then feel free to add them, and we can have an entire section of this article devoted to whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist. As for your second argument, it just isn't an argument. Dresden, Tokyo, Hanoi, and Hiroshima are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the WTC attacks were terrorist attacks. Anthony DiPierro 21:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

HR, you are wrong; Wik did compare them, look again (you did too). The Pentagon arm of the attack is more uncertain than the others (peacetime attack on a military office building, maybe), but was less than 10% of the death toll. Anthony is correct about the irrelevance of the other cases; OBL's history (disputable) is also irrelevant. -- V V 22:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that personally I feel even the attack on the pentagon was "terrorist." While ostensibly the Pentagon may seem like a military target, it seems clear to me that the goal of that attack was not military in nature. However, it is POV. And while I'm adding my personal feelings, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was "terrorist" as well, for the same reasons. Anthony DiPierro 22:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Attacking the Pentagon per se is to me not so clear, but the attack on the Pentagon was terrorist, inasmuch as it used a civilian airline. The bombing of Hiroshima is an interesting debate, but one that doesn't belong here. -- V V 22:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why does using a civilian airline make the attack terrorist? I suspect someone arguing against the attack being terrorism would bring up the term "collateral damage." Anthony DiPierro 23:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Noxious Chemical Spray?

"Other weapons that may have been used on at least one flight include bombs and some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray."

Can someone please attribute and cite this claim? I had never heard of it before reading this article. Anthony DiPierro 18:23, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I asked the same question several months ago. See the page for American Airlines Flight 11 although it doesn't list a source either. Rmhermen 18:31, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

~~If there's no response within a couple weeks I'm going to remove it until it gets attributed and cited. Let me know here if you object.~~ Anthony DiPierro 18:52, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I object. It was me who put that note in, though someone else changed it from "some kind of air spray" to "noxious chemical spray". Stewardess Betty Ong reported the use of an air spray by the hijackers that made her eyes water. One reference for this is this one A CBS news report also referred to this - I'll cite it later. In the meantime , might I suggest a google search? Arno 04:33, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I won't delete it. I tried a google search initially but couldn't find anything. Anyway, this shouldn't be too hard to find a cite for. But not tonight, I'm going to sleep :). Anthony DiPierro 05:04, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Here is a second reference and a third one that supports the air spray story. It was Ms Ong rather than Ms Sweeney who mentioned the stuff. The CBS one seems to have gone, but I do have hard copy of it around somewhere.

Actually, I am quite happy to change to "some kind of air spray" back from "noxious chemical spray" ... unless anyone has any real objections... Arno 07:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I object -air spray is not used in American English in this context. Air spray is only used to refer to paint applicators and firefighting equipment. Rmhermen 14:59, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes for air fresheners, too. But not for generally for pepper spray or mace. Rmhermen 15:02, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, "unpleasant air spray" or "air spray that caused watering to the eyes". Is it likely that in the context of the words around it, readers would seriously think that Atta and company would have used air freshener? Arno 06:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The sentence does still read as though the hijackers used some sort of mass tear gas deployment, whereas the articles seem to indicate just a small amount of pepper spray used on individuals. Not sure how to reword to make it more clear, though. Anthony DiPierro 17:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We don't know what exactly what the spray was (whether it was pepper spray or something else) , or exactly how widely it was used and never will. It was apparently only used around the dfront of the craft. Bear in mind that it would not have been anything too lethal or distracting - otherwise the hijackers would have been affected. Arno 06:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a name beside Mohammed Atta - whose misidentification has already been described on Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks? Rmhermen 21:43, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Early revelations section

Okay, what is the problem with inserting this factual, multiply-cited early revelation from the early revelations section? - Plautus satire 21:44, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rmherman, his sources look ok. The language needs to be toned down, but I don't see why the mention can't stay. Isomorphic 21:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To anybody who wants to change the wording, as long as the meaning is not lost I have no objections. Key points I want left in: Mueller admitting identity ambiguity and the multiple source documents listing still-alive-named-alleged-suicide hijackers. - Plautus satire 22:04, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly true that people have claimed to be the same as people identified as hijackers. But there are several problems. One is the use of the term "World Trade Center demolition" which sounds like the conspiracy theory that the towers were destroyed by the U.S. from the ground. Another is that it does not go in this section which is for information before 9/11/2001 -probably should be under Investigations.

1. Has anyone pictured by the FBI ever been seen alive after 9/11?
2. Has anyone pictured by the FBI been shown to have a different name?
3. Has anyone who claimed to by misidentified ever done anything like sued for defamation of character?

Perhaps the hijackers really did use their own names - in fact in several instances we know that they did. Perhaps the others were correctly named and wrongly detailed because details of others with the same names were easily available. There is certainly no reason to declare that "The FBI has not removed the names of the alleged suicide hijackers and has ignored any implications this may have on their conspiracy theories which identify these living men as successful suicide hijackers." because we have no reason to believe that the names were wrong.

I propose the following: "Almost immediately after the attack, the FBI released the names of nineteen men they claimed had been on the planes. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that people claimed to be have the same name and some personal details as certain suicide hijackers and were possible victims of identity theft. However the FBI did not find a need to change any of the identifications of the hijackers." Rmhermen 22:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have big problems with this proposed edition. For one thing, it leaves out the very relevant information that FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted they don't know who the suicide hijackers were, or even if there were any for that matter. Second of all, these are not merely reports with the same name and same personal details, they are the people the FBI has identified. Are you suggesting these reports are hoaxes? I do agree that it should be noted, however, that the FBI refuses to change their fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters.

Also you state "we know" that some of the hijackers did in fact use their own names. Based on what? None of their names appeared in any of the passenger manifests and none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras boarding the identified hijacked flights. - Plautus satire 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Don't give Plautus's wild conspiracy theories an inch. Evercat 23:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The FBI never denied or tried to hide the fact that they knew that some, many, or all of the hijackers could be possibly traveling with phony papers. Read the FBI press releases:

The FBI clearly lists that each of the terrorists with a questionable identity has the words "Suspected ID theft" right next to their picture. It stands to reason that if they don't know the true identity then they would continue to identify them by the last used alias. The paragraph that Plautus wants to add is disingenuous that it subtly twists the reality (FBI acknowledged identity questions) of the situation and instead uses a phrase intended to promote doubt, "reports began to surface...". Furthermore, the use of the word "many" to describe the number of mis-identified hijackers is also intended to create the illusion that the FBI didn't know as much as it said it did. It wasn't "many", it was only four. The rest of his paragraph is smoke and mirrors, and the reference to the FBI's conspiracy theories is an amusing twist. OK, not really amusing so much as ironic. (Plautus, if you know the identity of any of those men then call the FBI at 1-866-483-5137, they need your "help") --SheikYerBooty 04:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, CyberCriminals Most Wanted is not the FBI. The FBI still has pictures of all nineteen men and mentions nowhere that any of them are proven victims of identity theft.American Airlines #11,American Airlines #77,United Airlines #93,United Airlines #175

Further, in the two documents on the FBI's web site that you do cite, the only mention tangentally related to identity theft is this: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV. The photographs can be viewed at WWW.FBI.GOV." This passage is in an FBI press release dated September 27, 2001, more than a week after reports that many of the "suicide hijackers" were still alive. Why is the FBI not bragging about their initial blunders? I just wonder... Note, the press release asks "Have you seen these faces/names? They are suicide hijackers, ~~tell us about~~ help us prove that!" - Plautus satire 06:14, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, I can't think of a more gentle way of saying this, but, you're wrong. The FBI press releases clearly state that the positive ID'ing of the people on the list isn't complete. Just read the darn thing, it lists "possible" birthdates, "possible" nationalities, and a list of aliases for many of the hijackers. The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents, this is not a secret nor is so earthshaking that it requires your speculation. You also apparently invented a quote from them, so it's not really appropraite for me to comment on that. Please address the points I outlined in my previous question, you failed to do that in your reply. --SheikYerBooty 19:15, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

You can be as gentle as you like, it will not make you right. What follows is the only mention of possible mistaken identity on the FBI's web site regarding these men: "It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. The FBI asks anyone who has ever seen or has information about these individuals to immediately contact the nearest FBI office or the toll free hotline number 1-866-483-5137 or submit information at WWW.IFCCFBI.GOV." Nowhere does it state they were victims of identity theft, even though this is ten days after the initial report on still-living "suicide hijackers". Can the FBI be no more equivocal than saying "attempts to confirm" when dealing with what is clearly a very severe blunder in "investigation"? And so you don't remain confused, though I put it in quotes, what I was doing was summarzing the position of an FBI document that you yourself cited. The document claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can "confirm" it. Can you show me where the FBI has explicitly stated that many of the men they named as suicide hijackers are proven to be still alive? I would love to b e wrong. - Plautus satire 19:27, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also point out the evidence that leads you to believe your following statement: "The FBI knows that some of the hijackers used stolen documents..." Is this based solely on your personal belief or do you have some evidence to support this claim? - Plautus satire 19:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Platus, stop playing silly games with semantics, it's obvious that the FBI was still trying to determine the identities of the hijackers. You're refusing to look at the evidence that refutes your statements, your myopic view of the evidence is preventing you from reaching a rational conclusion. And, here is a newspaper story that details some of the work that FBI was doing to determine identities. You insist on misquoting the FBI press releases, it does not, as you say, "claims these men named and pictured are suicide hijackers and enlists the aid of anyone who thinks they can 'confirm' it". Your willingness to distort facts is clear but don't act all put out when people challenge you. --SheikYerBooty 22:55, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think I can help clear up your confusion, SheikYerBooty. I quoted the FBI directly and linked to the document. What you quote above is what I said, not what I quoted. Can you show me where they say the men were victims of identity theft and in some cases still alive? The FBI is not the news source you cite above. And the FBI has still maintained that these nineteen men were the hijackers, and as of September 27, 2001, they were trying to enlist support from the public to "confirm" that. - Plautus satire 23:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you misquoted the FBI press releases, repeatedly. It's really simple, read what you wrote, read the FBI press release and take note that they aren't the same. You asked for a source for the information that the FBI recognizes that the hijackers used stolen and faked ID's, I provided it. You don't like? Sorry, your problem. Here is what the FBI is trying to confirm, in the proper context: It should be noted that attempts to confirm the true identities of these individuals are still under way. See, you're trying to twist what they said and take it out of context, again. --SheikYerBooty 05:30, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the entire earlier revelations section could be chopped down. A fair bit of it reads more like a subjective essay than a NPOV encyclopedia article. Arno 06:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Supporting Evidence

BBC, Newsweek, New York Times, and TIME have all had articles about how the so-called hijackers were clearly not on the planes -- since they are alive and well, living in the Middle East, and suing the United States for libel and defamation. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Equivocations

Oh very well, perhaps this isn't as wild as his other stuff. Evercat 00:09, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think it's exactly as wild as all my stuff. BWA-HA!HA!HA!HA! - Plautus satire 23:04, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Further Issues

Still, I'm curious about the "fable about the nineteen muslim hijackers with box cutters". If that's a fable, perhaps Plautus could tell us what really happened. Evercat 00:13, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I edited it. A lot. I don't see why this should be removed any more. Anthony DiPierro 17:02, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Propaganda

I am getting increasingly worried about this article and its related pages. Currently, it seems to be used to argue two things, the combination of which is 'watering down' the details of the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Firstly, it is being that those who carried out the crimes were not terrorists. This is pure nonsense by any reasonable definition of the word. I know that its been argued extensively above , so I'll say no further.

Secondly, it is being used to dispute the names of the terrorists themselves, based mainly on references that are badly out of date. Whilst the true identities of some of the terrorists are in doubt (eg Saeed al-Ghamdi),there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest. It is therefore ludricous to say, for instance that Mohammed Atta was not a terrorist.

Some errors of fact have also crept in. Saying that "none of them were photographed by surveillance cameras" is wrong. Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari were photographed when they were on their way to board Flight 11.

Ultimately, this article is meant to be a NPOV account of the hijackings. It is NOT an outlet for conspiracy theories, politically correct pedantry and other such actions. Arno 09:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adding details is "watering down"? Interesting hypotheses. I don't think it holds any water, however.

Groan! Trying to dispute the names of the 19 hijackers is "adding details"?

Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As for criminality, who are you labelling a criminal? Still-living men who obviously took no part in any suicide hijackings?

Just which of the 19 men listed as the hijackers are still alive? And can you give me their contact details?(An e-mail address would be great)Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And the Bush regime and other have variously described this incident as "terrorism" and "an act of war".

Ok, what would you call "this incident"? An act of love? Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it is an act of war, it is not a crime. If it is a crime, it is not justification for a war in Afghanistan (or anywhere else). If it was a crime, why was there no forensic analysis of evidence? Virtually all of the steel from the WTC complex was sold as scrap to foreign nations and is now probably all paperclips. In a case of a crime, usually there is an investigation. Instead of an investigation, we got HGBI (Hansel and Gretel FBI) showing us the trail of breadcrumbs the conspirators left pointing to muslims with box cutters.

The above passage is perhaps the most astounding statement about Sep 11 I have ever read. You have just managed to deny that there was ever an investigation of the Sep 11 crimes using a truly astonishing mangling of logic and definitions. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You also claim above that "there can be no doubting their faces and the true identities of the rest". On what do you base this claim?

On a very large number of Sep 11 accounts. On what do you base your claim that Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, Majed Moqed, Marwan al-Shehhi, and the rest did not partcipate in Sep 11? Indeed your version is rather vague - would you care to define it. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where are these names on the passenger manifests? Where are these faces in security videos? All we've been shown is a single, blurry, grainy security video that shows somebody with dark hair and a tan walking past a ticket counter. In short, where is any evidence that we were promised we would get regarding these arabs with box cutters? If you want to know more about box cutters, read about the five Israelis arrested with stacks of cash and box cutters, not to mention a van bomb-dogs went nutso on.

You can probably use this kind of logic to prove that the earth is flat. Arno 10:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If it's not an outlet for conspiracy theory, then why is the FBI's baseless conspiracy theory for which they offer no evidence presented there? At least the amateur conspiracy hypothesists feel compelled to provide evidence. Clearly the FBI does not, as all they have provided are hollow fables. - Plautus satire 15:08, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also, where are these images to which you refer of "suicide hijackers" boarding planes or their names being on the passenger manifests? - Plautus satire 19:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These images do exist. Try this CCTV webpage as one example that I dug up thorugh google in just 15 seconds. By the wya, make up your mind, do these images exist or not? Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What Israelis are you referring to? Evercat 16:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

These Israelis:

"A story in Philadelphia's The Mercury may hold the answer."

"Two men whom police described as Middle Eastern were detained in the township by federal imigration authorities after being found with detailed footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Plymouth Police encountered the men after an officer responded to Pizzeria Uno on the 1000 block of West Ridge Pike at 2:40 p.m."

"Investigators first became interested in the business after witnesses reported Tuesday that three men seemed to celebrate the World Trade Center explosions in Liberty State Park, then drove away in a company van. 'To the best of my knowledge, my client Urban Moving Systems and Dominik Suter are not targets,' said attorney Jay Hamill of Jersey City. 'This is an informational situation. We're cooperating completely and have objected to nothing they've requested.'"[1]

This site is a conspiracy theory website. It shoudl be looked at with caution. Arno 10:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The man, who later identified himself as Moshe Elmakias, 30, denied that he did anything and fled the scene, heading west on West Ridge Pike, according to police."

"The manager was able to provide township police with the Florida registration number of the tractor-trailer and said that a sign posted on the side of the vehicle read "Moving Systems Incorporated" and included a phone number, police said."

"Elmakias and Katar were eventually detained by INS and transported to a federal facility, said police. Reisler was released."[2]

"The men were searched and questioned and the state officers discovered detailed plans and photographs of a nuclear power plant in Florida, along with box cutters ? the weapons used in the September 11th attacks ? and other equipment."[3]

"We spoke earlier about the five celebrating Israeli "movers", (Mossad agents), who were arrested and placed in solitary confinement for weeks after they were spotted in a white van suspected of attempting to blow up the George Washington Bridge. We also reviewed how the Israeli owner of Urban Moving Systems - Dominick Suter - then suddenly abandoned his moving company and fled for Israel on 9-14. But there were still more Israeli "movers" and other Israelis whose actions raise serious suspicions. Even more suspicious is how they are always quietly released and deported."[4]

You mean you haven't heard about these Israelis, Evercat? I'm surprised, it's been all over the news. - Plautus satire 17:18, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FBI's conspiracy theory

It is not inaccurate or misleading in any way to characterize the FBI's hypothesis as to what occured during the World Trade Center demolition as "conspiarcy theory". If you object to the term "conspiracy theory," I can only assume this is because you perceive that characterizing something as "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. Is this the case? Was not the World Trade Center demolition a conspiracy? Does not the FBI offer a theory about the World Trade Center demolition? Is this conspiracy theory offered by the FBI verified or falsified by observable evdience? Granted, calling it a theory is overstating the case, since they have no evidence. Until they find some evidence to support their absurd notions, they should actulaly be called conspiracy "hypotheses". -Plautus satire 17:40, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theory" casts it in a tainted light. (Yes, IHBT, IHL.) Anthony DiPierro 17:44, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama to Usama, Al-Qaida to Al Qaeda (arabic transliteration standard)

The FBI spells the man's name "Usama"[5] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Osama". - Plautus satire 18:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The USDOJ spells the organization's name "Al Qaeda"[6] so I feel it is inappropriate to spell it "Al-Qaida". - Plautus satire 18:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter since his name is more commonly spelled Osama and the organization is more commonly spelled Al-Qaida. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav 01:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the tip. I found at the top of that page: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles. For details of the naming conventions in those cases, see the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) page." This is talking about people with various names. The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted. Because two million people spelled his name wrongly does not mean that two million people get to rename Usama bin Laden or change the spelling of his name. In all English-translated releases from al Qaeda the names are "Usama" and "al Qaeda" not "Osama" and "Al-Qaida". Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Misspelling somebody's name does not mean that name is their alias or pseudonym or nomme de plume or any such thing. Right is right and wrong is wrong. - Plautus satire 01:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just read more of this, hey, you know what, maverick, that page explains how to choose names for title pages, not how to spell names in the body of pages. Presumably the old saw "if it's right put it in, if it's wrong take it out" would apply here... Ya think? - Plautus satire 01:54, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm just curious here, mav, did you actually read that page before you pointed me to it as the "answer" for this problem? I think you may have been a bit hasty. - Plautus satire 01:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wrote most of that page based on community consensus on the issue. The FBI is just one agency (and not a very neutral one in this matter). Unless you can demonstrate that your preferred spellings are more common, then the agreed to spelling stands. --mav 03:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that page does not describe naming conventions for titling entries but, instead or in addition to, describes a process by which appropriate spellings for names in the body of an arbitrary entry are chosen not by some objective standard but by consensus of Google hits? I'm very reluctant to say this, since I know you will find it offensive, but Maveric149, I really do not find that credible.

If that was the intention of the entry you cited I feel that entry is very poorly written, as all I can glean from reading it is that wikipedia entries should use the idea of commonality in determination of their name so that casual users and "browsers" can more easily find what they are looking for. In a way this is akin to a spellchecker that checks only against commonly tpyoed words like "teh," "beleif," etcetera. It's a systemic attempt to provide people what they want, not necessarily what they ask for. I think this is a good idea since it will make the encyclopedia more useful to more people.

Nowhere in that entry do I see any suggestion that an accurate spelling of a name in the body of an entry should be discarded in favor of a popular misspelling of that name. I would ask for citations that state, suggest, or even hint at this, but honestly the inaccurate spelling used in that entry is just scratching the surface of what troubles me most about it. I find it difficult to read the entry without losing confidence in humanity as a whole for swallowing this absolute utter ~~crap~~ and not just swallowing it but ~~vomiting~~regurgitating it back up and expecting others to ~~gobble it up just as greedily~~believe in this fable without evidence.

At this point I'd like to retract my proposal that accurate spellings be used in this entry. - Plautus satire 05:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The above changes are still unaddressed, yet two reversions of these changes have now taken place. If it happens again perhaps it's time to seek ~~arbitration~~mediation. - Plautus satire 01:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. We are only at step 1. --mav 01:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Plautus, and this has been pointed out to you on your talk page, there is no one correct way of converting from Arabic to English. That's why there always have been variations in the spelling of names such as Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Marwan al-Shehhi, etc. For the purposes of this website, it makes sense to just stick to the one commonly-used spelling.

The opinion expressed by many is that there is no accurate spelling of Usama that is not dependent on Google hits, not that there is no one correct way of spelling proper names. - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the FBI does spell it as Usama bin Laden - I've seen his wanted poster. But just don't worry about it. Include the alternate spelling on bin Laden's wikipedia page (if not already there) and move onto other matters. Arno 11:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why move the proper spelling to the status of alternate and use an unofficial spelling as the proper one? - Plautus satire 15:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the reasons I have noted above, and quoted and cited below, I intend to fix the spelling errors with regards to the numerous misspellings of Usama in this entry. These misspellings (Osama) do not accord with accepted transliteration principles as outlined in the only demonstrated (to or by those discussing this issue) published transliteration standards for Arabic[7],[8]. In my opinion a popular mistake is not preferable to an unpopular objective fact. - Plautus satire 17:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't. There is no such thing as a "misspelling" when transliterating from one alphabet to another. And the name as is is the most common spelling known by English speakers. RickK 04:19, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

RickK, let me first express the sincere sentiment that I value your opinion on this issue as much as I value my own. This, however, is a case where there are established, published standards and conventions for transliteration of Arabic. I do not see how opinion enters into this. The spellings in the body of the entry "Osama" are inconsistent with these accepted and published, though not universally known, standards and conventions. Is mass ignorance to be used as an excuse for mass errors in wikipedia? This is a clear-cut case of an arbitrary misspelling of a proper name that is in violation of known, published, accepted standards and conventions, not a difference of opinion. If there is any difference of opinion I can detect, it's the apparently prevailing opinion that Arabs do not know their own languages (or the English language) well enough to establish transliteration standards and conventions for their own language. I feel that many users would prefer to stand by a common misspelling that violates these standards and conventions rather than give the Arabs sovereignty in that (or any) respect. If you want my honest opinion, this protest against fixing spelling errors is cryptoracism. - Plautus satire 04:37, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have been searching for other transliteration standards and conventions for transliterating Arabic and I have been unable to find any. After a reasonable amount of time passes, if there are no conflicting standards offered, I will again correct the numerous misspellings in this entry and any other place I can find "Osama bin Laden" in wikipedia. - Plautus satire 04:16, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(deleted misplaced discussion for placement below--TomND 11:32, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Arabic Transliteration Standards

Transliteration standard from The Encyclopaedia of Islam (with minor variations).

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. Minor changes from The Encyclopaedia of Islam are noted below:

The differences between the system of transliteration of the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the system used here, are mainly due to the complex interaction of the database with the html-script. The differences can be summerized as follows:

The emphatic letters Saad, Daad, Taa', and Zaa' as well as the letter Haa', which are transliterated in the Encyclopaedia of Islam with a dot beneath a small letter, are represented in our system with the corresponding capital letters.
The emphatic letter qaaf is transliterated with a "q" in our system instead of a "k" with a dot.
The letter jiim is transliterated by "j" in our system instead of "dj".
The letter cayn, which is transliterated by c in the Encyclopadia of Islam, is represented by * in our system.
Long vowels are represented by writing the vowel twice instead of a dash above the letter.

The website you refer to was describing the standards that it had chosen to use to translate Arabic on its website. It never said that these standards were universal. Furthermore, nowhere in the above quote does it say that Osama bin Laden must be spelt with a "U". If there is anything on the website that does that you can, I'm sure that you'll let me know. Arno 06:43, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The website(s) to which I refer feature the only known published, accepted standards on this issue. I rest my case. Nowhere in these standards is there any mention to an "O" letter or sound. I rest my case, again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Qalam: A Convention for Morphological Arabic-Latin-Arabic Transliteration in plain text format.

Nowhere in this source is there anything that lends credence to transliteration of any Arabic letters to the "O" letter or sound. The conventions are listed in plain text format and no appearance of the letter "O" or mention of the "O" sound is made.

And where does it say that spelling bin Laden's name with a U is current and correct? Arno 06:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what the only known, published, accepted standards dictate. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whether "Osama bin Laden" is a "misspelling" or not, it's the name that, at least, most Americans will recognize, and it's the name that they're going to look for. The Wikipedia policy of use most common names should apply. RickK 23:54, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That is the policy for spelling the titles of entries, I have not seen where it is policy to accept misspellings in entry bodies on the basis of popular misspellings. - Plautus satire 01:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the policy applies to article titles. Furthermore, there really are very few policies -- most policies are simply pages and "votes" which more aggressive users have created. Lirath Q. Pynnor

(moved here from section below) (more moving of plautus satire's comments around, silsor can you come and reversion this so my comments are not context-challenged?) - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is a policy for American vs British spelling. That policy to to follow whatever was being used in the article itself. The OBL spelling is what was used before and most people who have commented on this think that that spelling should stay. --mav 02:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can you please show me where you got this notion that accepted, published standards and conventions for transliteration should be forever ignored if they were ignored in the original entry? I've searched many places and none of them mention that misspelling words in the body of an entry is okay if there is precedent for it. Of course I also found no explicit statement that spelling errors should be fixed, but there is more than enough implicit evidence that spelling errors should be fixed. - Plautus satire 05:35, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should dictionaries be replaced with group consensus? Just curious. - Plautus satire 05:36, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, there is no standard for transliteration of Arabic to English. Thats because its not a misspelling. You can spell Arabic names in many ways correctly. WhisperToMe 06:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems there is some confusion as to the "proper" translation (transliteration) of the name "Osama"/"Usama" into the romanized spelling. Well, as has been pointed out numerous times, there is no "proper" way to do this, seeing as how the first character in bin Laden's first name has no western counterpart ([9]).

Yes, there is a proper way. A published, accepted way of transliteration. It is not merely up to group consensus of the world. The confusion stems from people like you and many others who believe there are no standards, or the standard is relative amount of Google hits. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the west there have been competing standards developed to aid in the transliteration of Arabic to western language, and those give rise to the "Osama"/"Usama" dilemma.

There are no competing standards. Show me one other than the two I cited that are virtually identical. Do you think Arabs do not know enough about their own language to establish transliteration standards? I rest my case. Again. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Which is correct? Well, given the immense press coverage of the 9-11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terror", it is safe to say "either". At this point there can be no doubt that anyone reading either spelling will know precisely who is being discussed.

Well, given that there are established, published, accepted standards, the proper spelling is correct, not the improper spelling that violated the only known, published, accepted standards. Again, I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From Sullentrop's article [10]:

"A variety of systems exist to Romanize Arabic letters and words, but there is no dominant one. The International Journal of Middle East Studies offers one system, the Library of Congress a slightly different one. And not all publications consistently follow one system, either."--TomND 18:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate these standards? So far the only two published standards cited agree with me. - Plautus satire 18:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your Slate article (I stopped reading when they started charing, Kinsley is a fruitcake) also states: The AP stylebook says, ?people are entitled to be known however they want to be known as long as their identities are clear.? - Usama bin Laden has made many "press release" style announcements. In ever case he transliterated (or was transliterated for him) as "Usama". Should the AP stylebook be abandoned as well as the only published transliteration standards? - Plautus satire 18:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you misread, the AP style book uses "Osama". "That hasn?t been enough to get the AP or Slate to change their stylebooks." That, alone should be enough to end this silliness. There is no "standard", the most common usage is "Osama", so let it be.--TomND 18:28, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And I know I did not misread. Show me the AP stylbook and quote where it says what you claim. The AP stylebook is a stylebook, not a factbook, and as such would contain no policy on specific names, particularly proper names of people who choose to spell it differently. The AP stylebook says let people spell their names however they like, and accept it. Violate the AP stylebook. Violate accepted, published standards and conventions. But do not misrepresent your violation as obedience. - Plautus satire 18:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to Norm Goldstein, stylebook editor for the Associated Press [11]: "It's a question of transliteration. "Arab vowels commonly become A, I or U; E and O don't really exist except for personal preference. And since we're not going to ask Osama bin Laden his preference, Osama -- more often than not -- is spelled with an O."--TomND 19:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I see, so you are suggesting that the style sheet be abandoned specifically in the case of bin Laden, since Norm Goldstein is not going to ask bin Laden how he wants his own name spelled. Thank you for demonstrating your (and Mr. Goldstein's) prejudice on this issue. I see when prejudice is popular enough it is justifiable in your mind. Thank you again for making your position on this matter crystal clear. I still maintain that the AP should follow the guidelines of its own style sheet, regardless of the personal feelings of Mr. Goldstein. - Plautus satire 19:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So practically the entire world uses the term "Osama", yet you have determined that is not correct, and are determined to set the record straight? Best of luck to you. However the preponderance of evidence, as well as the AP stylebook, supports the current usage and I believe it is proper for this site to continue to use it.--TomND 20:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You seem to think that "practically the entire world" speaks English. I know for a fact that the most common language on the planet Earth is Chinese. Does that mean a billion Chinese spell it "Osama"? Have you polled them? What about the Indians? Do they also spell it "Osama"? When you say "practically the entire world," who do you mean, exactly? If "practically the entire world" beleived in a flat Earth, people who could prove otherwise would be met with ridicule and prejudice, just like the prejudice you espouse in terms of Usama bin Laden's capacity to choose how his own name is transliterated, a right I'm sure you would not contest if it were applied to Albert Einchrist. Thank you so much for your patience on this issue, I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice makes it difficult for you to discuss this calmly. - Plautus satire 21:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

" I realize your seething ocean of boiling and roiling self-conflicting prejudice"... I mean really, is your constant abuse necessary? Do you need to ask why everybody here "persecutes" you? I try to debate this like an adult and you try to turn it into a flame-fest. Sorry, I'm not biting. Grow up.--TomND 00:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The point was made that, since the FBI uses the "Usama" spelling, that is somehow the "official" spelling. A few disagreements with that line of thought. First, as seen here[12], here[13] and here[14], the FBI uses the spelling "Osama" quite often in press releases, so obviously they are not as concerned about the "proper" spelling as we may be led to believe.

No, the point was made that the FBI uses an "U" which is correct, so that spelling should be used, as it accords with the only known, published standards. I rest my case once more. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But, more importantly, we see the Department of Justice (of which the FBI is a part) use the spelling "Osama" in LEGAL filings, [15] and [16]. It would seem that if the DOJ/FBI were concerned about a "correct" spelling, they would use it exclusively, especially in the hypertechnical legal field.

You're exactly right, and I was waiting for somebody to point this out. The original "wanted poster" and statements from the FBI also initially used an "O". Why did the FBI correct their mistake? I rest my case. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Incidentally, legal definitions of words commonly conflict with real definitions of words, like insane. In the context of the law, insane has a valid meaning. In the context of objective psychology, clearly it does not. This isn't a case of different spelling, but shows quite clearly how out-of-step the law can be with observable reality. - Plautus satire 19:22, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The FBI updated the wanted poster in November 2001 [17], however, the FBI used the term "Osama" in a press release on March 4, 2003, and the DOJ used "Osama" in a legal filing in 2003 [18]. If they "corrected" the mistake, they corrected it to "Osama". That, however, is not the case because both spellings are used.--TomND 17:10, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

All you are really demonstrating here is that the FBI is inconsistent. Sometimes they spell it "Osama" and sometimes they spell it according to accepted, published standards and conventions. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No, your original statement was "The FBI does not list "Osama" as one of Usama bin Laden's names and they are the ones saying he is wanted." I proved that they do use the name "Osama", so your reasoning (the FBI uses it so it must be right) is incorrect.--TomND 17:45, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am prepared to admit I misspoke when I said that the FBI does not use "Osama" and "Usama" variably. I must admit I was attempting to appeal to authority on this one, as everyone else is also doing. I thought the FBI would lend credibility to my claims. Clearly by citing the FBI as a source I have set myself up for ridicule. I withdraw my claim that the FBI never spelled it "Osama," they spell it both ways. One way accords with known, published standards and conventions for transliteration, the other does not. - Plautus satire 18:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So what we are left with ,essentially, is the "tyranny of citation", as Sullentrop calls it in his Slate article. Spellings become entrenched and thus become standard. We see that now with "Osama". According to Arab Gateway the "Osama" spelling is used 92% of the time, so it would be correct to use it as the spelling on this site.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. I rest my case one final time. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC) And that link is dead. An old Slate article also should not overturn published, accepted standards. I was told that there were "many accepted standards" (never mind the oxymoronic nature of that phrase) on transliteration of this type when in fact I can only find two and they agree with me. No other published, accepted standards or conventions have been identified or proposed, aside from consensus of Google hits. - Plautus satire 17:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here is the fixed link to Arab Gateway [19]. In it, please note the following statement, "The ideal solution would be to have a standard, internationally agreed, system. Several have been proposed but unfortunately none has been universally accepted." Which completely invalidates your "known, published standards and conventions for transliteration".--TomND 21:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I hope this clarifies things.--TomND 11:34, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I now understand that you intend to see this misspelling left in the document and intend to justify it by saying many others have made the same mistake and there is no reason for wikipedia to be factual when it can instead be "popular". I guess facts don't make as much money as fairy tales. - Plautus satire 16:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not a misspelling! There is no standard. End of story. WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, WhisperToMe, you and others have already made your prejudices crystal clear. Use objective standards, but only until you decide not to based on personal dislike or disgust of people. I understand you now. - Plautus satire 01:35, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very old and persistent misinformation and noise in World Trade Center demolition entry

I suggest that this entry contains so many factual and thematic errors that it needs to be re-written from the ground up. The piecework is just making a huge mess of an already messy entry. - Plautus satire 18:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to put in the time and completely re-work this entry? I feel it is much too noisy and contains way too many factual and thematic errors to make it of any use except as a smear piece on Usama bin Laden. There are numerous references to bin Laden in this piece and yet no evidence has ever surfaced that implicates bin Laden in any way. All of the videotapes where bin Laden "confesses" are in dispute, and it seems only "official" DoD translations arrive at the conclusion that bin Laden had foreknowlege. But then what is the English-speaking world to believe? The DoD or habbala-jabbala-mamba-jahambo? The only alternative I see to a complete re-write of this entry is the continued war of attrition for insertion of factual data that overturns the fables. - Plautus satire 05:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Like it or not, but OBL is very widely considered to be the mastermind behind the attack. Of course we can't just state, as fact, that he did it since that is disputed. But describing what various people think is fine. --mav

Should I take this to mean you do not want to participate in a reworking of this entry? If that's the case, thank you for your time. I have no questions or comments for you. - Plautus satire 06:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Should I take this to mean that you do not wish to write an NPOV article? NPOV requires us to describe disputes where information is disputed (not to censor some relevant views over others). This article isn't perfect but it does seem to do that. --mav

You should take this to mean I desire a reworking of this entry as I feel it has too many errors for piecework correction to be effective in a human lifetime. Would you care to discuss ways the page can be torn down and rebuilt so it contains more factual data and less wild speculation? - Plautus satire 06:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where is the wild speculation? --mav

Why should I start discussing this with you when you have stated you do not want the entry reworked? - Plautus satire 15:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you present evidence to support your view then I might change my mind. --mav

News Flash. Plautus announced here that he has quit wikipedia. It's sad that it came to this. But hopefully a bit of sanity will return on this page as well as a few others he's been involved with. Arno 07:46, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minor point, I have only (I think) announced that I intend to stop contributing to entries, because I feel there's no point, all my changed are striken or put into "crackpot" contexts. - Plautus satire 17:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wild Speculation and Other Error

"September 11, 2001 attacks" - Assumes external attack instead of inside demolition job. No concrete evidence offered to support notion it was an "attack" carried out by suicide hijackers. All stories by FBI et al lead to dead-ends with no resolution or evidence.

"With full tanks of jet fuel, the aircraft were used as flying bombs, one of which was piloted into each of the two towers of the World Trade Center, one into The Pentagon, with a final aircraft crashing into a Pennsylvania field (the intended target of this jet remains unknown)." - Full tanks of fuel, yet the planes had been in the air in some cases for over an hour. Also speculation as to a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon make this unlikely and unwarranted even as speculation. Destination of final aircraft is known, so that is a factual error, it was Chicago, which is where it would have been if it hadn't taken off forty minutes late, where it would have struck the Sears tower which was at that time being videotaped by Israeli Moshe Elmakias who has since been arrested and deported back to his mother land, Israel.

"Shortly following the attacks, the United States government accused Al-Qaida..." - Clear speculation, allowed only because "US said it".

"This led to a "War on Terrorism" that included the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (with support of the United Nations)." - Factual errors. The US invasion of Afghanistan was not supproted by the UN, which forbids retaliation in case of criminal act (terrorism) and forbids defining acts of war as terrorism. Catch-22 for US, so they burn the book and roll over everyone.

"The combined attack of September 11 on the World Trade Center was the deadliest act of terrorism against the United States and one of the deadliest attacks of asymmetric warfare in history." - Acts can not be both acts of war and terrorism. This is Orwellian doublespeak at its finest. Pick one side and stay on it. How is such a self-conflicting statement able to survive scrutiny? Is this page being given any scrutiny or is it monitored by a few fanatics who insist on supporting the FBI fable?

"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 AM EDT." - Again, unlikely given the antiaircraft missile batteries atop the Pentagon. These missiles can make paperclips out of a fully-armed-and-armored attack aircraft before they get anywhere near the Pentagon, a passenger jet spiraling down to the Pentagon over two and a half minutes would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

"The fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in a field in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. The evidence suggests that it crashed after passengers and crew tried but failed to retake control of the plane from the hijackers." - Once again, the stories lead to dead ends. Cell phone calls are proved to be impossible, plucky Todd Beamer is found (so the "official" story goes) to have called an AT&T operator and talked to her for thirteen minutes before he pulled a Passenger 57 on Achmed (operator to this day remains unknown, nobody has stepped forward to identify themselves as the operator who listened to Todd Beamer for 13 minutes then relayed the conversation later by phone to his new widow), FAA radar tracks fast-movers intercepting flight immediately before its mid-air disintegration.

"Some passengers and crew were able to make phone calls from the doomed flights. They reported that there was more than one hijacker on each plane (a total of 19 were later identified) and that they took control of the planes using box-cutter knives. Additionally, some form of noxious chemical spray, such as tear gas or pepper spray, was used on at least one flight. There were also reports from at least two of the flights that hijackers claimed to be carrying bombs." - None of these reports are verifiable. One can find innumerable citations of these stories and many others, but none of them are verifiable.

---

Okay, then show me the source which specifically says that its speculation =\ WhisperToMe 00:13, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? You want me to find a source saying there is no source? Is this a serious question or do I misunderstand you? Can you explain what you mean more verbosely so I don't misinterpret your somewhat vague statements? Thank you for your time and patience on this issue, I will not ignore it. - Plautus satire 01:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- Listen, we have copious sources relating to the stuff you are griping about. I believe that the telephone operator that Beamer was talking to was named Lisa Jefferson, and she was at a GTE center near Chicago. http://www.hazlitt.org/united/Todd-Beamer.html WhisperToMe

Oh, I am sorry, you are right, let me examine what your "copious" source claims. For if we can not verify the story from this "copious" source we do not have evidence, but merely another fable. Where are the recordings of this call? Is it reasonable to assume that a typical GTE operator, in addition to reciting a prayer and taking a last request, would not think to record the conversation with the doomed man on the hijacked plane? Apparently this woman was too emotional over the whole thing to click a button. - Plautus satire 03:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Snopes says that cockpit tapes suggest a struggle between hijackers and other non-hijacking passengers. Where is this tape? Once again we find that we quickly encounter a wall shutting out further investigation. We have no public domain evidence, all of it is secret. It is this "secret evidence" that nobody is allowed to see that constitutes what is commonly called the "proof" in this case. - Plautus satire 03:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/911/showcase/chi-020419flight93,0,2369725.story - The flight 93 families heard the tape, btw. WhisperToMe 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And these tapes are where? How can I listen to them? How can they be subjected to scrutiny? - Plautus satire 03:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article cited above is very interesting. It makes the following claim: "The last minutes of the tape are muffled by the sound of rushing wind as the plane plunged from the sky, family members said, but the recording was clear enough that American and Arabic-speaking voices could be discerned." Rushing wind heard inside a plane? Have you ever been inside a passenger jet? Have you ever heard rushing wind? - Plautus satire 03:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This article lists the names of all forty people the airline says was on the flight in question. Did none of the other thirty-nine (13 times 3? Relevant? As relevant as your comments on this issue.) want a chance to pray with the operator and bid fond farewell to their loved ones? Todd Beamer must have had quite a calming influence on those other thirty-nine people, in order to stay on the phone for thirteen minutes while praying with an operator and saying his last goodbyes by proxy to his soon-to-be-widow. Were all of these other people friendless orphans to whom they had nobody to offer a single goodbye? With such level-headed, organized passengers, it's surprising they were not able to overcome the small number of hijackers and pilot the plane safely back to the ground like in a Washywood movie. - Plautus satire 03:53, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This passage by Plautus is so stupid (<= Why is this going unchallenged by impartial observers? Is this a fair response? - Plautus satire 21:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)) and illinformed that it barely merits a response. But I'll give one anyway. Literally dozens of phone calls were made from Flight 93 - Beamer was certainly not the only one. Several of them - Beamer, Glick,Burnett, Lyles - stated on the phone that they intended to overpwer the hijackers. and they died whilst attempting to do just that. The operator that Beamer spoke to was Lisa Jefferson. She stepped forward right away and was never anonymous. Arno 06:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Where are recordings of all these phone calls? We were shared the life of Todd Beamer's new widow and his "let's roll" story, what about the other heroes? Who were they? - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have heard that it is technically impossible to make a mobile phone call from a plane (no reception because too far away from ground) - does anyone have reliable info about this question?? I think we can dismiss Plautus' objection that 39 people would have reacted in a different way, like tried to take control of the plane, because they didn't realise what their ultimate fate was. They probably thought that they would survive unhamred if they just behaved as told by the hijackers (even some hijackers didn't know it was a suicide attack). pir 06:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nope - The hijackers planned to crash the plane into the Pentagon or the White House; and have you heard of a GTE Airfone before? WhisperToMe 06:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mark Bingham, Cee Cee Lyles, Tom Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Sandy Bradshaw to name a few. (The two girls are flight attendants who have been said to have boiled water to throw at the hijackers) WhisperToMe 00:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where is the evidence that this event you describe of boiling water occured? Where is the evidence for any of these claims made about the events on this flight? Were there eyewitnesses? You do a wonderfully succinct job of presenting these stories, but I'm afraid your evidence for these stories is abit lacking. A story repeated is not necessarily a true story. See: [http:/www.snopes.com/ Snopes] - Plautus satire 02:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

13x3 is not relevant, by that reasoning -- 1939 would be a significant and unlucky year. Oh wait, it was. God have mercy upon the people of 393939 (note the inverted 666 hidden in that date). Heh, PLaubus what is 39 inverted...93! Fear the numerology. Lirath Q. Pynnor

hehe - Plautus satire 21:37, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And where are the records of these GTE airfone calls? Or records of any reported cell phone calls? Or records of any calls, period? What about recordings of calls? Are there any? - Plautus satire 06:40, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus (or Yet Another Page Turned Into Bash Plautus)

Some of his comments are valid. For instance, he correctly noted that the UN does not support the "War on Terror". While his goal seems to be that of introducing conspiracy theory information to this page -- the fact is, a whole lot of people think that a conspiracy occurred. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Actually, Lir, the UN does support the Afghanistan War, but NOT the Iraq war. You are half right and half wrong. :) - Whisper, too lazy to sign in.

Did they pass a resolution supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, I can't find any such record of that. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Lir, they did pass resolutions condemning the Taliban and Al-Qaida, therefore paving way to the freezing of accounts and the like. WhisperToMe 00:10, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I admit I read the talk page at close to double speed, but doesn't the "terrorist" question simply pivot on whether or not the intent behind the events was to generate as much fear as possible on a civilian population? That being generally accepted (including from the conspiratorial angle, which at least raises interesting observations), the term seems NPOV to me and thus viable, though would function either way. Chris Rodgers.

UN support for war on terrorism?

The UN does not support the "war on terrorism," which is real war, waged against countries based on the alleged criminal activity of their respective populations. The UN forbids going to war over criminal acts. The UN defines acts of war as other than terrorism. If these demolitions were acts of war, then evidence needs to be provided proving that Afghanistan or Iraq or whoever is being invaded next week are involved, otherwise the invasions are invalid per the UN. The UN has not sanctioned the invasion of Iraq nor the prosecution of an illegal war in Afghanistan in response to an illegal criminal act (conspiracy to demolish and murder). There is no "partly right" here. There is right and wrong. The UN does not support the US at this point, that kind of blanket statement is pretty much a no-brainer. And I'll gratuitously throw in Israel, here. Israel is in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolutions without pause. It's almost as if they're in a race to clog the UN system with repeated violations that need to be defined and addressed faster than they can be resolved. Sound familiar? - Plautus satire 21:43, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhse0926.html - Hi! WhisperToMe 23:57, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This document refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution, which was passed in 2002[20], well after the invasion of Afghanistan by the US. The UN did not support the invasion of Afghanistan. Nowhere in the UN's web archives of their SC resolutions can one find explicit support for the invasion by the United States of Afghanistan. - Plautus satire 02:29, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There was no SC resolution specifically on the 2001 war in Afghanistan because none was needed - the war was undertaken under the UN Charter's right of self-defence, which requires no UN endorsement. This right was affirmed unanimously by the UN Security Council shortly after 9/11. The point was noted by Secretary General Kofi Annan on 8 October 2001, who said: "Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the Security Council expressed its determination to combat, by all means, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The States concerned have set their current military action in Afghanistan in that context." See the full text of his statement at http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_10/alia/a1101021.htm . -- ChrisO 11:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but the UN does not support or endorse illegal wars like the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States. - Plautus satire 13:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm being trolled, but what the heck...

A war does not automatically need the prior authorisation of the UN Security Council. Read Article 51 of the UN Charter (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm), which says:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In the case of Afghanistan, what happened (in chronological order) was this:

The UN Security Council passed resolution 1333 (19 December 2000) "strongly condemning the continuing use of the areas of Afghanistan under the control of the Afghan faction known as Taliban, which also calls itself the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (hereinafter known as the Taliban), for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, and reaffirming its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security"
The 9/11 attacks occurred.
The 9/11 attacks were blamed by US on al-Qaeda, which the UN had already determined was being sheltered by the Taliban.
Immediately after the attacks, the UN Security Council "reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." (Or in other words, "go get 'em".)
The Taliban refused to surrender bin Laden and expel al-Qaeda.
The United States attacked the Taliban on the basis of "individual self-defence" and Ambassador Negroponte duly notified the Security Council, as required by the UN Charter.

This is hardly rocket science. The UN did not explicitly authorise the war in Afghanistan because it did not need to. If the UN had been around in 1941, for instance, it would not have needed to authorise the US declaration of war on Japan. You should have a look to see if any countries introduced Security Council resolutions opposing the war. (Free clue - they didn't). In short, a lack of explicit UN endorsement does not by itself make a war illegal. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO: thanks for digging out the Kofi Annan quote. However it doesn't make sense: the idea that the US was entitled to attack Afghanistan because of a state's right to self-defence is based on the assumption that Afghanistan (as a nation state) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no evidence for that. 9/11 is thought to have been carried out by al-Qaeda and not the government of Afghanistan, and the links between both does not imply anything.Is there any evidence that the Afghan government even knew about 9/11? Did London bomb Dublin after IRA attacks? Did Washington bomb Washington after Oklahoma? It just doesn't make sense, does it. In fact al-Qaeda operates as a transnational organisation and the attack on Afghanistan has done little harm to al-Qaeda. The argument of self-defence doesn't hold. pir 19:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pir, see my explanation above. I agree, it's questionable whether the Taliban knew about the 9/11 plot before it happened (although I suspect that the leadership probably did have some inkling of it). The key issue was that the Taliban did not surrender bin Laden nor cut off support for AQ, despite having been ordered to do so by the UN in 1999 and 2000. In other words, AQ was not simply a terrorist group operating within a country; it was a terrorist group operating openly with the active knowledge and support of that country's de facto government. This is very different to the situation with Ireland and the IRA. The conflict thus changed from being one between a state and a terrorist group, to being one between a state and another regime which was so intertwined with a terrorist group that it was itself, in effect, part of that group.

I should make one other point. The Taliban was not the "Afghan government" - it was not recognised as such internationally (if I remember rightly, Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as the legitimate government). Legally, the legitimate government of Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance coalition, which the Taliban had expelled from Kabul and bottled up in about 10% of Afghan territory before 9/11. If you look at the UN resolutions on Afghanistan, you'll notice that they define the Taliban as a "faction", not as the government - this is why. So our intervention in the Afghan civil war was, legally speaking, an intervention in support of the internationally recognised government against the Taliban insurgency. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing in the UN Charter that requires UN permission for one government to give military assistance to another. -- ChrisO 20:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Links to Wikipedia articles

Why is there a link to Globalisation?? It doesn't seem particularly relevant and should be removed. pir 04:54, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing on that article that refers to 9/11. -- ChrisO 20:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks

Contents

Article Title

The Word "Terrorist"

Interlude

After Interlude

Google Hits

Poll on page title

Comments on the poll

Dates

More general discussion

Justification for one pollee's vote

Terrorist Attacks

Linking on the page

Terrorism in title issue

Noxious Chemical Spray?

Early revelations section

Supporting Evidence

Equivocations

Further Issues

Propaganda

FBI's conspiracy theory

Osama to Usama, Al-Qaida to Al Qaeda (arabic transliteration standard)

Arabic Transliteration Standards

Very old and persistent misinformation and noise in World Trade Center demolition entry

Wild Speculation and Other Error

Plautus (or Yet Another Page Turned Into Bash Plautus)

UN support for war on terrorism?

Links to Wikipedia articles

Navigation menu

Talk:September 11 attacks

Article Title

The Word "Terrorist"

Interlude

After Interlude

Google Hits

Poll on page title

Comments on the poll

Dates

More general discussion

Justification for one pollee's vote

Terrorist Attacks

Linking on the page

Terrorism in title issue

Noxious Chemical Spray?

Early revelations section

Supporting Evidence

Equivocations

Further Issues

Propaganda

FBI's conspiracy theory

Osama to Usama, Al-Qaida to Al Qaeda (arabic transliteration standard)

Arabic Transliteration Standards

Very old and persistent misinformation and noise in World Trade Center demolition entry

Wild Speculation and Other Error

Plautus (or Yet Another Page Turned Into Bash Plautus)

UN support for war on terrorism?

Links to Wikipedia articles

Navigation menu

Search