Jump to content

Talk:Responsibility for the September 11 attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citations 88 and 89

[edit]

Citation 88 is in italian, and thus can't be included in an english language article because the vast majority of readers won't be able to use it to verify the authenticity of the claim. (for all we know, it's about pasta...)

Citation 89 seems to come from a dubious source

--00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Lophoole (talk)

[edit]

This link does not work: Millions of shares sold before disaster, The Times, 9/18/2001 http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Skeptical July 8, 2003 3:10 PM Chicago time

Terrorism and Poverty NPOV

[edit]

Removed this bit:

However, facts don't back the ¨poverty spurs terrorism¨ thesis and, like hate crime perpetrators, terrorists do not necessarily have a personal background of poverty. Bin Laden is known to be a wealthy Saudi businessman, and his hijackers have come from the ruling elite rather than from the slums. As the terrorists never have raised agendas for enhanced business ethics in international policy nor done anything that could achieve them, perception has grown that the imperialism thesis belongs to the fog of war, and the hatred that embeds terrorism is more than a consequence of United States foreign policy.

(a) it is unattributed POV analysis

(b) it mischaracterizes the "poverty spurs terrorism" thesis anyway, which does not say "poor people are terrorists".

(c) Also, in fact, many of the hijackers came from middle class backgrounds, definitely not from ruling class backgrounds. No Saudi princes on the planes.

(d) It conflates the "imperialism" thesis with "poverty spurs terrorism" which are two different things. The latter was advanced by the likes of Colin Powell, who, rather than critiquing U.S. imperialism, conducts it. The former was advanced by leftist/anti-war types, and states that physical U.S. interventions and aid to repressive governments - e.g., support for Mubarak, the Saudi Royal Family, King Abdullah of Jordan, Israel, etc. - are what cause the anger that results in terrorism.

So, I've removed this passage until someone wants to do something better with it. Graft 15:11 27 May 2003 (UTC)

An individual who claims Colin Powell "conduct[s] imperialism" and throws in Israel, a liberal democracy, with theocratic and truly repressive, non-democratic regimes is the one policing an article for POV violations? Talk about the fox watching the henhouse. Yet another example of why Wikipedia is a total joke on any article that has even a remote connection to anything resembling politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.75.230 (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban claims of responsibility

[edit]

I don't seem to remember the Taliban claiming responsibility for the attacks. When-all did this happen, exactly? Is there some documentation for this claim? Graft

I agree with you. Looks like this article is not WP:NEUTRAL. We have to consider all opinions, from people of all over the world in advance to edit Wikipedia. :/ --WikiLite91 (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staged or Real Celebrations in Middle East

[edit]

The word "produced" is technically correct. However, the broad interpretation associated with its application, in this context, may warrant reconsideration of its use. There may be another word which could lend greater meaning to the author's intention when offered in conjunction with the following addendum:

"Perhaps it should be noted that the "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been produced. A reporter from Der Stern (I think) even found and interviewed the woman appearing on the film sequence. // Liftarn 13:50 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)"

If I am fortunate to have properly interpreted the author's intent, I would ask the following word be considered in place of "produced"... fabricated.

The key word "produce" was used in conjunction with so-called news reports of a celebration(s). It may be fair to conjecture, the author meant to convey the idea a "fabrication" was at play by the media.

The differentiation may be significant in as much as the reader is left to believe the word "produce" properly describes the situation. In my view, this may be grossly inadequate if one wishes to properly depict the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the news of the celebration was obtained and subsequently reported. The natural consequence is a distortion of the public's understanding.

The magnitude of a deficiency such as this may be better understood, possibly, with an unrelated yet simple analogy. If a radio news report indicated all the plants in the forest were lost to fire, one might deduce that the trees may have been spared, somehow. Why? Because most folks are not necessarily familiar with the concept of sets and subsets.

For example, "every tree is a plant, but not every plant happens to be a tree." Is this concept universally understood? Perhaps not. Or, let's look at the word 'house." That "house" may or may not be your "home," even though you probably live in a "house" and not a "hut" (which might be someone else's "home"). We see how house and home may or may not mean the same thing in all circumstances.

Consequently, when we read or hear that "filmed reports of celebrations on the West Bank" later was said to have been << produced >>, while it is technically correct, the language used does not permit the public to fully comprehend the act committed by the news media and the possible ethical questions which should be raised as a result. Finally, every newscast is almost always "produced" by someone or some corporate entity. This word is often used, in a positive sense, in the television and radio news industry. Therefore, to employ the use of the word "produce," in this framework, is to run the risk of creating at the very least, a meaningless image.

When specificity is lacking, competent communication suffers, resulting in misunderstanding (the single, most important, cause of the world's problems). I am hopeful I have competently communicated my concern for the need to modify the usage of a single word. Best regards!

What about "staged"? basicly they handed out sweets (or rather a type of cookies called "kanafe") and filmed a coupe of persons who had no idea what was going on. It's not that thard to get kids to jump up and down in front of a camera. A reporter from Der Stern managed to track down the woman in the film and interviewed her. She claimed she had no idea what the "celebration" was about. At http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm a version of this is mentioned, but the footage was actually done by palestinian cameramens. // Liftarn 15:14 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

al Qaeda responsibility

[edit]

I'm baffled by the claim that Al-Qaeda is not explicitly linked to the attacks. Did no one watch the videos in which Osama bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith claimed responsibility and explicitly promised that more such attacks were in the works? --Delirium 03:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

ahem, how good is you arabic ? it has been widely reported, that multiple interviews with UBL were mistranslated, or misinterpreted, as these people generally tend to speak in a very different way, we do. I am sorry, but i have to point out, that these statements ("we did 9-11") are not widely accepted. it is sure that he praised the attacks, but to my knowledge he never clearly claimed to be responsible.--217.224.142.247 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, OBL explicitly acknowledged responsibility for the attacks in his "election speech" at the end of October 2004. Second, there was never any uncertainty as to who was behind the attacks among terrorism experts and scholars at the time, nor among anyone who was really paying attention to international terrorism at the time. Confusion and uncertainty about the specific plot, for sure, but al Qaeda linked terrorists had tried in 1993 to bring down the WTC, it was well known that OBL had declared war on America, and al Qaeda's MO was well known by this point as well. And as early as 12/2001 OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers. --csloat 03:14, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"OBL praised the attacks in terms that made it clear that he considered himself an inspiration to the hijackers." - this is still no proof that OBL was behind this attack, nor that Al Quaeda was behind it. It's not even proof that OBL was 'an inspiration to the hijackers'! (It's just an assumption of a guy) --24 Apr 2005

You've got to be joking. Do you really think someone else was behind the attacks? Has somebody else taken credit for them in stronger terms than OBL? --csloat 19:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go to the FBI website and look at the report on Osama Bin Laden it never once mentions him being part of september 11. www.fbi.gov Jan 16, 2007

the seventh paragraph

[edit]

beginning "Worldwide, a significant minority see the attack as an outcome of past United States involvement in the Middle East and surrounding area..."

I hold this viewpoint. Otherwise, you'd be saying the attacks were made at random, that there was no cause. This is not saying "you got what you deserved" or anything of the sort. It's a logical analysis of history. Many on the American left have made these conclusions, but no one says that the attacks were justified or that they were not evil. I don't want to delete the paragraph but I think it should be revised for NPOV. --Tothebarricades.tk 03:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is important to ask for proof in all cases, regardless of what may appear to have happened.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.18.112.85 (talk • contribs) .

The Great "Terrorism" Debate

[edit]

There's a debate going on at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Great "Terrorism" Debate that may interest followers of this article. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 11:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. culpability

[edit]

link added to the book Crossing the Rubicon (Ruppert). I mean no disrespect for any of the victims. I feel wiki should mention a book exploring such possibility, as it is being considered by a non-negligible amount of citizens. It's not like saying 911 never happened: it's saying the conspirators for the killing may be in unexpected places. /Mick2 23:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think information from here shuold be noted on this page about the possibility of US government involvement in these attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.21.72 (talk • contribs) .

It is there, on the right at the bottom of the 9/11 template. Tom Harrison Talk 16:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Haliburton made money from September 11th attacks

[edit]

Hi Tom,

could you tell me why you summarily deleted the facts that I posted, please?

Thanks,

yours,

1liberator1liberator 20:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, it is important to note that Haliburton stock rose from $9 in January 2002 to $67 in March, 2006. What is more, the average price of gas in the U.S. increased from $1.25/gallon in 2002 to $2.85/gallon in 2006. At the same time, the price of 1 Killowat of electric energy, due to the increase in cost of the oil used to produce it, increased from $0.04 in 2002 to $0.10 in 2006."
I deleted this because it is unsupported by citation. Who says it's important to note that? Who says it's even relevent? Unless someone notable is making the charge (presumably that Bush did it to boost Haliburton's stock price), and unless we say who is making the charge, it is just innuendo. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom:

I think I added a citation, but maybe we missed it. Let me post it again. I think it is important to note the facts, i.e. Americans are paying exorbitant prices for energy while Haliburton is making money out of the deal.

Thanks, 1liberator 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that the stock price went up. What we need a cite for is who says 9/11 was engineered to cause that. Is this what Ruppert says? If so, we need to make clear that this is part of his theory. I'm going to copy my remarks to Talk:Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks so others can follow the discussion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tom:

thanks for the approach. I am usually summarily deleted when people disagree. I am glad that you did not forget what America's based on - constructive dialogue. If you want, please rephrase the quote to make clear that's part of Ruppert's theory. Or, if you want, we can draft a joint statement that reflects that Ruppert makes this claim in the book, or whatever you propose. Once again, thank you, 1liberator 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. Edit it yourself if you see the need, and hopefully we'll zero in on a version we both like. Tom Harrison Talk 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom, looks great, hope everyone else likes it. 1liberator 02:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


John Loftus

[edit]

I am not sure whether this should be mentioned here or under "conspiracy theories" or trash-bin, but I thought I would ask here. In http://menewsie.3.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=655 he claims among other things, that the Muslim Brotherhood was trained, by BI and CIA. The Muslim Brotherhood has been an inspiration to the development of other organisations, like e q Al'Qaida. This is one way one might blame the US for what happened, even if it is a stretch. Does anyone have a clue as to the reliability of John Loftus?DanielDemaret 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Federal Responce

[edit]

Looking at the timeline, it appears that both air traffic controllers and NORAD could have reacted quicker and coordinated better. From 8:19 to 8:38 Boston AT takes 19 minutes to tell NORAD it *may* have a potential hijack. Dispite the fact that the plane remained on primary radar (but not secondary as its transponder was turned off) ATC did not, for whatever reason, relay position or heading information to the F15s launched to intercept it. The hijacking of flight 175 is apparently not even noticed dispite the fact is wondering off course as much as flight 11. Though the US 'open sky' policy means planes can make minor changes in speed, heading or altitude without ATC permission, aircraft that go off course by hundreds of miles should draw active attention for basic safety reasons.

You can call this lack of investment, poor training, or simple stupidity, but the fact is US Federal authorities appear to have screwed up by the numbers, and did not done all they could have to prevent the attack from being as sucessful as it was. It is not a conspiracy theory to point out more could have been done before (or during) the event - nor to point out the US was repeatedly advised of its poor aircraft security arrangements by other nations. Even months after 9/11 Flight International magazine was drawing attention to lack of checks on check-in baggage and pure cargo flights.

I have not found this information addressed on any wikipedia 9/11 page. Should it not be addressed here, not as responsability for causing it, but as responsability for letting it happen? ANTIcarrot 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely sounds like some great research and worth a section in the US responsibility section any article you can point to? Mrdthree 12:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what issue the Flight International article was from, and the only other mention was a British MP pointing out some of this, which did not go down well. Unfortunately when it comes to 911, the American press has been blinded by the event to the point of stupidity. They should have been pointing exactly that kind of thing out within a week, if not a month. They refuse to even to this day, which makes it difficult when you try and cite sources. Most of the above is based upon the official wiki timeline, and varrious federal rule about thow things are supposed to work, again which aren't easy to find ot cite. If I did put it up without such sources, it would no doubt be accused of being 'orrigonal thinking' and 'anti-american' in some way and taken down.ANTIcarrot 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some conspiracy theorists also suspect complicity in the attacks within the U.S. government itself

[edit]

This flatly states that in order to merely "suspect" the responsibility of persons in the US government one must be a conspiracy theorist. Literally that may be true but the phrase is pejorative in English-speaking countries and separate in meaning from "one who supports the idea of an internal conspiracy". Simply removing it leaves it unbiased.

Good catch. I fixed it. -- That Guy, From That Show! 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend to AfD

[edit]

relevant portions should be reintegrated to Osama Bin Laden page, Al Qaeda page, September 11 Terrorist Attacks or 9/11 COnspiracy theories. Most of this article is original research. I am intersted in any arguments to the contrary. Is this article a catalogue of investigations or a catalogue of personal research by wikipedians? Mrdthree 05:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Raimondo: nice investigation

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Raimondo

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/August2003/0803CIA.html

Lenni Brenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenni_brenner

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

rgds

Government Responsibility

[edit]

At a minimum governments failed to prevent a crime, which is negligence of duty. This puts a share of responsibility on the government. Mrdthree 02:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq section now seems tilted and leading

[edit]

The Iraq section now seems to include extensive talk tilted toward links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, which are now largely discredited. NPOV does not mean presenting both sides of an argument equally -- it means giving weight to the facts that have the most reliable sources (and sides that cannot be sourced are excluded--probably not pertinent here). Giving so much weight to Woolsey and the "crackpot" (not my words) seems to work against this. Further, the section now leads a reader to believe that al-Qaeda was culpible for the 1993 WTC bombing -- this is not factual -- an Egyptian Islamic organization was found to be responsible for that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I 100% agree. It is hard to believe that some people are still pedeling this rubbish when even Cheney himself has conceded that there was no link. I am currently thinking about how to edit the section in question. WikiTony 21:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 from World independent group

[edit]

World independent group news, investigation about 9/11[1]

I wanted to criticise the WING page about selling magic books but then I realized there may be guilt of magical thinking on all sides.Mrdthree 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be specific about this. 68.32.201.254 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for they sell magic books. They sell magic books (their main advertiser was magic books). As for magical thinking on all sides, it was probably a refernce to a discussion where teh possibility of government negligence was dismissed as conspiracy theory. Mrdthree 05:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Magic is a book company? If so than I am satisfied. 68.32.201.254 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
magic books MAGICK BOOKS MAAGIC BOOOKS Mrdthree 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some kind of slander thing going on here or are you just trying to be funny? Sure they probably dabble in selling stuff on the paranormal, mainly stuff about Cayce and Douglas Kenyon, and they are in alliance with Jim Marrs (who believes similar to David Icke that the big conspiracies are the remnant of an alien invasion some fourto three thousand years ago). But I have listened to them for a year, and this is allready after five years of looking at this stuff, starting with Dr. Leonard Horrowitz and his shocking accusations towards the treatment industry and on through David Icke, Rappoport, then Jones and Rense until finally stumbling upon these two, and I must say, they are amongst the truest, most honest, not to mention sanest I have seen in this whole subject (Jon Rappoport is still good also since he has a comprehensive view of human nature, like them, and they advertise a book of his). The point, I think their comprehensive knowlege, their way of dealing with incomming knowlege (i.e., their reasoning abilities), and their courage for even mentioning some of this stuff in their plainly-spoken manner (such as Zionism, which I believe more and more people are really starting to question especially since Lebenon) makes them amongst the more reliable representatives of the conspiracy sub-culture, although they are so descerning and concise in their explanations that they end up sounding much like mainstream reporters, perhapse a little fanatical like some college kids hosting a political show. 68.32.201.254 15:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision to section "Al Qaeda" needed

[edit]

The "Al Qaeda" section needs to be tightened up for the following reasons:

(1) Excessive repetition of concepts and sentences, for example, these three sentences seem to describe identical concepts:

"bin Laden has repeatedly broadcast a common list of grievances which he cites as the reason for his declaration of war against the U.S." "In many interviews with bin Laden, he lists specific foreign policies of the U.S. as the reasons for al-Qaida attacks against Americans and the U.S. government." "For many years bin Laden stated motives for attacking U.S. interests."

(2) Inconsistent chronological ordering of facts/allegations. Sometimes the facts/allegations appear in the order in which they were revealed or presented to the public, other times they appear in the order in which they (allegedly) occurred. I suggest that the facts/allegations always be presented in the order in which they (allegedly) occured, accompanied by appropriate citations as to when they were discovered.

In the spirit of "Be bold", I'm going to start making the edits now. Mastoo 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does al qaedo have to do with identifying hijackers; why did you erase the section? Ultimately the criminals are responsible for the crime.Mrdthree 05:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that info is verbatim in Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which was an article that existed before I made the edits and said pretty much the same thing, so I moved the eyewitness accounts from this page to that page to supplement what was already there. That is why I have numerous "See also"'s that point to that article.
Mastoo 02:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The info is verbatim because I researched it. I have restored the information on individual hijackers in a compressed form. Mrdthree 04:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Making Sense

[edit]

How does the fact that Jews died in the WTC cancle out the fact that an Israeli faction did it to spur the USA into destroying Israel's Islamic enemies? Also remember some of the works of Lenni Brenner on how Conservative Zionists handled the Holocaust. Zionism considers the typical Jew to be part of the larger collective, the Jewish Nation, and thus collateral in the larger goal of Greater Israel, and it may even present their deaths as heroic in it's own strange way (I doubt any of the victems, whether they be Jews or Christian Zionists, would have considered it in that way, nor do I believe they should). 68.32.201.254 16:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since "zionism" is an idealogy revolving around the creation of a jewish state you cannot actually attribute it as something that "considers" jews this and that(Youve read the protocools I assume? A blatant forgery that even if it were by bizzare chance true and idiotically given to a anti-semitist christian to publish, Was written over 70 years ago) There is also a strong case for the goverment of Israel considering life of jews very precious, considering that it tries to get captive soldiers back even if the demands are unreasonable from the other side. --206.223.233.150 (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sentence

[edit]

Under the Israel section I removed the sentence, "This theory has been proven to be false" due to the fact that the source (snopes) gave no actual proof, but rather a rant.


--KonigArtus 21:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Very Important bin Laden Statement!

[edit]

I was surprised when this was not included in the article; it seems very important. This is a translation of bin Laden's statement in 2004 on why he attacked the United States and what he wants us to do to prevent future attacks.. I urge you to read it. I really think this should be included in the main article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10079-2004Oct29.html

United States - re: most recent revert

[edit]

Re: most recent revert with comment "It's a bit more complex than that."

OK, that's an observation, but the text does not make sense as it stands. Putting "more than a half a century of support for Israel" with "Central CIA operations in Iran" and "aiding Iraq monetarily during the Iraq-Iran War" is nonsensical without some explanation. Only islamists tend to see support for Israel as an inherantly bad thing, so it needs some form of explanation.

The other quotes also need references, which they don't have.

And as for the completely catch-all "operations during the Cold War", what can one say?

I was trying to avoid removing the whole sentence, but you're right, it wasn't really possible.

I've removed the sentence. If anyone wants to stand up for the sentence, please, revert and we'll have a full debate about it!

It still doesn't make perfect sense, but it's better than it was

Deipnosopher 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leading text is saying more than what is referenced

[edit]

The leading text was fine but it has been modified in such way:

Osama bin Laden and senior members of al-Qaida admitted involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks[1][2][3] and the identities of the 19 al-Qaeda conspirators who carried out the hijackings have been confirmed by the United States government. [4][5][6]

The actual referenced fact is that Bin Laden & C. claimed involvement in the attack. To say "admitted" amount to say that they are actually involved and this is not something you can deduce by their claim. Moreover to say that the identity have been "confirmed" suggest (wrongly) these identities were first given by someone else and later by the Goverment. My suggestion is: change wording or rollback to the previous lead.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection or can I procede with a change or a revert?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine the way it is. I suppose if you want to change admitted to claimed that'd be fine. RxS (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but I don't understand the sentence
the identities of the 19 al-Qaeda conspirators who carried out the hijackings have been confirmed by the United States government.
why "confirmed" and not just "pubblished"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Published is fine with me...RxS (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, and what about "alleged conspirators" instead of "conspirators"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, conspirators is good. RxS (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why for example Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is "thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role" as a conspirator of 9/11 and instead these ones are actually conspirator and not "thought to be" such?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is referring to other terrorist activities, here's the full quote: He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years. RxS (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, about 9/11 it says According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks"., it is attributed. Why shouldn't we make it attributed also for the terrorists in this article?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FBI involvement in 93 WTC bombing

[edit]

There is no mention at all of the ensuing trial or the FBI's involvement in the 93 WTC bombing. It does say "arab islamist terrorist" perpetrated the crime, which is only half true. Let's discuss expanding this section to include the whole truth. -66.108.3.41 (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup needed

[edit]

This article needs substantial cleanup to bring it up to acceptable wiki standards. Dubious sources such as cooperativeresearch need to go, as do places in the article where there is synthesis from various sources. Mentioning Atta wiring $100,000 is also not appropriate. Per verifiability policy, exceptional claims such as this require high-quality sources. Citing the brief mention in the Opinion Journal really is insufficient. There are other areas of the article that require cleanup, as well. --Aude (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

[edit]

Any suggestion that Saudi Arabia "has some responsibility, having helped finance al-Qaeda, and allowing the organization to flourish" is meaningless. Saudi Arabia is the major target of Al Qaeda, not a supporter. In the very early days it did fund the organisation, but so did the USA.101.98.175.68 (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current news, including mainstream, has now affirmed the notion that Saudi Arabia had involvement. That is undeniable at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8001:B851:30DE:E6B6:D2A6:2BC2 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too few opinions

[edit]

I have removed this tag, after 7 years it seems to me that unless there is some active discussion on the "missing opinions" the tag is useless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is completely made up

[edit]

"At around 9:30 pm on September 11, 2001, George Tenet, director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) told President George W. Bush and U.S. senior officials that the CIA's Counterterrorism Center had determined that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible for the September 11 attacks."

The citation doesn't even mention 911 even once. Nor does it mention Bin Laden. It's completely made up and should be removed. Ichi.0000 (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ichi.0000:, just so I get you right: Have you read "the citation", i. e., page 343 in Annie Jacobsen's book? What is that page about (since you say that it is not about the 9-11 or Bin Laden)? Is it possibly just a question of different editions (which may paginate differently); or is there nothing in that book even close to the statement you want deleted? JoergenB (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would that not be a perfect example of an unacceptable source? It's simply what one person said to another. Which should not even be the introduction to describe a factual event in the first place. Ichi.0000 (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a different pagination or typo, I've added the direct supporting quote from the book now. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks&oldid=1252607263"