Talk:9/11

	This Conspiracy related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes This talk page cannot be archived by bots, so it needs to be done manually. See Talk:9/11/Archive1 for the archive.

Cover Story This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page. Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies. Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

Revert of edits

Spud, you recently reverted my edits here. Why? I would have thought the edits were obviously harmless. It seems appropriate that an article should be consistently formatted. Prince of Glantri (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hm, what are you trying to do formatting-wise? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Prince of Glantri It was because you made five edits. Rollback was the quickest way of checking all the changes you made. I planned to undo my edit if I saw your edits were good. When I checked the difference, I couldn't see any changes at all. So I didn't bother undoing what I'd done. Spud (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The changes were formatting. They were not harmful in the slightest, and I would have thought it was clear that they were at least mildly helpful. I cannot see any valid reason whatever why they would be reverted. The change made was removing an empty space between a citation and the statement it supports. If you look closely, you will see that the article sometimes includes such spaces and sometimes it doesn't. There is no reason it should be inconsistent in this respect. Prince of Glantri (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored them. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 11:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that @Prince of Glantri, Spud has a strange tendency to rollback multiedit changes to patrol them and then undo the rollback. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Another topic, can someone add?

‘Truthers’ suggest that the pilots were inexperienced and would be unable to crash into the building. This was debunked here. Can someone add? The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 07:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

The sentence beginning ' It would be overdue by President Obama,...' needs tweaking - perhaps 'was not released during President Obama's Presidency' (and possibly '... has not yet been released' added). Anna Livia (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suitable preparations are made for the flurry of activity likely to arise from the forthcoming 20th anniversary. Anna Livia (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

"Truthers", shame on you

Fellow Americans, make the small sacrifice, the incredibly small personal sacrifice, and set aside next year's vacation time and budget to visit to a memorial on an anniversary date, perhaps starting with a national park in Pennsylvania—meet the families of those that saw their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters off, boarding the doomed flights. Listen quietly to their stories. Make records of their specific losses, of the details of their accounts. Decide only then, if you can, that it is all a put-up, that your imaginations are to be believed over the evidence. Then, and only then, should anyone read or listen to what you have written. Then, at least it can be said that you are arrogant fools, rather than a mass of the ignorant and heartless, content to do damage at a distance on matters about which you know nothing. [Signed, an individual who knows first responders and civilians that collected aircraft debris in a Pennsylvania field, who knows of a victim's relative who holds a jet fuel-stained wallet as a cherished item of remembrance from that site, as well knowing one who walked out of one of the Towers, losing many of her coworkers to the impact and fireball of the second strike.] ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:246:C700:558:197C:CC14:CF4E:762F / talk}

No. If someone is spouting insanity, then they are spouting insanity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I legit do not give a fuck if you lost people during 9/11. If you are empirically wrong, then you are empirically wrong, and no amount of emotional baggage will change that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Was Hani Janjour (Flight 77) a bad pilot?

I came across a claim that Hanjour was a bad pilot and barely passed flight school, so "obviously" couldn't have hit the Pentagon. I'm a longtime lurker, but didn't find his name on this page. I did a bit of Googling and found the news sources, which mainly mention his issues were with English comprehension, not actual flying. Would this be a useful addition? Hamster Drink (talk)

About the quote

Bin Laden probably did Hate America and freedom, he just had more reasons than just hating America. JekyllJones (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If he hated freedom, why didn't he turn himself in? A freedom-hating person should be overjoyed to be imprisoned. FairDinkum (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to wonder about including the quote. It was added in 2021. Can you imagine if someone put a quote on the top of the Holocaust article citing Mein Kampf for why it happened? I mean it's clearly different but I think people are entitled to come away with a different perspective than "it was pretty much just America's own fault"... Chillpilled (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

2 trillion dollars missing

That's all I have to say. --Back2theroots34 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t communicate much of value. 2 trillion dollars from where? -Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC).

@OnlySortaDumb They're conspiracy baiting. Nothing they say is well thought out. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

c'mon, man

First of all, I would have liked it if the quote of the article was not some stupid David Cross joke, but something that actually makes fun of conspiracy theories like the Bill Maher quote which goes something like "The notion that Bush had knowledge about the attacks is absurd because it involves Bush and knowledge.".

Second, I learned a lot here. I had no idea that the WTC were made of paper. That's why they collapsed. No, there was no controlled demolition. Other buildings have suffered through fires and have been hit by planes in much worse scenarios, but WTC and WTC alone collapsed simple because they were made of paper. The WTC also contained some steel, but it was the kind of terrorist steel that collapses when nobody expects it to. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.122.28.167 / talk}

Korean series

The Korean series 'Designated Survivor: 60 Days' has the Korean Parliament building being 'computer-network rewired with explosives' (and a complex conspiracy plot) - is this a passing nod at the 9/11-ers? Anna Livia (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)