Talk:9/11/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 June 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

It was[edit]

Actually it was a conspiracy. Just not "Teh guvment did it" one. User talk:0.0.0.0 04:46 24 September 2007

Nice sig, Crack. Now I have to range block every IP in existence. human^{be in} 16:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Those palastinians you mentioned were real dicks, cheering for the death of innocent people. ^{— Unsigned, by: 68.197.172.92 / talk / contribs}

It's obvious the Great Khan and the Mongols were behind 9/11 the planes were holograms for giant exploding arrows.Why will you not let me explain the truth!? ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

Wait a second here. Why AREN'T you explaining this thrilling connection?!

01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read the article but I presume it's about commemorating the death of Dylan Thomas (9 November1953). Truly worth mention. ^{This message brought to you by:}

^respond_and honey 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

F'ing drunk, there was no "milk" under his wood. ħuman

02:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Their watchin us as we speak they have flying horse archers. ^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

Yup! ħuman

07:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirty libral comi scum did it --Asfly (I'm not realy)

I bet that slash in 9/11 creates several technical problems. JXZ would like you to have a delightful chat! 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And that's why we don't have subpages in main. Ty^Annoy 00:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Argh!![edit]

Ok, I need somebody's help here. It's my own fault, I know, but I've just watched In Plane Sight and damn me if I don't agree with them. Simple question - where's the wreckage at the Pentagon and at the crash site in the field? Looking at footage of the Pentagon before the section collapsed, there's just no way that a big huge plane caused that damage - the area is too small. And where's the wreckage? Not a wheel, not an engine, not a tail section? Nothing. Ditto the crash site - just a long scar in the ground? Planes don't vaporize on impact. Not to mention 2 planes burn hot enough to bring down the towers, while the pentagon smoulders a bit, leaving PCs and a wooden table untouched next to the impact site?

Somebody clever needs to point me in the direction of something that clearly shows how two planes can crash and vanish. And how can the tail section not damage the upper part of the pentagon, and yet mysteriously vanish? Something's cooky here. --PsyGremlinPrata! 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the plane didn't vaporise, it liquefied (effectively). There was debris all over the ground outside the pentagon - there's a famous refutation in some magazine or another of all the truther myths from a few years ago that includes pictures of the stuff. The wings sheared off, but the body of the plane basically punched a hole into the building, and the landing gear another hole below that. With the towers, unlike the pentagon, fire that traveled upwards would still have been in the building, causing a larger volume of burning to weaken the tower. And as for the 'long scar in the ground', look up 'erebus crash' in google images for a bit of a comparason (it's a crash on a snow-covered mountatin in Antarctica if you don't know). I get the impression that plane crashes don't look all that like what people envision. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was Popular Mechanics, now I come to look. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok Mount Erebus crash pics. Flight 93 crash pics. I can't believe a plane flying into the side of a mountain leaves more wreckage than a plane crashing in a field. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Erebus is on a white background, so you can see it better. And the 93 debris went quite a way. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a somewhat simpler answer -- most of the Pentagon wreckage was inside the crash site. There was plenty on the lawn, but the plane crashed above ground level directly into the building, so that's where the bulk of the debris wound up. EVDebs (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Images, my friend. Engine components, a landing gear, body parts, and other fragments of the plane were found at the site. Did you expect the No Planers to leave in all the pictures of the crash site? Even other troofers think the No Planers are cranks, or plants covering up the conspiracy by our true overlords! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In different parts of the page, the death toll is 'established at 2996' and 'over 3000' - clarify? 31.220.243.61 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultural left and 9/11?[edit]

Despite seeing 2 or 3 small vlogs on the subject, I'm having severe trouble dragging up sources about people blaming the cultural left for 9/11 for its filthy, evil decadent concepts like "Not being in an ass-backwards theocracy". I'd be tempted to have a section on it, but I don't think "the cultural left and its responsibility for 9/11 is a recommended result on Google" constitutes an argument.

I don't think you'll see much of that written in the last five years or so. Trutherism seems to be largely a province of the batshit wing of the Right these days, particularly Ron Paul's base. There are a few lefties who are still on the bandwagon (Charlie Sheen comes to mind) but they're either misguided or suffering from abject bugfuckery. EVDebs (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Failure to mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record....[edit]

The article is not impartial and fails to rebut the arguments of those who question the official story or mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record, including:

The most glaring inconsistency with the official story; building 7, one of the major buildings destroyed that day, and not even mentioned in this article, it fell hours after the towers, falling into its own footprint perfectly, just like a demolition job, and from minimal damage.

The fact that all jet fighters in america just happened to be on a training exercises, for that very scenario that very day.

the fact that explosions were heard in the basement by fire fighters, on public record, and that blast damage was witnessed at ground floor level that same day.

The fact that many of the pilots apparently involved in 911 are alive and well, (public record, look it up, BBC) The fact that all though none of the black boxes from the plains could be located, a passport and other documents were conveniently found relatively unharmed.

The fact that nano thermite was found in dust samples by independent researchers.

The fact that the evidence was not properly examined by the authorities.

If this site were truly rational, it would consider all of the possibilities, and make a rational and reasoned argument. This article displays an emotive, irrational, inability to examine all of the facts, or consider scenarios other than the official version, based on a fear, I suspect, of acknowledging that such corruption could exist within your own country, at such high levels. Of course there is no rational reason not to at least consider this very real possibility. In fact it would be rational to examine the circumstances of all relevant events to make sure that corruption does not flourish unexamined.

This is irrational, you guys can have a mutual back slapping session if you like, personally I can't be sure what happened one way or the other, but, before you get all impressed with yourselves and your supposed rationality, perhaps you'd like to examine the evidence and at least attempt to explain the anomalies mentioned above, or rebut the arguments of those who question the official version, some of whom lost family in the tragic events of that day.

It is now accepted that Iraq did not have WMD and was not connected to Al queda, no such organisation existed, the muslims who fought the "yer fer us or agin coalition of the willing against the axis of evil" were actually backed and organised by saudi salafists.

It follows that if these official stories have been shown to be untrue, then other official interpretations may also be untrue, and should at least be examined.

Otherwise, many of the commentators here are pretty much full of it, and themselves obviously, claiming to be something they are not, and the sites claims to rationality are discredited. Enjoy your irrational delusion, research bias and logical fallacy.

Can you format that better please? Also a fee citations from truly unbiased sources would be nice, and signing up to the site would be nice as well. I will say that it's good you took to the talk page, as opposed to just changing the article. If you talk softly we will listen. The Invisible Man ^{I spoke to Him} 11:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And I just thought you might be better off creating an essay page as well.The Invisible Man ^{I spoke to Him} 11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All those points are addressed here. Prodigal (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was supposed to be RATIONALwiki! DRINK!!! Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Prodigal (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Title[edit]

I understand that this article's title is 9/11 (obviously), but I believe a better title would be September 11th attacks. I think that we should all have a formal vote to see what the title should be. All reliable sites like Wikipedia have their title as September 11th attacks and even thought we should have some snark on here, it seems we should have a more sophisticated title. Votes can go below. Leoesb1032 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes:

The first bolded text in the article is *September 11, 2001, not 9/11. I think snark and humor is awesome, but as I explianed, it would reflect better on this site to have a better title. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No:

"9/11" has entered the vernacular— also, this is not Wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
What he said. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 03:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Goat:

How delightful; a goat option from a person who has only just signed up to the wiki - we assimilate well here. Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment- Although I just joined this wiki but I had been on Wikipedia for a while now and I switched because I wanted to have a chance on a more fun wiki. The point is that I know that little techy things and Wiki markups. So in reality I have about 5 month experience overall. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

9 11 in the Muslim calendar[edit]

As radical Muslims (and all attackers were certainly that) usually don't care and sometimes don't even know the Christian date of a given event, it may be worthwhile to find out the date of 9/11 in the Muslim calendar and whether it was an anniversary of something in the Muslim calendar. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Asbestos and Andrew Schafly[edit]

Schafly isn't the one who thought up the idea that asbestos would have prevented 9/11. He parroted what he heard from the likes of Steve "second-hand smoke did nothing wrong" Milloy. I'm going to work Milloy's role in the idea into the article, but I don't know what to do with the Schafly mention so I'll leave it there for now. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 05:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

But the towers had asbestos, and it led to 9/11 survivors suffering asbestos-related illnesses (along with illnesses from other building materials). http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/09/14-years-later-heres-what-we-know-about-911-and-cancer/403888/ Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

EvC forums[edit]

They no like the section on Operation Northwoods. Any valid criticism? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Voidghost[edit]

Is this voidghost allusion to The Elder Scrolls? Voidghost (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

nanothermite[edit]

The statement:

> This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[21] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure

The footnote does not mention nanothermite at all, and the link provided only says "Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage." The counter-argument for nanothermite could be described better, withe better sources. Lots of people claim nanothermite was used, at http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html^{— Unsigned, by: 192.173.144.3 / talk / contribs}

Ok, so they found nanothermite at Manhattan near the tower site. What does that prove? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"Designed to survive a plane impact" theory[edit]

There is a commonly-cited "fact" that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and therefore should not have been destroyed by a 747. There are many good sources debunking this, such as: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf . If anyone better at writing than me could add this section, It would be very useful. ^{— Unsigned, by: Raditex / talk / contribs}

I thought we already covered this? If not, it's time we do so! Thanks, Raditex. Feel free to edit the article yourself, btw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Physics[edit]

One word: Nincompoops. You people are inept nincompoops - or just plain shills. Here's another word: Physics. ^{— Unsigned, by: 84.211.246.11 / talk / contribs}

Here's two words: ^{[citation needed]} Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's three: Where's my paycheck? If we are shilling show us the voided checks since I am not getting them and I need to hire a handyman. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That was more than one word! Off to the FEMA camp you go! --Ymir (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

One word: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.Petey Plane (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Since 9/11, to bring down a building, the accepted method is to fly an aircraft into it.

What about [1]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Individual jets of air rushing through windows and flying fabric[edit]

Without diving into sloppy explanations and rebuttals in the article, there are some details left unexplained, which I consider important. For example, there are a few zoomed-in videos where you can clearly see a jet of air and smoke rushing through the window, taking a black rag-like object with it. Such as this one: http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/09/14-years-later-heres-what-we-know-about-911-and-cancer/403888/

This is very similar to geotextile fabric used by demolition crews to cover the explosive charges (i.e. wrap it around a column or cover a wall) in order to contain the flying explosive debris and shrapnel. If you've seen any building demolition process, you would also see flying black rags carried by the expanding gases.

I'd rather not say what I think about the "exploding water tanks and soda-cans because of jet fuel heat" theory mentioned in the article, but truth be told, individual jets of smoke below the burning zone, before the towers begin to collapse, are not explained anywhere in the article, so I think the article deserves an update. Please take everything in account, and especially the fact that this happened two stories below fire and smoke. Theinsider (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

9/11 Report Thing[edit]

What do you think?

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf^{— Unsigned, by: The Unwritten / talk / contribs}

Took one glance at the cover and saw that noted pseudoscientist Steven Jones is a lead author (the speciality of whom is fusion and solar energy, not structural physics) alongside two old engineers and a guy with a degree in public policy who writes truther books.

Regarding the site "europhysicsnews.org", they allow anyone to self-publish material via their site. They have a guide for doing so, which states;

Reviewing procedure
All articles are read by members of the Editorial Board
who may recommend clarifications, changes, etc.
Comments are occasionally sought elsewhere. Papers will
be sub-edited for obvious problems of language (UK English)
but we do not rewrite.

This means that the material published via them is not peer-reviewed in any meaningful way whatsoever. Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one. Even Europhysics News also state clearly that, quote: "Most contributors to Europhysics News are volunteers...". That's, most contributors to the magazine. As in; the people who provide the content, like for the "report thingy" you just linked.

And as sciencey as this might look when accessed via Google Scholar, the fact is that Europhysics News publishes all sorts of random stuff via the exact same format. Examples include overt opinion pieces and even letters to the editor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You wrote, "Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one," as if to suggest that the EPS doesn't endorse what they publish. But I guess you missed that "Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences." [emph. added] Klortho (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't show up in the "recognized journals" because it's not a primary-research journal; it is a magazine. That's why they publish "all sorts of random stuff"; but that does not mean that the content hasn't been reviewed and vetted for scientific merit. The editorial board most certainly does review content. On the other hand, they explicitly state that the content they select is intended to provide a "balanced overview of the scientific and organizational aspects of physics and related disciplines".

In other words, they are open to ideas that perhaps challenge the mainstream accepted dogma.

In other words, they support free exchange of ideas.

In other words, their minds are open.

That's too much to ask from a site called "RationalWiki", though. Klortho (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a question for you, @Reverend Black Percy: Did you even read any of it? It's well sourced, and many of the points the authors make are devastating to the official story, and to the existing write-up on this page. Klortho (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the disclaimer at the start which says "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors." Not exactly a full endorsement by the editorial staff. Annquin (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Ping:Annquin: Absolutely, that's endorsement enough for it to be included as a source in this article, and for its assertions to be considered credible. If those editors find it "sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication", why don't you consider it sufficiently technical and interesting to read? Klortho (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Military planes theories[edit]

I've heard it bandied around that the 9/11 planes were military, not civilian. The first piece of "evidence" is the photographs, which purportedly show anomalous markings or components. I believe this was sufficiently debunked in the Popular Mechanics article. The second is the claim that a Rolls-Royce spokesman said that a small engine found in the Pentagon wreckage did not belong to the company (see here at 00:18:35 for a sample quote). Should the article be edited to reflect these claims and their rebuttals?

104.200.153.81 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure — any crank claims that can be refuted with good sources belong in the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Plane evaporated?[edit]

Okay, so few days ago I saw Zeitgeist. It talks about how no plane was found in one of the building and the officials explained it away saying that it "evaporated". The movie also says that officials were able to find "DNA" of the terrorist pilots and able to identify them. "Plane evaporated but the pilot didn't?". Is this true? Why isn't this already covered in this article.

NOTE: I am not a conspiracy theories. I just mean to imply that this article is "incomplete". P.S: Why are there so many conspiracy theories in US. I have never heard one from other countries. Rational1 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at this[edit]

I dont care about conspiracies, but there are very strong arguments in this video favoring the controlled demolition theory. [2] ^{— Unsigned, by: 37.135.106.133 / talk}

Don't care to respond, just for archiving. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This website has actual interviews with Pentagon witnesses and proves the witnesses describe a flight path that is not consistent with the official story.[edit]

Here is a link directly to the interviews: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews

Here's a link to their video: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/national-security-alert

This is independent, verifiable research that shows every single Pentaqon witness describes the plane traveling in a path that is not consistent with the official story - the official story says light poles were knocked down as a result of the plane, but the path that all witness describe is not in the path of those light poles. The exact path of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon has been released by the government, but that path does not match up with any witnesses.

Here's an extremely detailed post with info on nearly every Pentagon witness.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863

Here's a debunking of attempted debunking of the CIT claims.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959

This is verifiable evidence of a coverup at the Pentagon. I don't know how to do wiki write-ups, but it seems like the part of the article on flight 77 should be changed. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is what ship the cruise missile was launched from that hit the Pentagon. Is there anything on that?Roo (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Easy, it was a spaceship like this one.They couldn't see it because the invisible mode was activated. Anir (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

9/11's plane phases through building[edit]

This discussion was moved here from Saloon bar.

Absolutely _no one_ was ever able to explain why that is. It doesnt crash into the building at all. It phases through, as if it isnt even there, but edited in. The "plane" is on the layer behind the tower. Only when you see the nose of the plane do you ACTUALLY SEE THE EXPLOSION. Honestly, this cognitive dissonance is rediculous. No one can even explain this, just brand me off as a nut. Explain it for once.^{— Unsigned, by: 172.223.212.195 / talk / contribs}

Didn't you forget something?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

His marbles from the looks of it. Bicycle^wheel

10:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure next after we explain why (Even if I dont know why right off the bat) you're gonna ask why most non-news footage has the camera panning of losing focus when the planes actually to hit, despite the fact that people pointed out the plane? Not a lot of people are in the mood for your holier-than-thou attitude because you believe in this drivel, so any discussion you want to have, watch your temper--Spoony (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

you come in here with a ridiculous claim that the plane was edited in without even a video or an explanation about the thousands of people who saw it happen, you're just asserting and before anyone would even try to debate you you have to give at least some sort of evidence to back yourself upVorarchivist (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Care to explain what does happen with the too-many-to-count witnesses plus their recordings (and that in 2001, when smartphones were still nearly Sci-Fi tech and digital cameras were still both expensive and not very good) of the two planes crashing against the WTC towers?. Now do TPTB have highly advanced holographic technology, that however fails just during impact as you say or what? Panzerfaust (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I especially like the serendipitous misspelling of "passes" for "phases". Phasing could be a cool new scifi-ish conspiracy theory, i.e. the plane phased through the building using a highly secret quantum technology. Leuders (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget the families of passengers who booked flight on the second plane and still have receipts to show it, waiting for their loved ones to arrive. nobs ^{Aloha Snackbar} 03:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Magic: the Gathering^TM cards with the phasing ability were all published in either 1996 or 1997, and were basically out of circulation by September 2001. For this reason, your theory sounds implausible. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And there's more. What about the remains of the two planes that were found among the debris of the WTC, as well as Flight 11 and Flight 175 themselves after take-off and before crashing?. More ruses from TPTB? Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So the planes have Kitty Pryde's powers?-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

More like Vision's, in this case. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The "need" to recover the bodies of the dead?[edit]

Was someone going to die if the bodies weren't recovered, or did the author mean desire instead of need? ^{— Unsigned, by: 101.164.233.212 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Early warning radar for the Pentagon[edit]

Here's a new one I just heard. The Pentagon has early warning radar that was turned off hours before the attack. Anyone got info on this nonsense? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What, its own air defence radar? What would it do with that? We know now that the reason they had problems with Flight 77 was that they were looking for Flight 11, which had been misidentified as not having crashed into the WTC and they thought was heading to DC. This meant that when radar detected Flight 77 near DC, the planes that had been scrambled were 150 miles away looking for a contact that didn't exist. Nog Bogmire (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. As in its own defense radar. I know that radar installations aren't trivial things to have on hand and fairly obvious to see with a telescope. Some things like this come through to me to which I can usually just say "Uh...?" since I don't have answers. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

One radar automatically means they're wrong, any half-decent AA system needs two (search and targeting). Ask them where it's located, what type it is, and what it could possibly task to protect the building. Also point out the US military's main light short-range SAM is Stinger, which is an IR / UV seeker that would in no way benefit from radar. Nog Bogmire (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

One-sided reporting[edit]

As a fervent reader of Rationalwiki, I was completely astonished by this one-sided and unobjective description of the 9/11-events. Let me include this short note, at least in the Talk-Page, for anyone passing by and wondering how an internet wiki, claiming to be rational, completely misses its own standards, and blindly adopts the official version of the events. Of all positions one can have about 9/11, the article seems to portray only two extremes. The first extreme being a high praise of the official NIST-report (what this article is in fact) and the second extreme being some crazy zionist-space-beam-bush-did-it nonsense. Can't there be a third, moderate, critical and healthy in-between position? This should be possible. The article starting with Al-Qaeda made entirely responsible for the attacks, is a conspiracy theory itself, as there are no-proofs that it was Al-Qaeda at all. So, speaking about the responsibility of the attacks, it's possible to say that the US-Government accuses Ben Laden, and that, however, proofs are still awaited. Indeed, the factual situation is pointing it couldn't have been him, or at least, him alone. The role of the US Government is at least debatable. A lot of the so-called truther claims are being discussed and countered with rebuttals full of logical fallacies, and only weak claims are being discussed, not the strong ones. One day, in 20 years, in 50 years or even in 100 years, we will know the truth. Internet archaeologists will dig this article out and wonder why this was one the Rationalwiki. 79.210.51.201 (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Anir

First, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!

Second, cite your sources. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

First, that drinking game of yours may explain why this article seems to be written by not-really-sober users. I think I supported my claim with enough explanations. This article needs to be rewritten.

Second, cite your sources. Which source does say that the 19 Hijackers are responsible for the attacks? Cite your sources. The 9/11 commission report? Come on! We should write it directly in the article: The US-Government accuses some people with no further proof. There isn't even a single footage of any of the Hijackers boarding any of the planes.

Third. One thing that blew my mind. Read the following sentence from the 2nd paragraph of the introduction.

"While the international community condemned the attacks, some Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East viewed them as part of a legitimate jihad"

Well, while I don't have any problems with the sentence itself, I can't understand at all the source used ==> Some Palestinians celebrated the attack in refugee camps in Lebanon. Images of celebration from the BBC. Sorry what? I suggest we use the following source, it's much better. Anir (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

First, your joke was amusing. But explanations are not the same as citations. If I were to write a paper on the Thirty Years' War and turn it into my professor, and it contained explanations for why it happened the way it did but no citations, I would not be surprised if I got an F on the paper. Someone can explain anything with anything else. But unless those explanations have some demonstrated basis in reality, such as citations, then the explanations are moot.

Second, we do cite our sources. The 9-11 Commission report is reliable. And since you ask for citations, here they are:

Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before And After The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, 2001 Volume I and Volume II, and the testimony of FBI Assistant Director Dale L. Watson before the Senate Intelligence Committee. They're both through the Wayback Machine, sorry.

And third, I am not entirely sure what your complaint is. If you feel that source is better, then change it. Many other RWians might be loath to use a Breitbart article, but meh. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I told myself since this article is full of jokes, why not adding my own jokes to it. Breitbart was meant to be joke as well.

Let's focus entirely on that claim of yours: The 9-11 Commission report is reliable.

I heard some truthers saying that there isn't even one mention of the collapse of WTC7. That's why they completely dismiss it. I wouldn't go as far as dismissing it. Let's agree that the 9-11 Commission forgot to mention it. On the other side, this article completely presents the 9-11 Commission report as absolutely unquestionable. It's the truth and anyone saying something else may also like Alex-Jones-Videos. Some strong straw man there.

I will add one little part to the article, if you don't like it we can discuss it of course.

Anir (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename to 9-11[edit]

If the name is 9/11 it fucks up the archive template. Archives exist (see Talk:9/11/Archive1) but the template thinsk this is an archive page bacause it's a subpag The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 06:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. CowHouse (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Move it to 9-11 and leave 9/11 as a redirect. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We've been DEBUNKED[edit]

How can we not realize that Israel did 9/11? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 06:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure... Everyone knows the devil did it, obviously. Comrade GC (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Concerns with this page[edit]

Hello everyone, I just joined as I was quite disappointed by the flaccid arguments made on this page. (No, I'm not a 'truther' - before we go any further ;) ) But I think this is a very important and emotive topic which behoves respectable websites like Rational Wiki to have some quality content in here.

For a start, the jokey sneers are appalling. How on earth would you expect anyone to take this page seriously when it's full of snide remarks? Do you seek to aspire to the truth, or do you just want to insult truthers? (Which helps precisely no-one) This is anything but rational behaviour and does not fit well with the ethos of the site in my opinion.

I joined because I am considering contributing to this page to try and help clean it up and restore some rational balance to it. But since I'm new here, I am wondering if any such edits or trying to restore some rationale to the page will be welcomed, or will I be wasting my time?

For reference to my own personal position on 911, you can consult my blog article if you wish. Freeworlder (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? and some of the pages in Help:Contents before making changes. This will help you understand the ethos of the site, which isn't exactly described by the word "respectable".

Regardless of the above, if there are specific issues you feel the article doesn't cover well, things it could explain more clearly, arguments it ignores, etc, please post on this talk page. --Gospatric (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing with us is we have the tone of snarky everywhere, see the RW:SPOV section specifically. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for the information guys. That article was news to me and I understand better what you're trying to do now, but it's probably not for me. Having said that, I do wish there was a more NPOV resource for this and other thorny topics. I would love to see a more Snopes-like bullshit de-bunk site - as in terse, unequivocal and well-respected. It's sorely needed! I wish you luck with this but the humour / attitude thing won't really work for me. Freeworlder (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Try these pants on. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reichstagsbrand as an example[edit]

I've removed said example. It is NOT historical consensus that the "communist dissident" (which he indeed was) did in fact set the fire. Marinus van der Lubbe was acquitted in 1980 by the Landgericht Berlin, in December 2007 the Bundesanwaltschaft reaffirmed again that the judgement was based on national socialist injustice (I just noticed that I mixed up the two dates in the edit log, my bad.) -6E23 (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This page[edit]

Should this not be an 'active' rather than an 'archived' talk page (or is it some glitch in the archiving process - or 'something else entirely?). Anna Livia (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My gut feeling tells me the 9/11 title is screwing up the formatting for pibot. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If something goes wrong on a website assume 'two bits of computer program negatively interacting' (the inherent animosity of inanimate objects as applied to computers) and/or someone mistyping and similar, and as more likely than malicious activity (human 'the aliens' or the computer-sentients (who are more likely to be looking at images of other 'decorative computers' anyway)). Anna Livia (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Irrational Wiki[edit]

I cannot take this web site seriously. It is about as rational as the flat earth society, like a kind of inverted mirror site: equally crazy. While one should be wary of conspiracy theorists who see a conspiracy in everything, this web site repeatedly tries to assert that nobody ever conspired to do anything ever. This article about 911 is only one of many which appear to be deliberately dishonest/unbalanced. No rational or intelligent person finds the official version of events to be even close to 100% convincing. There is very little evidence for the conspiracy theory put forward by the US government and plenty of evidence for alternative theories. A rational and honest person would admit this. The authors of this article don't even appear to realize that that is what the official narrative is: a conspiracy theory. It is a form of madness to irrationally assume an extreme position in the face of contradictory evidence. People tend to believe what they want to believe and are particularly gullible when brainwashed with patriotism and driven by ego. There is a difference between being smart and being a smart alec. The condescending tone and extreme naivety of the content here leaves rational wiki with precisely zero credibility in my opinion. There is nothing to see here. 101.184.70.164 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's pretend a bunch of lazy conspiracy nuts who have done jack shit aside from ranting into cameras and microphones might maybe have the same credibility as PH.D toting scientists and experienced investigators. Because apparently one side who has yet to meet a burden of proof cannot simply be wrong. Dumbass. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"this web site repeatedly tries to assert that nobody ever conspired to do anything ever". The article does acknowledge that al-Qaeda members conspired, if you bothered to actually read it. "The authors of this article don't even appear to realize that that is what the official narrative is: a conspiracy theory." What's your point? It is clear that a group of people conspired to commit the attacks. In fact, it's one of the few things that truthers and everyone else can agree with.

If there's "plenty of evidence for alternative theories" then feel free to present the evidence. CowHouse (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh good, an excuse to post this:"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! --Logos (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

" No rational or intelligent person finds the official version of events to be even close to 100% convincing"

No True Scotsman Fallacy

^{— Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk 07:44, 13 September 2021‎ (UTC)}

Bureaucracy and 9/11[edit]

There would have to be a lot of planning behind what became known as 9/11 - more so if officialdom was involved (and wished to be distanced from the event). Therefore, even if it was referred to in print merely as 'That Project' or some anodyne name, there would be traces in the official records - and what with several changes of political party in office, persons 'investigating' and 'would-be rising politicians looking for something to give them namedrop status' etc at least some traces would have surfaced by now.

And, given how slow and (not) thorough officialdom, jobsworths, nimbyism and red tape can be - 'That Project' would still be working its way through the system. Anna Livia (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please check out these articles[edit]

WTC 7 Evacuation Order[edit]

Years ago on some documentary - probably from the History Channel but I can't remember - they claimed that an unknown person ordered the evacuation of WTC 7 and saved a lot of lives.

Is this person still unidentified? It's very difficult to ask questions about 9/11 without Truthers^TM getting involved and ruining everything, and as we can see even RationalWiki isn't immune from this. --Vital Forces (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Read a 9/11 conspiracy theory book[edit]

I read a 300-page book 'Hijacking America's mind over 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence'. Of course, as a true RationalWikian I was not convinced. It contained many claims not mentioned here. Some are: (1) The Aircraft were not recognized. (Flight no. only denotes a route). (2) The Aircraft were flying past crash time. (3) Most callers showed exceptional calm. --Teerthaloke101 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I also a link for it. https://www.scribd.com/document/387104686/elias-davidsson-hijacking-americas-mind-2013-pdf --Teerthaloke101 (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Flight 93 interception[edit]

It is stated that two F16 fighters could not shoot down flight 93 because they were unarmed with missiles. The only alternative was ramming which did not happen because both aircraft returned to base. However, an F16 is armed with a cannon. Two F16s flown by competent pilots should have little trouble shooting down an airliner with their cannons. Whether the aircraft cannon magazines were loaded requires consideration. A claim that the aircraft were unarmed should reference sources regarding missiles and cannon. If sources are unavailable it is not possible absolutely claim the F16s did not shoot down the aircraft. The preponderance of other evidence may well suggest the combined actions of passengers and terrorists either definitely or most likely caused the aircraft to crash. This section requires rewriting to clarify the evidence, inference and conclusion. ^{— Unsigned, by: 8.38.147.159 / talk / contribs}

Building 7 and the University of Alaska study[edit]

So we have this four-year inquiry from University of Alaska, Fairbanks, into the destruction of WTC 7, ~126-page report, which concludes:

“fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse” and “the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building” (Hulsey, Quan, and Xiao, 2019: 2). http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 ^{— Unsigned, by: 8.38.147.159 / talk / contribs}

Comment[edit]

The University of Alaska study provisionally concluded a global failure of the building’s structure caused the collapse not fire. The comment period closed on 15 November 2019. The final report is expected soon.

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

The final report came out, you can read the conclusions from the dedicated section or from the abstract:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

Conclusion section:

It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building.

Above I have pasted verbatim from therein. ^{— Unsigned, by: 5.13.170.254 / talk / contribs}

So, a brief dig into the cited paper reveals it to be at the behest and sponsorship of the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth", a group that Wikipedia refers to as "promoting the conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was destroyed in a controlled demolition, disputing accepted conclusions around the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as FEMA's "WTC Building Performance Study" and instead advocates for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities." I think we can safely dismiss it. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Not even Wikipedia (hat-tip: GrammarCommie) wants to consider it. --It's-a me,

🎄Lefty Green Mario!🎄 22:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)