Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Untitled

Old talk archived at:

Reversion of talk pages?

By the way, where do we discuss reversion of talk pages? We need talk talk pages I guess, with SheikYerBooty around lumping all these sections back into one long ramble. Going to be hell to pay when it comes time to archive, it's much easier to rename the sections rather than delete them and inevitably have to add them back in later. Measure once and cut twice, SheikYerBooty, that's what my dad always told me. - Plautus satire 05:44, 26 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)

Plautus, I've removed the intentionally disruptive and misleading section headings that you gratuitously inserted into the middle of other users' responses. Your constant manipulation of talk pages make it's very difficult for interested observers and participants to follow the discussion. --SheikYerBooty 05:37, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

SheikYerBooty, are you for real? Is there a person back there or are you on autopilot? - Plautus satire 05:46, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's surname

"bin Laden" is indeed Osama's family name (or patronym, more precisely): it means "son of Laden". His full name is Osama bin Mohammed bin Laden (Mohammed is his father's name, Laden is his grandfather's, from whom the rest of his family take their last name). See http://www.arab.net/arabnames/ for more info on the Arab naming conventions and http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp for how it applies to OBL specifically. -- ChrisO 10:17, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No. See: Osama bin Laden.

"Strictly speaking, under the Arabic naming convention, it is incorrect to use "bin Laden" as though it was a Western surname. His full name means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of Laden". However, the Bin Laden family (or Binladin as they prefer to be known) generally use the name as a surname, in the Western style. The family company is known as Binladin Brothers for Contracting and Industry and is one of the largest corporations in Saudi Arabia. For this reason, although the Arabic convention would be to refer to him either as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden," using "bin Laden" is in accordance with the family's own usage of the name and is the near-universal convention in Western references to him." WhisperToMe 17:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Umm. Check the history - I wrote that, after some more research on the issue... -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Someone just added a section on 9/11 as war crimes. I would have thought that the reason several countries enacted specific anti-terrorism laws was that this wasn't a matter of war crimes. Anyone know how international law applies to this? Rmhermen 13:49, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

That is a very good question. The answer isn't at all clear, principally because there are so few precedents. There's an interesting article at http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-November/006708.html which discusses some of the issues. I suspect that it probably would count as a war crime (one can envisage crimes against humanity) being a possible charge) but there are many political issues bound up in this as well. -- ChrisO 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would assume that one reason the war crimes issue has not been highlighted is that there was no obvious state actor to bring to trial. I would venture another is that the public mind is not directed toward the concept of war crimes being committed against a major power, as evidenced by the lack of UN resolutions, etc., declaring it a war crime. Consider also the possibility that without an obvious state actor, many people do not consider this a war. Cecropia 15:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes charges do not necessarily have to be leveled against a state actor. The majority of those charged by the Yugoslav war crimes tribunals have been non-state actors - the Bosnian Serbs and Croats, the Croatian Serbs and the Kosovo Albanians have all been non-state actors, as have the Serbian paramilitaries. An even more obvious example of this involves the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, which the International Criminal Court is now investigating for war crimes following a request from the Ugandan government [1]. As far as I know, any person or group is capable of being charged. I don't think a state can collectively be charged - the governments of Serbia, Croatia, Germany and Japan were not charged as entities in their respective war crimes tribunals.

With regard to war crimes being committed against major powers, that was a large part of the Nuremburg and Tokyo war trials. It's been rather overshadowed by the issue of the Holocaust, but one of the chief issues of both trials was that of illegal attacks on other countries (Poland, Russia, the US etc). There were also trials for war crimes committed against individual soldiers of the major powers (principally killings of prisoners by German and Japanese forces). -- ChrisO 17:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I was examining why the public (and worse, the media, who have not bothered to educate themselves on laws of war during wartime) does not view 9/11 as a war crime. Some are aruging it was a "crime against humanity." This is correct—it was a "crime against humanity" which also involved identifable war crimes. Cecropia 17:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

War crimes don't presuppose a state actor, but they do presuppose a war. The section is legally nonsensical (and that's before we start on the grammar). Markalexander100 03:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In what sense is the section "legally nonsensical"? It is a war and specific sections of valid international law are quoted. Cecropia 04:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"It is a war" What is a war? There's a fairly major difference between an act of war and an act of terrorism. This was the latter. Markalexander100 05:07, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hague III refers to the commencement of hostilities requiring a declaration of war (either immediate or conditional). The lack of declaration doesn't make it not a war, the fact of the lack of declaration may make the commencement a violation of the laws of war, and may have some effect in the domestic legal status of one or both of the belligerents. In the case of the WTC bombing, the war once the first building of the WTC was hit. The belligerants in the war are the United States of America and Al Queda and its allies. Cecropia 06:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(Unindenting, for readability). Declaration or otherwise is a separate issue (see below). Merriam Webster: "war: a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". Or try the UN: "Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime". Take your pick- terrorism or war crime? Markalexander100 06:06, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For those who didn't follow the link (Terrorism = Peacetime War Crime) that was a proposed short definition in 1992 that doesn't carry the weight of either law or agreement. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And in black and white:

Fourth Geneva Convention, article 2: "the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them"

Annex to the Hague convention, article 2: "The provisions contained in the Regulations referred to in Article 1, as well as in the present Convention, do not apply except between Contracting powers".

Unsurprisingly, Al Quaeda is not a party to either treaty. Markalexander100 08:22, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your point is good so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough if you are implying (1) that terrorism vs. war crimes is an either/or proposition or that (2) that since al Queda is not a signatory of Geneva or Hague, ir is not guilty of war crimes vis a vis WTC.

I've made the point here (I think) and in other related articles that terrorism is not a thing in itself so much as a tactic in war, a point made just yesterday (23 March 2004) by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie S. Gorelick (former deputy attorney general in the Clinton Administration) who said "[...]terrorism is a tool. It is not an enemy in itself; it's a tool."

Al Queda not being a signatory to any of the laws of war does not render it immune from the consequences of being a belligerent and its conduct as such. It's true that they are not bound by Geneva and Hague, but if they refuse to agree to adhere to those conventions (which they can do without being signatories) they lose all of the protections of those conventions. By attacking a signatory nation, they are defenseless to law of war remedies. The attacked signatory nation is still entitled to treat them in accordance with the provisions of Geneva and Hague. In short, if they bomb civilian targets (like the WTC) they cannot avoid retaliations, military tribunals and other remedies prescribed by the laws of war by saying "well, we can do those things (but you can't) because we don't agree to the law." This is part of what Guantanamo is all about. You can't fail to meet the requirements of lawful combatants in the Conventions and then say, "you have to give us all the rights of Prisoners of War."

As an aside, it is even arguable that al Queda and other groups can fully claim they are non-signatories, because the nations that harbor them almost always are. Put another way, if the US and Britain were to decide to outsource their war making powers to an NGO contract organization, that would not free either power from the position of belligerent, nor allow the NGO organization to avoid the consequences of violating the wars of law. Cecropia 15:14, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No- look further down in article 2 (Geneva 4): "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." In other words, a signatory need only follow the convention against a non-signatory if the non-signatory voluntarily follows it (the Guantanamo point); AQ certainly hasn't followed it, but the corollary is simply that the US is not bound by the convention regarding AQ, not that AQ is bound. Trust me, I'm a lawyer. ;) Markalexander100 01:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, counselor, I think you're going to have to explain the fine points to your "expert witness," because I don't see where we're disagreeing. Don't both our arguments boil down to "AQ can't benefit from Geneva unless they adhere to it, signatory or not"? Cecropia 03:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly they can't benefit from it- that's the Guantanamo point. But not benefiting from a treaty is not the same as being liable under it. AQ is not a party to the treaty. Therefore the treaty imposes no obligations on it. This is a basic principle of international law: a treaty between countries A and B can't impose duties on country C (or even group of homicidal fanatics C). September 11 was many things, but a war crime under Geneva 4 or Hague it was not. Markalexander100 05:34, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This somehow reminds me of an old Bob & Ray routine where they do a piece on a criminal, and then at the end a voice sums up: "Louie the Lump was convicted of two counts of murder, but since murder is not illegal under California Statutes, he was released."

That is, I see your point, but it is would be more accurate to say that September 11 did involve war crimes as defined under Geneva and Hague, but that the perpetrators cannot be directly punished under the Conventions since they are not bound by them, but they (meaning their superiors and protectors, obviously, since the immediate perpetrators are dead) are still liable to severe punishment (including death or reprisal) without the aggrieved power being in violation of international law. To not note this in a layman's encyclopedia is to leave hanging the implication that not being parties to the written laws of war immunizes a non-signatory from liability. Cecropia 06:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We may be in sight of some sort of agreement! How about: "The September 11 attacks would have been war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibit X Y and Z. However, because AQ is not a party to these conventions, criminal liability falls to be determined under US domestic law rather than international law". Markalexander100 06:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I would word it a little differently, which I will explain anon:

"The September 11 attacks would have involved a number of war crimes if they had been carried out by a party to the Hague Convention and Fourth Geneva Convention. However, because [AQ] is not a party to these conventions, liability and punishment falls to be determined under appropriate US law rather than international law".

I used "number of war crimes" to indicate specificity, rather than just say "it was a war crime." This is especially true because certain of the crimes apply to both Pentagon and WTC (the killing of the civilians on the planes) but others only to WTC (Pentagon is a legitimate military target, WTC was not). I reworded the US law section to remove the implication that this becomes a straightforward criminal matter that must be pursued according to criminal law in civilian jurisdiction. I would definitely keep the specific citations of Geneva and Hague, so people know some of the war crimes we're talking about.

As an aside, perhaps an important aside, neither of our wordings deal with the issue of War by Proxy, insofar as al Queda is supported, protected and funded by, and represents the interests of, powers who are signatory to the Conventions. These include most of the states that provide one or another type of support to organizations like al Queda. Even if their attitude is merely permissive ("we don't support them, they're merely on our territory") they risk their standing as neutral nations. Remember Uruguay and the Graf Spee. Cecropia 06:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've put that wording in. The possible connections between AQ and various states (Saudi Arabia? Pakistan?) are very shadowy; I doubt there's much we can usefully say about it. As far as I know, the US government didn't even accuse Afghanistan of having an active part in the plot. Let's save that one for another day. Markalexander100 07:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, now we can put it to bed! :) Cecropia 07:54, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed the point about no declaration of war from the war crimes section and I thought I should justify this. The list is stated to be a partial, easily justifiable, non-complete list of war crimes that could be charged over 9/11. In keeping with this I thought it important to remove anything that could be easily argued against. The statments attributed to OBL in the articles from date prior to September 2001 clearly say that his organization is fighting against the US, this in effect a declaration of war. Yes I accept that it isn't a formal decrlaration of war, but Al Qadeir (spelling?) are not a true state actor and can't really enter into standard formal declarations. Anyway I thought it better not to include an arguable point in a partial list Steven jones 05:45, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The form of a declaration of war is proposed but not mandatory, usually along the lines of "The Republic of Ruritania declares that, as of 1200 hours, 17 January 2004, a state of war exists between the Republic and the Kingdom of Blatting." However, this specific wording is not required, but what is required is "that hostilities between [the parties] must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war." Did Omasa provide that? "explicit warning"? "clear and reasoned"? Can you point me to any published reference? TIA, Cecropia 06:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No I can't, but I haven't looked and IANAL (not to mention that I can't speak Arabic, which I presume would be the language any declaration would be made in), so I'm not even sure I would be definatively state a declaration was made even if I saw it, also others (meelar later on this page), seem to believe there was one. Which is the real reason I made the mod. When the list, by its own definition is an "incomplete compilation", why weaken it with arguably false claims Steven jones 08:28, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I accept that the issue of whether there was a valid declaration of war is debatable, but I'm curious as to what form it might have taken. "previous and explicit warning" and "reasoned declaration" mean that the declaration must be in some form that your intended enemy knows what you intend to do. Does a comment in a TV interview that "we will destroy America", especially if not in a language readily understandable to be US do it? Would a picture postcard "Dear US imperialist. We're going to use all means to destroy you. Kind regards, the 433rd Anti-American Brigade (Provisional)"? It's an interesting, if perhaps academic subject, but you could see some possible consequences. That is, was there a declaration before the 1993 bombing of the WTC? If the U.S. believed the declaration, and that a state of war existed, it might not have tried the case as a criminal issue in open court, and susbequent history might have been different. Cecropia 14:05, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is there any claim by al-quaeda that they attacked the towers? Any evidence or judgement that they did? It seems to me that this is an assumption that was not established as fact. am I wrong?Pedant 02:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Over times there have been multiple claims from individuals in al Queda (included UBL) alluding to responsibility for 9/11. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:25, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why on 9/11?

Looking at recent edits, I think too much meaning is being placed on "Why 9/11"? Especially remember that, in most of the world, 9/11/2001 is 11.9.2001. I think that is true in Saudi Arabia, country of most of the hijackers, even assuming that would run to the common calendar rather than the Arabic one for arcane meaning.

In most parts of Europe it is written as 11-9-2001. Either way, since the / is not smart for use in URLs, I would choose 9-11 as the better notation. Julius 17:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As to the issue of rescue personnel, New York had plenty on hand--look how many were on the scene to die in such a short time after the first plane hit.

I remember the day well, living in New York. It was a clear day, perfect for minimally experienced pilots to navigate to and hit the towers. If the day had been overcast (especially since the tops of the towers were often shrouded in fog or clouds) they may have had to pick a different day. This is not my original theory, but it makes sense. Cecropia 23:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, the fact that some of the rescue vehicles were out of town was one of the theories. I guess there could have been more vehicles or something? Mabye its the absence of the type of vehicles required for skyscrapers? Perl 23:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I really doubt that. NYC has a HUGE emergency service department and they wouldn't send a significant number of any emergency vehicles out of town. The real problem (emergency services-wise) is that, above a certain floor level, you can't do anything from the outside of skyscrapers. That's why NYC firefighters are required to be so fit. Tapes of radio transmissions from the FDNY in the building showed that some of the firefighters actually made it to one of the floors (I think in Tower Two) where one of the planes hit--running up 60-odd flights of stairs. Cecropia 00:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that "theory"? We're an encyclopedia, not a rumor column. Let's only keep theories that are verifiable in established primary or secondary sources. Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi,

9/11 was a week after the end of congress' summer holiday. Therefore, most of the congressmen and US senators were in the Capitole. And the 4th plane was suposed to be crashed on that monument. I think that's an explanation given by the 9/11 comission.

Possible misidentification of victims

Please justify removal of this paragraph:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [2]. As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that many of the men identified as suicide hijackers were still alive and may have been victims of identity theft [3]. Although FBI director Robert Mueller did initially acknowlege that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt [4], the FBI still identifies them by the names they were using at the time

Newer version:

Almost immediately after the demolition of the World Trade Center, the FBI released the names of nineteen men it claimed had been on the planes used in the coordinated attack [5].

As early as September 17, 2001, reports began to surface that the indentities of at least four of the men identified as suicide hijackers were in doubt. The Telegraph of the UK was the first to interview four men whose personal details, including place and date of birth, name, and occupation, were listed on the FBI's list of hijackers. [6] [7]

This entire passage was put there by Plautus Satire (now banned for a year by the way) as part of some sort of implication that at least some of the Sep 11 hijackers were still alive and there was some kind of FBI conspiracy in which false names were knowingly sent out by the FBI - or something like that anyway. It is a bit hard to follow exactly what he was trying to say, but its reliability and neutrality must be held in doubt. Once again, we can do without that kind of POV thing in this article. Period.

Putting this aside, there is the question of relevancy. What we have listed here is a stage in FBI investigations that took place after the events of the day, in which it was established that some of the hijackers had suspect IDs. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not really relevant to an area that gives earlier revelations as to what organisation was behind the attacks. The newer version quoted above is certainly better, but the irrelevancy remains. Perhaps this should go to the Sep 11 timelines.

Actually, the whole "earlier revelations" bit does bother me, because it reads more like a subjective "it was America's fault!" essay than a NPOV account of evidence uncovered and statements issued as to who was behind the attacks. But my main problem is just that first paragraph.

BTW, I'm also puzzled about this section's title- the hijackers were victims?? How does that make sense? Arno 10:11, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Deleting terrorist

I'm surprised at KingTurtle, an admin, removing the word "terrorist" from the description of the 9/11 attacks as POV. I don't even think the terrorists themselves think the attacks (at least the 3000 non-combtanat civilians killed in the WTC attack) weren't terror attacks. What were they then. If these attacks aren't terrorist we should simply delete the entry under terrorism in Wikipedia, and give it a REDIRECT to newspeak. Cecropia 00:28, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I totally support your revert. If premeditated mass murder of innocent civilians isn't terrorism, nothing is. You are correct that Al Qaeda itself views 9/11 as terrorism-- a somehow justified terrorism. If KingTurtle wants to join them in sanctioning it he is free to do so, but he shouldn't turn language upside down in the process. JDG 02:11, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The word terrorist was removed from the title of this article and it should be removed from the first paragraph of the article as well. The word terrorist is POV, IMHO. You ask me what were they then and my reply is they were attacks. Why do we need any adjective in front of the word "attacks"? The people working on the terrorism article can't come up with an easy definition of the term. The word is loaded with meanings and submeanings. Kingturtle 02:30, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Therefore you think that maybe they weren't terrorist attacks? The fact isn't POV, only the label is. So you think a NPOV encyclopedia should avoid an obvious truth that some consider controversial—that's a POV in itself. For that matter calling it a "suicide" attack is POV and politically freighted. Death to the perpetrators was an "effect", not a motivation, as is true suicide. Why not call them a "homicide" attack as some do? As I said, newspeak. Cecropia 02:54, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, this is precisely the nonsense that I feared. Terrorist is not some evil word not be to be uttered, and it mist be used in the articl. Arno 06:14, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Placing a value-judgement adjective in front of a noun does not represent an obvious truth. There is no reason to place such an adjective. You won't believe it, but calling any attack a terrorist attack is newspeak. When asked why he supported the terrorist attacks of the Contras, Ronald Reagan said they weren't terrorists, they were freedom fighters. So we get to pick and choose which is which, depending on what side they are on. As I said, our fellow wikipedians cannot even come up with a fair definition on terrorism. I'd rather call this article 9/11 - IMHO that is the most NPOV title we could have. Kingturtle 06:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

News Headline: 3,000 KILLED BY NUMBER! Cecropia 07:08, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's all you have to say? No comments about value-judgments encased in some words? No comments about why an adjective must or must not be placed in front of the noun? No comments about Reagan's doublespeak - a doublespeak that supports the idea that the term terrorism is POV? No comment about the difficulty in defining the word terrorism? Kingturtle 07:20, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Spot on Cecropia - unlike KingTurtle PMA 07:11, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

The only real issue is this: does any substantial number of people not consider these attacks terrorist? I strongly suspect not. Thus it is not a violation of our NPOV policy to characterize something as being part of a category when that fact is not seriously disputed. The name issue was a separate matter - the word simply is not used commonly enough in the title of the event for us to use it. It was not removed because it was "POV." It is also an absurd notion to think that titles are anything but POV since one and only one term can be used as the main title of any topic. --mav

Fair points. Kingturtle 18:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I had some satiric fun at your expensive, Kingturtle, but I have a hard time resisting a good straight line. Nevertheless, it made my point, which point was elucidated very nicely be mav—at some point, by avoiding a correct and commonly understood usage, it become more POV to avoid the term than use it.

That's ok. we all need a good laugh :) Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

However, I beg you look at the opening definition I have proposed at terrorism/draft. You see, terrorism is not an end in itself (unless you're psychotic, perhaps); it is a tactic in warfare. "Terrorist" is not an occupation (unless you're strictly a mercenary, and not many terrorists seem to be); it is a tactic, a method of warfare that is proscribed by the laws of war—it is this recognition that causes those who practice to the craft to tend to take one of two rhetoric tacks: (1) to redefine themselves: "i'm not a terrorist; i'm a freedom fighter" or to redefine the term: "maybe i'm a terrorist, but you're one too, so we're even." Either way, it doesn't alter the definition of the term.

One other point, though: the fact that you bring up "Reagan's doublespeak" certainly implies that you feel that the Contras were terrorists but that Reagan was lying by calling them "freedom fighters." A fair enough observation. I wouldn't use Ronald Reagan as my standard for political word definition and I imagine you don't either. Let me propose another point. Given my assertion that terrorism is a tactic not an end in itself, could you consider that (balancing the poles of the political spectrum) that the Contras on one hand, and the PLO on the other hand, could be both freedom fighters and terrorists? One is the goal, the other the method. Cecropia 19:03, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My point about Reagan is that langauge can be used to paint the exact same action as terrorism or as not terrorism. Same action+different POV = different words used to describe the actions. Depending on one's personal politics, the Contras were terrorists or they were freedom fighters; the PLO were terrorists or they were freedom fighters. Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? That's the trouble with using only one of the words. Potentially, we could call September 11, 2001 attacks Jihad attacks, Kamikaze attacks, suicide attacks, terrorist attacks, Al-Qaida attacks, etc. etc. I look forward to reading the terrorism/draft. Kingturtle 23:24, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, 3 years ago I would have agreed with you that terrorism is a tactic, and that therefore the word terrorist should be used here to describe 9/11.

However I support Kingturtle: we should not use terrorist here, especially in a prominent place such as title or introduction. The reason is that since 9/11, terrorism and the "War on Terror" have been used by all kinds of politicians and governments (esp. the US government and its allies) to get support for policies for which it would normally have been very difficult to obtain popular support , e.g. Iraq was supposedly invaded to combat terrorists, the Russians devastated Chechnya in the name of fighting terrorism, China re-defined Falun Gong as terrorist, the government of Burma feels free to kill KNU oppisitionists because it classifies them as terrorist. The result of all this propaganda is that the meaning of the word terrorist has slightly changed. To call someone or something terrorist is to make a moral judgment: to label it as "wrong", "evil", to delegitimise.

Like the vast majority of people everywhere, I think that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist and morally wrong. But: Wikipedia is not there to make moral judgements or to tell right from wrong, it is there to inform people - and leave them to make up their own mind.

We must be careful about how language is used at Wikipedia: do we use it as a tool to communicate knowledge in accordance to Wikipedia's NPOV ideal ; or do we use it as a tool for spreading particular points of view. pir 00:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, Pir, yet we can separate out at least some acts under the kind of definition we are (hopefully) working toward in terrorism/draft. I have to return to the point that 9/11 were the quintessential terrorist attacks. Since you see terrorist as a label of "wrong", "evil" and "delegitimizing"; you need to look at the issue before us. If you are arguing that the use of treachery to hijack civilian planes to murder some 3,000 innocent men, women and children having their morning coffee isn't "wrong" and "evil", what is? Do you feel that it is a legitimate war tactic? Virtually every international treaty and convention (and UN resolution) for 150-odd years says it isn't. If we can't use the word "terrorism" for the bulk of the deaths on 9/11 (possible exception that the pentagon is a legitimate war target) than we should be work to eliminate the word in every article in Wikipedia. Cecropia 04:11, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I don't think you really understood me. Compare the following:

The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.

The September 11, 2001 attacks [...] were a series of coordinated suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in the United States on 11 September 2001. The attacks involved the hijacking of four commercial airliners. With some 90,000 liters (nearly 24,000 U.S. gallons) of jet fuel aboard, the aircraft were used as flying bombs. [...] In addition to the loss of nearly 3,000 lives, a number of important buildings were destroyed or severely damaged.

The word terrorist doesn't add one bit of information. No reader will have any doubts about their terrorist nature (unless they support the goals and methods of al-Qaeda). The difference between terrorist and non-terrorist uses of violence is that terrorist ones are illegitimate. To call 9/11 involves making a moral judgement.

Of course I think that 9/11 was terrorist - and that it was therefore illegitimate and criminal. But I think the same is true of Hiroshima and Dresden and many Western-supported counter-insurgency operations - a view many here will disagree with. In fact I think Hiroshima was very much a "quintessential" terrorist attack, much more so than 9/11.

My point is that it is not for us at Wikipedia to tell readers that 9/11 or Hiroshima or Dresden were "wrong" and "evil" and "illegal" - it is to provide facts and report various views of these facts, so that the reader is in a position to make his/her moral judgements themselves. Wikipedia ought to be a source of objective knowledge, not a moral authority ; an encyclopedia, not a bible.

That is not to say that the word "terrorist" should be banned from Wikipedia - we only need to specify who thinks that a particular attack is "terrorist", and who thinks it is not. This would be far more elucidating and informative anyway. pir 21:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

International treaties are craftily written so that terrorist acts performed by nation-states are not covered under their definition of terrorism. If 9/11 was a terrorist attack, then wasn't the My Lai Massacre a terrorist attack? Shouldn't it be called the My Lai terrorist attack? What about dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima? Wasn't that a military tactic used in warfare that targeted civilian populations in a manner prohibited by the laws of war? The laws of war stipulate protecting noncombatants from unnecessary suffering. Wasn't its purpose to force Japan to terms favorable to the U.S. by creating fear and demoralization among civilian population in Japan? How many 1,000s of innocent men, women, and children were killed that day? See, the way the rules are written for terrorism, nation-states don't feel their acts fall under terrorism. What about the Bombing of Dresden in World War II? Kingturtle 04:56, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Read my points above again please. --mav

"Craftily written" shows an inappropriate reading of the origins of the laws of war. You are implying that the central issues of laws of war were to enable big powers to dictate that what they do is fine, but what irregular forces do is prohibited. Hardly. You are trying to fit centuries of historical precedent into a jaundiced 2004 view. The laws of war were written when terrorism in the modern sense did not exist as an important factor in determining methods of warfare; rather they were written as agreements of what was fair and what was not in order to reduce (though not eliminate, obviously) the horrors of warfare (especially toward non-combatants) by reducing the instances of horrible retaliation.

As to your specific examples?

My Lai? Almost certainly a war crime, possibly a terrorist act. If Calley was carrying out orders to massacre civilians, both he and the government committed a war crime. If he didn't act under orders, he and his men who participated were guilty of war crimes.

Hiroshima? The answer turns on at least three issues: (1) depending on whether Japan was using the civilian areas for military purposes; (2) whether the act was proportional to the military objective gained; and (3) the often-ignored point that Japan foreswore the rules of combat at the beginning of the war, and carried out that decision ruthlessly, placing them at risk for retaliation that is otherwise prohibited. Answer: Maybe.

Dresden? I'm not completely familiar with all the aspects of the action, but my gut feeling is almost certainly terrorism, but problematic as to it's being officially so in a prosecutorial sense because under the rules of retaliation we have to consider whether or not it was an appropriate and proportional retaliation for the extensive and intentional V2 bombing of civilian populations in London and other English locations. So my answer here is also probably as to its being terrorism, but probably not actionable as such under international law.

So what have we proven? I think you're too hung up on the word "terrorism." And of your three examples, only My Lai potentially fits your implication that rules of war are written to favor state actors over non-state actors. Both Japan and Germany were state actors, in spades.

But I hope I have demonstrated to you that, by addressing your three examples, terrorism can be defined without necessarily prejudicing the result by sympathy to the parties. And I have to return to the question: do you favor expunging all references to terrorism in this article and every article in Wikipedia? Do you think this is NPOV or serves the reader? Is it shocking to consider that Wikipedia is ultimately a resource for the reader rather than a playground for the editor? Cecropia 06:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In answer to your edit summary, bin Laden actually did declare war against the U.S. in a TV interview in 1997. He actually used that exact phrase. Meelar 06:17, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

APPENDIX

Further speculation and studies of September 11, 2001 attacks:

A few key contemporary/historical terms and concerns:

- U.S. Government support of Al-Quaeda in the Balkans - U.S., Brittish, and Saudi Oil companies and Bin Laden - Anti-Israeli/American Movements (such as Black September / Abu Nidal which date back decades) - March 11, 2004 Spanish Attack - Mysterious death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone following September 11. - Significance of the language barrier in U.S. anti-terrorist intelligence. - Credible experts in related fields:

John Wolfsthal Joseph Wilson John Hamre James Woolsey Anthony Cordesman Robert Baer Rachel Bronson

Speculative research: http://whitecloud.com/wag_the_dog.htm#Did bin Laden have help from U.S. friends

I think that belongs more in the conspiracy theories section. --Rei

Please read the articles before you discount them as conspiracies. The Jean-Charles Brisard book is internationally acclaimed, and utilized heavy factual documentation as supporting evidence for reasonable speculation. This is not UFO type stuff.

Symbolic meaning of 9/11

Is the symbolic meaning of 9/11 discussed anywhere in Wikipedia? Obviously, mass killing was not the only purpose of the perpetrators. What they attacked were symbols of America's economic (WTC) and military (Pentagon) dominance (they probably also wanted to hit the White House - symbol of America's political power).
--Kpalion 15:45, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

20 hijackers?

The article says "There were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I know of no evidence that this is the case. Can this be verified? Quadell 02:31, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Zacarias Moussaoui and Ramzi Binalshibh ;) WhisperToMe 03:59, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you count them both, that's 21, not 20. I've seen accustations of more participants (including actions that never happened, because planes were grounded), so maybe there were 30. Or 50. Or maybe every suspected al qaida member living in the US should be a suspect, so there are at least 1,000 or so suspected hijackers. Point being that being accused of being a hijacker is not the same as evidence that there were actual plans to have 20 hijackers. Ronabop 05:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ronabop, the U.S. Government asserts that Binalshibh was at first the "20th hijacker", but could not take that title as he could not enter the U.S. on his Yemeni visa. So, they got another guy, Moussaoui, to be the "20th hijacker", but he got arrested shortly before 9/11. WhisperToMe 12:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe: the U.S. Government no longer asserts that. [News24.com] The FBI asserts that Moussaoui "played no part in the 9/11 scheme and was only a minor player in al-Qaeda."

Please note: the above News24 reference does not contradict this article. Al-Qaeda had decided that Moussaoui was to be kept out due to unsuitability. Therefore, he was always a minor player in the Sep 11 story. Arno 10:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the phrase "twentieth hijacker", what I mean is, I've heard it often asserted that there were to be a fifth hijacker on the fourth plane, bringing the total to twenty. But I've never heard any support for this claim besides the tenuous "Well, there were five on the others. . ." That seems a pretty weak rationale for the dramatic assertion that there is a would-be 9/11 hijacker that got away.

(This is wholly separate from the suggestion that other planes were to be hijacked. There are unconfirmed reports that other hijackings were prevented by flight delays or the flight ban. The UK even reported that hijackers were going to crash a plane into Big Ben, but were stopped, although no evidence of this was offered.)

Zacarias Moussaoui was in contact with the 9/11 hijackers, and considers himself a member of al-Qaeda, but there is no evidence (that I know of) that he was ever slated to be a 9/11 hijacker. The Justice Department no longer contends he was ever a "twentieth hijacker".

Ramzi Binalshibh may have also been a "twentieth hijacker", but again, I know of no evidence. It seems to me equally likely that al-Qaeda planned to have six hijackers per plane, and five were prevented -- or that al-Qaeda simply wanted to have at least four per plane, and divided their resources semi-equally. I don't think "twenty" is a magic number to anyone except the pundits. Speaking of "the role of the 20th hijacker" is just speculation.

I therefore suggest that the following paragraph:

There were early plans to have 20 hijackers, but the final list always did consist of 19 hijackers. Binalshibh was meant to be the 20th, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability.

. . .be replaced with:

There are suggestions that original plans may have included additional hijackers and, perhaps, additional planes as well. Ramzi Binalshibh may initially have been selected to be a hijacker in the 9/11 operation, but he was repeatedly denied entry into the US. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

Quadell 14:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion objected to. The revelations are as reported by Yosri Fouda , who has a lot of research on Al-Qaeda. I suggest that you read "Masterminds of Terror", by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, or do some google searching (eg this page or this one).

The sources - what the terrorists said - also appear at the top of the passage , that you're disputing, as terrorist admissions. This change that you want means that you are in effect misquoting them. What the terrorists have stated to is first hand stuff. Arno 09:03, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Can we change the second sentence to be "may have been intended to be a hijacker". How you propose wording it, it sound like he may have been on the planes. Steven jones 02:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Right-o. Done. Quadell 12:55, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be links to our Propaganda wikipedia entry? Consider the terms "misinformation", and "disinformation". These two terms came into full bloom during and following the 911 fiasco. Given that we will not know what happened for decades if ever, we should allow for dicussion of conflicting information.

Objections to reversion

Part 1

Recently I suggested replacing one paragraph with another. A few days later, when no one had yet objected, I made the change. Afterwards, Arno objected and reverted it. The two paragraphs, before and after, are above.

As I see it, there are still inaccuracies in the paragraph as it now stands, and I think they ought to be fixed.

First of all, Arno directed me to the following fascinating article. It reveals that Binalshibh was selected to be a pilot, but that he couldn't get into the U.S. and had to be replaced. Only afterwards were the other hijackers selected. The article doesn't support the notion that "there were early plans to have 20 hijackers". I suspect the "20 highjackers" idea is an invention by the press. I don't know of any evidence that al-Qaeda considered 20 to be better than 19 or 21. So I'd recommend references to "the role of 20th hijacker" be removed.

Second, the paragraph as it now stands baldly states "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker, but plans to include him were never finalized, as the al-Qaeda hierarchy had doubts about his reliability." That doesn't seem to be the case. I know of no evidence that Moussaoui was involved in any way with 9/11. The FBI no longer asserts Moussaoui was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Why is it stated as a fact?

I'd recommend replacing the paragraph with something factual we can agree on. And I'd recommend that no one unilaterally revert it afterwards.

Here's my suggestion:

Senior al-Qaeda officials have revealed that an additional pilot, Ramzi Binalshibh, was originally intended to take part in the attacks. When he was repeatedly denied entry into the US, a replacement pilot was found. Zacarias Moussaoui was previously considered to be an attempted 9/11 hijacker, but the Justice department no longer believes he was involved with this plot. (source) There is additional sketchy evidence that other planes may have been targetted for hijacking, but no solid evidence has emerged.

What does everyone think? Can this be improved?

Quadell 16:55, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better than what is there currently. Mdchachi 18:24, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is better then what is currently there but I would remove the last sentence. I think rumours should go in the 911 rumour article, not in this one. Steven jones 02:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Part 2

I say that this paragraph is wrong, period, and it's best improved by getting rid of it.

What was said originally was based on al-Jazeera interviews and what was released by US authorities.

As regards Moussaoui, the terrorists stated that he was considered as the 20th hijacker and even trained for it. He was linked to the terrorist cells that carried out the Sep 11 attacks. But he was never made part of the plot because he was considered unsuitable( too clumsy, apparently). See Chapter 9 of the book I mentioned above, or try this recent article for an account dated April 15, as opposed to the News24 article which is dated October last year. Also, try this April 14 article as a second source about the FBI and Moussaoui. They tie Moussaoui in with the Sep 11 plot, albeit dormantly. Also, try this msnbcand this jihad watch article. One hypothesis was that he was going to be part of a series of followup attacks.

At no point did I say that there were 21 hijackers. Ramzi was considered for the 20th. When this fell through, Moussaoui was considered but never included. Period.

The article also says that Khalid originally wanted to use ten planes (five each) on the US east and west coasts, but that this got cancelled very early on. The Washington Post article supports this. So do this Australian article and this one.

All this is also supported in an interrogation report that admittedly I have not seen.

Sources enough, I think, to justify my move that this whole attempt at rewording this paragraph on the grounds given was ill-advised.

On another note, you lodged your proposal during Easter , when I was away on wikivacation. I suspect that others were, too. Hence the delay in responding to the incorrect statements. Arno 08:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with the paragraph as it stands, is that it doesn't attribute its info. It sounds like the writer of the paragraph was a terrorist and knew exactly what happened. Why not add something like "According to law enforcement officials, Khalid said that..." Mdchachi 13:04, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arno, the news pages you link to are very informative, but they don't support the claim that al-Qaeda ever specifically wanted 20 hijackers, and they don't support the claim that "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". (Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy.}

This isn't anything personal. You obviously know your stuff. But that one paragraph states as fact things that are speculation.

Can we put this to an opinion poll?

Quadell 14:52, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have begun to feel like I am banging my head against a brick wall.

Then stop doing it. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That entire "Recent Statements and Revelations" passage reports "the things that were said to be revealed in [the] interrogations of Khalid and Moussaoui " and from "an exclusive interview with al Jazeera journalist Yosro Fauda in September 2002", to quote from that passage. That was the whole point of that entire passage - to say what these revelations were, rather than to list as Gospel fact. They may not be true, maybe there are inded things missing in what but that is not what the passage says!! If you have followup revelations, or proof that disproves these statements, then I am sure that you will let me know what they are and their sources.

It was alleged. I'd prefer the article say it was alleged, rather than state an allegation as fact.

You seem constantly intent on changing what was said on those occasions, all based on one newstory, one source that has since been superseded. Where does your allegation of "speculation" come into it? Are you trying to say that these things were not said in the al-Jazeera interview or during the interrogation of Khalid and Ramzi???

No, they were said. But that doesn't make them true. Bin Laden also said he wasn't involved in the 9/11 attack. That doesn't make it true.

And this isn't my source vs. your source. The FBI maintains to this day that although Moussaoui knew some of the 9/11 hijackers, and although he was an al-Qaeda member, that he was not involved in the attacks. No one disputes that this is the FBI's position.

I am also at a loss as to your logic on one matter. You agree that Ramzi Binalshibh was supposed to be the 20th hijacker.

No, Binalshibh was supposed to be the 4th pilot. This was before the number of hijackers was decided. There was no attempt to have a 20th hijacker.

The paragraph you are so intent on changing says that the final list consisted of 19 hijackers. Yet you keep saying that this is wrong and that there was no intention to have 20 hijackers!

There are no sources that claim an intention to have 20 hijackers specifically.

You have, I presume, now changed your mind about Moussaoui's links to the Sep 11 terrorists.

This isn't about me. It's about the facts. Moussaoui was linked, in that he knew some of them. He did not, it seems, know about the 9/11 plot specifically. I'm not objecting to Moussaoui being mentioned; I'm objecting to the claim that he was considered for the "role of 20th hijacker", a role that never existed.

However, I see no practical difference between "Binalshibh said Moussaoui was briefly considered as an understudy." and "Zacarias Moussaoui was considered for the role of the 20th hijacker". The idea of his getting involved in followup attacks was news to me - you have at least enlightened me to that - but my sentence allows more leeway.

If there wasn't a role of 20th hijacker, then he couldn't have been considered.

Have a quickpoll? Well, that would be a last resort for me. In view of what I've written above, how necessary is it?

Arno 09:23, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I believe that paragraph in question is substantially inaccurate. But this is getting entirely too personal for my tastes. If other people think that paragraph could be improved or replaced, I'll leave it to someone else to bring up. I'm tired of arguing. Quadell 13:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

War crimes?

Is it appropriate to list what crimes these would have been had the parties committing them been states? They are clearly not states, and I don't think other articles about crimes have equivalent passages saying what kind of war crimes they would have been if the culprets had been parties to the Geneva Conventions? Appreciating the seriousness of the attack, but it does seem pretty irrelevant. Am I way off base here? Mark Richards 21:11, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The list is irrelevant. I suggest we remove that section and (if we feel like something is necessary) give actual legal status of the acts - American and international laws and treaties covering terrorist acts (as of September 2001).Paranoid 16:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Leave the section. It is relevant to the context and understanding of the Acts, and, if it is ever determined that the killers were acting in any way in concert or complicity with any signatory state actor (even *cough* Saudi Arabia), they would be actionable war crimes. Why would you want to remove such incredible potential war crimes in the murder of 3,000 civilians at a time we're alleging every out-of-line act is a "war crime"? -- Cecropia | Talk 17:45, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Update--they are war crimes. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Cecropia, leave the section. It is apparently accurate and very relevant because it points toward an alternative route that could have been taken to deal with this crime against humanity, and that the US also have an interest in maintaining a framework of international law. (as an aside Cecropia, what are you referring to by "every out-of-line act" ?) - pir 19:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I mean detainee maltreatment, though not specifically Abu Graib, which may well be individual war crimes. I am talking about a matter of scope and proportion, rather than the technical meaning of the phrase "war crime," which is actually very broad. Technically, Adolf Eichmann did not commit war crimes when he harmed German Jewish civilians, yet a prison guard who makes a POW do forced labor is. Just the nature of the thing. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

They aren't war crimes.

I realize this has been discussed before, but I disagree with classifying the September 11 attacks as war crimes. In the earlier discussion, at least a mention was made of limiting the statement.

You can't have war crimes without war. The citation used in the article is too general to be applicable. If the war crimes classification has merit, you should be able to find something specific, ideally, to the attacks themselves.

Here is information from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"What does humanitarian law say about terrorism?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/256CFA98B1DCE442C1256CF6002D63F0

"Terrorist acts may occur during armed conflicts or in time of peace. As international humanitarian law applies only in situations of armed conflict, it does not regulate terrorist acts committed in peacetime."

"When is a war not a war?"

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList488/3C2914F52152E565C1256E60005C84C0

"What is the proper role of international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) in the 'war on terror'? Humanitarian law applies in and to armed conflict. Thus, terrorism, and by necessary implication, counter-terrorism, are subject to humanitarian law when, and only when, those activities rise to the level of armed conflict. Otherwise, the standard bodies of domestic and international criminal and human rights laws will apply.

...

"Humanitarian law recognizes two categories of armed conflict - international and non-international. Generally, when a State resorts to force against another State (for example, when the "war on terror" involves such use of force, as in the recent U.S. and allied invasion of Afghanistan) the international law of international armed conflict applies. When the "war on terror" amounts to the use of armed force within a State, between that State and a rebel group, or between rebel groups within the State, the situation may amount to non-international armed conflict a) if hostilities rise to a certain level and/or are protracted beyond what is known as mere internal disturbances or sporadic riots, b) if parties can be defined and identified, c) if the territorial bounds of the conflict can be identified and defined, and d) if the beginning and end of the conflict can be defined and identified. Absent these defining characteristics of either international or non-international armed conflict, humanitarian law is not applicable."

Maurreen 07:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

WTC 7

I removed the following: " In addition, Larry Silvertstein, who held a seven-week-old lease on One and Two World Trade Center, claimed in an interview that he, jointly with the New York Fire Department, made the decision to deliberately demolish Seven World Trade Center, also known as the Solomon Building, which he also owned, and which was then the headquarters of the crisis and disaster command center for the mayor of New York City."

While the popular suject of alternate theories concerning 9-11, this is not an accepted fact. For one, the FEMA report contradicts it. At the very least it cannot go in the article at the top as a fact. Perhaps later in a deeper discussion of both sides. Rmhermen 04:16, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."www.prisonplanet.com/011704wtc7.html]

"This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower."[8]

"Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center complex, stood to gain $500 million, and the federal government gave the order to destroy WTC7 late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001 (InfoWars article). Silverstein's revelation is on the PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds' (MP3 audio file) and a cleanup program for building 6 (MP3 audio file)."[9]www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3]www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3]

"Check out this RealVideo clip from the PBS documentary, "America Rebuilds." In it, Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder on the World Trade Center complex in Manahattan, admits that WTC 7 was "pulled," that is, intentionally demolished:"[10]("UPDATE: Higher-res mpg on another server"[11])

"You can hear Silverstein say this by downloading VestigialConscience.com/PullIt.mp3 - HERE*."[12]

"In addition, we received communications from Mr. Jeremy Baker expressing concern that WTC 7 was in fact purposely demolished by its owner Larry Silverstein at 5:20 p.m. on 911. As evidence, Mr. Baker provides a PBS documentary that was aired on September 2002 titled "America Rebuilds". In the documentary Larry Silverstein is heard saying, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.""[13]

"Mr. Silverstein's comments stand in direct contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMA report. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the very documentary in which they appear; "WTC7 fell after burning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known that the building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey have phrased it that way?"[14]

I'm curious. What makes you say that it's not an established fact? FEMA disagrees? Larry Silverstein said he demolished his own building. If FEMA disagrees perhaps they can explain why Larry Silverstein lied as well. Is Larry Silverstein a liar? Is that your contention? That the FEMA investigation overrules Larry Silverstein's recollections from that day? Energybone 05:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"It is now known that this fire was fuelled by 28,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored underneath the building. Ironically, this fuel was intended to power the emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants."[15]

"The dispute focused on the Seven World Trade Center site investigation, where above-ground diesel tanks were considered a possible source of the raging fire that destroyed the building. The tanks were installed four years ago, over the city Fire Department's objections, to provide emergency power to former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's doomed emergency command center on the 23rd floor."[16]

"The 23rd floor of Building 7 had received 15 million dollars worth of renovations to create an emergency command center for Mayor Rudolf Giuliani. The features of the command center include[17]:

bullet and bomb resistant windows
an independent secure air and water supply
the ability to withstand winds of 160 MPH"

"These renovations were applied only to the 23rd floor."[18][19]

Are you still unwilling to accept the facts? Energybone 05:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to say who says who. That way, we can decide who is telling the truth for ourselves. :) WhisperToMe 05:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy."[20]

"Larry Silverstein purchased a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease of the World Trade Center in July 2001, along with the above mentioned partner Westfield America for the shopping parts. Silverstein took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by terrorist attacks."[21]

"Silverstein, who took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by a terrorist attack, said a memorial at the site to the victims of the attack "is necessary and totally appropriate.”"[22]

"The conditional settlement ends a two-year dispute between the companies and allows site reconstruction to proceed without lengthy delays. GMAC lent $563 million to the part-owner of the World Trade Center seven weeks before the terrorist attacks destroyed New York's twin towers."[23]

"Late last year, General Motors Corp.'s giant lending arm, GMAC settled a lawsuit it filed against Silverstein and the site's owner, seeking repayment of the $563 million it lent to the World Trade Center's owners just seven weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks."[24]

There certainly seems to be a broad and deep coalition of people who concertedly perpetrate this hoax, because these "unaccepted facts" have been reported again, and again, and now yet again here, again and again and again. How much proof is required to get facts into an entry? At what point do they cease being facts and become UNDENIABLE FACTS? Energybone 06:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If a FEMA report conflicts, and that's a United States governmental agency we are talking about here, we HAVE to do a X said this, Y said this scenario. WhisperToMe 06:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with citing the FEMA report that conflicts with Larry Silverstein's own statements, particularly his admission that he had the building demolished. Since he is the one who ordered the demolition, I think it's safe to say he's a more reliable source than the FEMA-come-latelies who were trying to put the pieces back together after Larry Silverstein orders those pieces taken apart. It's probably still in there somewhere, that entry is enormous and needs a good housecleaning. There's no reason for it to be that huge. Energybone 06:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

The only fact cited in this lengthy collection of blog quotes etc. is that they say a PBS documentary says that Silverstone said that he let WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally. So, in the article it could be stated that "numerous web sites and blogs cite a PBS documentary called "America rebuild" in which WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstone is said to state that he let the WTC 7 be destroyed intentionally" (or something similar). Everything else wouldn't be fact, but opinion-presented-as-fact accoding to our NPOV policy. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 18:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Okay you need to back up and check your facts. The documentary appeared on PBS, and Larry Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE AS YOU ERRONEOUSLY STATE) plainly stated that he had the building demolished. If you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion then you need to take some remedial English lessons. Energybone 18:44, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

No, I would rather link to the PBS documentary itself. WhisperToMe 18:51, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Tillwe, why do you and Rheanurmanurmnherm keep taking out these facts and replacing them with the erroneous statement that the intentional demolition of Seven World Trade Center is a THEORY? It's clearly NOT a theory, it's an easily verifiable fact, and a fact Silverstein (NOT SILVERSTONE) admits publically, as if he's some sort of hero for demolishing the building. Energybone 18:53, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Because if the FEMA report is contradictory to Silverstein's claims, then the claims should be called a "claim". They can be mentioned, yes, but only as what Silverstein says. WhisperToMe 21:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to anywhere were Silverstein claims he had the building "demolished". Any quote from Silverstein saying "demolished"? Anywhere? Rmhermen 21:04, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

No web links maintained by PBS do, but this video may: http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/ - It is temporairly out of stock. WhisperToMe 21:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)