Jump to content

Talk:Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report

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

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

[edit]

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Should we not say, for each criticism, who is making it? It seems like each one should be supported by a citation to the critic. Or are these all from Griffin's book? Tom Harrison Talk 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite many people and organisations etc., that have pointed out the omissions and the inconsistencies. I don't know how we should deal with this. Should we name them all? Any suggestions? The omissions though aren't they facts in themself? --EyesAllMine 18:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An almost unlimited number of facts are not included in the report. Certainly they are not all omissons. I think we should choose the most authoritative source for each criticism, subject to the usual requirements of notability, verifiability, and so on. Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wich source do we need for the fact that the collapse of building seven wasn't mentioned? The 911 commision report itself? --EyesAllMine 07:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a source for who says that constitutes an omission. After all, the whereabouts of the Grand Master of the Illuminati isn't mentioned either; That doesn't constitute an omission. A good example might be the sourcing in Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials. Tom Harrison Talk 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, why would you come up with an example like you just did? I feel a bit offended. Should I? --EyesAllMine 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no offence intended. It's easy for attempted humor to misfire. I wanted an example of something clearly not an edge case, that we might still imagine someone citing as an omission. As I said, there are lots of facts that are not included in the report. Their absense doesn't necessarily constitute omission. Tom Harrison Talk 15:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but ... building seven is not an edge case, and if you look at the intention of the Report "Our aim has been to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11 and to identify lessons learned." then NOT mentionening building sevens collapse, is definately an ommision by the commisions own standards, as a 4something-story building just collapsing by fire, should be of great concern to anyone, and should (as is the case now with NIST) be investigated in depth. --EyesAllMine 16:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an omission by the commission's own standards, the report would note it as an omission. Then you could cite the report itself. Still, it shouldn't be hard to find people who agree with you. Why not do a Google search and pick the one you regard as most authoritative? The article is "Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report;" I think it's reasonable to ask in each case, "Who is the critic?" Maybe we could even include quotes from prominent critics from around the world. Tom Harrison Talk 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll be happy if you did that :) And I agree its easy to google. I will concentrate my effort on other pages though. But Tom the reason I askes this question is, how far should we go? If I stated: This earth has got one moon, you would say to me: where are your sources? I mean, if I stated that, it could be regarded as original research (I've seen it with my own eyes). I could then go out and source from some of the thousands who have researched and found that the moon was actually there. It's not a theoretical thing this omission of building seven. It is a simple fact. And there are, as you can see, a lot mentioning it. We could also go through the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center with a comb, and se how much would survive. There are a couple of statements lacking sources, or being distorted. What I'm trying to say is: Shouldn't we hold every article to the same standard? --EyesAllMine 17:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the larger philosophical point, I'm not a huge fan of consistency. I prefer to have the editors who follow an article make decisions about it in the context of that article, rather than have a group craft global policies that then have to be enforced. By all means, if you see an opportunity to improve Collapse of the World Trade Center, be bold. I don't promise to agree, but I'll consider your edits with an open mind.
In this particular case, I'm not disputing that the fact is not in the report. I'm disputing the characterisation of that as an 'omission,' and I'm saying that each criticism should list a critic. Anyway, maybe we agree. I'll cite the criticisms, and remove any for which I don't find citations. You can do the same, and anyone else can jump in. After a week or so, anything not cited can be removed. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds ok to me :) Actually I now got intereseted in the subject, so I might come up with more to this article anyway. Phew ... --EyesAllMine 19:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So if we didn't call it 'ommissions' but something like '9/11 events not cited in the Report," then we wouldn't have to document the source for each and every question? BTW, to anyone researching them, the sources to look at are . . . here, here, here, here, and here, to name a few . . . Bov 21:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Events that happened on 9/11 that are not mentioned in the commission's report." Well, there are plenty of other lists on Wikipedia. Still, this is Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. I think every criticism needs to list at least one critic. I don't object to calling something an omission if someone cited is critcizing the report for leaving it out. Thanks for the links, I'm sure we'll use them. Of course, feel free to add them yourself if you get to it before I do. Tom Harrison Talk 22:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

I'm listing what I find here for everyone's convenience. This is just a working list, no warranties, etc. Titles listed are those of the source, not descriptive terms I have chosen. Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, thanks for this list! One link I'd like to suggest replacing is the erichufschmidt link - we can get that directly from Dayton's website, which I think is a better source: On The 9/11 Commission Report, Lessons Learned from 9/11 and On The Recommendations of The 9/11 Commission.Bov 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

According to our discussion at Conpiracy theories, Tom stated that it would be proper soucing to list the books etc at the end of the article. That would be an easy option, but I don't agree to this, and neither does WP:CITE. What do you think? --EyesAllMine 10:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is what I describe not consistent with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Complete citations in a "References" section? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Tom Harrison Talk 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is crucial that complete references be provided for each distinct edition referred to (or cited) in the article, and that each such in-line citation provide enough information to distinguish between editions." Wikipedia:Citing sources#Complete citations in a "References" section --EyesAllMine 15:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that mean different editions of the reference? That is, if you have an in-line citation, it must be clear which edition of the reference it points to, if there are multiple editions of the reference. Tom Harrison Talk 16:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I might have misunderstood it. I just thought that a list of characteristics should be footnoted, so that a reader wouldn't have to empty the library to check one point of it out. But ok - it was my impression based on the situation I've met here at wikipedia, to citate or have a reference for every edit I made. And I found that it was good for the trustworthiness of the wikiproject. I really though that the encyclopedic way of securing that facts were verifiable, was through the use of footnotes. --EyesAllMine 13:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are three or four different ways to cite. We can choose whichever works best for each page. One of my concerns on this page is that we present no original research: Not Bov's criticisms of the report, but criticism of the report that appear in cited references. We can do that in whatever format works best. I don't insist that each criticism be a word-for-word quote followed by an in-line reference. It might be useful to reformat, and summarize the criticisms of each notable author. That is, rather than a section called 'Omissions', have a section called 'David Ray Griffin's criticisms.' Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 16:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is filled with many errors and questionble information. Here is a flight manifest with Arab names http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/aa_flight_11_manifest.gif Removed another claim see...http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html http://www.911myths.com/html/strip_clubs.html When I get more time I'll more than likely start removing many more

I don't think that just removing any criticisms that you can provide a link to is the right thing to do. There are a lot of people that believe that a passenger manifest with the Arab names was never provided, so showing that it was and linking to it is better than just erasing the criticism. How did the Globe get the manifest when others have not? People will want to look into that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.207.168.65 (talk • contribs) .

Sounds like you have a good point. Hmmm...Let me think about what do to, because I think it would be helpful for people to see the problems within Griffins "criticisms"67.126.201.138ScottS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.201.138 (talk • contribs) . Adding more information and removing the Pentagon claim, also see the wikipedia 9/11 conspiracy page or http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/10/ar911.air.defense/ For Sharon claim see http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html#NYC or http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html I ilwl more than likely do more updating later. Some of this information may best be served by putting them in the 9/11 conspiracy section. POV is also incorrect on this page. Scott Added link and removed very misleading information see http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html

Removed "contradictions" section considering none of them are really contradictions, for more info on Hanjour see http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-244.html Instructer also pointed out "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said" Also see http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-262.html for Binalshibh testamony

Edit removed another incorrect claim See The New York Times, on 15 Sep 2001 AFTER THE ATTACKS: TRANSPORTATION: According to the F.A.A., at 5:50 p.m., after the ban on private planes was lifted, there were 4,111 flights aloft, compared with 6,000 on a normal day. OR Miami Herald, on 15 Sep 2001 TRAFFIC REMAINS LIGHT AT AIRPORTS

References

[edit]

I have asked Bov about drawing from the list here on the talk page to add references to the article. Of course, anyone else can jump in as well. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like dropping them all in is often the standard, so why not. My only reservation on the links above is 'reopen911' - I'd prefer not to link to that at all because it promotes a number of hoaxes, screams 'Proof!' in its title headings, and other such aspects that decrease credibility. Bov 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's not needed to support any of the criticisms, there's no need to include it here. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the references, and made some other changes. Someone more diligent than I could change all the external links in the body to referenced footnotes. Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

[edit]

This article is not a place where anyone who has a criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report can write it down. This is an encyclopedia article about 'Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report.' Criticisms included here need to be cited to a notable person or group who has made the criticism. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the comment on 7 World Trade Center is in this article?

  • What's the cite for this criticism?
  • Should the Commission Report have noted that Larry Silverstein replaced the building? What sort of criticism is that?
  • As a factual matter, the Commission Report does discuss 7 World Trade Center and is critical of the decision made by the city to locate the Emergency Operations Center in that building. patsw 17:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me what the commision states regarding building 7. Also I removed misleading and incorrect statements reagrding building 7. "barely-damaged" disputed by firefighters Scott~~

Able Danger

[edit]

Why isn't Able Danger mentioned on the criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report when it has been reported on somewhat in the media that Able Danger had identified Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticisms_of_the_9/11_Commission_Report&oldid=233615643"