Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Myk (Talk | contribs) at 20:47, 18 April 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Rewrite

I'm going to take a swing at this... bear with me. Myk 02:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, I added a very terse timeline of events sourced from a combination of CNN's timeline and the FBI press release. I just included the key events of what happened... not the response during the day. Selective inclusion of the response could be perceived as partisan and total inclusion of everything... well... that'd be plagiarism. I also gave the most recent estimates for casualties I could find.
I did not touch the "conspiracy theories" or "events following 9/11" as those are both way too political for liberal old me. My personal opinion is that the "events following" section should be a little bit more fleshed and written in a more encyclopedic tone... the immediate result was the War on Terror which has its own article. I also think that the "conspiracy theories" section needs a lot less space but possibly a link to another article. Myk 04:17, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Oh... and I have an idea for an additional section which I may tackle unless someone does it first.
  • "Planning and Execution"
  • "Emergency Response"
  • "Subsequent Health Issues"
Any others? Myk 04:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
I really wanted to go to bed... we seem to have lost the talk history in the BORF page move vandalism... I could only save the section I was editing and so still had in my browser cache. There wasn't much in here and I think the edits I made are pretty vanilla. Myk 04:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
OK... I added a section about the economic impact and the consequences on US policy. The economic impact can stand some significant increase from someone who understand the ins and outs better than I do. The consequences on US policy should remain brief as most will lead to their own articles. Myk 18:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
No one wanted to take a swing at it so I just cut the Conspiracy Theories section down to "Conspiracy Theories exist / are easily disproven" and the Popular Mechanics article. If people want to expound on the conspiracy theories, I would suggest creating a new article for it, and linkt to it from here. Myk 12:24, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


I have one suggestion on the conspiracy section: rather than say "easily disproven," maybe "comprehensively disproven" would be a better term. Easily sounds more like opinion, while comprehensively is not only more neutral, but also more powerful. Just a thought.--Dave3172 11:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Done and done. Next time, feel free to edit away. Those conpiracy theorists give me the heebie jeebies. Myk 11:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Added video link

The Internet Archive has news broadcasts from the major networks for Sept 11-13, and I added a link in the source section. Karajou 09:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Smashing!!--~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 09:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I moved them from the source section to the new "Additional Information" section as those links weren't used to help source the article. Myk 12:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
It's rather interesting to watch the first clips from each of the networks; just another news day, then they're not sure what's going on with the first tower explosion, then the reactions as the second tower gets hit. Karajou 14:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Rewrite, et al

I'm not going to do a re-write of Myk's re-write, but (this is constructive criticism, mind you) I feel it is rather weak. So, my suggestion is to arrange in new subheadings, and fill them with the detail required. The subheadings are in this order:

  • Introductory paragraph
  • Prelude
    • This subheading describes the events and situations which led to 9/11, up to the arrival at the airport of the terrorists.
  • The first plane
  • the second plane
  • the third plane
  • the fourth plane
I'm sure these subheadings will be changed in favor of, say "United Flight 73", etc, but you want where the flight originated from, number of passengers onboard, and which target it hit. Special attention should be paid to the flight that hit the wheatfield in Pennsylvania, as there was an attempted take-over by the passengers. The way I presented it here is that it infers to the first target hit, then the second, the third, etc.
  • The Targets
    • World Trade Center One
    • World Trade Center Two
    • The Pentagon
    • The White House?
This can go into detail on each one, as to when they were hit, number of people killed, in the case of WTC when each tower collapsed. I put a question mark by the White House, as it may have been a target, but the plane involved went down near Shankville, PA.
  • Immediate reaction
What the country was doing within hours of the attacks: the military on alert; all flights canceled, with those in the air ordered to land; the scrambling of fighters, the evacuation of the White House and Capitol, etc.
    • President Bush's reaction
Bush was in a school in Florida, engaged in a reading assignment for kids when he was told the news of WTC. Then he was on a flight not to Washington, but to a base in Louisiana.
  • Identity of the terrorists
Mohammed Atta should be the only one mentioned, plus a brief history of where he was in the Mid East in connection with his training; plus the indentity of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
  • Afghanistan
Bush ordered Mullah Omar to turn over bin Laden and dismantle his training camps or face armed attack, which of course happened.
  • Aftermath
This can be further divided in conquest of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban; alleged connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq; heath issues relative to WTC; the plans for rebuilding the WTC; repairs to the Pentagon; memorials, etc.

What do you think? It leaves no room for the heebie jeebies concerning conspiracy nuts! Karajou 21:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Be my guest, Karajou. I never wanted to be the sole author of the piece, just wanted to set up the framework. But saying it's rather weak... not tactful. Or constructive for that matter. Myk 00:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes it was meant to be constructive, as well as something that you could take advantage of. I wasn't about to take over the article. Karajou 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, Karajou, please emulate Myk's endless and trademarked tact! --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, i find that comment rather weak. Myk 12:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

TK, I am not interested in mindless or trademarked tacts; the only thing I have done was offer a suggestion. To me, this article belongs to Myk, and nobody else. Give him the chance, the means, and the opportunity to make it better. Karajou 13:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a wiki, Karajou, it belongs to everyone. That's how wikis work. Myk 17:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Karajou, I was supporting what you said. It was sarcasm. Myk, you are 100% wrong. Not all Wiki's work the same way, nor are they intended to, according to the options the software gives site owners. Such all-encompassing statements are not only "weak" they are misleading. More precise would have been "That's how I prefer wiki's to work" or "That's how other wiki's work that I have used." --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, please give me an example of a wiki where articles are all proprietary. Why must you argue every little point? Myk 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)