text:
Talk:September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Untitled
"the average payout was $1.8 million." The maximum amount of insurance for military servicemembers is $400,000.

Zadroga Act
Is this the same fund impacted by the Zadroga Act? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Zadroga_9/11_Health_and_Compensation_Act

If so perhaps can link between the articles.

-KaJunl (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to Secure Funding
Jon Stuart and a bunch of others attempted to get funding and apparently went through a long process to get congress to make the bill. I don't know the full details, but I feel like some controversy over it (or why Congress didn't do anything or used it as "political football") should be addressed.

I don't know the facts well enough to write it though. Here's what I was referring to w/ Jon Stuart:

Mac Cheese (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The twists and turns of jurisprudence
This 9/11 is a quite strange case.

1. According to Iltalehti - a Finnish tabloid newspaper - investigations (an investigator says on Youtube literally):

"more airline options were bought before the crash than ever before"

"in other words, the financial circles knew about the attacks in advance"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a-y5877UY0

'''2. MTV3 News in Finland, live stream in 11. September 2001:'''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HozShjPVWL0

- "also there is a fire inside the building of foreign ministry"

- "the great power (USA) was surprised with its pants in knots" (it means that the thief was caught at the crime scene).  3. Wikipedia informs that Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.

The agreement gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed

After a protracted dispute with insurers over the amount of coverage for rebuilding World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5, a series of court decisions determined that a maximum of $4.55 billion was payable, and settlements were reached with the insurers in 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein  3.1. IP-address writes on Finnish Wikipedia´s Larry Silverstein Talk-page:

"I remember seeing some time ago that some German insurance company shareholders would not have wanted to pay Silverstein for the WTC buildings, citing insurance fraud. I just can't find the article in question anywhere, apparently Silverstein won that argument, probably the December argument."

'''4. Shortly after the terrorist attack, the foreign minister of Finland and Putin´s ally within the geopolitics, i.e. secretery of state Erkki Tuomioja made a surprise visit to Washington DC on a private plane (paid by tax payers) with the intention of harassing and fucking aroung with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (according to Twitter files). It was Putin who called to Bush right after the terror act.'''

5. The more than 3,500 architects and engineers who have signed AE911Truth’s petition...

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/780-ae911truth-celebrates-the-milestone-and-verification-of-3-500-architects-and-engineers

I suspect that... Kartasto (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

autopilot may have been involved
What do You think about this?

In August 2020, a whistleblower report was filed via the Federal Aviation Administration Hotline alleging that there were no Muslim hijackers at the controls of the 9/11 aircraft but that the aircraft were electronically hijacked and remotely controlled to their target destinations. A wealth of supporting evidence was provided to back our allegations.

https://911pilots.org/

...they were electronically hijacked through employment of a system called the uninterruptible autopilot that enables a remote source to take complete control of the aircraft autopilot and flight management computer and guide it to its target destination. Once engaged, the pilots cannot disconnect the system. 109.70.164.250 (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

UAF Research Team
Do you think this one is relevant with the issue of the article?

https://wtc7report.org/ 194.111.119.48 (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


text:
ADODB

ADODB may refer to:
 * ActiveX Data Objects, a Microsoft API for data access
 * ADOdb, a database abstraction library for PHP

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: ADODB


text:
Talk:Anti-Comintern Pact

Untitled
I find it hard to believe that Nationalsit China would join a pact with Japan and manchuko in 1941 when in the midst of war with Japan.--207.156.201.242 11:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's not the Chiang Kai-shek government being indicated. That is the Wang Jin-wei collaborationist government - note the small yellow banner just above the Nationalist flag. Wang provided the civilian government for occupied China. 24.196.64.186 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Hitler did not sign the pact with the USSR because wanted to go to war with Western Europe. The original Nazi plan was to invade the USSR for "breathing room" for the German people. Hitler did not believe England and France would start another war because he invaded Poland.

 * No, I don't think he did, but he intended to fight Britain & France long before 1939. He wanted to defeat and subject the Western bloc before focussing on the east. Brutannica 06:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, some 90% of historical works dispute that view - he didn't want to fight the west at all - he wanted a free hand to invade Russia/Ukraine to create "living space" for the German folk. The fact that Britain and France were going to declare war to support Poland was a thorn in his mad plot, and necessitated a war plan to counter them. See the relevant Wiki articles for this information and the Reliable Sources backing it up.

Axis
The article on Axis Powers says Vichy France signed the pact also. Why is it not mentioned here?Michael Dorosh 16:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The term "Axis" is only a war-time propaganda term that though carried on by victor powers today, has no evidence in historical fact as Russian Historian Boris Slavinsky pointed out. There was never any document signed by Japan, Germany and Italy titled "Axis" nor any document signed by them to agree to refer to the "Tripartite Pact" as the "Axis". The term Axis was used only by Italy to refer to it's European relationship with Germany, never Japan; and by Allies trying to hide the fact of "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" and pretend that there were 2 distinct sides in 1 war, which as the book "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" Boris Slavinsky/Geoffrey Jukes 2005 proves false.
 * Every online source requested to prove by evidence the existance of any document signed by Japan, Germany and Italy titled "Axis" has gone unanswered.
 * It was only a propaganda term like today's ever-changing 'Axis-of-Evil' the US President has again redefined in July 2008 to exclude North Korea. It is a propaganda term, never the proper name of an actual signed military alliance. See Tripartite Pact.AthabascaCree (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was/is not "propaganda" - it is a name given to the alliance by historians, just like "Byzantine Empire" or the "Indus River Civilization." They needed labels and they came up with them - and they stuck. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Interesting, did the Allies ever sign "The Allied Pact"? Was there ever a "Central Powers Pact"? What is the point of trying to prove that legally "The Axis" never existed? Does that mean that WW2 never happened either? 24.196.64.186 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Do not misunderstand Michael's idea. He was clearly saying that, according to article "Axis Powers", Vichy France signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, but it was not mentioned in "Anti-Comintern Pact" as a signatory. It has nothing to do with a "Axis Pact" or whatsoever.Sixtypanel (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MilHist Assessment
A very nice article, very nicely written. Very accessible to the average reader. The introduction paragraph, and the following sentence mentioning Italy's joining and thus forming the Axis Powers, are very clear and tell us exactly what we need to know about the Pact. It includes quotes from the Pact text itself, which is very nice. But I wonder if there isn't more to be said. LordAmeth 15:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a terrible article, pure propaganda trype. See the actual Tripartite Pact Discussion.

re: Attempts To Improve Anglo-German Relations
I recommend removing the label and separating out the elements relating to the anti-comintern pact for a separate section. Elements discussing actual Anglo-German relations should probably be edited or removed.

Perusal of the politics of appeasement with regards to British pre-war foreign policy should make it clear to the reader that Britain was pursuing Hitler's support rather than the reverse. Ribbentrop, Goering, and others did look forward to securing a temporary peace with the British ( Mosely, Leonard "On Borrowed Time How World War II Began" Random House Inc, New York, USA 1969; Manchester, William The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Alone 1932-1940, Little, Brown and Company, Revised edition (October 28, 1988); Gilbert, Martin Churchill : A Life, Holt Paperbacks (October 15, 1992) ), but it was the policy of Prime Ministers MacDonald and Chamberlain to seduce Germany into a bi-lateral relationship for trade and defense, to the exclusion of the US, France, and Soviet Union. Up until the invasion of Poland, Britain gave in on every demand that Hitler issued no matter the consequences, loss in prestige, relative economic standing, or continental security implications.

Yes German policy in the 1930's was to make nice with the Western powers, but only in a strategic sense to cover their drive to the East before driving West. There was no long term interest in a communal friendship with Britain. Hitler offered no concessions beyond a few delays in his program.

Gryffin13 (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Request Evidence of Revival of Anti-Comintern Pact
I have read through all my history books again, The Oxford Companion to WWII, Liddle Hart, Total War(Calvocoressi,Wint,Pritchard) etc and can find NO mention of it's ressurrection after Japan declared it cancelled because Hitler violated the terms with the "Nazi-Soviet Pact". Please provide a book source like Boris Slavinsky's(Geoffrey Jukes)2005 "The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" which shows photos of the actual signed and stamped documents in their original languages.

If you cannot provide such proof, the statement must be removed according to Wikipedia Guidelines. All the aforementioned historical sources indicate the Anti-Comintern Pact died with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. It is only Allied propaganda that claim there was a link between the Anti-Comintern Pact and the Pact of Steel(which Japan did NOT sign) and the later Tripartite Pact. Unless Wikipedia starts cleaning up these unproven old war-time propaganda claims, it's own claim to being a 'neutral and objective' online encyclopedia is contradicted.

This is why the Oxford Dictionary has removed Japan from the definition of 'Axis Powers of WW2'. When historians requested evidence that such documents existed, none were ever provided, therefore the term is obviously just one of our victor propaganda terms like our ever-changing 'Axis of Evil' today. Used to include Pakistan, then the US President changed his mind and removed it from the definition. Recently as of July 2008, the US President has also changed the definition again to exclude North Korea as of last week. Therefore Wikipedia should cease supporting articles that use propaganda terms as actual historical alliances or pacts when there is no signed documentation agreeing to the name-change.

Speaking of which, The Avalon Project has similarily failed to provide said same evidence in their claim that any 'Axis Pact' ever existed in name. Therefore as Slavinsky/Jukes state, it is only a propagandic myth just like the claim that the Tripartite Pact was ever activated as a military alliance. It wasn't. Not only because Article 3 was never violated, but because of the "Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact" conveniently left out by all these biased and prejudiced authors on the topic series on Wikipedia.AthabascaCree (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Divided Support of Anti-Comintern Pact
Proof that the civilian government in Tokyo was not so supportive of this pact as inferred(neither was the Navy), is the fact that the November 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact Japan signed with Germany not done by normal diplomatic means but directly by the military instead.

‘The Japanese War Machine’(Chartwell Books, 1976)P38

“In November 1936 Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, a move designed to secure Japan against the possibility of Russian intervention. This pact was engineered not by the normal diplomatic channels, but largely by the Japanese Military Attache in Berlin, the Japanese Ambassador being excluded from the discussions.”

These 'little' facts are far more important than the author implies. Every history book I read on the Anti-Comintern Pact points out that the Japanese government cancelled it upon Hitler's violations of it's terms in signing the 'Nazi-Soviet Pact'. The omission of these 'little facts' speaks volumes to the bias of the article.AthabascaCree (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: ' An alliance of fascist states fighting with Germany during *World War II. The term was used in an agreement (October 1936) between Hitler and Mussolini proclaiming the creation of a Rome–Berlin ‘axis round which all European states can also assemble’. Japan joined the coalition on signing the .. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.216.187 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

In reality...
The Comintern was something of a propaganda bogeyman, and was not the real purpose or target of the treaty. AnonMoos (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

 * The Comintern was *real* enemy. This pact was anti-communism reaction against 7th Congress of the Comintern. --182.168.50.171 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 * BTW our-side documents said such like "In 7th Congress of the Comintern, Comintern decided to Germany and Japan as targets of communizing.". but I don't know this is real or fake. the information might came via White Russians in Manchukuo. When I saw old Great Purge-related soviet-side documents (*1), I thought that the information might be created by Russian Trotskyists and Right-Wings line. but I'm not sure. *1 『反ソヴィエト「右翼トロッキー派ブロック」の公判記録』, English version (not checked but same title) is here: "REPORT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ANTI SOVIET BLOC OF RIGHTS AND TROTSKYITES" --182.168.50.171 (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I found details of the 7th Congress of the Comintern in a book of "Analyzes of Manchurian communist bandit" (Japanese) which was published by Manchukuo military government advisory division. information of the book seems basically truth. --218.110.202.216 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

~

Why are some nations missing?
We have Croatia and Denmark here, why didn't Montenegro and Norway sign on to the Anti-Comintern pact? Just forgot.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Comintern Pact. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060527155258/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri2.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri2.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121212104950/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri3.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/tri3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

El Salvador?
Do we have any additional sources that state that El Salvador was a member? There's no mention of it on the Spanish Wikipedia, and I can't find any further information on it anywhere else. Josh (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, Josh. With about half a year of delay, I reached a similar question to yours, so I looked up the claimed source, The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements by Edmund Omsmanczyk, albeit in a different version (ISBN 0850668336 vs 0415939216). As the page numbers were bound to be different (p.104 takes to the entries Bogota Pact, Bogs, Bohemia, Bohemian and Moravian Protectorate, Boilers, Bolivar, Bolivar Congress 1883, Bolivar Congress 1911, Bolivar Declaration 1983, Bolivar Prize, Bolivia - none of which seem to be related), I looked up the entries "Anti-Comintern Pact 1936" (p.49), "El Salvador" (pp.259-260) and "Pact of Three 1940" (p.671). "Anti-Comintern Pact 1936" reads, in full:

"A Pact signed Nov. 25, 1936 in Berlin for five years by ministers of foreign affairs of the Third Reich and Japan, with the purpose of organizing together the fight against the Communist International (> Komintern). Italy joined the Pact Nov. 6, 1937, Hungary and Manchuria, Feb. 24, 1939; Spain, Mar. 27, 1939. The Protocol Supplement stated that the signatories would not only co-operate in the exchange of information on the activities of the Comintern, but would also undertake "severe action against those who directly or indirectly, at home or abroad, remain in the service of the Comintern or provide aid for its destructive activities". After the outbreak of World War II, the Anti-Comintern Pact was joined by: Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Romania and the governments of Croatia, Slovakia, and China in Nanking. The Pact was extended Nov. 25, 1941 for another five years. In 1939-40 the Anti-Comintern Pact became the basis for further military alliances between Germany, Italy and Japan: May 22, 1939 the alliance of Germany and Italy, called the Steel Pact, and Nov. 27, 1940 the Pact of Three, which was a supplement to the Steel Pact."

 * This seems to confirm some of the countries that the citation was used for, but not the one including El Salvador. The entry on "El Salvador", p.259f., is a bit too long to quote in full, but on the topic of World War II, it just states: "During World Wars I and II on the side of the Allies.", see p. 260. The "Pact of Three 1940", as expected, didn't yield any results either (because that's not the pact we're looking for), but I checked it out of sheer desperation. Among the members, it mentions Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Croatia. Again, our poor little El Salvador is not mentioned. For the sake of completion, I also checked the cross reference given to the entry "Komintern" (p.489), but this of course also talked more about the Comintern rather than the Anti-Comintern and didn't mention our Central American country of desire either. I'd think that that means that this source failed to verify the citation in the specific context of El Salvador, but maybe the version difference changes the text. Ted52 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

POV issues
This article presently makes several statements about the Tripartite pact that aren't supported by the references an/or reflect only a partial POV of the pact. Specifically the idea that it became the primary document of the Axis replacing the Anti-Comintern pact does not appear to be uncontroversial. It is also not true that the Tripartite pact "supplanted" the ACP - the ACP remained on the books and was renewed. In reality the Tripartite pact is also described as having become essentially a dead letter by late 1941 by historians (e.g., by Paul W. Schroeder in "The Axis alliance and Japanese-American relations, 1941"). The revivification of the Anti-Comintern pact in '42 is a function of this. At the very least we should not state in the voice of Wiki that this was the case. FOARP (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anti-Comintern Pact


text: Talk:An Ed Is Born

title: Talk:An Ed Is Born


text:
Talk:State Emergency Service

Comment
The first paragraph infers that the SES is only for volunters. This is not so, there is a large number of paid personnel within the ranks of the State Emergency Service of NSW. The volunteers are the back-bone of the service.

DERF

 * My understand is that there is not one SES, rather there are the various State-based SESs. For this reason I have slightly modified the intro line. --Daveb 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

To answer the two above comments:

SES - volunteers or professionals?

The SES is effectively a completely volunteer-run organisation. In Queensland, there are two paid positions that deal with the Queensland State Emergency Service, and they are employed by the Queensland Department of Emergency Services, not seperately by the SES. Their roles are, in addition to their DES roles, to manage the SES and help guide it into the future.

So, yes, there are some professional positions that keep the SES running, but in comparison to the number of volunteers that make the SES what it is, it is considered a volunteer organisation.

Note that while Queensland has the structure that I have described above, other states may have a different structure where there are dedicated paid positions within the SES.

Different SES groups

There are seperate State Emergency Services for each state and territory, but they are referred to collectively as "The State Emergency Service". As the article points out, the SES originated as the Civil Defence, which was created within federal legislation, requiring all states to set something up in that regard. So, while each state has its own SES, it is referred to collectively because they originate from federal legislation.

Also, highly qualified SES members are in high demand in major emergencies (Cyclone Larry, the Thredbo Landslide, et cetera) and resources from other states are called in as needed. A number of members from my unit assisted in both aforementioned events.

Anarchist309 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Activation of SES members
Regarding this section of the article:

"...but the majority of operational members (those who have completed a probationary period and have attained minimum skills) are notified of a callout via mobile phone (SMS) or pager."

Does anyone have references or similar to prove that the majority of members country-wide are activated in this manner. I know that it's used, but by the majority? I would want that to be referenced before it's claimed as fact...

References for activation methods

I see where you're going with this, and I agree - but what references exist? I don't expect that internal doctrine and SOPs are, or should be, public knowledge. Further, activation methods don't just differ between states, but they also differ within states. One would need to offer references for each Unit, or some sort of summary.

I recommend that the paragraph be removed in its entirety from the article. Its value to the article is minor, if anything, and there is the issue of unreferenced information. The absence of activation details will not be a great loss to those learning about the SES. In any case, if people need details on activation SOPs, they can contact their relevant Unit or state government department - the latter with the option to approve the public release of SOPs. 220.237.242.111 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After one month, no responses or challenges have been made to the proposed change. Proposed change made. 220.237.242.111 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Leadership terminology
"'Each team is led by a Team-Leader (or Crew Leader). Each unit is headed by a Captain (until 2009, the title was Controller).'"

This is not correct for all Services. Queensland does not use the title Crew Leader, and continues to use the title of Local Controller as the head of a Unit.

Cite a source, please.

211.31.127.191 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No sources cited.

Removed for being incorrect and uncited.

220.237.232.83 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

infobox
an infobox would be valuable for this article, perhaps. any ideas as to which one? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * the headquarters listed is a house on a residential street. it is also misspelled. 124.169.141.91 (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Streetview confirms a residential street, but the only source for an "address for the Headquarters" that I have found online is the one that is currently in the infobox:
 * For now, I think I'll remove the headquarters line. --Scott Davis Talk 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For now, I think I'll remove the headquarters line. --Scott Davis Talk 12:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:State Emergency Service


text:
Talk:Blockhead

A search on "Preston Lions" and "blockheads" comes up with only two hits; one is invalid because the terms appear in two different blog entries that only happen to share a page, and the second does not make clear whether "blockheads" is any sort of identifying designation for these fans or simply an insult. Even if it is in use, it's evidently not wide use. -- Antaeus Feldspar 11:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, removed. Feel free to reinstate if some sort of evidence can be given, but entries like this get "silly" vandalism added all the time, so it's hard to keep without better evidence. --Interiot 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Simply to put this on record, the second and third results of a Google search for the term "Blockhead" currently link to the Blockhead cartoon character from Newgrounds.com. If nothing else, let that lend the character viability in being represented here, the popularity of the series notwithstanding. Please help to curb vandalism to the blockhead disambiguation by undoing the attempts of vandals to remove it as an entry. Thank you!

Blockhead, I would say, could be considered notable and deserve it's own article, however I am unsure and would prefer to get some form of support for it rather than be banned for creating a article on a unnotable subject. --Fulizer (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was attempted by a fan once before and the page was removed - for now, the disambiguation seems like enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.85.119 (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the pejorative "Idiot"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:FBD0:5640:4530:2CBA:C004:466C (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Blockhead