Did your military brain forget that Wikipedia is not a primary or even a secondary source, but they cite those?

Ever heard of RAND Corporation? Well their ‘The Counterterror Coalitions: Cooperation with Europe, NATO, and the European Union’ says:

NATO reacted swiftly and strongly to the September 11 attacks. Within hours, the North Atlantic Council (NAC) unanimously condemned the attacks and pledged its assistance and support. NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson, speaking with Secretary of State Colin Powell later that evening, encouraged the United States to formally invoke the collective self-defense provisions included in Article 5 of the NATO Charter. Robertson later recalled that he told Powell that “invoking Article 5 would be a useful statement of political backing, that it would help the United States build an instant anti-terror coalition based in part on the moral authority behind Article 5, and that it would be a deterrent—in that whoever was responsible for the attack would know they had taken on not just the United States, but also the greatest military alliance in the world.” U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.

U.S. officials soon responded that they would welcome an invocation of Article 5, even though they later stressed that they had not officially asked NATO to do so.

How about NATO Defense College, whatever that is?

There are differing accounts of what happened on 9/11. It seems that the deputy director of the Secretary General’s private office immediately suggested invoking Article 5. The Dean of the Council and Canadian ambassador David Wright also mentioned Article 5 that day, and told US ambassador Nicholas Burns that NATO should invoke it. Burns agreed, then sought – and got – approval from the White House, and formally made the proposal to the Council. A former US official offered this author a slightly different version: reportedly, the United Kingdom requested the Secretary General at the time to ask Member States to declare an Article 5 contingency. The Secretary General then claimed that the United States had asked for NATO support. In fact, the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more.

the White House had approved the invocation of Article 5, nothing more

Meaning approved, but didn't invoke themselves.

The United States – legitimately consumed, as it was, with national priorities – did not seriously consider a full-fledged NATO operation in Afghanistan. US Central Command General Tommy Franks reportedly said in an interagency discussion: “I don’t have the time to become an expert in the Danish Air Force.” (It is to be recalled that 9/11 came only two years after the Kosovo war, during which slow and contentious decision-making was often criticized as “war by committee.”)

A few days after the attacks, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the Council that he “didn’t come here to ask for anything.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz threw more cold water when speaking to the Council on September 26; he emphasized that the mission should determine the coalition, with what some called a “we’ll call you if we need you” attitude. After formally invoking Article 5 on October 2, NATO agreed two days later on a set of eight measures, notably to protect the North Atlantic airspace (Operation Eagle Assist) and the Mediterranean (Operation Active Endeavour). Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan remained a US-, not NATO-, led operation (though NATO further expanded its non- Article 5 geographical reach – after first doing so in the Balkans beginning in 1994 – by intervening in Afghanistan after 2003).