Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

University of Alaska Study

Wondering why it was deemed worthy of deletion, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.112.20 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A bunk study funded by 9/11 Truthers is not remotely noteworthy. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you not see the circular reasoning - if anything related to 9/11 truth is necessarily bunk, how can we examine the ideas by their merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Have any RS said it was "bunk"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Have any said it isn’t? Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it (as far as I can see) is an academic paper by reputable academics from a reputable university. So we need some reason to say it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s a Truther study funded by Truthers. It’s not reliable in any way. Look at the actual “study” - 100% funded by A&E. It’s also not even completed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Who funded it is irrelevant. Unless it can be shown they influenced the findings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An unfinished, unreviewed “study” run and funded by Truthers is not reliable. Sorry. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh now if it was unfinished thats different, do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The source itself says this is a draft release and are seeking comments from the public before the final release. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any RS as to what kind of feedback they got? As a structural engineer myself, I am seeing some pretty questionable claims/calculations made.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Given it isn’t complete and has only been promoted in Truther circles, I don’t think there is any coverage. I imagine it will be ripped a new one once it is finished. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, you should send your critiques to them in that case, that's what a public comment period is for. In any case, it is a fact that AE911Truth funded the study and that the study has been completed, and that the professor has made his conclusions public. As such, given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the edit should not have been deleted since it is RS for those facts, despite it not, until being peer reviewed, counting as RS for an article about WTC7. 140.247.112.80 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An unfinished, unpublished (anbd thus not peer reviewed) study is not RS. If you have a source for its publication please provide it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see why it wouldn't be considered RS for an article on WTC 7 but this article is about AE911, and they most definitely did fund a study that has been completed and news to that effect was reported by ktva among others (see https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests) 140.247.112.80 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Then (at the max) we could say "they have funded an as yet unpublished study by the University of Alaska".Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Using "Truther" as a pejorative and a reason for exclusion shows that Wikipedia is a bunk organization, as far as I have experienced. Mark19651965 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Being a delusional nutjob who repeatedly tries to force delusional-nutjob nonsense not backed by reliable sources into articles is a reason for exclusion. -Jordgette [talk] 19:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The academic paper is here https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 or the pdf directly https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf . The article is as I can see finished but not published in a peer reviewed journal and could be included with that statement. The positive thing if it was included in this article is that any specific criticism towards the methodology could be directed towards the study itself and that would be very interesting. Simply excluding a 125 page 4 year engineering study from a reputable university by just calling it "delusional-nutjob nonsense" is more un-scientific than including it and discussing it. Excluding something based on namecalling is not how science works IMHO, and it is an unfortunate example of the weakness of Wikipedia. Creglim (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If it has not been peer-reviewed I doubt its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely independently of it not being recognized by any reliable source, it is delusional nutjob nonsense. The study most certainly did not rule out that the collapse was due to fire. At best, and this is being very generous, it raised doubts about the one initiation mechanism that NIST proposed out of many possible mechanisms. The study is a failure of logic and an utter failure to do proper science. At worst it is completely fraudulent. -Jordgette [talk] 14:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree of course that for it to be RS it would have to be peer reviewed. Until it is, it is up to anyone who reads it to judge the quality of it, while I'm an academic I'm not a structural engineer, few of us are, which means of course that I have limited capability of critiquing it. However, I think it's not completely correct to not mention it, for what it is. I have only read the abstract that states that "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, [...]" I find that at least interesting, I need to read the whole thing of course. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia so I don't understand what all the criteria for including a paper is. Is it a prerequisite that any study mentioned has to be peer reviewed? IMHO the fact that there is a study done, paid by A&E that further evaluates the collapse is in my view at least worth to mention in the context of the group. Maybe the study itself needs its own Wikipedia page so that it can be critiqued that way. Creglim (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

wpp:fringe and wp:undue means we should not include anything that goes against the expert consensus unless RS report it as significant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see, thank you for explaining. So I guess that would mean that a peer reviewed article that is published should be included regardless of if it goes against "consensus", (as the publication and peer review process itself is what deems it significant) but if it is not peer reviewed it should not even be mentioned until it is? Could it have been mentioned in the non peer reviewed state if it would have confirmed the fire collapse hypothesis? Just trying to understand the system here. Creglim (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, would it be different if the article was about the WTC7 collapse, I mean this article is about the group A&E - So the fact that they payed to have a study done is a different context than what the study says in the context of discussing the collapse itself. If you get what I mean. Creglim (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It applies to all 9/11 articles...and more broadly, all articles on any topic that has a fringe minority in dissent (e.g. evolution, perpetual motion, gravity etc. If Time or Newsweek did an article on the UAF study, then that would be sufficient for mention. Also, if a notable structural engineer such as Guy Nordenson made a statement about the study, that would also be sufficient. I only mentioned the conclusion of the study to try to break through to you that regardless of one's expertise, it is clearly not a proper scientific conclusion or even a logical conclusion. It was an overreaching and sensationalized conclusion geared toward engaging the 9/11 demolition-believer community, not the structural engineering community...which is why it could never pass peer review in the literature. -Jordgette [talk] 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Third update, sorry for that, but In the paper itself, two external Peer Reviewers are listed on page iii : EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D, Chartered Consulting Engineer, Analytical Service Company and Robert Korol, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, McMaster University Creglim (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not how peer review works. Proper peer review is where a publisher or professional organization chooses independent, blind (secret) expert referees to evaluate the work. That Hulsey or AE911Truth chose their own "peer reviewers" (which of course were friendly/sympathetic parties) speaks to the total lack of scientific ethics and process in this study. -Jordgette [talk] 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

And it's worth noting that (after nearly 2 years) this article still apparently isn't referenced (let alone published) in a single ASCE Journal article. (Be it Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Journal of Structural Engineering, or whatever.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No that's not how peer review works, (I have gone through the process myself many times.) However it's two other academics in the field who put their stamp of approval on the study. It would be interesting to know if Husley et al have sent it in to some journal for review/publishing and what the feedback was. My personal opinion is that it's always better to take things out into the light to be discussed than censoring. I think that would make Wikipedia better. (But this is not the place to discuss my personal opinion of course.) It's always good to be sceptical, however the trick is to have an open-minded scepticism. Even though there's so much politics involved in this issue. Are any of you peers by the way? (I mean structural engineers.) Creglim (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am a structural engineer. And I agree with the others that you need to find RS treatment/publishing for this paper. As I said above, I cannot find where this appears anywhere in any ASCE Journal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

And I am an architect. Please note that we try to avoid making statements based on the implied or perceived authority of individual editors - after all me don't know who anybody else really is. The possession of basic professional credentials does not lend special credibility.

Drawing from the rigorous standards surrounding medical research subjects on Wikipedia, the mere existence of an article in a journal is not inherently significant. If an article is widely cited in other academic scholarship, that is taken as a standard indicating notability.

Put more simply, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

When RS mention this in connection with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking time to clarify these things. As I said, I'm quite new to the whole wiki process, so this has been very interesting to me on several levels. I just saw an interview with Hulsey on the channel 3D forensics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM&t=7s), where he said that now that he is retired he is planning to write and publish some papers based on the report - which sounds like a good thing so they can go through the peer review process. It's good to have high standards on what to include, I'm not arguing with that in any way. I also agree that mere publication is not a guarantee significance. I have published papers which were totally insignificant :) However it should at least guarantee they uphold some kind of scientific quality. I'm sorry I missed that you are a structural engineer Rja13ww13, I should have seen it in the posts above. I still think that the fact that the group has funded a 4 year study by an accredited university on the collapse of wtc7 could be included in the article about the group. I also believe if we accuse Prof. Em. Hulsey of being a sellout nutjob, this has to be based on the same standards of proof for that statement. Like Acroterion wrote "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof". The group apparently has sought corrections through official channels to the NIST report, which now has led to them suing NIST for not fulfilling the Data Quality Act. However you look at the request for corrections themselves it explains what the group is doing. Suing NIST partly based on this report is quite significant information about the group's activity. Well, again thank you all for keeping this last part of the conversation civilized. It's going to be interesting to see what published papers if any come out of this process. All the best, Creglim (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler alert, there won't be anything, because he ruined the study by gearing it toward continued fundraising from a group of amateur believers, rather than scientists. But you're right, I have no reliable source supporting that opinion, so neither does it have a chance in hell of being in Wikipedia articles. -Jordgette [talk] 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a FYI for you: with a topic that is considered pretty FRINGE....it is a challenge to find RS covering aspects of it. A JFK assassination CT (for example) is pretty easy to find (due to the countless books, movies, etc about them). But the fine details of the wilder stuff is hard.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, yeah I understand. I read the Hulsey report now. To me as a non-engineering academic (I'm in cognitive neuroscience) it seemed to make some logical claims, but it was also a hard read for someone not in the field so I'm ill equipped to claim to have an informed standpoint so to speak. I also read the request for corrections and clarifications on the NIST report and again, it seemed logical and raised some valid questions. (https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf) I guess we'll know after a few years as this lawsuit will probably be long winded. What's your take on their critique on the NIST report? Do the questions make sense from a structural engineering standpoint as you see it? From my philosophical standpoint, questioning things is always good although the level of 'goodness' is modulated by the quality of the questions ;P Creglim (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Well keep in mind the policy NOTFORUM (i.e. we are not supposed to get into personal opinions on article talk pages)....but I will say (keeping in the spirit of that): I would be interested in seeing RS treatment of this study. The impact calculation (to name one thing) seemed pretty odd. To say the stiffness at the point of impact was that low is a big question mark for me. I feel there are other problems with it as well. But in any case, this demonstrates one of the reasons we require RS here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation 60 =

Citing a single paper by a single engineer does not prove that experts in engineering generally support NIST's work on WTC collapse. There are many problems with the Bazant paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, it's more than one source. And really the Bazant statement is probably sufficient given the fact that after nearly 20 years, the Truthers cannot point to a single published statement purporting to represent a large number of structural engineers that show they have any doubt whatsoever about the so-called official explanation. (The 30 or so structural engineers who signed Richard Gage's on-line petition not withstanding.) And on a personal level (as a structural engineer myself), I haven't heard a word of dissent.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Husley

Regardless of whether the study is "bunk" it is related to the Ae911 truth movement and therefor worthy of being in this article. Isn't this article supposed to be about the activities of Ae911truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that discuss the study in context? That's the problem, the existence of the report isn't the issue, it's whether anybody has discussed it in journalistic or academic sources. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This Sage Journal; Alternatives: Global Local, Political refers to and and discusses the study at least to some extent in the context of alternative views to the mainstream 9/11 narrative in the published article "9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0304375419898334 Creglim (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The abstract's statement of "A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity." appears to be a rehash of Truther arguments. "IR" is International Relations, which has nothing to do with the architectural and engineering community, about which, in principle, this article concerns itself. Having not been able to read the full paper, I can't tell what basis or background is involved, but I can't see where anybody outside the Truther community has taken it seriously. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extent of acceptance

I see that an editor has edited the description of the level of professional acceptance of fringe conspiracy theories [1] [2] to attempt to water down the level of rejection by professional A/E communities of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of note is the recent Spike Jones controversy, in which Jones started out both-sidesing with AE 9/11 against serious academic sources. It hasn't gone well [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. None of these media sources take the position of AE 9/11 seriously, even if Lee did, and he ended up backtracking. They also point out the overall conspiratist mindset that has moved on to Covid conspiracies. See older accounts of professional rejection of AE9/11 [8]. While "universal" may not be the best word, it is a reasonable approximation of the level of acceptance among the millions of architects and engineers in the U.S. versus the thousands of of alleged conspiracy devotees. After all, just because some doctors prescribe unproven or harmful treatments and have attracted a vocal following doesn't mean that there is a significant level of acceptance in the medical community for such actions - this is no different. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So do any professional bodies support "truthism"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

None that I've found, at least in North America. Certainly not the ASCE or AIA. This is where "universally" might be overbroad, since I wouldn't be surprised if some professional organization somewhere endorsed Truther arguments, but in view of Billyshiverstick's first change, which clearly sought to provide credibility, I reinstated it for now. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe say that "The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by all structural-engineering and structural-mechanics professional bodies"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly more specific, as long as AE9/11 isn't a "professional body." Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be more of an advocacy group.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That is highly charitable of you! It's like calling Joel Osteen's prosperity-gospel megachurch an advocacy group for Jesus. I mean, when they say "thousands of architects and engineers" are they counting the six landscape architects? How about the students and interns, or the fire alarm technician, or the dentist? Do the opinions of hundreds of electrical and chemical engineers move the needle in a professional sense?-Jordgette [talk] 19:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the last time I looked at it, a grand total of about 30 something structural engineers had signed Mr. Gage's on-line petition. By the way, the verification techniques used to prove if the petition signers are who they say the are.....leave much to be desired (IMHO). Not a RS at all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing I've never understood is the accounting and verification behind the list. I know of one colleague who signed up in 2001 because he thought they were legitimately looking for investigation rather than promoting conspiracy theories - he is no longer on the list, but I don't know how many others never tried to be removed, or how many really understood what they were signing up for, or if they did, whether they still buy what they're selling. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Their "verification" process (at least when I checked into it years ago) is basically just to ask the person if they are who they say they are. (In other words, I could tell them I am President Obama and they wouldn't know the difference.) It's not like applying for a license/NCEES record. (I.e. send them transcripts, employment verification forms, etc, etc.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is utterly biased

Close discussion to keep OP out of AE territory
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is clearly biased in support of the ludicrous official version of the 9/11 facts. Reading the article it seems that the AE911 organization is comprised of just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and hippies, without acknowledging that there are more than 3600 architects and engineers that don't buy the official explanation of what is obviously a controlled demolition. Has this article been edited by the CIA? Itemirus (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Yes, we'll need a reliable source stating that more than 3600 architects and engineers don't buy the official explanation. If you look at that list, you'll find that a tiny number of the world's electrical/software/mechanical/chemical/naval engineers, plus some architects and architecture students and interns, plus fire-alarm technicians and landscape architects, etc., signed a vague petition at some point over the past 15 years, which is quite different from what you claimed. -Jordgette [talk] 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Forum-type post with typical false claims and arguments from incredulity Has it ever dawned on you that in the past century the steel frame of a building has never collapsed due to fires? It never happened before 9/11 and never happened again after. Same goes for planes that magically disappear or turn into dust. During a century of plane accidents, the engines have always been found along with parts of the fuselage. Only during 9/11 four planes and three buildings completely disappeared, except a passport of the hijackers that survived the fires and magically was ejected from the plane. That’s an insult to people’s intelligence. As to the number of supporters of the organization, the following is just one of many references [9] Itemirus (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Your source isn't a RS. And several collapses of steel frame buildings have happened due to fire. Most recently with the Plasco Building in Iran. (Thank God it happened in Iran....otherwise the Truthers would be saying this was arranged by US Intel.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC) The Plasco building wasn't made of steel but concrete; it didn't fall at freefall speed; it collapsed on its side (not in a perfectly symmetrical fashion) and most of the debris didn't turn into fine dust like with the three buldings from 9/11. The Plasco building collapse happended as expected and doesn't violate the laws of physics. Your example proves absolutely nothing in regards to my arguments. The fact that my previuos post has been tagged with "false claims", which are indeed undisputable, proves my point. Itemirus (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Assuming you are right (and you aren't).....you do know that concrete performs far better in fire than steel right? (Concrete cover is better than pretty much any coating you can find. Look in the UL catalog some time....assuming you know what that is.) As far as the speed of the collapse, looks pretty close to free fall to me. (Once it got going.) Of course, this is a organization that urged President Hassan Rouhani to investigate the "possible use of explosives" in the Plasco building coming down. You are talking to a structural engineer here. I'm not buying any of this crap without some RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC) At risk of feeding forum posts: Unprotected steel frame buildings collapse in fires on practically a daily basis. That's why building codes limit the height of unprotected steel construction - it's crap in a fire. It doesn't burn, but that's about all that can be said. A protected steel frame building (protection is required for a building of any significant height) , whose fireproofing is compromised by aircraft impacts is in deep trouble, and intact fireproofing is rated for no more than three hours, so the fire had better be extinguished expeditiously. The notion that steel framed buildings are invulnerable is a myth promulgated by the Truther community. And your study was funded by 9/11 Truth and arrived at the desired outcome, and is not regarded as especially credible by anyone else. In any case it only examined WTC 7, not WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 has been a hobbyhorse of the Truther community, since it didn't have airplanes crashing into it, only large chunks of WTC 1 fell on it, which apparently makes a difference somehow. The idea that FDNY was in on the conspiracy and chose not to fight the fire in an empty, badly damaged building, for hours and hours, after losing more than 300 personnel, so that WTC 7 would be destroyed, on purpose, is part of the supposed conspiracy. That's what Truthers are pushing. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I never mentioned the FDNY - proof of high-rises made of steel, not concrete or bricks, that collapsed due to fires? I want facts, not chatter. You are just avoiding answering my questions; for example explain how a passport can be jettisoned out of the "plane" when it impacted the towers and survived the ensuing fires. Regardless of who funded the study, physics cannot be disproven. For a building to fall at free-fall speed, it takes a controlled demolition; Newton's laws of motion are at the basis of physics and cannot be violated. [10] Itemirus (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC) And see Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida. The notion that the WTC was unique is a good example of fallacy of insufficient sample and cherry picking (limiting the choice to tall steel buildings). Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)