Jump to content

Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Clean up

This talk page really needs cleaned up. We have 60 some odd entries, and I am sure not all of them are current. I imagine atleast 25% of this could be archived. DerwinUMD 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan, point by point

I agree with most arguments above about Ryan, we have to be careful when citing scientific claim outside someone's field. Ok then, let's get to the points. I've looked through Ryan's paper and a first half of his presentation. I've tried to collect his claims into major ones that could be included into the article and then be backed up by adding or citing minor facts or other sources. Second part of Ryan's presentation, which focuses on precise critique of NIST report, I'll try to look through later. To simplify discussion, I would propose to put following chars near the sentences:

@ - should be included, # - should not be included, $ - could be included, needs more sources.

I've already put some, I haven't made a distinction whether to include a fact as a quote, a reference or directly into the article. Feel free to add other remarks and please fix language, rephrase claims, etc. SalvNaut 07:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Kevin Ryan claims that official reports about WTC collapse are not unusual cases of "Bush science", which phrase here means a pattern of "“deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals”". @
  • The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals”. Open letter from 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates[1] @
  • “We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration”Union of Concerned Scientists [2] @
  • “[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings” House Committee on Government Reform[3] @
  • Official investigations never considered demolition, although there were reasons to consider it. (the word "never" is controversial here, I agree that there are no signs of such investigation, points below could just be incorporated into the article) @
  • Ryan points out many features typical to controlled demolition, most is already in the article. (No tall buildings have ever collapsed from fire, but on 9/11, we’re told there were three, No building exhibiting all the characteristics of demolition has ever NOT been a demolition)
  • The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors, “It cascaded down like an implosion”[4] @
  • “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building” -- Ronald Hamburger, structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports [5] @
  • The official story received early support and pre-determined conclusions were made by "experts". @
  • “Experts” said jet fuel fires melted the steel: BBC (Chris Wise, etc.),Scientific American (Eduardo Kausel) NOVA video (Matthys Levy) Henry Koffman from USC Tom Mackin from Univ. of Illinois, The New Scientist @
  • WTC fires temperatures exaggerated by National Geographic Today - 2,900 F A&E /History Channel video – 2500 F @
  • Ryan sais: Jet fuel fires burn at maximum of ~1500 F unless in special combustion chamber, Gas temps are not steel temps, thermodynamic calculations(Ryan) suggest steel temperatures in impact zones could have reached maximum of 600 F (imo it qualifies, he is a chemist) @
  • Charles Thornton -- "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." (From Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel)
  • Shankar Nair -- "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.” (Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001) @
  • People involved in investigations were dependent on goverment contracts or other circumstances. @
  • Four of engineers, who provided ASCE report(first one) about WTC, were the same people that provided report about Oklahoma City Bombing, although not much in common between those incidents except "terrorism".
  • ASCE comission was expanded and named FEMA BPAT, people involved: John Gross, NIST engineer with oil and gas history, Therese McAllister, Greenhorne and O’Mara (G&O), other government contractors (Arup, Hughes) $
  • Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti (ASCE) involved in study to establish Silverstein insurance claim.
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology Director is Presidential appointee, NIST is a repository for national reference standards[6] @
  • NIST: Many people came from FEMA investigation $
  • Ryan: NIST used specialists/contractors who were dependent on government contracts or on the official story itself $
  • Silverstein / Weidlinger report (insurance claim, Corley and Thornton-Tomasetti involved) stated that "no floor failure of any kind" happened, column failure only, which directly contradicts FEMA report, NOVA video and most other experts. Ryan suspects, it's because floor failure would have meant design failure and therefore lead to court decision less in favour of Silverstein. @
  • Ryan points out that there were obstructions and restrictions on investigations.@
  • More than a year passed before full investigation began @
  • 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts $
  • Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.” $
  • ASCE:No access to blueprints, Not allowed to ask for help from public, Team members threatened with dismissal for speaking to press, No access to steel until first week of October, FEMA obstruction.([7] p.25 Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records...) @
  • Dick Cheney called Senate leader Tom Daschle and asked him to “limit the scope and overall review of what happened [on 9/11]”, claiming resources would be pulled from the War on Terrorism. [8] President Bush met with Daschle privately and asked him to limit the investigation. @
  • Astaneh-Asl, a lone scientist working on a National Science Foundation study, got access to the steel before the ASCE/FEMA team (collecting "perishable data."), and stated that “The impact did nothing to this building” (CNN[9])
  • Towers were designed to withstand jet hit. @
  • WTC designer, John Skilling: "Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”(ref.: "City in the Sky",Glanz and Lipton) @
  • Ryan provides quotes from Engineering News-Record, 1964: @
  • “The World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities.”
  • For the perimeter columns (83% of total columns), “live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” One “could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction.”
  • WTC Steel: NIST said they found no documents, yet states the buildings were rated as Class 1B (3 hours for columns and 2 hours for floors). $

Kevin Ryan, point by point - discussion

Jim Hoffman's done it already. He wrote a review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' presentation by Ryan.SalvNaut 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hufschmid

I noticed that Hufschmid has been added to the history. While it is true that he came out early on with a book and that it helped to introduce the idea of the demolitions to people, he was very soon rejected by many groups when people learned of his attacks on average people (sheeple) and his anti-semitic views (holocaust denial and worse). Try clicking on some of the links on his site here.

The article wording currently mentions nothing about what he became known for soon after his book so it gives a false impression that he has good standing in the activist community. Those who associate with him are generally the same people who associate with Jimmy Walter (nukes at the WTC, etc) and Chris Bollyn, a writer for American Free Press, which shares the same mailing address with the Barnes Review, which says that Hitler should be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize.

The argument against including more about Hoffman was that he wasn't published in mainstream published books the way Griffin, Jones and Tarpley were, but neither was Hufschmid, and far worse, so I don't see why a personal history of his efforts should be on the page. Hufschmid's book also paired the idea of the demolitons with the idea that a real plane didn't hit the Pentagon, that instead, a missile must have. Virtually no one supports the idea that a missile hit and this is the primary idea used to discredit the entire movement. Thus the self-published book was highly flawed in its reasoning on the Pentagon but that idea was just as prominent as the demolition idea.

Oilempire has this to say about Hufschmid -

Hufschmid is a Holocaust denier, and proud of it. In a January 6, 2006 essay, he wrote, “People who question the official story of the Holocaust are not Holocaust Deniers. Rather, they are Holocaust Truth Seekers, or HoloHoax Exposers.” http://www.erichufschmid.net/Separating_truth_from_lies.htm
Mr. Hufschmid also claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and is widely considered an embarrassment among the reality-based parts of the 9/11 truth movement. Hufschmid's article is one of the least informed rants in favor of Holocaust Denial available anywhere, and promotes the cause of Herr Zundel.bov 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciate this concern. I had purposely left him out for a long time also, basically for these reasons. But there is no question in my mind now that Hufschmid's book is of historical interest. (McMichael, as far as I can tell, is the first as such to insist on CD--Hufschmid is the first to do so in a book.) Note that PM cites Walter's advertisement in the NYT as the impetus for their debunking. The PM book is clearly part of the story of controlled demolition. I don't think there is any reason to spend a lot of time discrediting Hufschmid or the book by elaborating on his views beyond the WTC, but we should probably add a sentence that makes it clear that the current Jones-Griffin-Tarpley hypothesis is critical of many aspects of this early effort. (I note, however, that Tarpley doesn't reject nukes and other exotica completely.)--Thomas Basboll 07:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this concern. :) So he is a nutcase. So are most people pushing the 9/11 conspiracies. It's gonna be pretty unavoidable to mention nutcases in an article about one of the central tenents in the whole web of conspiracy theories... --Regebro 08:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I make no suggestion to discredit Hufschmid - simply tell the truth about who he is at this moment, which is not who people thought he was when he first emerged with his book. In his eyes, and those who support his positions, this is certainly not discrediting. bov 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be best for you just to be bold and put your suggestion in the text. I think a suitably worded sentence like the following might be added to the end of the paragraph: "However, due to his endorsement of the 'no-planes' hypothesis and other controversial ideas not related to the WTC, he has not been an influential figure in developing the hypothesis."--Thomas Basboll 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. bov 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman and the current Jones-Griffin-Tarpley hypothesis

The current Jones-Griffin-Tarpley hypothesis would not exist without - to some extent - the early work not only of Hufschmid but also Hoffman, whose site, 911research.wtc7.net, is the highest google ranked website on the Internet which focuses on the demolition hypothesis. It's been surprising to me that this apparently this has no meaning on here, that the fact that around 10,000 people per day visit the site and learn about demolition isn't of note. Hoffman's contribution was major in a number of ways (he essentially organized the key points of demolition - the symmetry, the rapidity, etc. - and did key early analyses of the official reports), but the insistence on here has been that a major publishing house has to have published the work for anyone to be mentioned. Griffin, Tarpley and Jones all attribute a significant amount of credit to Hoffman for their work, yet he must be essentially invisible on here because he has not submitted a book to Random House. Pop Mech has cited him specifically in their latest book.

Hoffman recently did an event with Steven Jones at UC Berkeley as one of the two main presenters on the demolitions[10], yet, only Jones can really be mentioned here. It seems bizarre. bov 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a couple of sentences noting some of the things you are saying here, with references to PM and other reliable sources if possible (some newspaper coverage of 9-11 Research, for example) would be in order. I've been shying away from him because he difficult to defend at WP policy level (and this article is likely to be policed rather vigorously). Anyone who really knows something about CD knows that Hoffman is more important than Tarpley to this hypothesis. He just doesn't have his papers in order, as it were. We are still waiting for a peer-reviewed paper or book about the history of this controversy (one that doesn't participate directly in it). It would, of course, have to give a prominent place to Hoffman. We could then safely give him the attention he deserves here.--Thomas Basboll 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your comments are appreciated. bov 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

While I think this article still needs a lot of cleaning up, I wonder if anyone is still worried about its neutrality. There are basically two senses in which it might lack NPOV. Either the criticism section is insufficiently developed, or there are too many sentences that use POV language in the whole article. If you think this article lacks NPOV please make no more than three specific criticism below (preferably citing specific sentences) in order of importance. We can then fix them and move on to the next three, if any remain.--Thomas Basboll 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. I definitely think the criticism section has to be developed to ensure NPOV. At present the the overwhelming opposition from mainstream engineers and official investigators is very weakly presented. I'm going to fix this soon.--Thomas Basboll 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC) It's a bit of a mess now, but the article is balanced.--Thomas Basboll 23:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. ?
  3. ?

Building Seven Collapse Sequence

View from north of 7 WTC ~5:20:33 p.m. It begins to collapse (with both mechanical penthouses standing).
~5:21:03 p.m. About thirty seconds later, the east mechanical penthouse begins disappearing into the building. A few seconds elapse before it "disappears" completely.
~5:21:08 p.m. About five seconds later, the west mechanical penthouse disappears or sinks into the building.
~5:21:09 p.m. About one or two seconds after the west penthouse sinks into the building, the whole building starts to collapse. A north-south "kink" or fault line develops along the eastern side as the building begins to come down at what appears to be the location of the collapse initiation.
~5:21:10 p.m. WTC 7 collapses completely after burning for about seven hours.

The facts mentioned in the captions of these pictures has been discussed on the 9/11 CT article. I propose we sort it our here and transfer a sentence or two back to that article. I've taken them out until the matter is settled.--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Skilling's support for CD (before the fact)?

I just removed this from the critcism section:

Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."[1] However, he added, "The building structure would still be there."[2]. The Seattle Times article ended by saying, "Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. 'I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.'"

This can't be a criticism of CD since the remarks were made in 1993. In any case, they seem to confirm the core elements of the CD hypothesis: that a plane would not bring down the building and that controlled demolition could. I don't think any CD'ers have used this info, however. If they have, we can include it.--Thomas Basboll 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've worked on it a bit tonight, and this is as far as I've gotten. I think PM should be added explictly (and McCain's foreword to that book, if I recall, uses the "disrespecting the victims" argument -- he's the right sort of source for that.) Also, we might do a bit more point-by-point refutation. This would probably also help us to focus the evidence section. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Mysteries

I can see there's some dispute about including a link to the film 9/11 Mysteries. The hypothesis has been propogated to a large extent by way of videos. These are of variable notability, but not all of them are irrelevant. What's the cases for and against this one?--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: note the new "popularizations" section. I think links here would be useful and informative.--Thomas Basboll 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The main argument against inclusion was "not to make a case here". Personally, I've never found properly described sources, which were used in right places, as case-making. 9/11 Mysteries is an amateur video, which has gained much recognition(953 976 hits on Google Video[11] and it's only one of many available versions there!). Even Steven Jones voiced his interest in and approval of this video (I could search for a quote if it's still avail.). SalvNaut 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please find that remark and reference the sentence. (For readability, maybe just put Jones's endorsement and the Google stats in the footnote.)--Thomas Basboll 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent extensive edits: heading for peer-review?

Hi everyone. I've gone through the whole article and tried to work it into shape for peer-review. There are still some things to be done, and I've marked the areas that are in particular need of cleanup and expansion. I'd suggest we do a quick job on each of these areas, and then see if we can get some outside editors to review it. I've collected all the rebuttals in the criticism section, and I'm planning to turn it into more orderly prose soon. Do add any major arguments you feel are missing.--Thomas Basboll 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In these closing stages a "To Do list is helpful. I've added the To Do Template for every interested editor to both add items to, and also to work on items from. And, of course, to delete items thought to be finished. I should have done this before, but I am on a wikibreak (still). having looked at the article it is close to being ready for peer eview, though the {{cleanup}} tags in the various sections are surprising. It might be worth researchng to see if there is a tag or cleaning a section, or just to create one Fiddle Faddle 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review?

While a proof read through could probably help, I think we are ready to send this to peer review. What do you think?--Thomas Basboll 13:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks good. We know it will never be perfect. I suggest you do two things:
  1. Archive the talk page for all talk prior to peer review" - that leaves us a clean slate for discussions about the review and for the reviewers during the review
  2. Submit it for the review. I'd love to see it be considered for "Featured Article" status, simply because of its history
Re-proofreading can take place concurrently with peer review, which, after all, does not lock the document against editing during the review. Fiddle Faddle 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with this article is the assertions in the claims section. Most of the assertioins there (The towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum.) are stated as fact. There are other issues, but that's the one that stands out first. Rx StrangeLove 17:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "just slower than free fall" is a fact. (It is also part of the main collapse of the World Trade Center article. Do you have a source that says otherwise? That said, it would be unfortunate if a CD claim that contradicts the official story is stated as a plain fact.--Thomas Basboll 19:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What is "just slower"? A second....15 seconds? And what part of the towers? The columns, beams or debris cloud? They all fell at different rates. Rx StrangeLove 18:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Both NIST and Bazant and Verdure explain that the building offered little resistance and the tops therefore fell in essentially free fall. Bazant and Verdure say "not much" slower than free fall and clarify this by saying not twice as long, meaning, just under 20 seconds. I don't think anyone tries to refute CD by saying "near freefall" is false. They simply say it isn't puzzling. Again, if you could point to a source that offers a different timing of the collapse, this might be easier to talk about.--Thomas Basboll 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"Just" is a little vague, if someone says just under 20 seconds, then say 20 seconds. The top of the towers came down in just under 20 seconds, roughly 9 seconds slower than the rate of free fall in a vacuum. I'm not talking about the timing, I'm talking about the way it's presented here. Rx StrangeLove 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Bazant and Verdure do not say it took 20 seconds. The official estimate is 12. What B&V say is that nothing much slower could be expected and that "much slower" would be, say, twice the time needed for free fall. What they are really saying is well under 20 seconds. More to the point, they are explaining how the tops of the building could have hit the ground in about the time it would have taken them to free fall the same distance. The relevant sentence in the claims section could read: the tops of the buildings came down essentially in free fall.--Thomas Basboll 22:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have escaped from the indent on purpose. This section was ro discuss whether the article is ready for Peer Review. Instead the discussion is about speed of falling. This is interesting and off topic, though it could just (hmm, that word again) be argued that this is "necessary prior to peer review". However that is not the case. Peer Review is intended for "living articles", so let us look at peer review and not other topics. We surely do not need a vote? Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sorry. What is the procedure?--Thomas Basboll 23:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to apologise for. WP:Peer Review is a great place to start. Look at some of he reviews already there. One struck me: "References go after fullstops not before or in the middle of a sentence. The article is also missing a lot of full-stops. That table at the end is too big and ugly, editors prefer articles to have no horizontal scroll. The article has alot of weasel words. Try remove words like However, Whilst. This sentence doesnt make much sense, The engine, gearbox, suspension and most mechanical parts are identical to those of a standard Mini, "most mechanical parts" remove that part and try get someone from wikiproject cars to give it a good copy-edit."
This shows that we truly do need to proofread the article. This level of pedantry is important, because we are meant to write with good grammar and syntax.
There seems to be a script for Automated Peer Review which might be useful at User:AndyZ/peerreviewer. I am investigating it. Fiddle Faddle 23:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Not having much luck with rhe autobeast. But it is late at night here. Maybe someone else cooudl try who is not fallng asleep? For me it just sits and chuckles at me. Fiddle Faddle 00:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah. It works in IE, but not, it seems, in Firefox! Fiddle Faddle 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I have now done all the respinding to the automated peer review out[ut that I am capable of. Please will someone else finish the work, after wi=hich I suggest Thomas submits the article for Peer review. Fiddle Faddle 22:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Automated Review Tool output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 13 pounds, use 13 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 13 pounds.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
    • Comment - apart from units in quotations, which must stay verbatim or they are not quotations, I can find no plural units, with the exception of "feet" which appears not to be covered under this concept Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
    • Comment - This article has been condensed form a huge article. It is unlikely that more condensing is posisble without losing the infomrationit contains. Daughter pages are not currently appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 11:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
      • Comment - "allege" is part of "allegations" and is a heading. Since the article is about a conspiracy theory, whiel weasel words have been eliminated where possible, it is not only inevitable, but desirable that they be used where appropriate, and when associated with the perosn "weaselling". Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: behavior (A) (British: behaviour), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), aluminum (A) (British: aluminium), meter (A) (British: metre), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), analyse (B) (American: analyze), molt (A) (British: moult), sulfur (A) (British: sulphur).
    • Question - This is only an issue if we do not choose which spelling to standardise upon. My view would be that it is a US incident so the spellings should be US. We need a US editor to be "spelling arbiter" and to edit for this unless we have any dissenting voices. Volunteers? Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Power Down

I just reverted some material on Scott Forbes and the idea that there was a power down. We need much better sources to establish this as a fact, and non-self-published controlled demolition proponents who use his claims for anything. We also need to include it up in the main section (if such sources can be found), not the criticism section. Sorry.--Thomas Basboll 12:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense - recommended reading

It is highly advised that anyone editing 9/11 pages do a thorough reading of the "Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense" section on this page. Kings 32 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

He means Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense, which is totally inappropriate in that talk page. I believe it also to be totally inaccurate, but haven't had time to verify. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it's been deleted, see [12] It just goes to further prove that conspiracy theorists by and large believe they have the one, true answer and all other theories are without merit. In this case, it's an assertion that the WTC towers were taken out by space based beam weapons. I hadn't heard that one before. --Durin 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theory template

Given that the conspiracy theory template is

  • erroneous - includes and describes people like Jeff Rense, a UFO promoter, as a "prominent member of the 9/11 truth movement," even though he is not even listed on the Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 page.
  • spotty - only covers a select few people - some of whom promote hoaxes like nukes and no planes - and describes them "prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement," yet omits people like Jeff King, Carol Broulliet, Kevin Ryan, etc. because they have no pages since they haven't made slick DVDs or are not millionaires like Jimmy "nukes" Walter.
  • inaccurate - includes films like 'In Plane Site' which feature pod and no plane hoaxes that have been debunked by the majority of activists and researchers in the movement.

I see no reason to have a highly erronenous and skewed CT "template" featured on this page which does not even have "conspiracy theories" in its title. This page is about the rationale of the scientific hypothesis for demolition. Tom Harrison, who has had no role in this page, continues to repost it and repost Jeff Rense to the content of the template, despite being asked repeatedly not to. bov 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Motive for demolition of Tower 7

One matter conspicuously absent is the total lack of a motive for the controlled demoltion of Tower 7. The amount of work that this would have taken to achieve what? The demolition of an extraneous building. It doesn't seem to pass the common sense test.ChristinaDunigan 11:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem you mention is to be covered in 9/11 alternative theories article, not here. This article should only focus on physical aspects of a collapse and possible CD explanations. That said, I reacall that it was brought forward by 9/11 researchers (and you can read about it in 7 World Trade Center) that:
The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (IRS), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Destroying some evidence was one of the proposed motives. You can read about specualted money motives here. Anyway, this is speculation and this article is not the place for it. This is a good example of problems with investigating WTC collapses objectively - it is very difficult to do it without being connected to "official version theory" or "conspiracy theory". This kind of situation never serves well to good science. SalvNaut 14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with ChristinaDunigan, in fact, what was the motive for the supposed controlled demolition of the WTC towers? "Destroying evidence?" Please. What evidence would there be to destroy - a plane hit each tower, we all know that. If the government had already arranged the highjacking and crashing of 4 airplanes (ostensibly to "cover up" their crime of demolishing the towers), that would have been more than enough to go to war - why take the additional risk of planting explosives in the towers and risk being exposed. In fact, the towers had so much damage they probably would have to have been demolished anyway and rebuilt. There should be a section on motives, since that goes right to the credibility of the whole theory. Specifically why the "controlled demolition" was necessary - the "Motives" section under "9/11 conspiracy theories" does not deal with this.P. Moore 14:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The Twin Towers were long regarded as architectural dinosaurs and economic failures by their original owners, who applied to the City of New York to have the Towers demolished, but they were denied permission to demolish the Towers for safety reasons. The towers would have to be de-constructed, on the owner's cost most probably. 4 airplanes were enough to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? For some, probably... SalvNaut 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Eventually, you will learn not to try to be logical with the nutjobs. It wastes your time and annoys the nutjobs, then they publish another book full of "unanswered questions."Mzmadmike 01:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and you must have read plenty of those books, right? D.Griffin's Debunking the 9/11 Debunking I recommend to you. Eventually, you will learn to deal with facts, not with "popularized facts". SalvNaut 10:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Add material on "mini-nukes"

There is some material in the overview article on 9/11 conspiracy theories about "mini-nukes" and other exotic technologies being used to demolish the twin towers. Maybe somebody should add a comment on this here? --Robert Merkel 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any published material (book, paper), which was later referenced by reliable secondary source (newspaper,journal,tv programme, etc..) about this theory. Please check WP:RS, WP:Notability and find some sources if possible. Wouldn't mini-nukes left some detectable radiation (none was detetced, right?)? SalvNaut 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's mentioned in 9/11 conspiracy theories; I merely point out that if it's mentioned there it should also be mentioned here. I don't care if it's removed from both articles. Yes, it is completely beyond the realms of plausibility that nuclear weapons could have been used to demolish the Twin Towers without leaving lethal and easily-detectable levels of radioactive fallout behind. --Robert Merkel 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No radiation was ever found, but tht hasn't stopped anyone talking about it. There probably should be some kind of section on it in this article, as it's now gaining popularity, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth are starting to talk about it.DanCrowter 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete

Man, looking over this article, one would have to be smoking crack cocaine to believe that the conspiracy theories have any proof behind them. Who wrote this crap?--Beguiled 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am trying to get this article deleted. Does anyone know how to do this?--Beguiled 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think i found the template that will delete this article. If my template is wrong, can someone please add the correct template? Thank you!--Beguiled 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is some other way to have the article deleted, can someone do it for me, as the page that supposedly shows how to delete an article is very complicated. Why can't I just delete it myself?--Beguiled 21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgh. I added a link that clearly states that "due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column" is the reason the world trade center building number 7 collapsed. If anyone saw pictures of before the building collapsed, they would be obvious that there was a lot of structural damage from when the towers collapsed.--Beguiled 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of this article to one that is more accurate. I will be working on further removal of some of the ridiculous information here since we can't delete it, we might as well make sure it doesn't continue to make Wikipedia look like fools are writing it.--Beguiled 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware of our policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Also, all decisions are policy based, not based on personal opinions. Thanks! Moscatanix 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You changed the name back to the wrong title. What we have here is a failure to communicate. Indeed, this stuff is a conspiracy theory and the only "hypothesis" is one that is being pushed by those who want to make conspiracy theories look like truth. I don't see any rationale for your changing the name of this article back, so how do I get the new title to stick? Is this something that is decided by a vote or something?--Beguiled 22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Community decides together. No one person has authority to overrule the community. Moscatanix 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I can bring it to a vote and see what the community wants then? Is that the best way to do it?--Beguiled 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Read this discussion first. This was covered it looks like by the editors already... if you think you have a POLICY based reason--read the Wikipedia policies--why it should be renamed, start a new section here detailing why per our policies it should be renamed. Moscatanix 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But that was a discussion based on changing the word hypothesis to theory or vice versa. I want to change the title to conspiracy theories, no other title is accurate to describe what is being discussed here. To be honest, I don't even know why this article even exists! What facts is it based on? I guess I can understand why the article can exist to descibe the phenomenon, but to call it a hypothesis or a theory is ridiculous.--Beguiled 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this MONGO? Your first two edits sound like that de-sysopped user[13],[14]. Moscatanix 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you already ask me if I was a different user on my user page? I said no. So, since you are now accusing me since we disagree with each other, maybe you are being uncivil to me? I am just a bit angry that this stuff is on Wikipedia because it doesn't make us look like an encyclopedia.--Beguiled 22:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you might not be MONGO, but you certainly have one thing in common with him (and with some other fellow editors). You very often phrase your sentences as you were Wikipedia, especialy when making POV argument. This article is very legitimate and well sourced. Topic is notable. This article states nothing about where the truth is - it only presents arguments from both sides. Well, it's very sad to look at voices like yours, Beguiled, who would like to silent everything you don't like. However many other editors and readers found this article worth reading and editing and community voices, although dissenting, have pointed, according to Wikipedia policies, that this article should stay and be developed. No good arguments for deleting it were presented - topic is encyclopedic. If you feel like contributing here, please do (but not by deleting well sourced material). Moscatanix already explained it very well. SalvNaut 01:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I was told about this conversation via email....not sure how to approach this...Moscatanix has for some odd reason, accused this Beguiled fellow of being me....! Salvnaut above makes some broad claimant that this other editor and me (as well as others apparently) of being Wikipedia...okay, what does that mean I wonder. Anyway, Beguiled stop calling stuff "crap" or people "stupid" but going around accusing him of being someone's sockpuppet and accusing him of acting harshly is a pretty obvious violation of WP:BITE by a number of editors here...did anyone notice that he/she is apparently a new editor? Or is the intention now to insult him/her since he/she has a different POV? Everyone...everyone of course, needs to be cool here.--MONGO 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Beguiled, it seems that you misunderstand the premise under which an article should appear in Wikipedia. You ask: Man, looking over this article, one would have to be smoking crack cocaine to believe that the conspiracy theories have any proof behind them. Who wrote this crap? You are entitled to ask everything except Who wrote this crap? which is uncivil and a behaviour which, if continued, is likely to achieve hostility towards you and your opinions, and may well lead to formal action against you by any editor who feels insulted by your words.

That the conspiracy theories themselves may well be total rubbish is fine. They may be. The purpose of this article is to document one set of them. It is not here to say that they are correct, nor that they are incorrect. It is to document in a perfectly neutral and encyclopaedic manner that fact of their existence at all.

The article may well be imperfect, but that does not mean it should be deleted. That means it should be improved such that it is a better record of the fact of the existence of this particular hypothesis. Deleting the article would not remove the documented and well sourced facts that the hypothesis exists.

The hypothesis may be wholly flawed. It may be total rubbish. It may be a tissue of lies and pure fabrication by people with unusual motives. But that does not mean it is not proper to have an article which documents this correctly. In fact it makes it very important to have such an article in order to allow people to draw proper and educted conclusions from the material presented to them.

Many of the editors who have contributed to this article do not subscribe to the controlled demolition hypothesis at all, they, we, are simply documenting that it exists. Fiddle Faddle 00:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To amplify Fiddle Faddle's comments above, Beguiled, the simultaneous arguments you make for deletion and renaming don't immediately make sense to me. I haven't been involved with this article previously, but I decided to come here after the concern your actions raised at the administrators' noticeboard, I wanted to check it out for myself. While the theory being discussed in this article would require a vast conspiracy to implement and cover up, the article itself is about the hypothesis, not about the conspiracy or conspiracies by which the hypothesis would have been carried out. There is a separate article on 9/11 conspiracy theories that deals with the conspiracy aspect. This hypothesis is encyclopedic not because it is true but because it has gained popular currency and notability as a social phenomenon. Much like the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations and the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, the encyclopedic quality lies not in the truth of the theory but in the theory's place in the popular consciousness. That you or I find these theories to be dubious at best is really beside the point, frankly. To delete this article because the theory itself is unproven demonstrates similar logic to deleting the article on Jesus because it is based on the beliefs about the subject rather than on conventional proof. --Ssbohio 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yaya, but if I can't delete the article, then I should at least be able to change the title to one that is correct. I don't see how anyone can call this a hypothesis or theory, but it is definitely a conspiracy theory. I already added a reference since some editor kept removing my facts. By peer review, does that mean someone actually intends to publish this article?--Beguiled 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate the article for deletion, as is any editor; that is your power of deletion. It has been nominated twice and survived it twice. If you do so then there will be a consensus reached over whether it should stay or go. "Some editor" removed your facts because they were unsourced at the time. The article is published. It is here, on Wikipedia. WP:Peer review tells you all about the peer review process. Please read it. We have alreadcy talked about whether it is a hypothesis or not. It is a hypothesis.
As I have said on your talk page, Wikipedia is not about "I", it is about "we". The faster you learn this the better your work will be received. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen your comments. Sorry if I insult, but I find this article insulting. Look "HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hypothesis but this is all based on a complete lack of evidence. Where did all this stuff come from? In order to do what this article says was done, it would involve a conspiracy and the best title for the article would be conspiracy theory since that is what this is.--Beguiled 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


It has been explained to you that the article is present because it documents a social phenomenon. You can also see, here, the history of discussions about the term "Hypothesis", which is defined in the dictionary and is the correct term. You state, correctly, that the Controlled Demolition (let's call it a proposition for now) is built on supposition, circumstabtial evidence and folklore (I am interpreting what you say here and acknowledge that these are not your words). A theory requires far stronger evidence than a hypothesis. It is a technical distinction between the words.
The article cannot truly be insulting. It documents the facts of the demolition believers and their statements. Facts of themselves cannot be insulting.
If you have items of concern, raise them here with pleasure and help us understand your concerns. A great number of people have been working hard to make this article as neutral and factual as possible. Please become one of that number. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Beguiled, have you read the whole article and checked references? I can't see how would you then make statements like "this is all based on a complete lack of evidence" and ask questions like "where did all this stuff come from"? Well, it came from newspapers, movies witnesses, observations, scientific papers and books. Even someone who does not belive in this theorey must acknowledge that there is a lot of evidence (molten metal, collapse itself) which wasn't analyzed by NIST, or any other official study, and which might fit CD theory. Please read the article, recheck references and have a good, close look on the case again. SalvNaut 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What you claim as evidence simply isn't evidence at all. There have been multiple parties that did examine what happened and none of them support a building being blown up. People are now also removing my cited and referenced information just because they don't like facts here obviously. There is s serious problem here.--Beguiled 05:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) The place to discuss a controversial name change would be requested moves, I think. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the To Do list and complete current final actions

As far as I can tell there is one single action remaining before this article is submitted for peer review, which is to cite the one {{fact}} tag left, which is here:


Done I think. It was mainly Jones's argument about temperatures sufficient to weaken steel frame. He refered to NIST study in his paper. SalvNaut 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Great. Strike it through in the automated peer review tool section, remove it form the to do list,and seriously consider beikng bold and submittig for peer freview. Fiddle Faddle 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Striked. I think it's Thomas Basboll's privilege to do so, I suppose he would like to participate in the process. He might be back from his Wikibreak any day now.SalvNaut 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

While a peer review is, of course, no guarantee that the article will not be deleted at some future point, it will bring a different, wider population of editors in to look at the article in depth and thus provide valuable input. We may even achieve Featured Article Status.

I have worked steadily through the Automated Review tool Output in order to knock off each of the tasks I cna do, one by one, in order to leave those that require specialist knowledge or research to editors whose interest is the topic per se, rather than my own interest which is the article as an article. This is the final task left prior to submission (which I feel should be by any of the major contributors, not be me as a minor contributor). It probably no longer even needs 'consensus to suibmit' since this has been an end goal since the last AfD. Perhaps the person adding the citation could just be bold and make the submission? Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference for damage to WTC7's central column

I have edited the reference to comply with the "Cite Web" template, extracted the relevant quotation from within it, and modified the place in the intro where the quote is applied to remove the extra detail since it is firmly and attributably in the footnote. We should note that this reference dos not state that there was damage caused by débris. It states instead "An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;". This means that the document is not definite about external débris. Since we can only report valid sources and not speculate this is the correct way of handling this issue.

Another editor has said I removed it because I did not like it. The edit history shows that I removed it because it did not, in my view, reference débris sufficiently and did not substantiate the statement made with it. Fiddle Faddle 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the fellow above, abrasive as he may be, did actually quote exactly what the NIST has stated.....yet that has once again been removed. He may have used inaccurate wording first time around, but he seemed to have gotten it right the second time. But the fact that that WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane remains, while the ancillary and equally important fact that debris damaged the building, as quoted from NIST, has been removed...why is that, I wonder. If NIST isn't valid, then not a single other refrence in this article is either.--MONGO 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Well...looks like you covered it, albeit somewhat differently...--MONGO 10:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, MONGO. I covered it within the style of the opening paragraph, and ensured that the full quotation is present in the footnote. I agree that a cursory glance would lead one to think "deletion" which is why I felt it wise to cover it here. I am in absolute agreement with you over facts. I don't care a fig for the various conspiracies - I disbelieve them - but I believe the article itself must cover them properly and give correct weight to citable and reliable sources. What I was unhappy about previously was that the initial reference was so broad as to make it like looking for a needle in a haystack. What we have now is, I hope, an authoritative reference, well documented, and carrying perhaps more weight that the originating editor gave it. The important thing about this reference is that it has this "and/or" in it, so it does not define what actually happened. Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn is "Thsi is what NIST says". Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Peer Review

I have taken the step of nominating this article. We must now monitor the comments and respind to them in a timely manner. See the dialogue box at the head of the article. Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. I corrected your recollection of the content-forking, however. Looking forward to seeing the comments and getting back into it.--Thomas Basboll 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I felt that the horns of this bull needed to be grasped. So much work has been done, and most of tghe current edits are rearranging deckchairs prettily, not large and substantive corrections. Thanks for the correction. I hope I have nominated it sufficiently well for people to be interested in coming and reading it.
I also feel that a full peer review will satisfy many of the objections expressed by Beguiled and will also allow a certain amount of deletion-proofing by satisfying those who seem to think that "havng an article at all" gives credence to the demolitionists. My own view is that the conspiracy is a heap of junk, but that makes me the more determined to have a decent, well documented, and balanced article on it. Fiddle Faddle 15:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

References

  • D. O. Dusenberry, R. O. Hamburger (2006). "Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential". Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 20 (4): 336–348. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2006)20:4(336).
  • M. R. Karim, M. S. Hoo Fatt (2005). "Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center". Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 131 (10): 1066–1072. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2005)131:10(1066).

--Stone 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

These are excellent references. Do you have an opinion on where they should sit within the article itself, please? They do need to be included in the relevant segments. Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Please look at the citations, one by one, and improve them by using the correct citation template within each ref (see the "To Do list"). A list of urls is not acceptable, especially when we are asking for a peer review. I'm sure we had this cracked a month or so ago, but I imagine the article changed substantially. I'm doing them a few at a time, but do not, please, rely on me to finish it. Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think using google videos as sources for any matters of fact is questionable. A transcript produced and maintiained by a reliable news source would be better. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with using the google video as a source. A youtube video, shows pretty much the same thing but continues talking about how the building was pulled down with cables. Now I wouldn't use either source as a reference, but it seems that pulling down a building with cables is a very different process from the supposed controlled demolition of WTC7 with explosives. I certainly don't think this usage of "pull" proves that this is common slang for destroying a building. --Dual Freq 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The point about Google and YouTube videos is made also on the Peer Review page. Additionally there are many editors patrolling articles to remove links to questionable material based on copyright. I think we must at least comment out the references to those videos with a note in the comment to show what we have done and why. This may require some segment rewrites. We should at least be able to cite a text source in each case if we cannto cite a video source. Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started to comment these out. The reason I'm commenting them out is to both remove them and not lose track of where they were inserted. Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I commented them all out. That solves the copyright issues, but it may leave a comment that requires a citation as an orphan. Please will someone check my work. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a citation for "Criticism of the controlled demolition hypothesis can be divided into two main categories." I've noted it with a citation needed tag. What we need is an academic or journalistic source who has studied this and concluded that criticism falls into the two main categories that we then go on to describe. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I raised this with Tom on his talk page after he added the tag. I'll make a similar comment here, because we need to resolve either a citation or whether one is required here. I don't mean this in any way to criticise Tom's adding the tag; I am in a genuine quandary over what to do. Reason? To me it is as self evident as the colour of the sky, and I see it as a "normal statement" when drafting such an article. I think Tom judges that to be unencyclopaedic. So, how do we handle this? Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Too much of this is our own (not that I contributed much here) social science research. It's original research by synthesis. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Many of the published materials this article cites advance the position the article is about. I think it would help if you provided an example of an arrangement of claims and sources you believe violate the OR policy. There may be examples, but I think most of them can easily be fixed by citing the source that itself advances the position in question.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"Criticism of the controlled demolition hypothesis can be divided into two main categories." I've noted it with a citation needed tag. What we need is an academic or journalistic source who has studied this and concluded that criticism falls into the two main categories that we then go on to describe. Tom Harrison Talk 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that one's a good call. I don't think there is a source for that claim (I wrote it) and the section hasn't really developed in line with it anyway.--Thomas Basboll 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

'By association with other 9/11 conspiracy theories, the controlled demolition hypothesis is also often accused of being disrespectful of the victims of 9/11 and their families.' - I'm not sure how central of an element that is. There is some of that from both sides, but an exposition of the back-and-forth name-calling might go better in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 21:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been scratching my head about it for a while. I think it adds nothing to the article with or without a citation. I feel that it is a generic thing about any conspiracy theory that it gets entangled with any deaths the event caused, and as such goes better in an article higher in an article hierarchy than here. This hypothesis is not of itself either respectful nor disrespectful regarding the dead, is it? Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The most notable instance is the Leslie Robertson/Steven Jones radio interview (already cited in the article). It was used there specifically in relation to controlled demolition. The other notable (but more general) instance is McCain's intro to the Popular Mechanics book. Tucker Carlson called Jones' ideas "offensive" (but didn't explain why). I think it's worth having in there, especially with the note that it is the association to CTs that causes the offense.--Thomas Basboll 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't strongly object to it if others think it's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review emphasises consistent citations

I have just updated the ToDo list to reflect the need to be consistent with citations. The templates are here: Wikipedia:Citation templates and a peer reviewer has emphasised the need for their use. Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested POV from Peer Review

I am looking at this paragraph:

"All these authors refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before it can be accepted as true. Their three accounts of the hypothesis overlap in many ways, but they each offer a distinct perspective. Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarizes suggestive physical features of the collapses, he adds a reading of the oral histories that were released by the New York Fire Department in August 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eyewitness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasizing expert opinions proposing controlled demolition shortly after the attacks; the behavior of government agencies (especially the New York Mayor's Office) in the handling of the WTC site; and public criticism of the official investigation into the collapses. This criticism of both the motives and the methods of official investigations is central to the defense of the controlled demolition hypothesis and here Ryan's contribution has become influential."

The key sentence criticised is "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition."

Taken as a freestanding sentence I can see that it could be read to be pejorative towards Jones's work. But with the other descriptions of the other people alomngside it the sentence appears to me simply to compare and contrast the three people.

The question is "What, if anything, should be rephrased?" Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A possible answer is to rephrase to ""Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with exhibit similarities to controlled demolition." This removes the possibly judgemental struck out words. I'll go ahead in a few minutes and make that change. Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think the "seem" was put in as a concession to the opposite POV complaint, which the proposed version would be subject to. Whether or not these features are "similarities" (vs. mistaken associations made by proponents) is likely to be controversial.--Thomas Basboll 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no issue with "seem" being present or absent. The words I felt were awkward implied that Jones took the "easy" route. Feel perfectly free to add "seem" back from my persepctive. Fiddle Faddle 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be better: "Jones concentrates on the (alleged/perceived) physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." Physical implausibility is a claim made by CD proponents. RxS 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe "Jones concentrates on (what some people see as the) physical implausibility (inherent in) the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." RxS 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed it in the article already. Sorry I didn't comment here. Anyway, my solution is: "Jones concentrates on the physical plausibility of the official explanation and possible similarities to controlled demolition." By changing it from implausibility to plausibility in a context where Jones is clearly questioning the official line the sentence becomes neutral without adding clunky qualifiers.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting the best from a peer review

It seems to me that the peer review process depends in the main on "loyal reviewers" making the reviews. That is not wholly effective when an article has the scope for substantial controversy. We've seen that controversy in the past and the article has improved because of it.

I think it would be of great use to the article if many of those who found the article's pre and just post AfD incarnations to have been flawed if they were asked to look at the peer review invitation, and to join the review. I think that should be balanced by inviting those who were positive about the article, too.

I do not think there can be any accusations of spamming since the invitations are even handed and are to participate in the Peer Review process, not, specifically not, to be positive or negative about the article, but to review it in a wikipedian manner.

If the work that has been done is as valid as we believe it to be then the article can only improve further as a result. A downside is that I imagine there is nothing to prevent any editor, peer review or not, from nominating for deletion, but that is an ever present issue anyway.

So I open it to "the floor" as a suggestion. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That thought notwithstanding, I have placed an invitation to review on the village pump. Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The Peer Review has a comment that the opening (lead) paragraph should contain the names of the principal proponents of the CD Hypothesis. Because there are so many bit players in this I think we should phrase it as "Key proponents postulating various forms of controlled demolition include..." and certainly list Jones and three of four more main people. I'm not sure that we should list anyone minor here. Thoughts, please?

When listing someone we will have to be careful to unwikilink the name lower down. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Jones, Ryan, Hoffman, Griffin and Tarpley would suffice for me.--Thomas Basboll 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest you feed them in, and then remove any referring task from the to do list, and also make a reply on the peer review page, striking the relevant part of the suggestion to sgnify completion? They seem like the major list to me, too. Do we need citations at this point imthe text or will further down suffice? Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. I have left the wikilinks in down below, however. I'm not sure I understand why they should be removed. It seems to me that it would ease navigation to be able to click directly from the point where one gets curious, to the relevant article.--Thomas Basboll 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I may be misremembering WP:MOS, but I think it suggests that a wikilink to another article appear once and once only. To me it is a small thing and I agree with you over convenience of navigation. Perhaps it is a case of WP:IAR. From thissi point on I am simply thinking "Featured Article Status", and trying to remove all obstacles to a successful niomination :) Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Conspiracy theory in lead

I think the move to open the article with the words "conspiracy theory" is a bit hasty. I'm all for listening to the reviewers, but the association with conspiracy theories is taken up in the very next sentence. The first sentence should simply state what the hypothesis is. The second sentence then places it in the context of adherents and detractors.--Thomas Basboll 19:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As usual I am content with consensus. Part of the reason for my bold edit is the current AfD, and the need to seek to ensure that as many relevant points as possible are entertained. I have no difficulty with a reversion or with alternate wording. Fiddle Faddle 19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Mongo is with the reviewer on this. Welcome to the discussion. Please note that the accuracy of the label is not at issue here. The hypothesis is grouped as a conspiracy theory in the very next sentence. Having it in both sentences is protesting too much. It belongs in the second sentence, contrasted with the NIST consensus.--Thomas Basboll 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm being very gentle. I think the article title should incorporate the words conspiracy theories. Calling them anything else is POV since they would have to involve the efforts of two or more persons (conspiracy) and since there is zero proof to support the "hypothesis".--MONGO 20:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) It will all come out in a consensus. It may be that it is well to state up front that it is a conspiracy theory and remove the "lump" like referene from a following sentence. I still stick to "hypothesis" in the title, for it has wholly insifficient weight to be classified as a theory per se, but I accept the generic classification of conspiracy theories Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The "two or more persons" definition is not the applicable one here, as you [Mongo] know. CTs are about shadowy networks of powerful figures. The CDH is associated with these for obvious reasons but isn't itself one since it only implies an ordinary conspiracy, i.e., two or more people planting explosives. If you could settle for this association being mentioned in the second sentence (!) then I would call you gentle. If consensus goes your way, then we will have to change the lead completely. We would then start the article with its associations and let the second sentence provide the actual content of the hypothesis. "The CDH is a central element in many 9/11 CTs. It proposes that the WTC was brought down using explosives or other devices rather than as a result of the planes that hit them." That would salvage the style of the paragraph.--Thomas Basboll 20:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but facts are, the event would involve a conspiracy if done in any manner other than what is know to be factual...I say two or more as that is all by the legal definition (US) that is needed for a conspiracy.--MONGO 20:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we all agree that the word "conspiracy" is absloutely correct, don't we? Fiddle Faddle 20:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The most accurate is "a central element of 9/11 conspiracy theories." But, yes, we shouldn't be arguing about the conspiracy label (the reason we are is that Mongo has for some reason decide to use the legal definition, which generally confuses things when we are talking about conspiracy theories.)--Thomas Basboll 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we probably need to depersonalise this, even in this mild state. The objective is the article and polishing it to make sure that objections to anything in it are minimised while retaining all relevant facts. Mongo is wholly entitled to his position and may or may not hold sway in a consensus, as may any other editor. Let's keep our eyes on the main objective - that of being able to submit for consideration for Featured Article status. Fiddle Faddle 20:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
CD hypothesis is not conspiracy theory by itself. Everyday scientist just look at the evidence and they conclude that something is wrong and propose controlled demolition. Thinking of "who, why" is not the part of CD hypothesis. SalvNaut 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The opening sentence is now emphasising the fact that this hypothesis is part of a set of conspiracy theories. That certainly makes it clear. But the second sentence does as well, which is a stylistic "oops". Fiddle Faddle 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I see it, we must choose between:
1. The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial proposition that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. Though the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) do not suggest that controlled demolition was involved, the hypothesis has become a central element of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
2. The controlled demolition hypothesis is a central element in many 9/11 conspiracy theories. It proposes that the World Trade Center was brought down using explosives or other devices rather than collapsing as a consequence of being hit by airplanes. The findings of the official investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) do not support the hypothesis and it has been pursued mainly by independent researchers such as ...
I lean to the first of these.--Thomas Basboll 08:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Oooops. First one is more logical as it explains core idea at first. SalvNaut 09:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The more I look at it the more I tend to the first one. While I understand the desire to state CT in the first sentence, and attempted to do so myself previously, it just does not flow because it does not fit into the explanation of the topic of the article. That it IS a part of the 9/11 CTs there is no doubt. The second sentence is abundantly clear on that, and that fact is major, yet secondary in the article about the hypothesis per se. Fiddle Faddle 09:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Do the sources that say there is such a thing as a 'controlled demolition hypothesis' describe it as a conspracy theory? Tom Harrison Talk 13:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess that was a rhetorical question. Tom Harrison Talk 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I sort of thought it was. I would think we all agree that the answer is yes. PM and the media coverage don't seem to make a distinction there. Even people like Griffin (who also says the hypothesis exists) says that his is an alternative conspiracy theory. I didn't take it up because I our worry here is not whether or not to group it with conspiracy theories, but what order to put that information in.--Thomas Basboll 22:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made the change (in favour of option 1) as per the apparent consensus.--Thomas Basboll 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus to avoid characterizing the theory as a conspiracy theory. That is what the sources call it, and that is what we should call it. The opening sentence, 'The controlled demolition hypothesis is...', should make clear that it is a particular instance of what are in general conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"conspiracy theory" is how reliable sources refer to this topic. It's nothing more than that. --Aude (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we avoid the "conspiracy theory" label. The second sentence offers two facts: the CDH is officially rejected and pursued by conspiracy theorists. The first sentence simply confines itself to the essential claim of the hypothesis (though it does add the adjective "controversial".) So the issue isn't what the sources call it; we all agree on that. We are talking about style. In think the best way forward would be for you suggest an alternate wording of the first two sentences that presents these facts in a different order. We can then have a straw poll on it.--Thomas Basboll 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy theory that is pretty much unanimously rejected by reliable sources. I don't see much controversy or disagreement about that among reliable sources. It's important to make that clear right away. --Aude (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need to vote on everything. We can just edit and discuss, as we are. Tom Harrison Talk 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
This should not become a sticking point. It simply requires good use of language and we also need to avoid having a first sentence that becomes unwieldy as others say "and this, and this, and this". There is a point when one must say "it's a lomng enough and full enough sentence as it is. My own position is entirely neutral. If it fits well in the first sentence, great. If not, as long as it is prominent and in the first paragraph, also great. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
AudeVivere: since nobody disagrees that "it's a conspiracy theory that is pretty much unanimously rejected by reliable sources", that fact doesn't justify your edit. As of your edit, this article begins with a link to the main article on 9/11 CTs. It then says that the CDH is a conspiracy theory in the first sentence and goes on to say that it is a central element in 9/11 conspiracy theories in the second sentence. With or without the replacement of "proposition" with "conspiracy", the CT angle is clear from the beginning.
Tom: we may not need a vote. But we do need you to pitch your proposal at the right level; that is, we need a solution for how to handle both of the sentences we are talking about. There is no reason that an early mention of CT should make the lead clumsy.--Thomas Basboll 18:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory in lead (con't)

We have at present: "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial conspiracy theory that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance."
We might meet this by something along the lines of the following: "The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial proposition, in popular parlance a conspiracy theory, that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance."
The underlined words may be the key to it. Or not, I suppose. Fiddle Faddle 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
And the next sentence?--Thomas Basboll 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Current: "Though the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) do not suggest that controlled demolition was involved, the hypothesis has become a central element of 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Suggestion: "Though the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) do not suggest that controlled demolition was involved, the hypothesis has become a central element of various of the 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Nothing will be perfect. The thing to do is to lengthen it subtly, and no "lump" appears. Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we're talking past each other here. Hadn't we agreed that we wanted to avoid saying that the CDH is a conspiracy theory in both the first and second sentence? I'm not looking for ways of softening the label ("various of the" or "in popular parlance"). Like Aude and Tom, I think the CDH is essentially a conspiracy theory (I don't know of any proponent that doesn't also think it implies an inside job of some kind). I just don't think we should say it twice in the first two sentences. (Apologies for shouting.) I think our readers mainly want an account of what the hypothesis is; not our repeated assurances that it doesn't have to be taken seriously. It looks obsessive.--Thomas Basboll 20:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right. How about this:
The controlled demolition hypothesis is the controversial conspiracy theory, part of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. However, the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) do not suggest that controlled demolition was involved. The most detailed statements of the hypothesis have come from Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Jim Hoffman, David Ray Griffin and Webster Griffin Tarpley. In making their case, they often emphasize the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which was not hit by a plane. Though the official report on the collapse of WTC 7 is still to be published, NIST says it has found no evidence of controlled demolition.[1]" Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Major cut from claims section

I'd like to cut three whole subsections from the claims section:

  • 3.4 Symmetry
  • 3.5 Squibs
  • 3.6 Molecular and chemical analysis

The first two are covered in the "similarities" section (could perhaps be expanded there a bit. The last is simply too esoteric, though it could perhaps be merged into a discussion of the fire temperatures.--Thomas Basboll 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes it could be done. But some text should be moved and sources. As for the 3.6 - we should agree on whether it is a significant part of Jones's hypothesis or not (yet?). Those results are presented (not published) on journalof911studies.com and Jones was talking a lot about it in all of his lectures from late 2006. Opinions? (I don't think it deserves its own section but I think it has its place in the section) SalvNaut 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It may be enough to rename the "molten metal" section "thermite" and summarise all evidence related to that claim there.--Thomas Basboll 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I think naming it "Thermite" could be considered to be OR unless the text is very carefully crafted. It could look as if we, the editors, have reached a conclusion in favour of thermite. Fiddle Faddle 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
"Thermite hypothesis" maybe? --Thomas Basboll 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Or "Jones's thermite hypothesis". Assuming Jones to be the thermite guy, that is. Of course he also spoke of thermate. Trust him to be awkward! Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented changes with the title "Molten metal and thermite hypothesis". SalvNaut 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if other two sections should be cut. Squibs are indeed strange phenomenon and even if not much of scientific evidence they're often shown on videos, pictures, etc. Worth having their own section I think. Symmetry - well I've tried to move parts of it to the list at the begining of the section but then the list lost its symmetry :). Maybe just one more sentence? SalvNaut 02:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Beguiled

I see this page can now be deleted, but there are a lot of people that voted to keep it. So now what do we do?--Beguiled 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't be deleted at this point. The AFD has to pass with a Delete result for the article to be deleted. --Wildnox(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so what's next? Doesn't anyone care about the way this encyclopedia looks? How can anyone take this encyclopedia seriously if this is the kind of article that can be found here? Bizarre.--Beguiled 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We wait for the discussion to close. The result there determines the fate of the page, not whether or not you want the article to exist. --Wildnox(talk) 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What you do next is very simple. You have registered your opinon on the AfD page. That is the end of your power over the article's deletion or survival. So you sit back and wait and watch and you work with the commmunity and its consensus. If the consensus is that it be deleted then your opinion has prevailed. If the consensus is that it be kept, or if there is no consensus (when it is kept by default), then you accept that you are at variance with the community. Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I'll wager that the people who have written books and other stuff to make a buck off this conspiracy theory are paying people to vote to keep articles like this one. Since they have the chance to lose money by not having their zany ideas documented in as many places as possible, they have all the reason to do such a thing. The only thing this article does is make this encyclopedia look "blank". (I can't say somethings now I guess).--Beguiled 21:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make accusations here, and be aware of the terms of WP:AGF. Remeber that all of your actions are a matter of public record. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As are those who are here trying to call this kind of abuse of this system an effort to be enclopedia writers. If you look at Britannica, they don't have articles like this one. College professors aren't going to be telling their students to use Wikipedia if articles like this are going to keep being written.--Beguiled 21:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am guilty of a typo. I said "your actions" which looks accusing. I meant to type "our actions". Yes, everyone's actions are a matter of public record. If you want to discuss Wikipedia Policy you should do so at Wikipedia:Village pump where such matters are raised and discussed.. Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that one of the strengths of WP is precisely that Britannica doesn't have an article like this. (Nor one on, say, Jump the shark.) College professors are not one sort of thing, but competent college professors will never (I hope) tell their students to use WP like they might use Britannica. They will teach them how to use Wikipedia.--Thomas Basboll 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Great comment. Very accurate and hopefully professors will teach students how to use Wikipedia. I'll add that it should be teached all the time how to use all available sources of information properly. We live in era of information. Good choice and good assessment of information is becoming essential. SalvNaut 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as my opinion is concerned, the hypothesis is a lot of bull. Nevertheless, I voted for keep because I feel that for as long as it adheres to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Notability, and as long it is presented in an encyclopedic manner, then it should stay. Must I comment even though I agree with your opinion on this hypothesis, Beguiled (I am as anti-conspiracy theory as they come), but blanking an entire page just because you disagree with it is not the solution. RashBold (talk · contribs · count) 23:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement Template

Today is the first time that I have given any time to reading this template. it says:

Part of a series on the: 9/11 Truth Movement

But this article is not about the 9/11 Truth Movement, nor is it a part of any series on it. It is about quite a narrow hypothesis.

On that basis I feel we need to give the inclusion or otherwise of this template more thought and reach a consensus about it. I would like to know more abut the rationale for deploying it in the article in case I have misunderstood its purpose. My understanding of it at present leads me to oppose its deployment. I am content to alter that view given sufficient rationale. Fiddle Faddle 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm having a hard time following the disagreement over this. Certainly this hypothesis is of interest to the 9/11 Truth Movement. Right now, it doesn't have a purpose outside of that movement (in a broad sense). It is not an issue in engineering, for example. But I also don't quite know what all these "series" templates are for, or whether they're a good idea. They often bring a lot of associations along with them rather carelessly.--Thomas Basboll 22:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts in raising this are that, while the hypothesis may be of interest to and may have been promulgated by members of some movement, it wooudl be an article on those people that would link in this very "up front" manner to the CDH article. But I do not (yet) see a rationale for including this template of those people/that movement in this article. Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a useful aid for the reader who wants to know more about the subject. Having a navigation template on each of a group of related pages makes it easier for the reader. Theories about controlled demolition are intrinsic to the truth movement. It is one of their primary explanations for what really happened. Without a theory of controlled demolition, there would be no organized movement, just a collection of less reputable conspiracy theorists droning on about holograms and the Jews. The movement needs this theory for the appearnce of legitimacy it gives them, and would otherwise have nothing to rally around. Tom Harrison Talk 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template for now, until it can be discussed further here. At the moment, I don't see the relevance of the template to this article. While some of the 9/11 Truthers espouse the theory, it is not unique to them nor are they featured in the article. Some of the conspiracies, in fact, contradict their versions of events. As such, the template does not seem applicable to this article. -- Kesh 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand where Tom and where Kesh are coming from. I agree with Tom's rationale that people who want to know more should be able to find more in an easy manner. I agree with Kesh that this template is not relevant to this article. I think the right move was to remove it and discuss prior to any re-addition, but I'm grateful to Tom for adding it because it catalysed this debate. I think we have three options:
  1. Add the 9/11 TM template
  2. Create "our own" template which "We" then add to all articles about 9/11 (or a subset whcih involve what one might term "non mainstream" ideas
  3. Rely on the Category system (and ensure correct categorisation)
I do not favour the 9/11 TM template, nor do I favour creating a new template (the challenges of getting it accepted on other pages are quite large), but I do favour the category system. I have not checked that the article is correctly categorised, and invite everyone to check that alongside me regardless of any consensus on this template. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think something useful could be done with categories. I'm willing to see how that develops before doing any more here with the template. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
At present the categories it is in are a pretty poor lot. I think we can each go on a category hunt. I know people will object of we add an incorrect one, but I don;t see that as a problem since it can be undone in an instant. I'm going to have a look for a few and start the ball rolling. Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Exploring logical categories leads to a journey down long chains of categiries which lead, eventually, to the small selection that has been there for "ever". I have added a couple of "probably appropriate" categories that do not seem to link to the others, but the category systekm needs a little more user friendliness for me to be sure. "Conspiracy" etc leads to those we have already, by the way. Fiddle Faddle 17:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the template is very helpful to the casual reader of the article to help identify the genesis of these theories. All of us who come here regularly are familiar with the conspiracy theories, including this grand-daddy of them all, and might wonder who comes up with this stuff. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Useful, certainly, but this article is not about the truth movement per se. I know you pride yourself on the precision of your edits and the 100% relevance of items to articles. Me too. So help me and others understand why the template for the truth movement fits this article, which is truly not about it, please. Fiddle Faddle 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, categories are worth looking at. I also agree that the category system seems kind of creaky, but I haven't dealt with it much and it may be more powerful/useful than it looks. Maybe we need more or different categories. That said, I don't see how controlled demolition and the truth movement are not tightly linked, by people and by ideas. It's possible that being way closer to this than the average reader, we see the differences more than the similarities. In any case the template (or maybe another template with some different articles) gives the reader a useful 'navigational beacon' by its related content and uniform appearence across pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Linked, yes, but not congruent. To me that is the point. I have no objection to another template. It could be applied to all articles related to conspiracy articles, for example. A simple navigation one might be the most use. An example in a different sphere might be Template:Sailing dinghies and skiffs. Categhories do their job, they can just be complex when selecting and applying to articles. Fiddle Faddle 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I was kind of working from a utilitarian idea of what related articles might have information the interested reader would want. Could you give some examples of things congruent and things not? Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Rather than answer you directly (long day, sorry), we could create a template with several sections cf the sailing one, but with headings. Thus that template could group theories and hypotheses, articles about those pushing theories etc, and so forth. It would need a bit of fleshing out, so I am floating it as a stalking horse. If there is sufficient quiet support I could knock an example together in a sandbox. If liked someone could grab it, prettify it, and start to deploy it. But not today :) Fiddle Faddle 23:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, forget "not tonight". This is the stalking horse I have in mind: User:Timtrent/sandbox#Stalking_horse_template. Please feel free to like it, hate it, say it is missing the point, edit it, grab it and make it a better template, use or abuse it, or whatever you feel appropriate. I created it as a simple, navigational template for the foot of any relevant article. I have no emotional commitment to it. Fiddle Faddle 00:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What I propose to do, after you guys have had a chance to tear it apart, is to move it to the Template space and deploy it at the foot of this article and a couple of others to see how it goes. Like all such things it is by no means definitive, it is simply an aid to navigation, no more and no less. It ought to be as bland as it is. Fiddle Faddle 10:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that has potential, depending on what links are included. It will certainly not be welcome on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Tom Harrison Talk 14:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:911ct is now released into the wild. I've added it to each of the articles in it at its release. I imagine there will be a mixed reaction to it and hope that, in the main, it is acceptable. It meets the simple need of gathering together related articles without any form of POV within the template, or I believe it does. Naturally it can be improved, but that is up to any editor who wishes to improve it. It and the 911tm template are not mutually exclusive, nor do they duplicate each other's function. I am now clearing the development version from my sandbox. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems to have caused something. Please go to Template talk:911ct if you wish to discuss the new template. Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Bov has taken issue with Template:911ct such that he is removing it wherever he sees it. It has thus been removed by Bov from this article as well - odd, since I thought we had a consensus for it being here. I'm not getting into a revert war over this. I've asked him and also an anonymous user with a similar agenda over it to go to Template talk:911ct and address their concerns to the community there (and I ask anyone else with concerns or other comments to do the same, please). Meanwhile, when you edit this article, please could you ensure that {{911ct}} is present immediately above the list of categories. It is not there currently. It has been removed twice today already. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin revert?

Was this vandalism...? F.F.McGurk 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think really a content issue. If this thing were not controversial, of course, then no-one would be having a controversy about it. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Drop of antena

There's no real mention of what the significance of the core failing first would be. In any case, it seems like a pretty small detail to give a whole section to. We can't have everything here.--Thomas Basboll 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We do need to weed out minor items where we can. The choice is whether it is germane to the hypothesis. if it is just "gosh the antenna fell down" then it is nothing to do with the hypothesis, and is just a bit more stuff that collapsed. If it is "Because of the way the antenna fell, Fred concludes as follows" then it stays. I haven't read the antenna part in detail, but I think you know what I mean. Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Having read it in detail it seems to me to be wholly irrelevant to the CDH. Go for it. Fiddle Faddle 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Angular momentum

This sentence set troubles me: Steven Jones has argued that without explosives to destroy the internal support structure of the WTC towers, the fall of the towers would violate the principle of conservation of momentum. He suggests that the angular momentum of the top of the south tower, as it began to collapse, could not disappear unless the center of mass of the top was somehow destroyed.

My background is high school physics, so I may be making a fool of myself. I just can't spot the angular momentum in this. Is this something Jones has said for sure, or are we interpreting his words? Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Answering my own question, what Jones says is: We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, not fall straight down. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.) Bold face is my emphasis.
It seems to me that the sentence in our article: He suggests that the angular momentum of the top of the south tower, as it began to collapse, could not disappear unless the center of mass of the top was somehow destroyed. is a suggestion not present in his paper. Or did I miss it?
What I think he does is a lateral jump between "it turned to powder" and "there must have been explosives". Now, since we are not judging his work, simply reporting it, are we reporting it faithfully? Unless someone can point to the "Destruction of the center of mass" element I think we are incorrect Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not strong on what exactly "angular momemtum" is, but I think he's saying (also gathering from his lectures) that since the top of the building is a very massive object, and since it is clearly moving in a particular direction, it is peculiar that it should suddenly stop moving in that direction, i.e., continue toppling off the top of the tower. I think you're right that this doesn't really have anything to do with "destroying the center of mass". The pulverization of the top of the tower is just what might explain why it didn't end up in the street.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Angular momentum is the momentum an object has while it rotates. A wheel, spinning on an axle, has angular momentum and any attempt to brake it requires energy. Momentum has to be conserved in any system. It can't vanish, it has to go somewhere. (simplistic explanation)
The challenge we have is in reporting vs explaining. We may summarise, but may not synthesise. In explaining this one might say that the momentum of any sort in the top part of the tower was transferred to the "powder" particles individually. But that is also synthesising OR out of Jones's work - a step too far. The reader should be able to draw conclusions, but we must not make them for the reader.
That comes back to "Destruction of the center of mass". It's an interesting comment, but it looks like reportage unless it can be sourced. If it can be sourced I think we should aim for the page/section in the citation. If it cannot then it is a synthesis by us and has to go. Fiddle Faddle 07:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Jones, in his document, is using rhetoric. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon." does not cite any fact. It suggests explosives and then states (later) that NIST was effectively negligent in not analysing for unusual elements. He is building his case by words and supposition, probably rasonable supposition in many ways, but not with facts. You can almost hear tub thumping in the written word. Fiddle Faddle 08:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions of visual appearance and engineering consensus sections

While they seem accurate, I'm not sure that these new sections belong in this article. That the engineering consensus is against CDH is clear both from the lead and from the overview. There is already a link to the main collapse article. The problem with these sections is that they shift the article in the diretion of being about the collapses rather than a hypothesis about them. The more the article is shifted in that direction (even by means of mainstream information), the more it comes to function as a POV fork.--Thomas Basboll 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

However well wrtten they are they are not about the hypothesis. They belong in the article about the collapse. Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've removed them, a section at a time, so that, if consensus is different, they may be recovered easily, and referred each removal to this talk page. I am very mindful of the article being accused of being a POV fork, acknowledge the summary status of those sections, but feel they are well written but in the wrong article Fiddle Faddle 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This material is essential because

  1. You can't find a single CDH advocate who doesn't use the visual appearance as exhibit A. Before getting into what the conspiracy theorists saw, there needs to be a mention of what everyone saw.
  2. CDH advocates make frequent reference to the consensus explanation and how unbelievable it is. What is it?
  3. CDH advocates routinely and irresponsibly misrepresent both, claiming that the towers fell neatly into their footprints, that the fires were out, and that "pancake collapse" is the consensus explanation. The article should not immediately hand the microphone to people who do not have experience in engineering or demolition and rely solely on them for an explanation of engineering and demolition matters.

I intentionally kept the sections short and included a main article reference. If you look at them relative to the amount of body text about CDH arguments, they are not shifting the article in any significant way. They are simply framing material. They do need to be integrated better. Perhaps each collapse's appearance and consensus explanation can be at the top of the section for that collapse. Gazpacho 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right to say that the sections serve as "framing material". That's the problem. They frame the content of the article as the collapses themselves, not a hypothesis about them. The visual appearance stuff is pretty much covered in the claims section, but could perhaps be added there. Keep in mind that there are specifically four CDH advocates in this article's claims section. "Into their footprints" has become shorthand for "radial symmetry" and none of the advocates used in this article deny that the debris field was large. In fact, they wonder where the energy to spread debris around like that came from. The "into their footprints" argument is to be contrasted with "falling over like a tree". Nor do any of the advocates used in this article make the mistake of attributing "pancake collapse" to the official consensus. There was some discussion at the beginning about how to select "notable" proponents. I'm quite comfortable with our solution to that problem (though I would still give Hoffman a greater role if I could.)--Thomas Basboll 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction: I think Griffin does still make fun of the pancake collapse theory. He really should know better. But this could be noted as a feature of Griffin's version of the collapses (if he really still is using it).--Thomas Basboll 09:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the sections were short. I also think they were well written and I acknowledge the hard work that this took. My feelings are simply that the framing takes place and should continue to take place in the main aarticles about the collapse. This article is highly specific regarding its topic - it is only about the CDH - and is to be kept very narrow indeed. If any framing is needed it is that "The towers collapsed, and that collapse is dealt with in [[article name." But that is already in the article. The objective of an article in Wikipeida is not to be 100% of the knowledge surrounding something, but to add something that other articles do not while referencing those articles with precision. Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A seperate criticism section is going to be a problem. I'm no expert on getting pages to good-article and featured status, but accepted practice seems to be to integrate criticism into a balanced presentation. Gazpacho's points above are valid. Many of the conspiracy theories seem to rely on frequently repeating statements that are false, and this needs to be pointed out.

On angular momentum, it must be an interesting challenge to rationally and accurately paraphrase an irrational theory, without committing original research. "Um, what my learned collegue means to say is,..." Tom Harrison Talk 14:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the engineering consensus section adds one fact (buckling of the exterior columns) that is not already mentioned in the first paragraph of the overview, where there is also a link to the main collapse article. I don't see what reasserting the consensus again contributes to the article.--Thomas Basboll 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In re the new subsection, the main collapse article is not the relevant main article for an overview of the CD issue. It was much better as it was. Turning it into a subsection doesn't really change the fact that almost all the information has already been covered.--Thomas Basboll 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal proximity

This is a Peer Review comment, presented "as is".

Rebuttals should be close to the corresponding arguments, not in a ghetto near the bottom of the article.

We should reach a consensus on this prior to actin since it could mean a substantial alteration to the article. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with this. The whole hypothesis should be presented together. As far as I can tell, we are not including any claims that have clear and unambiguous rebuttals. (The main counterargument is that the alleged anomalies "don't add up" and that there is a better way to make sense of the collapses.) Perhaps the mistake is building the criticism section up on a claim-by-claim basis, as though these need to be refuted individually.--Thomas Basboll 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The "whole hypothesis" can be presented in a sentence or two. The arguments in support require more explanation, and come from various people who do not necessarily advocate all of them. As to the alleged lack of specific rebuttals, you are mistaken. Gazpacho 09:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this article should include too many claims that are advocating only by individuals. It's the overlapping set of core claims that are encyclopedic; the rest the reader will have to find by further reading (we've provided plenty of references; an actual bibliography might be an idea though). Let's take the specific rebuttals you mention one at a time. Which one's were you thinking of?--Thomas Basboll 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A second peer review comment states Tone-wise, the biggest obstacle to overcome is that the article is broken up into proponent and critic sections; it's difficult to take a neutral tone when you are only presenting the one side of an issue at a time. Again I am presenting this here for discussion. Fiddle Faddle 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep in mind that this article presents "one side of the issue". Again, if the issue is "what made the towers collapse" then this article is a POV fork. The issue is "what do people who propose CDH claim". I think the criticism section needs to be smaller, more focused and more laconic. That is, it should appear less eager to rebut and more (in line with the engineering consensus) confident that there is nothing really to rebut. Sunder's "I am sympathetic to how these people feel, but facts are facts" is more representative of the qualified response to CDH than point-by-point engagements (which are very, very rare, and often undertaken by amateurs.) I imagine that these reviewers have gotten the wrong impression of the sorts of criticism that is being offered of this hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Pull it"

It is unclear what the point of the "pull it" section is. No interpretation of Silverstein's remarks that supports controlled demolition is offered. The relevant interpretation is of course the idea that it is an informal way of saying "demolish the building". That's a pretty central piece of conspiracy lore attached to this hypothesis. I don't see a reason to leave it out. David Ray Griffin, one of our key sources in this article, does bring it up here.[15] He's puzzled about why Silverstein would admit to such a thing, but there's no doubt about what Griffin thinks Silverstein said.--Thomas Basboll 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have seen that comment by him misused by those trying to make a buck. We need to make sure that if we are going to make this article into what it needs to be if we can't delete it that we do so in an effort to show how ridiculous the entire conspiracy theory argument is of course. Otherwise, all we have now is an article that makes it look like these arguments are based on some facts or something and they aren't of course.--Beguiled 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please get off this hobby horse of talking about deleting the article. You are free to nominate it for deletion at any time, even today, if you judge that to be the correct action. The article's job is not to show anything except the facts of the hypothesis and the items which make it up. The reader's job is to make a judgement. If we make the article "show" anything except citable facts then the article becomes original research. Fiddle Faddle 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there any sources that discuss the possibility that Larry Silverstein may have said "pull out" instead of "pull it"? — Loadmaster 14:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He said "pull it". It's recorded on the video, you might want to search for it. Silverstain was, of course, explaining that he had meant "to pull [firefighters]". SalvNaut 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Swiss engineers

Admittedly, it's been a while since I studied German, but I don't see anything in the Ganser source supporting the assertion that "engineers from a Swiss university" support a CD theory for building 7. Gazpacho 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This source should be used, I suppose. SalvNaut 02:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Click in the CD article's references, there is a link to translation. There you can read:
“In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.” SalvNaut 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Visual appearance section

I have to say, I kind of like this section as it now (with both the pros and the cons in there), though it goes beyond the heading. It needs to be trimmed and clarified a bit (even beyond where the tags are), but it describes the issue nicely. In fact, I wonder if we could just leave it at that. I.e., remove the criticism section and the particular claims, adding a bit more to this section. Then have the WTC 7 the same way. It might work.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think one change to this sentence is needed: Video footage of both tower collapses shows that, while fires were still burning, the top sank into the damage area and rotated. OK, it rotated. About what axis? Or did it tilt? Is tilt rotation or is it a skewed vertical collapse? Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it a bit more. If we can agree that the CDers are basing their arguments on aspects of the collapse that the official story passes over very quickly (using their "order of magnitude" calculation) then I think balance can be achieved. Physical evidence of CD, like molten metal and squibs should then be summarized in a couple of sentences, with references. That is, we can position the part of the argument that can be made sense of in the space left open by the official investigation. It's that sort of thing the reader will want. (Is there anything to this? Hasn't NIST covered it? Well, the answer in a number of instances is no. Or at least not in detail.)--Thomas Basboll 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The CDers are not "basing their arguments on aspects of the collapse that the official story passes over very quickly." I think, and I think the reliable sources bear out, that the CDers start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. It's not that they carefully obesrved the collapse, analyzed the data, and used their experience and judgement to reluctantly conclude that the CIA and/or the Mossad must have planted explosives in the building. They started with that assumption, and then looked for talking points to promote their theory. "Molten metal" and "squibs" aren't physical evidence, they are narrative devices. Using some kind of god-of-the-gaps process to present their points in as favorable a light as possible is slanted, and the height of original research. If the reader wants that, let him go watch Youtube. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At least one reliable source, the Nation, recently pointed out that CD (along with other CTs) lives in the space left by officially unanswered questioned and official lying (about things like Iraq, air quality, etc.). I am working on this article precisely because I got tired of watching YouTube (I'm exagerating). The hypothesis you are talking about (built on narrative devices not evidence) does not deserve an article (it deserves passing mention in the 9/11 CT article). I'm working on an article about a notable topic. We have identified four reliably published statements of a hypothesis. Let's focus on them rather than what their followers on the Internet use them for.--Thomas Basboll 08:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
<quote>At least one reliable source, the Nation</quote> Now, THAT's funny.Mzmadmike 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversions by User:Where and User:Ssbohio

I have asked each to come here to speak to their reversions. I reverted what I hope is the final one of these. The edits themselves may or may not need discussion, but they were not vanadalism. Fiddle Faddle 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression was they were patroling the recent changes with VandalProof and swept up a few things that were not vandalism, which is easy enough to do. If not, I suppose they will speak up here. Tom Harrison Talk 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The message left on my talk page (which I removed) suggests I triggered a script when I removed a lengthy POV comment about debris removal, and that mostly automated edits were made from User:Where's account in response. It's no big deal, just people letting their tools get ahead of them. Gazpacho 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My sole contribution to the mess was to see Gazpacho's reversion, read the edit summary "(reverted bot)", and revert back to Where's version on the basis that the reversion Gazpacho made was erroneous, since Where is not a bot. I operated on the belief that Gazpacho's reversion under an inaccurate edit summary were a good faith error. As it says in Help:Edit summary, "edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial." Normally, I would trust the edit summary that an editor gives, but this one was unmistakably at odds with the facts. From my own perspective, I never viewed the edit I reverted as being vandalism, just as a mistake. So, I ask that you all take my actions in the spirit in which they were intended. --Ssbohio 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry in that I clearly erred, as the edits in question were not vandalism. As far as the content dispute goes, I am unsure. -- Where 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I rasied this here is because I could see that things could, possibly, have escalated into a revert war had we not had an exhortation to come to the talk page. Accidents happen. Sometimes they turn out to be quite exciting. We have all learnt something. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving WTC 7

I've done some work on the WTC 7 to make it a more stand alone section. I am now going to move it up so that it goes in right after the overview. As it stands, the article takes way too long to get to any real claims and arguments, merely summarizing various statements disagreements. It seems to me that WTC 7 offers a nice way of getting a sense of what the hypothesis is all about it early in the article.--Thomas Basboll 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Graudal merge of "Main towers" and "Criticism" section

I'm ready to endorse merging the criticism section into the claims section (now called "main towers", which I also think should be kept). If we can keep the esoterica to a minimum (perhaps add a section to gather these little tidbits), and arrange interesting confrontations of major claims and counterclaims, then I think we'll be shipshape in a few days.--Thomas Basboll 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To do list for main towers section

Here's what I think can still be done:

  1. Merge the dust cloud and molten metal/thermite sections and reduce to max. 5 sentence.
  2. Reduce analogy section.
  3. Thorough copy edit.

How do you all like it?--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge of dust clouds and molten metal

I think these two sections are way too long given their status in the overall hypothesis. My suggestion is to group them together under the heading "Energy deficit". Both are somewhat esoteric indications (if the hypothesis is in any way true) that there was more energy present in the collapses than gravity could provide. It is unclear what could produce pools of molten metal under the buildings; and it is unclear what could produce and spread that much dust. Five sentences with good refs is all we need to say this, plus a couple of sentences with the (as far as I can tell rather vague) rebuttals and dismisses. (They basically say they don't see what the fuss is about.)--Thomas Basboll 21:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

References to reports about molten metal seen in the rubble and to thermal study have been removed. I think they are quite important, they follow arguments of the proponents (they were taken from Hoffman's page). It's not about "making a case", but about illustraiting claims. Now, a reader is informed that "Proponents of controlled demolition argue there was evidence of temperatures well beyond...". He is not informed at all that there was evidence of high temperatures.(I think that thermal study about temperatures exceeding 1000K is worth mentioning, as well as reports about influencial eywitness' reports about "rivers of molten metal"). In article like this a phrase "Proponents argue" is very vague and has little meaning to a reader. By presenting at least some references given by the proponents, which refer to claims we describe, we are able to provide the reader with insight on what basis this hypothesis emerged. SalvNaut 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's start from the sources. What's the best source we've got for the existence of molten metal? And what's the strongest CD claim made on that basis? Then let's see how we can work that information in. I'd still say that it's a minor detail when compared with the basic structural argument and the critique of the NIST investigation. But let's take a look at it.--Thomas Basboll 11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Jones, I suppose, beased his assumption of existence of molten metal on the video of streaming molten substance and on many quotes from workers and visitors to ground zero about "molten steel", molten metal. It's difficult to choose the best source as quotes are only qoutes, and video shows molten metalic "substance".
Now, it's a great addition you made about NIST checking thermite hypothesis. They state that they evaluated thermite as a possible heat source substance. I think it would be resonable to restore information about USGS study which showed over 1000K temperatures in the rubbles (of WTC7, too). SalvNaut 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Main towers: sources and sections

I just had a quick look through the main towers section. I'd suggest basing each section on the most relevant proponent's writings. That is, the "fire theory" section should refer to Ryan, the "thermite" section to Jones, "dust clouds" to Hoffman, "oral histories" to Griffin and "debris" to Tarpley. The "main argument" section will probably draw on a combination of these. As always, this is about using sources that are "primary" for the hypothesis, not for the collapses themselves.--Thomas Basboll 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not synthesize an argument no one has made. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. That's why we need to cite the CDers who raise the issues in the individual sections, not their sources of evidence. The "combination" that will go into the main argument section will ideally be a general overlap of things they all say.--Thomas Basboll 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

"...the idea of controlled demolition is normally presented as a hypothesis still to be tested, not a proven claim." - I don't think that's accurate. It seems to me it is often presented as Truth.

I think it is more often accepted as truth than presented as such. Even someone like Tarpley (who is more than sure of his case) presents it as a hypothesis in need of futher testing in his book. Griffin and Jones set the tone by arguing for a new investigation: this of course implies that there is not evidence at present to be sure. Even if one of our four proponents has said something that suggests they believe it was controlled demolition, I think there is plenty of material to suggest that they normally qualify this remark by pointing out that more investigation (by more qualified people than them) is necessary. If you have some good examples to the contrary, let's look at them and see if they outweight such cautionary statements.--Thomas Basboll 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

the need for brevity

First, what an amazing job has been done in pruning the article. It's currently down to 47KB

Recognising that the references with quotes shoudl stay, and that some references are not yet cited correctly, which will increase the article byte count, we still need to précis the article wherever possible. One of the challenges I have seen in tryng to do so is doing it without introducing any validation of the CDH by the words in the article.

Nonetheless it needs to drop down to a readable length without being dumbed down. Any further ideas? Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trimming is good in some cases, but only one of the four featured articles I have worked on are anywhere near 32kbs....so don't make that a mandatory goal before you send this to FAC.--MONGO 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. The goal is the careful mixture of brevity and readability. It must contain all the material it should contain and none of the material it should not. The goal is quality. Quantity is secondary. If it must even increase, but quality rises and brevity of expression rises coupled with readability then we have done that part well. An odd side effect of a need for tighter expression is a small size increase. Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph in lead

If someone wants to have that paragraph there is has to be a balanced presentation of the status of the hypothesis, not an(other) assurance that the mainstream rejects it. (Already clear in first paragraph.) I'd prefer to remove it.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never been comfortable with that paragraph. It smacks of OR. Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Google video in references

I have commented these out because such references refer to items of dubious copyright. If the original item can be sourced and made freely available to Wikipedia that is a different matter. Fiddle Faddle 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Previous fires

Which previous fires are there which have been "uncontrolled" and have not resulted in teh building collapsing? Midgley 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything depends on previous fires (though the standard case is the Windsor Building in Madrid). FEMA was pretty clear about this issue: "The collapse of [WTC 5 (partial) and 7] is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure ... had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse" (Executive Summary, p. 4 [16]).Thomas Basboll 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypothesis?

I think this article should still be deleted, but at least it is better than it was. It still needs a title that makes it clear that it is a conspiracy theory. Calling it a hypothesis is rather silly I think.--Beguiled 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but there's arguments about "conspiracy theory" being a POV term. While I agree that it is a conspiracy theory, it's impossible to get consensus on the matter, so a more neutral term is what we're stuck with. -- Kesh 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Beguiled, if you think it should be deleted, propose it for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Or don't. It just passed AFD 9 days ago. It has passed AFD three times now. It will pass again. Let's not drag this out another time, when it hasn't got a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of being deleted. — coelacan talk — 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources on both sides of the issue (including NIST) refer to the idea as a hypothesis. Also, we should perhaps be a bit more clear about what the argument is about. "Proponents" argue that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation (not belief in controlled demolition). "Critics" argue that there is not enough evidence and that any such investigation would be a waste of time. That is, the discussion is only indirectly about whether or not the collapses were caused by controlled demolition.--Thomas Basboll 09:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The template 911ct

Though peripheral to this article, it was created because of discussions here. I wanted to notify editors of all opinions that it has been nominated for deletion. That deletion may be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:911ct. Please visit that discussion and join the discussion. Whatever oyur opinion is, t matters that sufficient opinions are registered to form a true consensus.

For those who also wish to comment on Template:911tm it has also been nominated by the same editor at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:911tm. Comments there would also be welcomed. Fiddle Faddle 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theory of dust clouds

I'm removing this sentence: To date no scientific theory has been presented to explain how such massive clouds of concrete dust could have been created by a gravity collapse. It pre-supposes that such a theory is somehow needed (WP:OR). For this, reliable sources would need to show that this is a real issue (and not something written by a computer programmer on a conspiracy theory web site) and that non-biased people have honestly examined the claims and commented on them in reliable sources.
The problem is the same as with many conspiracy theories: they are fringe things published on some random web site, and often so obviously nonsense physics that no reliable source will touch them with a stick. Or, to put it in another way, quoting a computer programmer writing on a blatantly biased web site violates WP:RS to no end. Weregerbil 12:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the dust cloud questions, though not central, are being suggested by controlled demolition proponents. You are right to point out that the phrase "no scientific theory has been presented" leaves it too open whether official investigators find the dust clouds as interesting as, say, Jim Hoffman. (Hoffman's status is something we have to take up at a later time. In regard to the controlled demolition hypothesis, I don't think Hoffman's can be considered "some random web site"; it's been recognized by the hypothesizers we cover in the article as seminal.) I think we should say something like, Official investigators and mainstream engineers have not takent he dust clouds to be in need of further explanation. They are seen as the natural consquence of the complete structural collapse of such large buildings. It is not a real issue for mainstream engineers, but then neither is controlled demolition. It is a real issue for some controlled demolitionists. (Like I say, whether Hoffman is a major figure needs to be taken up again some time.)--Thomas Basboll 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I would modify your sentence to read thus: "Official investigators and mainstream engineers have not taken the dust clouds to be significant or in need of further explanation since a collapsing building produces dust." Now that could be construed as OR, but it is also statng the obvious. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoffman debunked: [17][18]. Things like what Hoffman blindly assumes is concrete is really mostly gypsum and various fibrous materials[19]; misreading or misrepresenting the source that analyzes the size of the resulting dust; pulling the energy required to break concrete out of a source that does not really document such energy; etc. GIGO physics. Now we have the problem that both the Hoffman web page and the page debunking him are of similar reliability. How to fix the article without breaking WP:RS?
The sad thing about debunking Hoffman's Concrete Pixie Dust is that the Space Lazerz theory is largely based on it. Spaze Lazerz and Mini Nukes are among the more amusing theories that have been Truthed lately. Weregerbil 01:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think all we can say is that some proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis count the dust clouds as a significant part of the explanandum, i.e., not just initiation of the collapse, and its completeness, but also its byproducts need to be explained, while mainstream investigators see the dust clouds (and even the collapse itself) as unsurprising once it has begun. I think a better case for Hoffman's site as a source of what controlled demolitionists say can be made than for Arkan Wolf Shade as a source of information about whan debunkers say. That is, I don't think the website you refer to can source a sentence that starts "Critics counter that...".--Thomas Basboll 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Weregerbil and Fiddle Faddle both make grand pronouncements about nonsense physics and stating the obvious and then proceed to betray their lack of any real experience in studying building collapses. The dust clouds are central to the CD theory because they give it away, they are incontrovertible evidence. Anyone who has ever worked with concrete before knows it does not break apart into dust very easily. Were the towers felled by jet fuel and gravity, imagining that it is somehow physically possible to explain how all the steel beams welded together in the structure all simultaneously failed, but imagining for a second that this was a gravity collapse mixed with jet fuel, the concrete would have been stripped away in large chunks, which would have proceeded to plummet to ground, showering people around ground zero with massive chunks of concrete. As we know, that was not the case. People at ground zero were overwhelmed with massive, fast moving, hot clouds of dust. There was no concrete at ground zero. It was all dust. It is just basic common knowledge that concrete cannot be turned into dust very easily. If Weregerbil and Fiddle Faddle think it is obvious how this gravity collapse caused so much dust, they should write a scientific paper on it, because there are a lot of scientists who would like to read it. It is not a paper that has been written before, and the 9/11 truth movement has pointed this out on several occasions. None of the official investigations touch the dust clouds, because they can't. The line in this article is misleading where it says that the NIST report explains the dust clouds as expansion of air out of the building as it collapsed. That is the explanation given by NIST for the squibs seen ejecting from the sides of the towers as they fell, and not for the massive clouds of dust that blanketed a large part of New England in the days after 9/11. There has been no explanation of the science behind the dust clouds, and there very well should be. Weregerbil and Fiddle Faddle can try and explain it away as a case of unimportance, a sideline issue, understandably not investigated. Of course, any thinking person knows this is the true nonsense. This was the largest mass murder ever on U.S. soil. Every facet of the attacks no matter how seemingly insignificant, should have been investigated thoroughly and quickly. Instead, as we know, it took over 400 days to get an investigation, which the Bush administration opposed every step of the way. And when the investigations came out, the dust clouds were not even talked about. That is not a case of irrelevance to a case, that is willfully ignoring an inconvenient question about a case which was not supposed to be investigated, despite its magnitude.

I do not care if the wording is changed, but the fact must be recognized that no explanation has been given for how exactly the dust clouds were created, and we are entitled to that explanation, as there are many people who are, rightly, asking that question. If necessary I propose we bring in a third party, neutral intermediary, preferably a contributing editor with experience in physics and structural engineering, who has no demonstrable bias in regards to this issue, to determine whether or not this is a valid point. WhoWillTellThePeople 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The article says that some conspiracy theorists consider what they think is concrete dust is significant. This is not enough? I don't think we should make unqualified statements about the significance of the dust. Especially as the whole dust argument appears to be based on the incorrect assumption that that the dust is predominantly (or even all) concrete. We can't make the WP:OR claim that a Scientific Theory must be constructed to counteract every conspiracy theory out there. There is no Scientific Theory (at least I hope there isn't one) which explains why farting makes a sound; yet we shouldn't imply that the lack of such theory means that the sound is produced by a government conspiracy using mini nukes.
Since you ask for it, here's a first draft of my scientific paper on dust: Gypsum drywall breaks when I hit it with a hammer. It breaks to even smaller pieces when you drop half a million tons of steel on it. That'll get mixed with wood, other materials from furniture, and even some concrete. Unfortunately this talk page is not a WP:RS. Weregerbil 08:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
ROFLMAO. But, seriously, I have no objection to any editor adding cited material, even cited dust, to the article that is relevant to the article itself and proves that dust clouds are important. They must meet WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Weregerbil's post might be considered funny but is scientifically unsignificant.
You can't be serious. You want to argue the scientific validity of this point and you don't think there is a scientific theory for why farts make a sound? Of course there is a scientific explanation for that. What exactly qualifies you to be making these arguments about the laws of physics? Oh and by the way, no, gypsum will not be pulverized into dust very easily. It too requires explosive force to cause it to explode out of the building like that in powder form. Of course you are still dodging the point that there were not many concrete chunks at ground zero. I guess there is no scientific explanation needed for that too, seeing as how from your scientific POV that makes perfect sense. You have no right to be making calls about the scientific validity of certain points in this article when you have repeatedly demonstrated a clear lack of knowledge when it comes to science. WhoWillTellThePeople 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
We're following main proponents of CD and their arguments in this article. If a source is provided on them to call for a dust study then this fact and notion that no such official study has been made has it's place in the article. I think it is important to point out where CD proponents argue with official account and where they claim that it is not sufficient.
Dust study is not isolated here. Let's take the thermite hypothesis. Jones too points out that metal and dust from WTC were not tested for thermate residues and urges on this study. The main difference is that Jones has presented his hypothesis in a published paper and in following Q&A presentations (published on journalof911studies.com). While on the "dust problem hypothesis" I've only seen Hoffman's in-constant-developement web page. Oh, and Jeff King pointed out in his presentation that such enormous dust clouds witnessed on 9/11 are a strange phenomenon similar to pyroclastic flow during vulcanic eruptions. Any ideas for other references to include to support importance of "dust clouds" to main CD proponents? SalvNaut 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a "star-wars" beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form. [20]
I'm not ready to call what this person does "science" but maybe some conspiracy theorists do. Probably excluding the Space Lazerz & Mini Nukes crowd though.
(There is also the problem of missing dust. 90,000 tons of concrete = 18-26 inches of dust. Add gypsum, fiberglass, furniture, etc, and you get a layer of 4 to 6 feet of dust covering all of Lower Manhattan (spot that in the 9/11 pictures?) And all the while the mini-nukes-required, out-of-thin-air "all concrete pulverized" assumption is completely random, unsupported by no facts or explanations or rationality whatsoever, and readily debunked by people who actually saw pieces of concrete, and companies whose job was to haul the concrete away and process it[21]. GIGO physics.) Weregerbil 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You just proved my point right there. 5cmx3cmx3cm is not a large chunk one would expect from a 100-story building. That is a miniscule piece of concrete. If that's the biggest reference you could find, thank you for proving my point that explosives must have been used to make all the pieces of concrete small like that.WhoWillTellThePeople 01:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, your article from the EPA says nothing about concrete chunks any bigger than 6 inches. Massive chunks indeed.WhoWillTellThePeople 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
How in the world does that "prove" that explosives were used? You don't think the pressure of all that debris slamming into each other (and the ground) could pulverize the materials? -- Kesh 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Weregerbil why are you obsessed with space lasers and mini-nukes? I haven't seen anyone here advocating their inclusion.WhoWillTellThePeople 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what kind of explosive were covertly planted in the building without being noticed, then? That's never been satisfactorily answered. -- Kesh 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference list of reliable sources

I think it would be useful for this article to have a separate reference list. We would then be able to discuss RS concerns on a case-by-case basis, and confine all citations to author-date references, i.e., "(Jones 2006: 123)", to works on that list. Yes, this will mean removing a number of the references. But it will allow us to discuss the foundations of this article more easily.--Thomas Basboll 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should not remove inline citations. They are a proper and encyclopaedic item and we shoudl be striving to incorporate the relevant citationm tmeplate within the ref tags. I am happy to have a composite list of a Bibliography, though this is not confined to books in article here, and am happy if the Bibliography contains soources that are cited with inline citations.
I think the issue to be faced is people not bothering to use inline citations and taking the lazy way out by saying (audibly(!) or inaudibly "Well, it's in the bibliography", and leaving out the rest of the hard work.
Further, if we are to achieve Featured Article Status (a good ambition for an article such as this) then competent and well cited inline citations are pretty much mandatory.
So, to summarise, I support a bibliography that may well be a superset of the inline citations, with the caveat that every citation's source must be in the bibliography, but I do not support a solution where the style of the inline citations are changed to the summary style you suggest. Fiddle Faddle 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Christianity has a nice arrangement of Notes and Bibliography. Tom Harrison Talk 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess it caused a load of wars, too. Ah wait. the article! Yes. I like it a lot. That is a great example of what I said in rather a lot of words. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It has caused a load of wars. Oh, you mean the religion... ;-) Tom Harrison Talk 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I can't find an example, I have a sense that some of my "lazy" citations have been fixed (using a template) sometimes at the cost of precision. References to pages in articles have sometimes been lost, as have references to papers in anthologies (so that the book, not the paper becomes the reference.) I think part of the problem is that the "ref name" function can't be used to make references to particular pages if these differ in particular instances. (An especially big problem in the case of the NIST report, which is cited often.) I'm sure these things can be fixed also within the "orthodox" ( ;-) ) framework that Tim suggest. I would like to submit that we're all doing the best we can, focusing on the things that interest us most first. I for one still have some learning to do about the citations template. I'm guessing that making a bibliography will be an occasion to learn at least some of it.--Thomas Basboll 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Using the page parameter in the cite template works pretty well. Pity some of yours have been truncated, but that is careless editing by whoever (may be me) "normalised" the refs Fiddle Faddle 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference 44 (as of 2007-01-24)

Reference 44 apparently cites a quote, however the newspaper article it links to has no mention of the quote or the instance. <ref>{{cite web |title=Janitor tells 9/11 panel of brush with WTC thug |publisher=New York Daily News |date=June 2004 |url=http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/203065p-175130c.html |accessdate=2006-12-08}}</ref> drumguy8800 C T 05:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that reference and replaced it with a request for a citation. The article is about something else entirely with regard to the buildings. Fiddle Faddle 07:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done the following google searches: one and two. Neither link this phrase to the WTC stuff, except this article. Unless anyone finds a reliable source for this it looks very much like OR. I could not see it in the article on Rodriguez either. Maybe someone with sharper eyes? Fiddle Faddle 08:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Those two articles should give the answer here [22] [23]. SalvNaut 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So it's not really He reports people running up the stairs with "skin hanging off of their bodies", it's more like One person, Felipe David, was injured by something burning that came down an elevator shaft after the airliners had hit the building? Weregerbil 16:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
the blog we cannto use. Fails WP:RS. The Idaho paper has this about threequarters of the way down ""I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself "God, please give me strength."
Although severely burned on his face, arms and hands with skin hanging from his body like pieces of cloth, David picked himself up, running for help to the office were Rodriguez and others were gathered.
The question is, does it add value? Thinking about it a larger number pf pepple were completely incinerated than this poor guy who got burned. Fiddle Faddle 17:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
My take on this is that this sentence; "William Rodriguez, a WTC janitor in the North Tower at that time, reported that while he was in the basement of the north tower with about 20 others a large explosion took place on Sublevel B3 actually before the plane hit. He reports people running up the stairs with "skin hanging off of their bodies"[citation needed] He said Mike Pecoraro, a mechanical engineer who had seen the bomb attack in 1993 and was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower on 9/11, also gave detailed observations of what he believed to be damage from bombs.[44]" needs a total rewrite. It is at odds with the prior citation and the Idaho one says very different stuff. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it should be adjusted. There were many ppl inured in the basement and on this we should put the pressure in the paragraph. We could use more sources that Rodriguez testimony only. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/240605officialstory.htm This] article sheds more light on the case (does it fails WP:RS? it's by the same author from the Idaho paper). I'll try to find reliable sources that could be reffered to (personally, I watched a lot o 9/11 videos and I spotted at least several ppl reportedly injured in the basement). SalvNaut 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've found that D.R.Griffin refers to Greg Szymanski, "WTC Basement Blast and Injured Burn Victim Blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High," Arctic Beacon.com, June 24, 2005.. I searched on Google Archive and have found this and that. It's the same article basically. SalvNaut 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
So from the eyewitness accounts (as opposed to the article writer's personal interpretation) we have two events: people hearing a loud bang when the plane hit the tower, and something burning fell down the freight elevator shaft and burned two (or more?) people. The linked articles turn the witnesses' "heard a loud bang like a bomb" into "there was a bomb in the basement". I don't think we should make that same mistake in the article. A quick googling of the article author's name reveals he probably isn't what you'd call a source that is reliable, balanced, and striving to remain factual. Weregerbil 12:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" :) New article on this topic have just appeared [24]. Definately, it's going to find its way into the paragraph. SalvNaut 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good find, but it is also a blog. Make sure it passes WP:RS because blogs are highly susceptible to being, well, a load of opinionated rubbish. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The link to the article is actually this. (it was at the top of the blog). SalvNaut 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Big news from a local UK paper. They don't tend to cover international issues, but this one sells advertising space. Oh I expect it's reliable, but it's a long way away Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually the article that FiddleFaddle removed is the article which notes that Rodriguiez also said that he identified one of the hijackers about a month before the attacks, "scoping out" the buildings. This is pertinent for several reasons - it makes the demolition theory moot, and it brings into question the reliability of Rodriguiez as a witness to events because his statement is bizarre and uncorroborated by anyone else. 152.131.10.133 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) (bov)
I removed it because it did not refer to anything in the sentence it was supposed to cite. However it is not up to us to use the article in the way you state. That would be original research. Fiddle Faddle 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Citing the fact that he claims to have seen the original hijackers and that the commission ignored this information seems meaningful to any area where he is being cited as a source. That isn't original research, just facts. bov 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts about the meaning of "science"

One thing we haven't dealt with yet, but which seems to be motivating some of the tensions in this article, is the question of whether the hypothesis is properly "scientific". This issue cuts both ways. Jones normally stops to explain how things are done in science, in part to criticize the way the NIST investigations were done. Ryan also develops this criticism in terms of "Bush science". Eagar, of course, dishes it out the other way: talking about the "reverse scientific method" of starting with your conclusions, etc. It could make for an interesting section in this article.--Thomas Basboll 11:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

WhoWillTellThePeople's edits

I reverted WhoWillTellThePeople's edits again last night, but given how late it was I didn't get a chance to properly explain. I'm going to rectify that now.

The edits are phrased in a POV manner. For example, the edit about "squibs" was phrased as if there were squibs in the towers. That's an unverifiable statement. If the information were rephrased that the puffs of dust resembled squibs used in CD (and a source were provided for that), we could then include that information.

My suggestion is that WhoWillTellThePeople bring the statements they wants to include to this talk page and (one at a time) we can discuss them and help create neutral wording to include them in the article. The back-and-forth edit warring isn't helping any of us, so I hope we can work together on this. -- Kesh 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reverts, Kesh. There may be a few things that Who is right needs to be added; but at this point I think we're still struggling with the basics.--Thomas Basboll 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, changes like these should be discussed here first. RxS 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence: "According to"

I feel that "According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. " may be what we have been searching for. In case this gets lost in the mists of time, I have posted the diff here.

It is explicit about what follows. It avoids the words that are in dispute. It neither validates nor invalidates the hypothesis. Thomas, for me, has cracked it. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.architect13sep13,1,1989358.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines
  2. ^ http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories/Archive_3&oldid=1142783369"