User talk:The Original Wildbear/Archives/2010/July

Warning

Hey, don't go removing discussion posts from other people sinply because YOU don't like what they're saying. It even SAYS at the top of the 9/11 conspiracy theories Talk page that people have diverse opinions and to respect them. TyVulpine (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This has to do with proper practices and improving the article, as directed by Wikipedia policy. First of all, you inserted your comment into the middle of a conversation, making it appear that the comment following yours was replying to you. This is an issue of format, and an easy mistake to make. No big deal.

Next, you wrote:

• "Simply SUSPECTING a "conspiracy" is no proof there IS one, it's often only in the minds of the people CLAIMING it that there is one, and that cannot be considered proof of anything." No one (that I am aware of) questions that 9/11 was a conspiracy. To allege otherwise is to suggest that the event was the work of a lone individual. So "proving" a conspiracy is a non-issue here; it's already assumed that there was a conspiracy. The unresolved issue is who were the conspirators.
• "NO demolition starts at the top of a building" So we are supposed to believe that fires can destroy a steel-frame building from the top down, but explosives and/or incendiaries can not? That's getting pretty far-fetched (i.e nonsense). How does this comment suggest an improvement the article?
• "and with the absence of flashes, bangs or noticable fireball explosions" There were numerous accounts of sounds of explosions and flashes of light. The accounts given by emergency personnel, as acquired via FOIA by the New York Times, provides many examples. Complete documentation: (ref), and a condensed version: (ref). Numerous accounts of explosions were also collected by the news media, and currently available as video clips. If you are going to suggest a change to the article, back up your assertions with reliably sourced documentation. Wildbear (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever actually WATCHED a demolition? When the charges are detonated, where do they go off first? At the base, right? To ensure the structure collapses, correct? And there is always a flash followed by a bang. However, in all the videos (live, I might add) there is no flash nor bang nor any tell-tale sign of detonation of dynamite to indicate implosion. Furthermore, no demolition company EVER starts an implosion from the TOP of a structure. ALWAYS from the bottom to ensure total collapse. Were any blasting caps found? No. Were any detonation wires found? No. Were any TNT remnants found? No. And 99% of all demolition EXPERTS have refuted claims of there being any detonations. Those are experts with YEARS if not decades of experience with imploding buildings, yet they could be "wrong" and the conspiracy theorists with far less experience be "right"? Most CTs aren't even in the field of demolition, so how could they be "right" and the experts be "wrong"? If there was no implosion, the conspiracy theory falls apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyVulpine (talk • contribs) 12:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Have you ever actually WATCHED a demolition?" Yes, many.

"When the charges are detonated, where do they go off first?" Wherever the demolition controllers want them to go off. That's why it's called "controlled" demolition. Bottom, top, middle... I've seen examples of it all. (ref)(ref) If you want to insist that buildings can only be destroyed from the bottom up, then the airplane impacts and fires at the top couldn't have destroyed them. You contradict your own argument.

"Were any blasting caps found? No. Were any detonation wires found? No. Were any TNT remnants found?" Who says that blasting caps, detonation wires, or TNT were used? Did anyone look for remnants of explosives at the site? Not that I am aware of. Did anyone test the residue for evidence of explosives? No one in official investigative capacity tested for evidence of explosives. You can't assume that any particular type of explosives or detonation devices were used if you don't bother to gather evidence.

"And 99% of all demolition EXPERTS have refuted claims of there being any detonations." Reference please? I sincerely doubt that 99% of all demolition experts have been surveyed to obtain their opinions on the issue. A former explosives technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc., Tom Sullivan, has stated that that the buildings could not have collapsed the way that they did from fire.(ref) (ref). His credentials have been verified. Danny Jowenko (Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company) has stated "Absolutely" the destruction of building 7 was a controlled demolition.(ref) Wildbear (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I chime in just to update you about what Jowenko actually thinks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI--Idonthavetimeforthiscrap (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"This video has been removed by the user." Whatever it was, I didn't get to see it. Wildbear (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AE911Truth Page

Thanks, Wildbear. My first subject of discussion will be the use of my rewrite as the basis for the ongoing revisions. It's neutral and adequately documented, and balances the article against the American Civil Liberties Union article as a guideline. Joseph.nobles (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope that this works out satisfactorily for all involved; especially the encyclopedia and its readers. I am not averse to lengthy articles (Wikipedia is not paper); if extra information is helpful to the reader, I see no problem in including it. But at the same time, readers should not get mired in excessive detail, redundancy, or advocacy. Each article needs to be weighed for balance, against itself and its own topic, as well as other articles. Caution should be exercised when deleting material — it is easy to delete content quickly; gathering references and writing text is very time consuming work. It has occasionally taken me a full day of careful research just to add two or three sentences to an article, so I'm sensitive to the issue. I am also sensitive to the concerns that you have raised. Wildbear (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)