![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is a subarticle of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page; I took this information from there. Once the VfD is over, if this article remains then the sections copied to this article should be excised from the original article and this whole page should be summarized briefly there.
Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in before: below was what I wrote)
I would like to add something that I haven't seen yet in all info about 9/11. A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") ( http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:
The video Loose_Change_(video) shows enlarged puffs of smoke coming out the WTC towers some 30 floors below the collapse and states that this is evidence of explosives. However, as Jowenko concludes, these were bolts and parts of the steel construction popping out because of the enormous strain by the collapse. This collaborates with the remarks made by firemen in the 9/11_(film): "Bolt by bolt started popping out".
His opinion was double checked (as shown in the Zembla documentary) by a team from the TU Delft TU (Technical University) of Delft and they came to the same conclusion based on their calculations.
In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.
Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that.
At this stage, this interview might be briefly mentioned, but, like I say, I hope someone follows up on it and gets a more detailed analysis, preferably in writing, out of him.-- Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the {{ Fact}} tag from the first sentence because obviously no citation is needed, since this page is explaining precisely what the Controlled-Demolition Theory is. If that doesn't make sense, please state your reason(s) here. Thanks! Mujinga 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with the citations on this page, and some other things that need revising.
First paragraph
Molten metal
Ejected debris
Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition
Pulverization
The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.
Symmetry and Squibs
A lot more of the supporting material in this article is unscientific or just pure assertion but we can leave that to another time. Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening. Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here). This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers. This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite. He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:
He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.
My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that.
Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? -- SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This professor from Edinburgh made an extensive study about fires and buildings collapsing with relation to WTC7. He even set on fire some 24-storey high tower. He did not find any explanation for WTC7 collapse because of fires. His paper can be found here. His work is reported in UK newspapers, so there are scond sources. -- SalvNaut 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This page has been moved from Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) - you can find some archives there and older ones at the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Controlled Demolition section.
Hey Rx StrangeLove, you've added criticism to the section "Ejected debris". This is great, we need this, but: The sentence you've added begins: "However, critics point out... ". I propose no to formulate sentences using "point out", but rather using "claim". We won't be able to check every fact, (and we shouldn't because it's WP:OR) so we should phrase sentences with care.
Well, then if you read the FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building, you can find on the page 4:
Coulumn section was not from aluminium, nor were exterior column trees. Still, I don't know how they were ejected. -- SalvNaut 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea to move building 7, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Anyone want to explain it?-- Thomas Basboll 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that people are so excited to revert any changes of their precious labels of "conspiracy theorists" that they happily revert to wrong information which was previously corrected -- the current link to Jones' paper goes to a BYU page where it is no longer located, and Judy Wood is no longer a '9/11 scholar' but has already been outed as "no-plane" advocate attacking Jones with Morgan Reynolds. Her paper was disputed throughout the scholars community for its errors and should not be linked to. But those whose main goal in life is to shackle anyone questioning the (Bush appointed) NIST findings with the branding of 'conspiracy theorists' don't actually seem to have an interest in the CONTENT of the article . . . Locewtus 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Locewtus. Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn.-- Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to avoid repeating all the controversies that we have on other 9/11-related pages, I want to suggest that we organise sections in part by the quality of their sources.
So, for example, the existence of the theory and its basic idea (which Tom harrison wants to have a citation for already in the lead) can be established in the hypothesis section (at the start of the article) with reference exclusively to NIST, Bazant and Verdure, (perhaps Cherepanov who also uses it as a foil, but for a different effect), and, I would add, Sunder's remark in New York Magazine (I think) that he had read Steven Jones' paper, was "sympathetic", but that it was not consistent with the facts as he knew them. That would also occasion a reference to Jones' paper (in the Scott and Griffin volume), of course, which, I would argue, is the standard reference for a presentation of the hypothesis.-- Thomas Basboll 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is unencyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not as I find this article to be a soapboxing repository and POV push of complete nonsense.-- MONGO 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Basball, it's a bit creepy the way some editors attempt to push others around, threaten to delete article you've worked so hard for. Who the --- does he think he is? Can something be done? Please try to ignore all but thoughtful comments by those who have bothered to engage their minds before starting to type. Keep up the good work on this article.-- JustFacts 02:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
>>"At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend."
Even I'm forced to admit, it's pretty darn good. bov 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
...er, just found all this. How is this person declaring he can remove an article without afd? Will of the people, etc. · XP · 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good reversion of a BLP violation. That repeatedly inserted spam line (in addition to it being possibly a vandal move to insert the same unsourced negative statement about a living person again and again) was a policy violation. · XP · 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no legitimate need or reason to spam this throughout. Once is fine for readers. This is not an anti-Jones website, nor a pro-Jones website. Advocacy in either direction is forbidden for all users, admin or otherwise. · XP · 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
as original research, there are no cites or links, nothing here that is referenced at all. Who says all this? Rx StrangeLove 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed a couple sections:
Neither are referenced and the second seems pretty original researchy. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to establish consensus about who the major representatives of the hypothesis are (i.e., who are the significant figures that defend it, either as a claim or as a call for futher investigation). Here is my list of sources.
I take those to be core statements. They have the virtue of being books, not internet sites, and current. I do think Jim Hoffman's and Jeff King's online presentations deserve mention, too, however. Please make your arguments against any of these known soon, and suggest possible additions. I will then add section on major proponents of the theory, which will of course also serve as a way of focusing the article's content.-- Thomas Basboll 10:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Objectionist criterions on presenting minority points of view that are not present on other articles should not be considered (admin status gives the recommender's opinion no additional weight, as admin status has no relevance on editorial decisions), if they are not willing to participate in framing those conditions for actual use. Saying you will paint a wall with blue paint, while refusing to help out on procuring paint, or you know, actually painting, is not acceptable. This article will not have any additional "restrictions" or "conditions" placed on it than any other articles. Only the Arbitration Committee by completion of their process is authorized to place editorial restriction or probration on articles. · XP · 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I propose. Based on NIST and Bazant and Verdure we can assert that the controlled demolition hypothesis (a) exists and (b) conflicts with the official/generally accepted account. Mainstream journalism confirms this and provides us with three (so far) names: Jones, Griffin, and Tarpley. This leads us to their own presentations, i.e., the sources I've cited. We then present their research (not ours) as a minority view on the collapses. To organize the presentation we use a simple heuristic, requiring no original research: we foreground the evidence that all three presentations draw on. While there is a little bit of synthesis in this way of doing it, it by no means "advances a position". All it does is answer the question, What is the controlled demolition hypothesis? If Tom, or someone else, opposes this, then we may have to seek mediation. Until a basic consensus is established on this, the result will be predictable and, to my mind, a poor article.-- Thomas Basboll 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the section that implies that he is sympathetic to the demolition hypothesis and that "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"[9] is a standard reference in these discussions. Both use this to back the statements up. The only mention of Shyam Sunder in the article is this:
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
Clearly he is sympathetic to outbursts (of frustration presumably) and is not talking about the demolition hypothesis. He is quite clear on what the facts are. And how the fact that he read it means that it is a standard reference doesn't compute. Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As of now, we have one massive evidence section, one very short criticism section, and then a sort of large discussion of the issues at the bottom. In addition, some of the articles read like a back-and-forth debate, such as the Molten Metal section - we read what Jones has to say, a response from NIST, a response from Jones, a response from NIST... I find that inconducive to the article's purpose. The NPOV problems that crop up as well can be dealt with on an individual basis, but are not very easy to find and fix. Some of the smaller subsections either have no criticism, or the criticism is located far away from the claims and in another section entirely. I suggest an overhaul of the organization organization: within every subsection of debate (for example, Molten Metal) we could arrange it a clear CT position and a clear official position, each just to say their respective pieces and positions.
Molten Metal Molten metal reports, official story, analysis and explanation. Critism of official reports, thermite proposal, various experiments and CT reports, counterarguments for forthcoming "offical" propositions.
Criticism Rebuttal of CT arguments, slag, etc, etc.
I believe that this format would be better organized, easier to read, and provide a better comprehensive understanding of the topic than a back-and-forth banter between the sides. In addition, it makes it easier to find diagnose NPOV problems, and make it easy to see which arguments are given no criticism, of which there are many. 75.33.140.40 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this section:
Silverstein, through the spokesman, has stated what he meant in the quote. Any other interpretation is totally subjective and not based on any objective fact. It'd be different if they were talking about say, the amount of energy it took to produce a certain effect or something. Jim Hoffman's thoughts on what went through Silversteins mind are no more valid then yours or mine. Silverstein has never given any indication that he meant anything other than what is presented here. Hoffman can't read Silversteins mind and we shouldn't include his attempts to. Rx StrangeLove 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also removed:
The cite request has been there since this split and none has been provided. Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also removed:
The reference points to a page that says in total:
It doesn't mention demolition or that a calculated fall took place at all. Rx StrangeLove 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a stretch, the whole section that follows this sentence only proves that there was smoldering (maybe) steel in the weeks after the event. Unless there is a neutral, objective finding somewhere that "steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives", this section has to go. Even Jones says "that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done", so there's no basis for this section at all. What this boils down to is that there was material smoldering for a while after 9/11. Rx StrangeLove 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the same section:
There's no claim that the amont of time it took to clean up is related to controlled demolition. Rx StrangeLove 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to work on some of the survey stuff. A history of the hypothesis. Major current proponents (see above). Its place in 9/11 CTs and the 9/11 truth movement. And a summary of the parts of the official explanation that bear on this. Also, I'm going to make a small section that describes the uncontroversial aspects of the collapses. The other task, it seems, is to shorten the evidence section radically. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.-- Thomas Basboll 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading the analysis at AfD Closing Rationales I think the obvious tasks are:
May I suggest that this is treated as a "miniwikiproject" and people "take sections" (stating here which they are working on and flagging that section in the article itself if it is more than a five minute job)and clean them up, doing it quickly to avoid accusations either of delay or indeed of POV pushing?
This article is not small, but a small team of editors who commit to NPOV should be able to tackle it fast now the AfD threat is currently lifted. Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As some people are so determined that things which in normal context elsewhere would be find under RS apparently are not here, would if those sources ARE mentioned and cited by other RS be OK? MONGO? Others? Specifically, if Steven Jones is disputed as an RS (how, I don't know, as he and his Scholars group are apparently one of the primary sources of the theory), what if we reference/quote them as THEY are quoted by a fine RS? As in, if "the BBC says that Jones says..." is a factual statement, then that bit from Jones, period, is demonstratable as RS. As in, he already qualifies per our policy, but if he also is good enough for a real, historic and reknowned news source like the BBC, he has to be considered a good source above and beyond already qualifying for us.
NOTE: Personal opinions, as in he's not a structural engineer, etc. are not permissiable still per WP policy. Individuals or cabals of editors do not get to put additional conditions on RS if they already meet any one of the established, supported qualifiers. I'm throwing this one out as a compromise to minimize conflict. · XP · 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(indent reset)Excuse me, I meant reliability. You have offered as evidence of reliablity that Jones' paper is in print, and cited by another work. However, that the publication and citation both come from the same person weakens that case. Yes, Jones is notable in the field of particle physics. How again does that relate to the subject at hand? Despite the hand-waving of his supporters, particles do not collide in a manner resembling that of macroscopic structures, nor can macroscopic behavior be analyzed with the tools of particle physics. Reliable secondary sources indicate these three are the prime proponents of this theory. That's all well and fine. But reliability is not contagious, or transitive, and does not free us up to refer directly to their own various publications.
I'm not clear on why Tarpley is the "most qualified", he is a political commentator and the pdf you link to is merely a compilation of OTHER people's statements and views, tied together by his political analysis. He may be the "most qualified" conspiracy theorist, but this article is not about a conspiracy, is it?
This Hypothesis purports to be scientific. Of the three presented, Jones is the least unqualified; however, he is not an engineer (not a personal opinion, verifiable from his CV), and he has no degrees (postgraduate or otherwise) or published expertise in any area related to structural engineering. -- Mmx1 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The numbers will fluctuate because the cite system is fluid. This is why I suggest we enter a "snapshot" of the text containing these so co-ordination of fix or delete can take place. Where a reference is used several times we must be aware that deleting the first reference link "orphans" any remaining refs.
There are two instances of this ref, but no trace of the reference wording. Thus the first instance must have been deleted.
Current locations:
9/11 researchers have proposed the idea that WTC7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds [73], although the FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.[74]
and
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.[73]
I suspect the ref has value in the first instance. I can't guess the value in the second. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The controlled demolition hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community and has been explicitly rejected by official investigators. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology has found no evidence of controlled demolition, it is, however, studying the effects of "hypothetical blast events" in attempting to understand the collapse of Building Seven. Likewise, Zdenek P. Bazant, who co-authored the first published analysis of the collapses of the two towers, has proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse mechanism that the official explanation invokes. But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as a serious research hypothesis for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering.
Three statements, in particular, can be identified. Since being made available on the Internet in September of 2005, a paper written by Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, fast became a standard point of reference for people defending the idea of controlled demolition. It has since been published in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin is a retired professor of theology who is currenly best known for his book The New Pearl Harbor. He has published his own version of the hypothesis in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Finally, Webster Griffin Tarpley, best known for his investigation into the murder of Aldo Moro and his unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush, devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the hypothesis.
While they do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts, all three refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before being accepted as true. The three statements 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 aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarises 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 of 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eye-witness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Finally, Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasising 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 is how I imagine the section on major proponents might look. It gives a good sense of the sort of research that exists (and does not exist) to support the hypothesis. Again, if there are disagreements about the notability of the figures, or you want another proponent added, feel free to make suggestions. I'm posting this mainly to give a sense of how it might look in prose form.-- Thomas Basboll 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This just turned up at the 9/11 CT article. Not sure we can use it here either, but it's too detailed for the WTC summary:
-- Thomas Basboll 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why would "Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body." affect symmetry of falling? I may be about to make a big fool of myself, but is it not more likely to be the second law of motion? It was a few years ago I took physics, but I need persuading that the article is right here, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, just to think about (I think I don't get it): Other researchers note that the shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum of the upper floors by a factor of 10.3, making an unsymmetrical collapse of WTC 1&2 physically impossible.[27]
Ok: shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum. Then wasn't it the same force of angular momentum that exceeded the resistance of lower floors and made it possible for collapse to proceed? Is the shear resistance so much greater (>20 times?) than vertical resistance?? Maybe, some explanation could be that the collapse initiated assymetrically, gained angular momentum, then everything else supporting upper part failed and it as a whole started going down...maybe SalvNaut 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been moved to the archive so I post it again:
Pulverization
And here's one more. Do you think Jeff King's early work deserves inclusion (include or keep). Hoffman also sites his "How Strong is the Evidence" [10] among the classics [11]. Griffin uses him in his paper.-- Thomas Basboll 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hoffman has a list of "classic articles" here [12]. My own impression is that he's right to include "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" by J. McMichael among these, and it should be presented in the historical section. Please indicate whether you think we should include or drop this one also, with reasons.
On the day of the attacks, there were reports of secondary devices and explosions; journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planned explosives citation needed. A number of experts also suggested this idea. In a notable case, the Albuqurque Journal quoted Van Romero, a controlled demolition expert, said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that he thought there were "explosives planted inside the building". While he later retracted this opinion, and said that he had been misquoted, his suggestion that "that is what it looked like", became central to the formation of the controlled demolition hypothesis.
One early formulation came with J. McMichaels' "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics", which recalled Romero's remarks and introduced some of the lasting elements of the hypothesis: that the fires could not have sufficiently weakened the steel to initiate the collapses, and that the undamaged structure underneath the impact zones would have resisted a total progressive collapse. These ideas were then developed in greater detail online by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman until being picked up by David Ray Griffin and listed among the reasons to re-investigate the events of 9/11 in his influential book The New Pearl Harbor. In late 2005, Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public. Although he did not publish his ideas in scientific journals, his interest in the hypothesis brough a measure scientific credibilty and increased media exposure to the hypothesis. Jones, however, was placed on paid leave by his university in September of 2006 while his work in this area is reviewed.
Again, just to give an idea of what sort of prose I'm thinking of presenting the history in. Let me know if there are important aspects I've missed, or things that I have weighted improperly. I've left the sources out for now, much of the info here has multiple sources; we'll just find the strongest and most efficient way of sourcing the text we finally agree on.-- Thomas Basboll 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks good to me, and describes the history accurately. The quotes from news reporters on that day were a significant detail. Your history doesn't give the impression you are trying to make the case that they were instumental, but it gets at the documentation of how some people's first reaction was that the destruction looked like a demolition, which is relevant to origin of the theory.
bov
21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This banner:
Is now disputed. It seems we need to reach a consensus over this. I have replaced it on the article with a note on the talk page of the editor who removed it. I believe it serves a hugely valid purpose, and is inclusive. However we may need to make it more inclusive. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the tag is a bad idea, though well-intended. It is likely to discourage new editors, and suggests there is some kind of official committee to which proposals are submitted and voted on. Of course, that is not the case. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple sentences here that don't have any real basis:
Sounds and flashes of light are pretty vague and ignores that fact that there were raging fires going on in the buildings. There didn't need to be a collapse for there to be sounds and flashes of light in that environment. The second sentence talks about molten metal but doesn't say anything about what kind it was or why fires couldn't have caused it. Both are uncited and as they stand are original research. I'm going to snip them. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at this section. I wanted to see the molten metal on video:
*'''Molten metal:''' A stream of liquid metal was videotaped<ref>{{cite web| last = | first = | year = 2001| url = http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863 | title = Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing| format = Macromedia Flash video | publisher = CameraPlanet 911 Archive/[[Google Video]]}}</ref> flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses say they saw pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.
The video is perpetually unavailable. Strong suggestion either to remove this reference or to qualify it as "unreliably available". Removing the reference means a need for substantial rewording of any area which cites it or relies on it as an implicit citation. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.<ref name=Chandler_Girders>{{cite web| last =| first =| year = 2003| url = http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270| title = Video about ejected girders by David Chandler of 911SpeakOut.org| format = Macromedia Flash video| publisher = [[Google Video]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last =| first =| year= 2003 | title=Collapse Calculactions (zip)| url =http://911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip}}</ref>
Looking at the final two sources, the video is persuasive until it turns into propaganda, and I suggest needs flagging differently as a video in favour of explosive charges et al.
The zipfile contains "someone's" spreadsheet. Whose, and is the rationale for calculation attributabel to a reputable source, and is it valid? Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
However, (Mmx1, you are correct about verifiability) this subsection should be removed (whole Evidence section should be trimmed with care), as the calculations might be correct, but the whole reasoning process doesn't have to be. This video could be used as an illustration of points raised by Griffin but it certainly doesn't deserve its own subsection. I think that most of the evidence section should be treated this way - first, we need to write a summary of points raised by Griffin, Jones, Hoffman, Tarpley,... right? SalvNaut 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
On the (current) reference cite 19, there is a reference to http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf with regards to molten metal, and on (current) reference cite 18 there is a reference to http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf regarding the same issue. Note that on page 1 of the WTCTHERM.pdf reference it quotes FEMA as saying " a stream of molten METAL" (emphasis mine), supposedly directly quoting the FEMA report noted in cite #18. However, the actual quote from the cited FEMA report says: " a stream of molten MATERIAL". This might seem minor, but it is a substantial difference. FEMA speculates but does not conclude that the material is in fact metal. I have changed the "Molten metal" section on this article to reflect this difference, and caution people against using the WTCTHERM.pdf document as a reference. -- Durin 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to properly<ref name=Controlled-Demolition>Controlled Demolition, Inc. [http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2 "Controlled Demolition, Inc.: About us"]</ref> bring down a 47 story building, conventional demolition procedures would require weeks of preparation and planning (e.g. where to place the demolition charges at key structural points so that the building collapses neatly into its own footprint).<ref>{{web cite|url=http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=21&reqItemId=20060123072158 |title=Baptist MBF Patient's Tower Implosion | date=2005, November 6th}}</ref>
I can't spot the relevance of linking the phrase 'controlled demolition procedures' to the 'About us' page of Controlled Demolition Inc. I think they had something relevant to say elsewhere in the article, but this seems like a link for link's sake to a professional demolition company. This is part of thinning out the forest so a route can be found through it to the bare facts, I think Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a trivial little thing, but I added an image of the NIST report at the head of the article. · XP · 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Where there are researchers, whether self styled or not, whose work, research or opinions (henceforth: "stuff") do not qualify under WP:RS but whose stuff either has received popular acclaim (not the same as passing scientific scrutiny - popular acclaim has Elvis on the dark side of the Moon, along with a B52 bomber) or is quoted by other researchers whose work passes WP:RS, my instinct is to acknowledge that stuff along with the author of that stuff, while making it clear that it does not pass the RS litmus test.
So I have two questions:
This may solve (eg) "the Hoffman Inclusion Question" Fiddle Faddle 08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
(Time out: Please can we all steer clear of terms that sometimes have the appearance of being directed at individuals. We can do this without words like "abusrd" being used, I think. Let's step back from those and use logic and policies as our guide. We don't have the time to even think about fighting :) ) Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Citing to reliable sources is one of the foundational aspects of Wikipedia. Otherwise, they'd call it Blogopedia. Morton devonshire 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this page is unwieldy I have archived what I THINK is up to the end of the AfD (see archive box at head for link). Please would one of you cross check what I have done and either move MORE to the END of the archive page manually, or RETURN sections to the head of THIS section below the administrative stuff.
After we have that set in stone I am thinking of setting Werdnabot up to archive items here that are over 10 days without discussion to a new archive page. It's easy enough to do that, and even to vary the duration on the fly, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. May I suggest you briefly say Support or Oppose over the next 48 hour period. If you support please say the days that must elapse prior to archival. I'll go for the arithmetic mean as an integer if "Support" is the outcome. No replies and I will just be bold and do it Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a criticism of the addition of two images today. I just want to make sure that we all consider the addition of further images very carefully. An image can give apparent authority to something when juxtaposed with text, or with not, even when there is no intention to give that authority.
The image at the head of the article Image:WTCSouthTower Zafar.jpg currently is interesting. It shows (to me) that a cloud of smoke and/or dust obscured pretty much all the collapse, at least from this angle. I could conclude from it that any measurements of collapse rate, for example, must be flawed because they could not be measured. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."
.
I don't think I quite understand Fiddle Faddle's point. CDers make a great deal out of what the collapses looked like. But the collapse times are not controversial. (The official collapse times match those of the CD hypothesis). There are no pictures in Wikipedia (as far as I can tell) of the actual collapses. Not to show one here would be a bit like not showing a picture of the "face on Mars" is the relevant article. (It may not go in the Mars article, but NASA does not deny that the image is actually in the photograph. They've just got another explanation of it.)-- Thomas Basboll 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why the image I posted on here was deleted? I've always had trouble figuring out which tag to associate with images, but it's seems 'legal' as far as I can tell -the person who took the photo gave me permission to use it on wikipedia as long as I referenced his website and his name. It also would seem to qualify as historical, so I put both on there. Please advise. I think it qualifies to be on here, I just don't understand exactly which tag to use. bov 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1 and I have been discussing whether or not the collapse times are controversial or accepted on both sides (official and CD). My view is that everyone agrees that the buildings collapsed "essentially in free fall", putting the towers at a round 12 seconds and building 7 at just under 7 seconds. Mmx1 has been emphasising that a portion of the cores in each case remaining standing a bit longer (max. 25 seconds after collapse initiation). In the case of building 7 (and this has already been fixed in the article) it is important to distinguish between the proposed sequence of events inside the building and the time from when the penthouse collapses. The official story simply tries to explain these collapses at free fall speed, while demolitions don't accept their explanation. The speed of the collapses, however, are not, as I see it, at issue. Any thoughts?-- Thomas Basboll 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I see there is some confusion about what constitutes a primary or secondary source. The WP:RS offers the following guideline:
Using the link to UCSC's library provided at the secondary source article (not the article itself), it offers a similar definition and the following guidance towards identifying sources:
“ | When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:
|
” |
By these standards, as I was taught in every level of education, Hoffman's website is a secondary source. It is an accumulation of primary sources and presents his interpretation of them. Hoffman was not a witness to the collapse and does not base his arguments on what he personally witnessed; he bases them on other primary and secondary sources. Can secondary sources be used as a primary source for the "beliefs" of the person? I would argue not; that would open a backdoor to introducing any secondary source as merely a primary source for the author's beliefs. I refuse to submit to the notion that we can discuss freely "beliefs" irrespective of the nature of these claims; we have here assertions about numerous facets of the Collapse of the World Trade Center; it does not pass muster to allow a lower standard of inclusion because we are merely talking about "beliefs". I am raising these issues on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources page, that appears to be a more appropriate place to involve qualified individuals to comment on this. -- Mmx1 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes Hoffman a notable proponent? He hasn't received much media coverage, and google results are not an indicator of nobility. His references are all self-published, and he has no qualifications ("postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS). In fact, there was evidence of astroturfing of his links on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, where even the proponents were disturbed that his website seemed to be so heavily promoted. -- Mmx1 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Please let us determine Hoffman's genuine relevance for inclusion in the article. I suggest state Include or Drop, both with reasons. It is probabaly not a matter of a numeric vote, but a decent consensus based on well argued opinions. I suggest we treat it as a very formal discussion below. Is 48 hours sufficient for this? if not please be bold and say so in this heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Paul, "The crimes of 9/11/01 remain the most consequential events of this century. I've done my best to show and suggest what happened on that day and to point out that even more awful crimes are planned for us as 'pretexts' for more war unless we act openly and courageously to prevent them. No amount of attempted 'deletion" will change realities outside the Internet, nor change peoples' needs to seek truth."
More to the point, the evidence for concluding that a controlled demolition continues to mount, and much of the credit belongs to WTC7.net, which Jones has praised repeatedly for lending the scientific credibility that precipitated Jones's initial research paper on the WTC collapses. Because of their central role, in having the foremost website on the topic and for spurring the research that led to the identification of thermate as the specific explosive used to slice the steel structural support of the three buildings, there should be no question whatsoever about including Paul and Hoffman in the article. Ombudsman 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We should now close this for inputs. If this were to be simply numeric I would call it a tied vote, pretty much, but a vote it what it is not. Can someone who is not me and ideally who has not been involved in the discussion and who can take a legitimately neutral view summarise what consensus we have reached, please. That way we have a plan to move forward, with or without Hoffman. The main reaosn for seeking a consensus here was to attempt to get the arguments into the open and decide what has value that is congruent with the aim of the article (note, not about the collapse, but about the conspiracy theory) It was never intended to be a vote, always a consensus. I hope we can do this better than a large number of AfDs have been done Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is consensus about someone (Hoffman, King) to be important for the hypothesis, then he should be included here. Why? Now, there are two cases possible:
imho. SalvNaut 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Important according to who? The three Basboll mention have been quoted by reliable secondary sources; Hoffman and King haven't. It is not wiki's place to determine the history of false hypotheses and rejections from primary sources; that is the role of secondary sources. -- Mmx1 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What is your opinion about providing Hoffman as a source for Jones's claims? This article is going to have a summary of Jones's claims (there is consensus about this I think). Jones very often provides links to Hoffman's page, as a source for photo, video evidence about WTC collapse. For example, Jones refers 2 times on the 4th page of his paper. Should we then provide Hoffman's page as a link to illustrate Jones's claim, or rather search for data elsewhere? I think that the former would be unneccassary difficulty, as Hoffman seems a very good source for some of 9/11 evidence, and after all Jones based his claims on his data. SalvNaut 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a permanent issue on all these articles (with the exception of the main WTC collapse article, however.) Note the following formulation (status quo in this article):
Ref 7 links to a very reliable engineering trade journal that basically says no engineers could imagine that the buildings might collapse before they did. (This idea ran under the headline "Unthinkable!" in the weeks immediately following the attacks). Ref 8 links to Bazant and Verdure that says no engineers predicted that the buildings would collapse and that the NIST report's explanation is now the generally accepted account in the engineering community. It seems to me that the sentence in question completely understates the consensus and makes the point difficult to understand. Here is what it should say:
What do you all think?-- Thomas Basboll 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"Engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."
The word implicit in this formulation is "all." In effect, it reads, "All engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."
If that statement is true, fine. But if even one engineer dissents (and several dissenting engineers are already cited in this article), the statement is verifiably false.
Then we need to say "some engineers" or, if someone has done a reliable and comprehensive worldwide statistical survey, "most engineers." If someone has done a statistical survey of the published literature, we could say something like "Most engineers who have published their findings in professional journals." Otherwise we could publish our impressions--but we're not supposed to do that, are we?
Regarding the "Let's examine their psychology" approach, several observations:
In sum:
(1) The proposed formulation about the engineers has a fatal flaw.
And
(2) I suggest we avoid the psychology approach.
Cheerfully, O Govinda 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's what you intend, why not say "engineers generally were...but have generally." Would you need a source(s) for these propositions?-- JustFacts 20:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A footnote, if no sources, might be OK. Thom, don't you think the article needs to include more about the alleged "refutation" of the NIST report's analyis of the collapse mechanism. I am thinking, for example, of Kevin Ryan's article here: [ [19]] going point by point to "disprove" the NIST report's major findings and assumptions. By the way, this might also "bridge" to some extent the engineering explanation and that of the "common sense" physicists (not that Ryan is either one), to use your terminology. I am not the person to write this.-- JustFacts 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am parking this paragraph here for the moment. I am not sure whether it fits in or not, especially since the video recordings may simply not have had sound.
"In addition, surviving video footage from near the base of the towers before and during their collapse fails to record any sound of explosions of the magnitude heard during a building demolition."
I think it has a place, but not where it was entered, and potentially not without qualification. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Witness accounts are fine. The video you link to in your last sentence is a good example of what I mean. A significant explosion is heard and the people in the video use the word "explosion" to describe it. What is the time of this explosion? Can it be chronologically aligned with the second tower hitting the ground? Given all the dust, the first tower at least must have fallen and so it cannot be that or the sound of planes hitting the buildings, either. To support CD, the explosion would have to be shown to have occurred before the second tower hit the ground, I think.-- JustFacts 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
...But pointing out that NIST hasn't identified source of molten metal (not identified - that's right, they just pointed out some possibilities like aluminum with organic substance but didn't provide any arguments), or some of the general critique by Griffin seems appropriate. Eagerly looking forward to see the results of your work. SalvNaut 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent way of explaining the sense in which Jones (and the others) take controlled demolition as a "hypothesis". Here's a video that gives a good idea of how he does things. [23] (I'm not suggesting it as a source, just as a way we might understand the issue.) Notice how he frames it. You've got a feature of the WTC collapses: molten metal, whether pouring out of the building or found in the basement, and hardened 'slag' (previously molten metal) of a particular metallurgical composition. You then have two hypotheses: fire-initiated, gravity-driven progressive collapse vs. controlled demolition with thermite. According to Jones (and apparently NIST) the feature is difficult to explain on the first hypothesis; but a thermite reaction, he tells us, would explain it almost down to the last detail (i.e., details revealed under a microscope). That's what hypotheses are for. The thermite hypothesis for the WTC, combined with background knowledge about thermite and steel, leads to a prediction about the result of an analysis of the samples under an electron microscope. The question is, does such an analysis reveal "what we would expect to find if thermite were involved?" The answer, he claims, is "yes". Is molten metal something we would expect to find (and would therefore have an easy time explaining) on the official account? The answer seems to be (but it is true we have to be quite sure about this) no.-- Thomas Basboll 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"How do you propose they identify the source of molten metal?"(Mmx1): Hmmm. How about doing experiments with kerosyne fires and various substances,metals to see how they look if melted? How about measuring black body radiation from the video by making experiments with the same camera from the same distance ?; taking previously molten metal examples from the rubble, putting it in electron microprobe or wave-dispersive X-ray or other expensive lab equipment and trying to explain this data? ; looking very closely at WTC designs and trying to identify the possible source of the molten metal/substance? How about including those results in the final report? Hmmm, and maybe some more scientific tests about squibs? Why they've occured in exactly those places? What do WTC designs tell us about the compression wave? Could it go in such a way to make those squibs possible? Hmmm, wait. Jones researched on some of those issues... Why NIST belittles the fact that scaled WTC models when set on kerosyne fire didn't collapse?
To be more bold (about NIST critique): Why not to put controlled demolition hypothesis on the table (no one would be suprised, engineers and other experts reported it looked like CD) and refute it(?) with strength? Why dismissing the whole hypothesis with one sentence in the final report?? (following is just speculation - I share my thoughts)Wait... I know the answer: doing any of these could point your finger at some that supervise you and are supposed to account you for this report and pay you. Your proposition could be immediately ridiculed by media, goverment people, collegues. You could loose your job in the comission. No one would provide you with money for your proposed experiments. Yes, why to bother to explain everything about one of the most important events of the century? Isn't it better to prepare half-baked farce.... After all, what else can we do? We scientist do our best with funds, access to evidence and reasonable supervision over us we have(not). SalvNaut 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, the two words may be used interchangeably. However they are different, the one being a constituent component and the other being an incendiary compound. I'm flagging this for further attention while I think of it. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Where we see an edit that we believe requires further discussion, even if we simply wish to understand the rationale, it is worth listing it here. For ease of editing, each should have a sub-heading.
Listing an edit here should in no way be taken as a criticism of any editor. This article is to be above reproach and wholly correct within the guidelines. I am seeking simply to work towards seeking to ensure that.
Note that, when the editor is not a regular contributor to this talk page they should be invited politely to visit this section to elaborate on their reasons, simply so we (the entire interested wikipedia community) may understand them. However, lack of their further comments should not cause any judgement to be made about them or their edit.
(section created as a clerical exercise by Fiddle Faddle, but no real need to sign this part)
Please see this diff where a section stating Hoffman's arguments has been removed with the edit history "we can't be making arguments on Wikipedia, violates the rules against original research".
I do not see that this is wikipedia making an argument. Instead I see it as reporting arguments made by Hoffman. I believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see this diff where the section making reference to the demolition of the Baptist Tower has been removed with the edit history of "deleted unreliable source"
I do not understand why a factual page of a demolition company us unreliable, unless it is itself dismissed as Original Research. Even if that is the rationale it is a simple report on another building demolished by an apparently reputable corporation.
I see every reason for us to discuss whether such a section should be in or out, but I am not sure about the stated reason for deletion, and believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Timtrent asked me to come here and explain why I deleted the section on "Implications of Controlled Demolition". Two reasons: (1) that we should not be citing to blogs on Wikipedia, as they violate WP:RS, and (2) the section was "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", which I shall quote in part below:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
See [25] for the complete policy. Morton devonshire 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made several changes to this section. Among those not obvious or discussed in the edit summary:
I realize that in deleting the redundant identification of Dr. Jones I have sacrificed a footnote: A university spokeswoman, Carri P. Jenkins, said the decision was based on the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of statements being made by Dr. Jones regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center". We could restore it, towards the top of the article, where the original identification occurs. If we do, however, I would suggest we also add the statements, from the other sources, that Dr. Jones was put on leave because of BYU's concern over his involvement with the "9/11 truth movement" and that BYU's concern is "not the quality of his research."
It's questionable, however, whether such detail is warranted. But if we go that far, perhaps we should go farther. We could note that other academics, such as Kevin Barrett and William Woodward--have also faced direct threats to their job security because of views they have expressed that question the official story. Adherents of the CD hypothesis have suggested that fear of such repraisals may contribute to a reluctance by academics and engineering professionals to express views contrary to the official theory, and that point is relevant. Anyone for a separate section?
Respectfully, O Govinda 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to a comment by
Mmx1, I have given more details from FEMA's timeline (and removed a paragraph later that gave pretty much the same information but with less chronological detail).
Respectfully, O Govinda 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The bullet point "Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions." worries me. To me it states as a fact that there were explosions. As a TV viewer of the collapse I can only say that I saw a building collapse fast. I can imagine great noise and bangs. What I do not think I could state with certainty is that there were explosions.
However the hypothesis that there were explosions is fundamental to this article, since we are dealing with the hypothesis.
So, am I right to be concerned about this bullet point, or am I just looking at it too cyncially and too late in my evening? I can't judge that tonight. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Lookjng at this diff it struck me very forcibly that we need to be scrupulously accurate when attributing a role or a qualification or a pseudo-qualification to people. I support absolutely User:Weregerbil's edit here. It is, I think, a part of not joining up dots, especially where no dots are present to be joined. Hoffman is a software engineer. That may or may not be relevant to the researches he has made on 9/11, but it is not for the article to make that judgement, just to state facts.
I think the courtesy title of 9/11 Researcher is a slippery slope. Anyone who has looked at a bit of stuff here and there is a 9/11 Researcher. "My name is Legion, for we are many" comes to mind.
I'm noting it here so we do not forget this as we cleanse this article of POV, Bias, claptrap et al. I don't think I am alone in wanting the end result to be "AfD Proof" and to be ready to be a featured article. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to recognize the appearance of "9/11 researchers" as a modern sociological phenomenon and recognize, also, that some of these researchers have made substantial contributions to public and professional understanding of the events surrounding 9/11.
Take Paul Thompson, for example. His biodata offers no professional qualifications. Yet his "9/11 Timeline" is a rich source for detailed, well-organized, and well-documented information.
Suppose an ordinary citizen knew, a year ago, that
Where do you suppose he was more likely to have learned this: From the mainstream news media or from "9/11 researchers"? From professional journals or from "9/11 researchers"? From our government or from "9/11 researchers"?
"9/11 researchers" have had an impact on professional scientific investigation (for example, Hoffman, a "researcher," influenced Jones, a scientist). They have influenced public policy (the "Family Steering Committee" that forced the 9/11 Commission into existence drew upon the work of Paul Thompson). Sometimes, almost indisuptably, what "9/11 researchers" have told us (for example, about environmental pollution in post-9/11 NYC) has been true when what we had heard from our governmental organs (in this case, the EPA) had been misleading or outright false.
Of course, sometimes "9/11 research" has been sheer junk. But then again, sometimes the same has been true of what we've gotten from the mainline news media.
The internet has made it possible for ordinary intelligent citizens to do deep, well-documented research, organize it so as to offer new or deeper insights, and raise important, relevant questions that otherwise might go unasked.
When such researchers have offered notable contributions, I think it reasonable for this article to take their work into account and cite those researchers as sources.
When we are citing professionally credentialed sources we should make this clear by mentioning their relevant degrees or academic or professional affiliations. And for other persons who have devoted notable time and effort to doing research and publishing what they've found, I think the term "9/11 researcher" is a clear, useful, and easily understandable designation.
Cordially, O Govinda 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just tidied the references in this section, but as a clerical exercise only. Frankly I am becoming nervous of this section. So I am putting it up for discussion.
My feeling is that this organ "Counterpunch" may not have sufficient reputability as a source to substantiate the claim that "The FBI has the recorders" for ANY article.
However, the article is not about the recorders, nor the FBI, nor the collapse. It is about the controlled demolition hypothesis. On that basis I feel that a section such as this adds no value to this article and should be removed.
I may simply remove this myself after further thought. I certainly won't object if anyone beats me to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so may thinking was: this is relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories and when I was looking for a place to put it there I understood that it should go under WTC section. As this article is main article for WTC section, and cockpit recorders case was put forth by Jones in his presentation, which is available on Journal of 9/11 Studies, I decided it is not so bad idea to put it here. And I sourced it quite well, as Jones used widely available quotes from firemen and investigators. Connection with WTC collapse is due to... rubble that supposedly destroyed cockpit recorders... What do you think? SalvNaut 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There's been some discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article about whether the offical account says that the collapses were "fire-induced". [27] I'd love to hear what people here think about this also. After all, it is central to the CD hypothesis that the official account is implausible. This argument is normally made by saying that official investigators claim that fires brought down the buildings. That's never happened before, the argument continues. Now, as I understand it, as this point nothing controversial has yet been said. The disagreement arises over the proposed mechanism of fire-induced collapse. CDers don't think it would work. NIST and the engineering community thinks it would. A related point is the idea that the collapses "surprised" engineers--mainly because no steel-framed buildings had ever before collapsed "due to fire". This also seems easy to document (Bazant and Verdure, FEMA, some of the NIST sub-reports, NCE.) And yet it has been called into question in the discussion over at 9/11 CTs. The standard objection is that there was obviously structural damage (in all cases) and that this was part of the cause of the collapse. While everyone agrees that this damage would have weakened the buildings, I then counter, the dispute remains over whether fire could have finished them off as completely (and quickly and symmetrically, etc.) as they did. Any thoughts?-- Thomas Basboll 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The official question was probably something like "how were the airplane impacts able to bring the buildings down?" or "how do the aircraft impacts alone explain the collapse the of towers?" That is, they were not look for additional sources of damage (secondary devices). But that was quite difficult to do. On Sept 13, 2001, the New Civil Engineer said that even given the airplane impacts it had until then been "unthinkable" that they would collapse. In June of 2005, they explained it as follows: "It is obvious to state that the impact and result of deliberately crashing a fully fuelled airliner into each tower was off the scale of the predictable. But there can have been few structural engineers who were not a little surprised to see two of the world's tallest buildings reduced to rubble less than an hour later.//This is not how structures are supposed to react." [29] So there was an engineering mystery to be solved. The solution was found in the enormous heat of the fires and the removal of the fire-proofing (a secondary effect of the impacts beyond the structural damage.) People like Leslie Robertson would say that they didn't really have a good sense of what kind of fires would result from airplane impacts. But the point is this: the buildings survived the impacts as per their design; the loads were successfully redistributed. Fire then brought them down (from there). What "surprised" engineers were not the effects of the impacts on the structures, but the effects of the subsequent fires. Discovering these effects led to identifying the official cause of the collapses, which, again, were the fires.-- Thomas Basboll 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganized the opening sections in a more "flat" style (to use FF's adjective above). It still needs a few sources, and I'll work a bit more at the prose as well. I've tried to respect the discussions we have had here over the past few days, and I'm pretty happy with the results. (I especially like the first paragraph on the sense of surprise, the structural damage, and the fires.) Happy editing...-- Thomas Basboll 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) There may be come issues about the lack of sources. Keep in mind, however, that there is a detailed section on evidence further down, where many of the claims are substantiated. I've tried to stick to facts that are well established, but a few {{ Fact}} tags may be in order.-- Thomas Basboll 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of this sentence; "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering." I think it is one of those that makes perfect sense when it is written but has several meanings when read. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Mainstream academia gives no credence to the controlled demolition hypothesis."
I'm sorry, but Jones, Barrett, Woods, Woodward--and there are others--are credentialed members of mainstream academia, and they are on record as giving credence to the CD hypothesis. Therefore the absolute statement--which, to be true, would require that NO member of the academic mainstream give ANY credence to the hypothesis--is demonstrably false. Whoever wants to record what he or she believes to be the attitude of mainstream academia will have to come up with a statement that's verifiably true.
Cordially, O Govinda 10:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the time for this tag is past. I have removed it. The article is now, I think, cleaned up. I see no reason for this tag to remain in place. However, I may be mistaken. if re-adding the tag please do not simply add it back. If you see a further reason for this specific tag please state reasons here. Since one of the objectives has been to clean the article up, and since much has been removed that was not relevant I feel that any re-addition of the tag requires more thna simple tagging. Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I am becoming more comfortable with removing this tag. Unlike the {{cleanup}} tag I do not feel comfortable with unilateral action to remove it and feel we need to reach a consensus on neutrality before we take this step. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Like some of the other evidence sections, the molten metal section seems to me to discuss the evidence in too great detail. (It offers pretty much the whole debate.) It would be sufficient to identify the two contentious examples: that pouring from the towers before the collapses and that found in the basements after the collapses. The official story says aluminum in the first case and is (as far as I can tell) simply not interested in the second case. The CD hypothesis takes them as evidence for thermite. (Jones, as I understand him, says "molten steel" is unlikely.) Written in more flowing prose, this is all we need to say, IMHO.-- Thomas Basboll 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This comment transferred from other section of talk page for discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Statement from Dr W. Gene Corley doesn't logically follow? Non sequitur. Is something missing? -- O Govinda 10:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gotten permission from Aman Zafar to use the image I tried to post before - I sent him the exact text from the wiki template letter so he knows that it will post to this article specifically and which image and what can happen to his image ultimately. His exact response is:
Now my question is what is the correct tag to use for the image. The permission is there, it just needs to be done. I appreciate the couple of responses I've gotten from people already, although no one has been able to say what specific tag I should use with the image. The image is of one tower burning and the other collapsing, taken from across the river. Any help is appreciated. bov 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
First: The article is really moving along. Hats off to all of you who are making such fine and thoughtful contributions.
I've gone through the article to make changes mostly related to wording, style, flow, and the like. But I've also made some substantive changes. I'll list here whatever I think is major enough to note. I'm submitting the list in good faith. If I've failed to list anything, my apologies. And if I've blown anything, please fix it.
Was the lack of precedent what so surprised the engineers? Did the argument made really have much to do with their surprise? That's why I've added "citation needed."
Again, my apologies for any mistakes I may have committed.
Cordially, O Govinda 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The terminology is awkward.
We need to exercise caution when terming a "thing" as a "Squib" or we join up the dots Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
We have: "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering." Odd statement. As noted in the article, some few structural engineers have favored the CD explanation. Does this statement depend on the word "detailed"? That seems a little too nice. The statement, anyway, is unsourced. Can we do without it? -- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The statements in this section contradict one another so quickly that amidst the jumble one can hardly understand what arguments are being made.
My guess is that editors with contrasting views were so keen to have their say and lessen the strength of one another’s arguments that the original points have been lost in the process.
Any hope of retrieving them?
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Still needs work, I think. My comments are the same as for the section on "Steel temperatures."
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The original argument by the debunkers, concerning Ronan Point, has been lost amidst the arguments made against it. We need to go step by step: We know that a corner of Ronan Point collapsed. Now, before we hear from the CD fans, what do the debunkers say this demonstrates?
Also: The Hoffman quote on progressive collapse is out of sequence here. (It could go above, where progressive collapse is discussed.)
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Small point: Did MIT officially devote their staff members? Or were these simply MIT faculty working on their own initiative or at the behest of others?
Cordially, O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, admittedly after someone else added a cat, that we had no real categories here. I've added the obvious contender, but think we could do with others added as we think of them. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that Peephole has deleted the image that Bov added on this page. Please do not delete images without discussion. The image improves the understanding of the issue of the page by including a visual of the event. I also agree with Bov's decision to remove the addition of the 9/11 conspiracy template which Tom H has added - it clutters the page and includes people who say that nukes were used in NYC, missiles hit the Pentagon, have a Mossad/Jews focus, etc., which have nothing to do with this page. To me a template which advocates those promoting nonsense, and is controlled by people on here who call anyone who challenges the official version "9/11 deniers," is transparent. Locewtus 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No suggestions for article content, just more conspiracies.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
You can try to hide it, but truth will out. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF TRAINS IN THE WTC Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) |
It wouldn't be hard to find reliable references that parody the 9/11 conspiracy theories...I can't see why if such references were provided that a section on these parodies or a similar popular culture section detailing them could be created.
MONGO
16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.
I would like to refer all readers to this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q. Although it contains original research, it shows that Ssscineccce's comments about thermite not being able to cut steel are wrong. Furthermore one of the common uses of thermite is in welding railway tracks. Welding steel is not possible unless it is first melted. If steel is melted it is no longer structurally strong, and a building relying on melted structural elements will surely collapse. The challenge for anyone sympathetic to the conspiracy theory is that reliable sources = government sources + big money sources. Yet these are precisely the one the conspiracy theorists aim at. Therefore by definition the conspiracy theory sources are "unreliable". Scientifically the true test of any statement is repeatability. Do the same things get the same result. This is what makes something "reliable". Take the building seven collapse video footage and do a video analysis of the collapse and you will see it falls in freefall for just over 2 seconds. Then you know that it was imploded, and all the denials are just spin. For details of this analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.198.171 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, December 5, 2012
WTC 7 : The extended version (now with pictures)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This stuff is highschool physics. Why is it not on this page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
|
.....but a smear and disinformation campaign - as are all wiki articles discussing alternate theories. The article is supposedly about the demolition conspiracy theories, but more space is given to rebuttals rubbishing the theories than the theories themselves. The rebuttals cited are often examples that have long been discredited, so i'm wondering whose hand is at work here? The whole thing stinks of government disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.151.6.240 ( talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
the last paragraph seems to be written like somebody's opinion piece or an essay. i'm not contesting the factuality or fallaciy but i cant figure ot if it's a reported speech, a personal opnion or just POV text. could some one fix it? 115.240.81.188 ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph has reliable sources, by the notes. It came from a published interview, apparently. And I don't consider it opinion, since it raises a lot of valid logical points (that conspiracy theorists routinely refuse to address) about how impossible it would be to plant explosives there, as the CTs most likely never visited the WTC. (I did in 1994, and the security just to reach the upper floors is extremely tight and a government ID was required just to get to the elevators) TyVulpine ( talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This sentence is not supported by the reference:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
This is a 12 page paper that is devoted to explaining a method of estimating kinetic energy from video footage. It is not an article explaining the fall of the WTC towers. It has no information about the structure. The only WTC data it shows is an estimate of the amount of energy liberated obtained by plotting the displacement of a mass over 18 seconds time. It does not explain how the energy got there. It starts assuming the energy is available.
The relevant conclusion states:
The article basically says that once you have the energy, the tower will fall to the ground by gravity alone. And that the WTC had to have a lot of energy (one order of magnitude) in order to fall as it did. This is certainly not supportive of the implied POV that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by that collapse alone would bring WTC down. Moreover the article is arguably supportive of explosive demolition. Stapler80 ( talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To start the war on terror and abolish civil liberties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 ( talk) 21:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the complete failure of any of the dumbolition nonsense. After the planes hit the building the government is just as good for whatever it wants as if the buildings come down. I have never seen any of the fantasists even attempt an explanation of why some elements of the government would attempt a project of the greatest possible difficulty, at the gravest personal risk if discovered, for no particular reason. Gnuwhirled ( talk) |
I added a picture of the red/grey chips that Harrit et al. found in the dust. Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC). I am new to editing so please let me know if my edit followed guidelines. Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
John Nevard deleted the red chip photos that Johnson had added. The photos were a significant addition to the article, and I have reversed Nevard's deletion. (I now see that Johnson made the reversal just before me, and I support his action.) Coastwise ( talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have reversed Nevard's deletion of the quote and related text in the first section. He has not discussed his reasoning here, and I believe his explanation tagged to the post doesn't make sense. The same paragraph discusses the NIST report and Popular Science article (which relies in part on the report), and the remarks of Lee Hamilton, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission are relevant to the report. Coastwise ( talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
An IP is adding statements like "saw molten steel" to the article as fact: using the summary provided by the History Channel excerpt, it's more like "looked like molten steel," I also note that the links themselves are copyright violations and can't be linked on Wikipedia, at least not to YouTube. There's a right way to reference and link, hopefully directly to a non-copyvio version of the History Channel bits, but they can';t be taken out of context and used to draw an emphatic conclusion. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title? Why tag it as a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence to support the official report but instead there is evidence to debunk it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4 94.69.14.54 ( talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)purple
Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center's failure to cut a column using conventional thermite is still irrelevant, and there are examples of controlled demolitions doing exactly what they couldn't. Our Sky Ride article mentions that the east tower of the attraction was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs. Pictures can be found on google books (credits to metabunk.org for finding them). I have said it before, wikipedia shouldn't promote pseudoscience just to discredit a conspiracy theory. Another example was the demolition of the Reichstag in 1954; conspiracy theorists will probably like the images of molten steel pouring down in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8xpsrUpPY Ssscienccce ( talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
othing and may give readers the idea that it is physically impossible, which it obviously isn't. So I suggest again that it be removed. Ssscienccce ( talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"" Did they actually look for evidence for explosives? -- 41.150.201.159 ( talk) 18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please elaborate the article by listing possible motivations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.159.110 ( talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I have started a discussion about this at:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Q: Why isn't my favorite idea addressed? Why isn't the book by my guru mentioned? A: Any monomanic with a keyboard can make a website, or write a book. Because we don't publish original research, reliable sources must address people and ideas before Wikipedia can write about them. In short, get in the Washington Post first, then get in Wikipedia.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
This is a subarticle of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page; I took this information from there. Once the VfD is over, if this article remains then the sections copied to this article should be excised from the original article and this whole page should be summarized briefly there.
Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in before: below was what I wrote)
I would like to add something that I haven't seen yet in all info about 9/11. A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") ( http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:
The video Loose_Change_(video) shows enlarged puffs of smoke coming out the WTC towers some 30 floors below the collapse and states that this is evidence of explosives. However, as Jowenko concludes, these were bolts and parts of the steel construction popping out because of the enormous strain by the collapse. This collaborates with the remarks made by firemen in the 9/11_(film): "Bolt by bolt started popping out".
His opinion was double checked (as shown in the Zembla documentary) by a team from the TU Delft TU (Technical University) of Delft and they came to the same conclusion based on their calculations.
In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.
Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that.
At this stage, this interview might be briefly mentioned, but, like I say, I hope someone follows up on it and gets a more detailed analysis, preferably in writing, out of him.-- Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed the {{ Fact}} tag from the first sentence because obviously no citation is needed, since this page is explaining precisely what the Controlled-Demolition Theory is. If that doesn't make sense, please state your reason(s) here. Thanks! Mujinga 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple problems with the citations on this page, and some other things that need revising.
First paragraph
Molten metal
Ejected debris
Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition
Pulverization
The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.
Symmetry and Squibs
A lot more of the supporting material in this article is unscientific or just pure assertion but we can leave that to another time. Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening. Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here). This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers. This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite. He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:
He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.
My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that.
Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? -- SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This professor from Edinburgh made an extensive study about fires and buildings collapsing with relation to WTC7. He even set on fire some 24-storey high tower. He did not find any explanation for WTC7 collapse because of fires. His paper can be found here. His work is reported in UK newspapers, so there are scond sources. -- SalvNaut 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This page has been moved from Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) - you can find some archives there and older ones at the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Controlled Demolition section.
Hey Rx StrangeLove, you've added criticism to the section "Ejected debris". This is great, we need this, but: The sentence you've added begins: "However, critics point out... ". I propose no to formulate sentences using "point out", but rather using "claim". We won't be able to check every fact, (and we shouldn't because it's WP:OR) so we should phrase sentences with care.
Well, then if you read the FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building, you can find on the page 4:
Coulumn section was not from aluminium, nor were exterior column trees. Still, I don't know how they were ejected. -- SalvNaut 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea to move building 7, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Anyone want to explain it?-- Thomas Basboll 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that people are so excited to revert any changes of their precious labels of "conspiracy theorists" that they happily revert to wrong information which was previously corrected -- the current link to Jones' paper goes to a BYU page where it is no longer located, and Judy Wood is no longer a '9/11 scholar' but has already been outed as "no-plane" advocate attacking Jones with Morgan Reynolds. Her paper was disputed throughout the scholars community for its errors and should not be linked to. But those whose main goal in life is to shackle anyone questioning the (Bush appointed) NIST findings with the branding of 'conspiracy theorists' don't actually seem to have an interest in the CONTENT of the article . . . Locewtus 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Locewtus. Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn.-- Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to avoid repeating all the controversies that we have on other 9/11-related pages, I want to suggest that we organise sections in part by the quality of their sources.
So, for example, the existence of the theory and its basic idea (which Tom harrison wants to have a citation for already in the lead) can be established in the hypothesis section (at the start of the article) with reference exclusively to NIST, Bazant and Verdure, (perhaps Cherepanov who also uses it as a foil, but for a different effect), and, I would add, Sunder's remark in New York Magazine (I think) that he had read Steven Jones' paper, was "sympathetic", but that it was not consistent with the facts as he knew them. That would also occasion a reference to Jones' paper (in the Scott and Griffin volume), of course, which, I would argue, is the standard reference for a presentation of the hypothesis.-- Thomas Basboll 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is unencyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not as I find this article to be a soapboxing repository and POV push of complete nonsense.-- MONGO 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Basball, it's a bit creepy the way some editors attempt to push others around, threaten to delete article you've worked so hard for. Who the --- does he think he is? Can something be done? Please try to ignore all but thoughtful comments by those who have bothered to engage their minds before starting to type. Keep up the good work on this article.-- JustFacts 02:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
>>"At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend."
Even I'm forced to admit, it's pretty darn good. bov 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
...er, just found all this. How is this person declaring he can remove an article without afd? Will of the people, etc. · XP · 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Good reversion of a BLP violation. That repeatedly inserted spam line (in addition to it being possibly a vandal move to insert the same unsourced negative statement about a living person again and again) was a policy violation. · XP · 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no legitimate need or reason to spam this throughout. Once is fine for readers. This is not an anti-Jones website, nor a pro-Jones website. Advocacy in either direction is forbidden for all users, admin or otherwise. · XP · 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed:
as original research, there are no cites or links, nothing here that is referenced at all. Who says all this? Rx StrangeLove 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed a couple sections:
Neither are referenced and the second seems pretty original researchy. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to establish consensus about who the major representatives of the hypothesis are (i.e., who are the significant figures that defend it, either as a claim or as a call for futher investigation). Here is my list of sources.
I take those to be core statements. They have the virtue of being books, not internet sites, and current. I do think Jim Hoffman's and Jeff King's online presentations deserve mention, too, however. Please make your arguments against any of these known soon, and suggest possible additions. I will then add section on major proponents of the theory, which will of course also serve as a way of focusing the article's content.-- Thomas Basboll 10:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Objectionist criterions on presenting minority points of view that are not present on other articles should not be considered (admin status gives the recommender's opinion no additional weight, as admin status has no relevance on editorial decisions), if they are not willing to participate in framing those conditions for actual use. Saying you will paint a wall with blue paint, while refusing to help out on procuring paint, or you know, actually painting, is not acceptable. This article will not have any additional "restrictions" or "conditions" placed on it than any other articles. Only the Arbitration Committee by completion of their process is authorized to place editorial restriction or probration on articles. · XP · 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I propose. Based on NIST and Bazant and Verdure we can assert that the controlled demolition hypothesis (a) exists and (b) conflicts with the official/generally accepted account. Mainstream journalism confirms this and provides us with three (so far) names: Jones, Griffin, and Tarpley. This leads us to their own presentations, i.e., the sources I've cited. We then present their research (not ours) as a minority view on the collapses. To organize the presentation we use a simple heuristic, requiring no original research: we foreground the evidence that all three presentations draw on. While there is a little bit of synthesis in this way of doing it, it by no means "advances a position". All it does is answer the question, What is the controlled demolition hypothesis? If Tom, or someone else, opposes this, then we may have to seek mediation. Until a basic consensus is established on this, the result will be predictable and, to my mind, a poor article.-- Thomas Basboll 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the section that implies that he is sympathetic to the demolition hypothesis and that "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"[9] is a standard reference in these discussions. Both use this to back the statements up. The only mention of Shyam Sunder in the article is this:
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
Clearly he is sympathetic to outbursts (of frustration presumably) and is not talking about the demolition hypothesis. He is quite clear on what the facts are. And how the fact that he read it means that it is a standard reference doesn't compute. Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As of now, we have one massive evidence section, one very short criticism section, and then a sort of large discussion of the issues at the bottom. In addition, some of the articles read like a back-and-forth debate, such as the Molten Metal section - we read what Jones has to say, a response from NIST, a response from Jones, a response from NIST... I find that inconducive to the article's purpose. The NPOV problems that crop up as well can be dealt with on an individual basis, but are not very easy to find and fix. Some of the smaller subsections either have no criticism, or the criticism is located far away from the claims and in another section entirely. I suggest an overhaul of the organization organization: within every subsection of debate (for example, Molten Metal) we could arrange it a clear CT position and a clear official position, each just to say their respective pieces and positions.
Molten Metal Molten metal reports, official story, analysis and explanation. Critism of official reports, thermite proposal, various experiments and CT reports, counterarguments for forthcoming "offical" propositions.
Criticism Rebuttal of CT arguments, slag, etc, etc.
I believe that this format would be better organized, easier to read, and provide a better comprehensive understanding of the topic than a back-and-forth banter between the sides. In addition, it makes it easier to find diagnose NPOV problems, and make it easy to see which arguments are given no criticism, of which there are many. 75.33.140.40 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing this section:
Silverstein, through the spokesman, has stated what he meant in the quote. Any other interpretation is totally subjective and not based on any objective fact. It'd be different if they were talking about say, the amount of energy it took to produce a certain effect or something. Jim Hoffman's thoughts on what went through Silversteins mind are no more valid then yours or mine. Silverstein has never given any indication that he meant anything other than what is presented here. Hoffman can't read Silversteins mind and we shouldn't include his attempts to. Rx StrangeLove 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also removed:
The cite request has been there since this split and none has been provided. Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Also removed:
The reference points to a page that says in total:
It doesn't mention demolition or that a calculated fall took place at all. Rx StrangeLove 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a stretch, the whole section that follows this sentence only proves that there was smoldering (maybe) steel in the weeks after the event. Unless there is a neutral, objective finding somewhere that "steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives", this section has to go. Even Jones says "that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done", so there's no basis for this section at all. What this boils down to is that there was material smoldering for a while after 9/11. Rx StrangeLove 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the same section:
There's no claim that the amont of time it took to clean up is related to controlled demolition. Rx StrangeLove 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to work on some of the survey stuff. A history of the hypothesis. Major current proponents (see above). Its place in 9/11 CTs and the 9/11 truth movement. And a summary of the parts of the official explanation that bear on this. Also, I'm going to make a small section that describes the uncontroversial aspects of the collapses. The other task, it seems, is to shorten the evidence section radically. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.-- Thomas Basboll 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
After reading the analysis at AfD Closing Rationales I think the obvious tasks are:
May I suggest that this is treated as a "miniwikiproject" and people "take sections" (stating here which they are working on and flagging that section in the article itself if it is more than a five minute job)and clean them up, doing it quickly to avoid accusations either of delay or indeed of POV pushing?
This article is not small, but a small team of editors who commit to NPOV should be able to tackle it fast now the AfD threat is currently lifted. Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
As some people are so determined that things which in normal context elsewhere would be find under RS apparently are not here, would if those sources ARE mentioned and cited by other RS be OK? MONGO? Others? Specifically, if Steven Jones is disputed as an RS (how, I don't know, as he and his Scholars group are apparently one of the primary sources of the theory), what if we reference/quote them as THEY are quoted by a fine RS? As in, if "the BBC says that Jones says..." is a factual statement, then that bit from Jones, period, is demonstratable as RS. As in, he already qualifies per our policy, but if he also is good enough for a real, historic and reknowned news source like the BBC, he has to be considered a good source above and beyond already qualifying for us.
NOTE: Personal opinions, as in he's not a structural engineer, etc. are not permissiable still per WP policy. Individuals or cabals of editors do not get to put additional conditions on RS if they already meet any one of the established, supported qualifiers. I'm throwing this one out as a compromise to minimize conflict. · XP · 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(indent reset)Excuse me, I meant reliability. You have offered as evidence of reliablity that Jones' paper is in print, and cited by another work. However, that the publication and citation both come from the same person weakens that case. Yes, Jones is notable in the field of particle physics. How again does that relate to the subject at hand? Despite the hand-waving of his supporters, particles do not collide in a manner resembling that of macroscopic structures, nor can macroscopic behavior be analyzed with the tools of particle physics. Reliable secondary sources indicate these three are the prime proponents of this theory. That's all well and fine. But reliability is not contagious, or transitive, and does not free us up to refer directly to their own various publications.
I'm not clear on why Tarpley is the "most qualified", he is a political commentator and the pdf you link to is merely a compilation of OTHER people's statements and views, tied together by his political analysis. He may be the "most qualified" conspiracy theorist, but this article is not about a conspiracy, is it?
This Hypothesis purports to be scientific. Of the three presented, Jones is the least unqualified; however, he is not an engineer (not a personal opinion, verifiable from his CV), and he has no degrees (postgraduate or otherwise) or published expertise in any area related to structural engineering. -- Mmx1 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The numbers will fluctuate because the cite system is fluid. This is why I suggest we enter a "snapshot" of the text containing these so co-ordination of fix or delete can take place. Where a reference is used several times we must be aware that deleting the first reference link "orphans" any remaining refs.
There are two instances of this ref, but no trace of the reference wording. Thus the first instance must have been deleted.
Current locations:
9/11 researchers have proposed the idea that WTC7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds [73], although the FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.[74]
and
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.[73]
I suspect the ref has value in the first instance. I can't guess the value in the second. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The controlled demolition hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community and has been explicitly rejected by official investigators. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology has found no evidence of controlled demolition, it is, however, studying the effects of "hypothetical blast events" in attempting to understand the collapse of Building Seven. Likewise, Zdenek P. Bazant, who co-authored the first published analysis of the collapses of the two towers, has proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse mechanism that the official explanation invokes. But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as a serious research hypothesis for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering.
Three statements, in particular, can be identified. Since being made available on the Internet in September of 2005, a paper written by Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, fast became a standard point of reference for people defending the idea of controlled demolition. It has since been published in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin is a retired professor of theology who is currenly best known for his book The New Pearl Harbor. He has published his own version of the hypothesis in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Finally, Webster Griffin Tarpley, best known for his investigation into the murder of Aldo Moro and his unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush, devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the hypothesis.
While they do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts, all three refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before being accepted as true. The three statements 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 aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarises 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 of 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eye-witness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Finally, Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasising 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 is how I imagine the section on major proponents might look. It gives a good sense of the sort of research that exists (and does not exist) to support the hypothesis. Again, if there are disagreements about the notability of the figures, or you want another proponent added, feel free to make suggestions. I'm posting this mainly to give a sense of how it might look in prose form.-- Thomas Basboll 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
This just turned up at the 9/11 CT article. Not sure we can use it here either, but it's too detailed for the WTC summary:
-- Thomas Basboll 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Why would "Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body." affect symmetry of falling? I may be about to make a big fool of myself, but is it not more likely to be the second law of motion? It was a few years ago I took physics, but I need persuading that the article is right here, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, just to think about (I think I don't get it): Other researchers note that the shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum of the upper floors by a factor of 10.3, making an unsymmetrical collapse of WTC 1&2 physically impossible.[27]
Ok: shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum. Then wasn't it the same force of angular momentum that exceeded the resistance of lower floors and made it possible for collapse to proceed? Is the shear resistance so much greater (>20 times?) than vertical resistance?? Maybe, some explanation could be that the collapse initiated assymetrically, gained angular momentum, then everything else supporting upper part failed and it as a whole started going down...maybe SalvNaut 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's been moved to the archive so I post it again:
Pulverization
And here's one more. Do you think Jeff King's early work deserves inclusion (include or keep). Hoffman also sites his "How Strong is the Evidence" [10] among the classics [11]. Griffin uses him in his paper.-- Thomas Basboll 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hoffman has a list of "classic articles" here [12]. My own impression is that he's right to include "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" by J. McMichael among these, and it should be presented in the historical section. Please indicate whether you think we should include or drop this one also, with reasons.
On the day of the attacks, there were reports of secondary devices and explosions; journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planned explosives citation needed. A number of experts also suggested this idea. In a notable case, the Albuqurque Journal quoted Van Romero, a controlled demolition expert, said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that he thought there were "explosives planted inside the building". While he later retracted this opinion, and said that he had been misquoted, his suggestion that "that is what it looked like", became central to the formation of the controlled demolition hypothesis.
One early formulation came with J. McMichaels' "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics", which recalled Romero's remarks and introduced some of the lasting elements of the hypothesis: that the fires could not have sufficiently weakened the steel to initiate the collapses, and that the undamaged structure underneath the impact zones would have resisted a total progressive collapse. These ideas were then developed in greater detail online by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman until being picked up by David Ray Griffin and listed among the reasons to re-investigate the events of 9/11 in his influential book The New Pearl Harbor. In late 2005, Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public. Although he did not publish his ideas in scientific journals, his interest in the hypothesis brough a measure scientific credibilty and increased media exposure to the hypothesis. Jones, however, was placed on paid leave by his university in September of 2006 while his work in this area is reviewed.
Again, just to give an idea of what sort of prose I'm thinking of presenting the history in. Let me know if there are important aspects I've missed, or things that I have weighted improperly. I've left the sources out for now, much of the info here has multiple sources; we'll just find the strongest and most efficient way of sourcing the text we finally agree on.-- Thomas Basboll 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks good to me, and describes the history accurately. The quotes from news reporters on that day were a significant detail. Your history doesn't give the impression you are trying to make the case that they were instumental, but it gets at the documentation of how some people's first reaction was that the destruction looked like a demolition, which is relevant to origin of the theory.
bov
21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This banner:
Is now disputed. It seems we need to reach a consensus over this. I have replaced it on the article with a note on the talk page of the editor who removed it. I believe it serves a hugely valid purpose, and is inclusive. However we may need to make it more inclusive. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the tag is a bad idea, though well-intended. It is likely to discourage new editors, and suggests there is some kind of official committee to which proposals are submitted and voted on. Of course, that is not the case. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple sentences here that don't have any real basis:
Sounds and flashes of light are pretty vague and ignores that fact that there were raging fires going on in the buildings. There didn't need to be a collapse for there to be sounds and flashes of light in that environment. The second sentence talks about molten metal but doesn't say anything about what kind it was or why fires couldn't have caused it. Both are uncited and as they stand are original research. I'm going to snip them. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at this section. I wanted to see the molten metal on video:
*'''Molten metal:''' A stream of liquid metal was videotaped<ref>{{cite web| last = | first = | year = 2001| url = http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863 | title = Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing| format = Macromedia Flash video | publisher = CameraPlanet 911 Archive/[[Google Video]]}}</ref> flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses say they saw pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.
The video is perpetually unavailable. Strong suggestion either to remove this reference or to qualify it as "unreliably available". Removing the reference means a need for substantial rewording of any area which cites it or relies on it as an implicit citation. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.<ref name=Chandler_Girders>{{cite web| last =| first =| year = 2003| url = http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270| title = Video about ejected girders by David Chandler of 911SpeakOut.org| format = Macromedia Flash video| publisher = [[Google Video]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last =| first =| year= 2003 | title=Collapse Calculactions (zip)| url =http://911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip}}</ref>
Looking at the final two sources, the video is persuasive until it turns into propaganda, and I suggest needs flagging differently as a video in favour of explosive charges et al.
The zipfile contains "someone's" spreadsheet. Whose, and is the rationale for calculation attributabel to a reputable source, and is it valid? Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
However, (Mmx1, you are correct about verifiability) this subsection should be removed (whole Evidence section should be trimmed with care), as the calculations might be correct, but the whole reasoning process doesn't have to be. This video could be used as an illustration of points raised by Griffin but it certainly doesn't deserve its own subsection. I think that most of the evidence section should be treated this way - first, we need to write a summary of points raised by Griffin, Jones, Hoffman, Tarpley,... right? SalvNaut 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
On the (current) reference cite 19, there is a reference to http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf with regards to molten metal, and on (current) reference cite 18 there is a reference to http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf regarding the same issue. Note that on page 1 of the WTCTHERM.pdf reference it quotes FEMA as saying " a stream of molten METAL" (emphasis mine), supposedly directly quoting the FEMA report noted in cite #18. However, the actual quote from the cited FEMA report says: " a stream of molten MATERIAL". This might seem minor, but it is a substantial difference. FEMA speculates but does not conclude that the material is in fact metal. I have changed the "Molten metal" section on this article to reflect this difference, and caution people against using the WTCTHERM.pdf document as a reference. -- Durin 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In order to properly<ref name=Controlled-Demolition>Controlled Demolition, Inc. [http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2 "Controlled Demolition, Inc.: About us"]</ref> bring down a 47 story building, conventional demolition procedures would require weeks of preparation and planning (e.g. where to place the demolition charges at key structural points so that the building collapses neatly into its own footprint).<ref>{{web cite|url=http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=21&reqItemId=20060123072158 |title=Baptist MBF Patient's Tower Implosion | date=2005, November 6th}}</ref>
I can't spot the relevance of linking the phrase 'controlled demolition procedures' to the 'About us' page of Controlled Demolition Inc. I think they had something relevant to say elsewhere in the article, but this seems like a link for link's sake to a professional demolition company. This is part of thinning out the forest so a route can be found through it to the bare facts, I think Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a trivial little thing, but I added an image of the NIST report at the head of the article. · XP · 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Where there are researchers, whether self styled or not, whose work, research or opinions (henceforth: "stuff") do not qualify under WP:RS but whose stuff either has received popular acclaim (not the same as passing scientific scrutiny - popular acclaim has Elvis on the dark side of the Moon, along with a B52 bomber) or is quoted by other researchers whose work passes WP:RS, my instinct is to acknowledge that stuff along with the author of that stuff, while making it clear that it does not pass the RS litmus test.
So I have two questions:
This may solve (eg) "the Hoffman Inclusion Question" Fiddle Faddle 08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
(Time out: Please can we all steer clear of terms that sometimes have the appearance of being directed at individuals. We can do this without words like "abusrd" being used, I think. Let's step back from those and use logic and policies as our guide. We don't have the time to even think about fighting :) ) Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Citing to reliable sources is one of the foundational aspects of Wikipedia. Otherwise, they'd call it Blogopedia. Morton devonshire 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Since this page is unwieldy I have archived what I THINK is up to the end of the AfD (see archive box at head for link). Please would one of you cross check what I have done and either move MORE to the END of the archive page manually, or RETURN sections to the head of THIS section below the administrative stuff.
After we have that set in stone I am thinking of setting Werdnabot up to archive items here that are over 10 days without discussion to a new archive page. It's easy enough to do that, and even to vary the duration on the fly, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. May I suggest you briefly say Support or Oppose over the next 48 hour period. If you support please say the days that must elapse prior to archival. I'll go for the arithmetic mean as an integer if "Support" is the outcome. No replies and I will just be bold and do it Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a criticism of the addition of two images today. I just want to make sure that we all consider the addition of further images very carefully. An image can give apparent authority to something when juxtaposed with text, or with not, even when there is no intention to give that authority.
The image at the head of the article Image:WTCSouthTower Zafar.jpg currently is interesting. It shows (to me) that a cloud of smoke and/or dust obscured pretty much all the collapse, at least from this angle. I could conclude from it that any measurements of collapse rate, for example, must be flawed because they could not be measured. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."
.
I don't think I quite understand Fiddle Faddle's point. CDers make a great deal out of what the collapses looked like. But the collapse times are not controversial. (The official collapse times match those of the CD hypothesis). There are no pictures in Wikipedia (as far as I can tell) of the actual collapses. Not to show one here would be a bit like not showing a picture of the "face on Mars" is the relevant article. (It may not go in the Mars article, but NASA does not deny that the image is actually in the photograph. They've just got another explanation of it.)-- Thomas Basboll 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why the image I posted on here was deleted? I've always had trouble figuring out which tag to associate with images, but it's seems 'legal' as far as I can tell -the person who took the photo gave me permission to use it on wikipedia as long as I referenced his website and his name. It also would seem to qualify as historical, so I put both on there. Please advise. I think it qualifies to be on here, I just don't understand exactly which tag to use. bov 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmx1 and I have been discussing whether or not the collapse times are controversial or accepted on both sides (official and CD). My view is that everyone agrees that the buildings collapsed "essentially in free fall", putting the towers at a round 12 seconds and building 7 at just under 7 seconds. Mmx1 has been emphasising that a portion of the cores in each case remaining standing a bit longer (max. 25 seconds after collapse initiation). In the case of building 7 (and this has already been fixed in the article) it is important to distinguish between the proposed sequence of events inside the building and the time from when the penthouse collapses. The official story simply tries to explain these collapses at free fall speed, while demolitions don't accept their explanation. The speed of the collapses, however, are not, as I see it, at issue. Any thoughts?-- Thomas Basboll 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I see there is some confusion about what constitutes a primary or secondary source. The WP:RS offers the following guideline:
Using the link to UCSC's library provided at the secondary source article (not the article itself), it offers a similar definition and the following guidance towards identifying sources:
“ | When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:
|
” |
By these standards, as I was taught in every level of education, Hoffman's website is a secondary source. It is an accumulation of primary sources and presents his interpretation of them. Hoffman was not a witness to the collapse and does not base his arguments on what he personally witnessed; he bases them on other primary and secondary sources. Can secondary sources be used as a primary source for the "beliefs" of the person? I would argue not; that would open a backdoor to introducing any secondary source as merely a primary source for the author's beliefs. I refuse to submit to the notion that we can discuss freely "beliefs" irrespective of the nature of these claims; we have here assertions about numerous facets of the Collapse of the World Trade Center; it does not pass muster to allow a lower standard of inclusion because we are merely talking about "beliefs". I am raising these issues on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources page, that appears to be a more appropriate place to involve qualified individuals to comment on this. -- Mmx1 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes Hoffman a notable proponent? He hasn't received much media coverage, and google results are not an indicator of nobility. His references are all self-published, and he has no qualifications ("postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS). In fact, there was evidence of astroturfing of his links on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, where even the proponents were disturbed that his website seemed to be so heavily promoted. -- Mmx1 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Please let us determine Hoffman's genuine relevance for inclusion in the article. I suggest state Include or Drop, both with reasons. It is probabaly not a matter of a numeric vote, but a decent consensus based on well argued opinions. I suggest we treat it as a very formal discussion below. Is 48 hours sufficient for this? if not please be bold and say so in this heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
According to Paul, "The crimes of 9/11/01 remain the most consequential events of this century. I've done my best to show and suggest what happened on that day and to point out that even more awful crimes are planned for us as 'pretexts' for more war unless we act openly and courageously to prevent them. No amount of attempted 'deletion" will change realities outside the Internet, nor change peoples' needs to seek truth."
More to the point, the evidence for concluding that a controlled demolition continues to mount, and much of the credit belongs to WTC7.net, which Jones has praised repeatedly for lending the scientific credibility that precipitated Jones's initial research paper on the WTC collapses. Because of their central role, in having the foremost website on the topic and for spurring the research that led to the identification of thermate as the specific explosive used to slice the steel structural support of the three buildings, there should be no question whatsoever about including Paul and Hoffman in the article. Ombudsman 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We should now close this for inputs. If this were to be simply numeric I would call it a tied vote, pretty much, but a vote it what it is not. Can someone who is not me and ideally who has not been involved in the discussion and who can take a legitimately neutral view summarise what consensus we have reached, please. That way we have a plan to move forward, with or without Hoffman. The main reaosn for seeking a consensus here was to attempt to get the arguments into the open and decide what has value that is congruent with the aim of the article (note, not about the collapse, but about the conspiracy theory) It was never intended to be a vote, always a consensus. I hope we can do this better than a large number of AfDs have been done Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is consensus about someone (Hoffman, King) to be important for the hypothesis, then he should be included here. Why? Now, there are two cases possible:
imho. SalvNaut 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Important according to who? The three Basboll mention have been quoted by reliable secondary sources; Hoffman and King haven't. It is not wiki's place to determine the history of false hypotheses and rejections from primary sources; that is the role of secondary sources. -- Mmx1 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
What is your opinion about providing Hoffman as a source for Jones's claims? This article is going to have a summary of Jones's claims (there is consensus about this I think). Jones very often provides links to Hoffman's page, as a source for photo, video evidence about WTC collapse. For example, Jones refers 2 times on the 4th page of his paper. Should we then provide Hoffman's page as a link to illustrate Jones's claim, or rather search for data elsewhere? I think that the former would be unneccassary difficulty, as Hoffman seems a very good source for some of 9/11 evidence, and after all Jones based his claims on his data. SalvNaut 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a permanent issue on all these articles (with the exception of the main WTC collapse article, however.) Note the following formulation (status quo in this article):
Ref 7 links to a very reliable engineering trade journal that basically says no engineers could imagine that the buildings might collapse before they did. (This idea ran under the headline "Unthinkable!" in the weeks immediately following the attacks). Ref 8 links to Bazant and Verdure that says no engineers predicted that the buildings would collapse and that the NIST report's explanation is now the generally accepted account in the engineering community. It seems to me that the sentence in question completely understates the consensus and makes the point difficult to understand. Here is what it should say:
What do you all think?-- Thomas Basboll 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"Engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."
The word implicit in this formulation is "all." In effect, it reads, "All engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."
If that statement is true, fine. But if even one engineer dissents (and several dissenting engineers are already cited in this article), the statement is verifiably false.
Then we need to say "some engineers" or, if someone has done a reliable and comprehensive worldwide statistical survey, "most engineers." If someone has done a statistical survey of the published literature, we could say something like "Most engineers who have published their findings in professional journals." Otherwise we could publish our impressions--but we're not supposed to do that, are we?
Regarding the "Let's examine their psychology" approach, several observations:
In sum:
(1) The proposed formulation about the engineers has a fatal flaw.
And
(2) I suggest we avoid the psychology approach.
Cheerfully, O Govinda 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's what you intend, why not say "engineers generally were...but have generally." Would you need a source(s) for these propositions?-- JustFacts 20:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
A footnote, if no sources, might be OK. Thom, don't you think the article needs to include more about the alleged "refutation" of the NIST report's analyis of the collapse mechanism. I am thinking, for example, of Kevin Ryan's article here: [ [19]] going point by point to "disprove" the NIST report's major findings and assumptions. By the way, this might also "bridge" to some extent the engineering explanation and that of the "common sense" physicists (not that Ryan is either one), to use your terminology. I am not the person to write this.-- JustFacts 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am parking this paragraph here for the moment. I am not sure whether it fits in or not, especially since the video recordings may simply not have had sound.
"In addition, surviving video footage from near the base of the towers before and during their collapse fails to record any sound of explosions of the magnitude heard during a building demolition."
I think it has a place, but not where it was entered, and potentially not without qualification. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Witness accounts are fine. The video you link to in your last sentence is a good example of what I mean. A significant explosion is heard and the people in the video use the word "explosion" to describe it. What is the time of this explosion? Can it be chronologically aligned with the second tower hitting the ground? Given all the dust, the first tower at least must have fallen and so it cannot be that or the sound of planes hitting the buildings, either. To support CD, the explosion would have to be shown to have occurred before the second tower hit the ground, I think.-- JustFacts 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
...But pointing out that NIST hasn't identified source of molten metal (not identified - that's right, they just pointed out some possibilities like aluminum with organic substance but didn't provide any arguments), or some of the general critique by Griffin seems appropriate. Eagerly looking forward to see the results of your work. SalvNaut 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent way of explaining the sense in which Jones (and the others) take controlled demolition as a "hypothesis". Here's a video that gives a good idea of how he does things. [23] (I'm not suggesting it as a source, just as a way we might understand the issue.) Notice how he frames it. You've got a feature of the WTC collapses: molten metal, whether pouring out of the building or found in the basement, and hardened 'slag' (previously molten metal) of a particular metallurgical composition. You then have two hypotheses: fire-initiated, gravity-driven progressive collapse vs. controlled demolition with thermite. According to Jones (and apparently NIST) the feature is difficult to explain on the first hypothesis; but a thermite reaction, he tells us, would explain it almost down to the last detail (i.e., details revealed under a microscope). That's what hypotheses are for. The thermite hypothesis for the WTC, combined with background knowledge about thermite and steel, leads to a prediction about the result of an analysis of the samples under an electron microscope. The question is, does such an analysis reveal "what we would expect to find if thermite were involved?" The answer, he claims, is "yes". Is molten metal something we would expect to find (and would therefore have an easy time explaining) on the official account? The answer seems to be (but it is true we have to be quite sure about this) no.-- Thomas Basboll 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"How do you propose they identify the source of molten metal?"(Mmx1): Hmmm. How about doing experiments with kerosyne fires and various substances,metals to see how they look if melted? How about measuring black body radiation from the video by making experiments with the same camera from the same distance ?; taking previously molten metal examples from the rubble, putting it in electron microprobe or wave-dispersive X-ray or other expensive lab equipment and trying to explain this data? ; looking very closely at WTC designs and trying to identify the possible source of the molten metal/substance? How about including those results in the final report? Hmmm, and maybe some more scientific tests about squibs? Why they've occured in exactly those places? What do WTC designs tell us about the compression wave? Could it go in such a way to make those squibs possible? Hmmm, wait. Jones researched on some of those issues... Why NIST belittles the fact that scaled WTC models when set on kerosyne fire didn't collapse?
To be more bold (about NIST critique): Why not to put controlled demolition hypothesis on the table (no one would be suprised, engineers and other experts reported it looked like CD) and refute it(?) with strength? Why dismissing the whole hypothesis with one sentence in the final report?? (following is just speculation - I share my thoughts)Wait... I know the answer: doing any of these could point your finger at some that supervise you and are supposed to account you for this report and pay you. Your proposition could be immediately ridiculed by media, goverment people, collegues. You could loose your job in the comission. No one would provide you with money for your proposed experiments. Yes, why to bother to explain everything about one of the most important events of the century? Isn't it better to prepare half-baked farce.... After all, what else can we do? We scientist do our best with funds, access to evidence and reasonable supervision over us we have(not). SalvNaut 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, the two words may be used interchangeably. However they are different, the one being a constituent component and the other being an incendiary compound. I'm flagging this for further attention while I think of it. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Where we see an edit that we believe requires further discussion, even if we simply wish to understand the rationale, it is worth listing it here. For ease of editing, each should have a sub-heading.
Listing an edit here should in no way be taken as a criticism of any editor. This article is to be above reproach and wholly correct within the guidelines. I am seeking simply to work towards seeking to ensure that.
Note that, when the editor is not a regular contributor to this talk page they should be invited politely to visit this section to elaborate on their reasons, simply so we (the entire interested wikipedia community) may understand them. However, lack of their further comments should not cause any judgement to be made about them or their edit.
(section created as a clerical exercise by Fiddle Faddle, but no real need to sign this part)
Please see this diff where a section stating Hoffman's arguments has been removed with the edit history "we can't be making arguments on Wikipedia, violates the rules against original research".
I do not see that this is wikipedia making an argument. Instead I see it as reporting arguments made by Hoffman. I believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see this diff where the section making reference to the demolition of the Baptist Tower has been removed with the edit history of "deleted unreliable source"
I do not understand why a factual page of a demolition company us unreliable, unless it is itself dismissed as Original Research. Even if that is the rationale it is a simple report on another building demolished by an apparently reputable corporation.
I see every reason for us to discuss whether such a section should be in or out, but I am not sure about the stated reason for deletion, and believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Timtrent asked me to come here and explain why I deleted the section on "Implications of Controlled Demolition". Two reasons: (1) that we should not be citing to blogs on Wikipedia, as they violate WP:RS, and (2) the section was "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", which I shall quote in part below:
Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
See [25] for the complete policy. Morton devonshire 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made several changes to this section. Among those not obvious or discussed in the edit summary:
I realize that in deleting the redundant identification of Dr. Jones I have sacrificed a footnote: A university spokeswoman, Carri P. Jenkins, said the decision was based on the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of statements being made by Dr. Jones regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center". We could restore it, towards the top of the article, where the original identification occurs. If we do, however, I would suggest we also add the statements, from the other sources, that Dr. Jones was put on leave because of BYU's concern over his involvement with the "9/11 truth movement" and that BYU's concern is "not the quality of his research."
It's questionable, however, whether such detail is warranted. But if we go that far, perhaps we should go farther. We could note that other academics, such as Kevin Barrett and William Woodward--have also faced direct threats to their job security because of views they have expressed that question the official story. Adherents of the CD hypothesis have suggested that fear of such repraisals may contribute to a reluctance by academics and engineering professionals to express views contrary to the official theory, and that point is relevant. Anyone for a separate section?
Respectfully, O Govinda 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to a comment by
Mmx1, I have given more details from FEMA's timeline (and removed a paragraph later that gave pretty much the same information but with less chronological detail).
Respectfully, O Govinda 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The bullet point "Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions." worries me. To me it states as a fact that there were explosions. As a TV viewer of the collapse I can only say that I saw a building collapse fast. I can imagine great noise and bangs. What I do not think I could state with certainty is that there were explosions.
However the hypothesis that there were explosions is fundamental to this article, since we are dealing with the hypothesis.
So, am I right to be concerned about this bullet point, or am I just looking at it too cyncially and too late in my evening? I can't judge that tonight. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Lookjng at this diff it struck me very forcibly that we need to be scrupulously accurate when attributing a role or a qualification or a pseudo-qualification to people. I support absolutely User:Weregerbil's edit here. It is, I think, a part of not joining up dots, especially where no dots are present to be joined. Hoffman is a software engineer. That may or may not be relevant to the researches he has made on 9/11, but it is not for the article to make that judgement, just to state facts.
I think the courtesy title of 9/11 Researcher is a slippery slope. Anyone who has looked at a bit of stuff here and there is a 9/11 Researcher. "My name is Legion, for we are many" comes to mind.
I'm noting it here so we do not forget this as we cleanse this article of POV, Bias, claptrap et al. I don't think I am alone in wanting the end result to be "AfD Proof" and to be ready to be a featured article. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to recognize the appearance of "9/11 researchers" as a modern sociological phenomenon and recognize, also, that some of these researchers have made substantial contributions to public and professional understanding of the events surrounding 9/11.
Take Paul Thompson, for example. His biodata offers no professional qualifications. Yet his "9/11 Timeline" is a rich source for detailed, well-organized, and well-documented information.
Suppose an ordinary citizen knew, a year ago, that
Where do you suppose he was more likely to have learned this: From the mainstream news media or from "9/11 researchers"? From professional journals or from "9/11 researchers"? From our government or from "9/11 researchers"?
"9/11 researchers" have had an impact on professional scientific investigation (for example, Hoffman, a "researcher," influenced Jones, a scientist). They have influenced public policy (the "Family Steering Committee" that forced the 9/11 Commission into existence drew upon the work of Paul Thompson). Sometimes, almost indisuptably, what "9/11 researchers" have told us (for example, about environmental pollution in post-9/11 NYC) has been true when what we had heard from our governmental organs (in this case, the EPA) had been misleading or outright false.
Of course, sometimes "9/11 research" has been sheer junk. But then again, sometimes the same has been true of what we've gotten from the mainline news media.
The internet has made it possible for ordinary intelligent citizens to do deep, well-documented research, organize it so as to offer new or deeper insights, and raise important, relevant questions that otherwise might go unasked.
When such researchers have offered notable contributions, I think it reasonable for this article to take their work into account and cite those researchers as sources.
When we are citing professionally credentialed sources we should make this clear by mentioning their relevant degrees or academic or professional affiliations. And for other persons who have devoted notable time and effort to doing research and publishing what they've found, I think the term "9/11 researcher" is a clear, useful, and easily understandable designation.
Cordially, O Govinda 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just tidied the references in this section, but as a clerical exercise only. Frankly I am becoming nervous of this section. So I am putting it up for discussion.
My feeling is that this organ "Counterpunch" may not have sufficient reputability as a source to substantiate the claim that "The FBI has the recorders" for ANY article.
However, the article is not about the recorders, nor the FBI, nor the collapse. It is about the controlled demolition hypothesis. On that basis I feel that a section such as this adds no value to this article and should be removed.
I may simply remove this myself after further thought. I certainly won't object if anyone beats me to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so may thinking was: this is relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories and when I was looking for a place to put it there I understood that it should go under WTC section. As this article is main article for WTC section, and cockpit recorders case was put forth by Jones in his presentation, which is available on Journal of 9/11 Studies, I decided it is not so bad idea to put it here. And I sourced it quite well, as Jones used widely available quotes from firemen and investigators. Connection with WTC collapse is due to... rubble that supposedly destroyed cockpit recorders... What do you think? SalvNaut 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There's been some discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article about whether the offical account says that the collapses were "fire-induced". [27] I'd love to hear what people here think about this also. After all, it is central to the CD hypothesis that the official account is implausible. This argument is normally made by saying that official investigators claim that fires brought down the buildings. That's never happened before, the argument continues. Now, as I understand it, as this point nothing controversial has yet been said. The disagreement arises over the proposed mechanism of fire-induced collapse. CDers don't think it would work. NIST and the engineering community thinks it would. A related point is the idea that the collapses "surprised" engineers--mainly because no steel-framed buildings had ever before collapsed "due to fire". This also seems easy to document (Bazant and Verdure, FEMA, some of the NIST sub-reports, NCE.) And yet it has been called into question in the discussion over at 9/11 CTs. The standard objection is that there was obviously structural damage (in all cases) and that this was part of the cause of the collapse. While everyone agrees that this damage would have weakened the buildings, I then counter, the dispute remains over whether fire could have finished them off as completely (and quickly and symmetrically, etc.) as they did. Any thoughts?-- Thomas Basboll 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The official question was probably something like "how were the airplane impacts able to bring the buildings down?" or "how do the aircraft impacts alone explain the collapse the of towers?" That is, they were not look for additional sources of damage (secondary devices). But that was quite difficult to do. On Sept 13, 2001, the New Civil Engineer said that even given the airplane impacts it had until then been "unthinkable" that they would collapse. In June of 2005, they explained it as follows: "It is obvious to state that the impact and result of deliberately crashing a fully fuelled airliner into each tower was off the scale of the predictable. But there can have been few structural engineers who were not a little surprised to see two of the world's tallest buildings reduced to rubble less than an hour later.//This is not how structures are supposed to react." [29] So there was an engineering mystery to be solved. The solution was found in the enormous heat of the fires and the removal of the fire-proofing (a secondary effect of the impacts beyond the structural damage.) People like Leslie Robertson would say that they didn't really have a good sense of what kind of fires would result from airplane impacts. But the point is this: the buildings survived the impacts as per their design; the loads were successfully redistributed. Fire then brought them down (from there). What "surprised" engineers were not the effects of the impacts on the structures, but the effects of the subsequent fires. Discovering these effects led to identifying the official cause of the collapses, which, again, were the fires.-- Thomas Basboll 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have reorganized the opening sections in a more "flat" style (to use FF's adjective above). It still needs a few sources, and I'll work a bit more at the prose as well. I've tried to respect the discussions we have had here over the past few days, and I'm pretty happy with the results. (I especially like the first paragraph on the sense of surprise, the structural damage, and the fires.) Happy editing...-- Thomas Basboll 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) There may be come issues about the lack of sources. Keep in mind, however, that there is a detailed section on evidence further down, where many of the claims are substantiated. I've tried to stick to facts that are well established, but a few {{ Fact}} tags may be in order.-- Thomas Basboll 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of this sentence; "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering." I think it is one of those that makes perfect sense when it is written but has several meanings when read. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Mainstream academia gives no credence to the controlled demolition hypothesis."
I'm sorry, but Jones, Barrett, Woods, Woodward--and there are others--are credentialed members of mainstream academia, and they are on record as giving credence to the CD hypothesis. Therefore the absolute statement--which, to be true, would require that NO member of the academic mainstream give ANY credence to the hypothesis--is demonstrably false. Whoever wants to record what he or she believes to be the attitude of mainstream academia will have to come up with a statement that's verifiably true.
Cordially, O Govinda 10:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I think the time for this tag is past. I have removed it. The article is now, I think, cleaned up. I see no reason for this tag to remain in place. However, I may be mistaken. if re-adding the tag please do not simply add it back. If you see a further reason for this specific tag please state reasons here. Since one of the objectives has been to clean the article up, and since much has been removed that was not relevant I feel that any re-addition of the tag requires more thna simple tagging. Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I am becoming more comfortable with removing this tag. Unlike the {{cleanup}} tag I do not feel comfortable with unilateral action to remove it and feel we need to reach a consensus on neutrality before we take this step. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Like some of the other evidence sections, the molten metal section seems to me to discuss the evidence in too great detail. (It offers pretty much the whole debate.) It would be sufficient to identify the two contentious examples: that pouring from the towers before the collapses and that found in the basements after the collapses. The official story says aluminum in the first case and is (as far as I can tell) simply not interested in the second case. The CD hypothesis takes them as evidence for thermite. (Jones, as I understand him, says "molten steel" is unlikely.) Written in more flowing prose, this is all we need to say, IMHO.-- Thomas Basboll 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This comment transferred from other section of talk page for discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Statement from Dr W. Gene Corley doesn't logically follow? Non sequitur. Is something missing? -- O Govinda 10:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gotten permission from Aman Zafar to use the image I tried to post before - I sent him the exact text from the wiki template letter so he knows that it will post to this article specifically and which image and what can happen to his image ultimately. His exact response is:
Now my question is what is the correct tag to use for the image. The permission is there, it just needs to be done. I appreciate the couple of responses I've gotten from people already, although no one has been able to say what specific tag I should use with the image. The image is of one tower burning and the other collapsing, taken from across the river. Any help is appreciated. bov 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
First: The article is really moving along. Hats off to all of you who are making such fine and thoughtful contributions.
I've gone through the article to make changes mostly related to wording, style, flow, and the like. But I've also made some substantive changes. I'll list here whatever I think is major enough to note. I'm submitting the list in good faith. If I've failed to list anything, my apologies. And if I've blown anything, please fix it.
Was the lack of precedent what so surprised the engineers? Did the argument made really have much to do with their surprise? That's why I've added "citation needed."
Again, my apologies for any mistakes I may have committed.
Cordially, O Govinda 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The terminology is awkward.
We need to exercise caution when terming a "thing" as a "Squib" or we join up the dots Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
We have: "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering." Odd statement. As noted in the article, some few structural engineers have favored the CD explanation. Does this statement depend on the word "detailed"? That seems a little too nice. The statement, anyway, is unsourced. Can we do without it? -- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The statements in this section contradict one another so quickly that amidst the jumble one can hardly understand what arguments are being made.
My guess is that editors with contrasting views were so keen to have their say and lessen the strength of one another’s arguments that the original points have been lost in the process.
Any hope of retrieving them?
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Still needs work, I think. My comments are the same as for the section on "Steel temperatures."
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The original argument by the debunkers, concerning Ronan Point, has been lost amidst the arguments made against it. We need to go step by step: We know that a corner of Ronan Point collapsed. Now, before we hear from the CD fans, what do the debunkers say this demonstrates?
Also: The Hoffman quote on progressive collapse is out of sequence here. (It could go above, where progressive collapse is discussed.)
-- O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Small point: Did MIT officially devote their staff members? Or were these simply MIT faculty working on their own initiative or at the behest of others?
Cordially, O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I noticed, admittedly after someone else added a cat, that we had no real categories here. I've added the obvious contender, but think we could do with others added as we think of them. Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that Peephole has deleted the image that Bov added on this page. Please do not delete images without discussion. The image improves the understanding of the issue of the page by including a visual of the event. I also agree with Bov's decision to remove the addition of the 9/11 conspiracy template which Tom H has added - it clutters the page and includes people who say that nukes were used in NYC, missiles hit the Pentagon, have a Mossad/Jews focus, etc., which have nothing to do with this page. To me a template which advocates those promoting nonsense, and is controlled by people on here who call anyone who challenges the official version "9/11 deniers," is transparent. Locewtus 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No suggestions for article content, just more conspiracies.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
|
---|
You can try to hide it, but truth will out. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF TRAINS IN THE WTC Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC) |
It wouldn't be hard to find reliable references that parody the 9/11 conspiracy theories...I can't see why if such references were provided that a section on these parodies or a similar popular culture section detailing them could be created.
MONGO
16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.
I would like to refer all readers to this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q. Although it contains original research, it shows that Ssscineccce's comments about thermite not being able to cut steel are wrong. Furthermore one of the common uses of thermite is in welding railway tracks. Welding steel is not possible unless it is first melted. If steel is melted it is no longer structurally strong, and a building relying on melted structural elements will surely collapse. The challenge for anyone sympathetic to the conspiracy theory is that reliable sources = government sources + big money sources. Yet these are precisely the one the conspiracy theorists aim at. Therefore by definition the conspiracy theory sources are "unreliable". Scientifically the true test of any statement is repeatability. Do the same things get the same result. This is what makes something "reliable". Take the building seven collapse video footage and do a video analysis of the collapse and you will see it falls in freefall for just over 2 seconds. Then you know that it was imploded, and all the denials are just spin. For details of this analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.198.171 ( talk • contribs) 01:55, December 5, 2012
WTC 7 : The extended version (now with pictures)
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This stuff is highschool physics. Why is it not on this page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
|
.....but a smear and disinformation campaign - as are all wiki articles discussing alternate theories. The article is supposedly about the demolition conspiracy theories, but more space is given to rebuttals rubbishing the theories than the theories themselves. The rebuttals cited are often examples that have long been discredited, so i'm wondering whose hand is at work here? The whole thing stinks of government disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.151.6.240 ( talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
the last paragraph seems to be written like somebody's opinion piece or an essay. i'm not contesting the factuality or fallaciy but i cant figure ot if it's a reported speech, a personal opnion or just POV text. could some one fix it? 115.240.81.188 ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The paragraph has reliable sources, by the notes. It came from a published interview, apparently. And I don't consider it opinion, since it raises a lot of valid logical points (that conspiracy theorists routinely refuse to address) about how impossible it would be to plant explosives there, as the CTs most likely never visited the WTC. (I did in 1994, and the security just to reach the upper floors is extremely tight and a government ID was required just to get to the elevators) TyVulpine ( talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
This sentence is not supported by the reference:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
This is a 12 page paper that is devoted to explaining a method of estimating kinetic energy from video footage. It is not an article explaining the fall of the WTC towers. It has no information about the structure. The only WTC data it shows is an estimate of the amount of energy liberated obtained by plotting the displacement of a mass over 18 seconds time. It does not explain how the energy got there. It starts assuming the energy is available.
The relevant conclusion states:
The article basically says that once you have the energy, the tower will fall to the ground by gravity alone. And that the WTC had to have a lot of energy (one order of magnitude) in order to fall as it did. This is certainly not supportive of the implied POV that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by that collapse alone would bring WTC down. Moreover the article is arguably supportive of explosive demolition. Stapler80 ( talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
To start the war on terror and abolish civil liberties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 ( talk) 21:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is the complete failure of any of the dumbolition nonsense. After the planes hit the building the government is just as good for whatever it wants as if the buildings come down. I have never seen any of the fantasists even attempt an explanation of why some elements of the government would attempt a project of the greatest possible difficulty, at the gravest personal risk if discovered, for no particular reason. Gnuwhirled ( talk) |
I added a picture of the red/grey chips that Harrit et al. found in the dust. Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC). I am new to editing so please let me know if my edit followed guidelines. Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
John Nevard deleted the red chip photos that Johnson had added. The photos were a significant addition to the article, and I have reversed Nevard's deletion. (I now see that Johnson made the reversal just before me, and I support his action.) Coastwise ( talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Mr.Johnson1982 ( talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) |
I have reversed Nevard's deletion of the quote and related text in the first section. He has not discussed his reasoning here, and I believe his explanation tagged to the post doesn't make sense. The same paragraph discusses the NIST report and Popular Science article (which relies in part on the report), and the remarks of Lee Hamilton, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission are relevant to the report. Coastwise ( talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
An IP is adding statements like "saw molten steel" to the article as fact: using the summary provided by the History Channel excerpt, it's more like "looked like molten steel," I also note that the links themselves are copyright violations and can't be linked on Wikipedia, at least not to YouTube. There's a right way to reference and link, hopefully directly to a non-copyvio version of the History Channel bits, but they can';t be taken out of context and used to draw an emphatic conclusion. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title? Why tag it as a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence to support the official report but instead there is evidence to debunk it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4 94.69.14.54 ( talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)purple
Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center's failure to cut a column using conventional thermite is still irrelevant, and there are examples of controlled demolitions doing exactly what they couldn't. Our Sky Ride article mentions that the east tower of the attraction was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs. Pictures can be found on google books (credits to metabunk.org for finding them). I have said it before, wikipedia shouldn't promote pseudoscience just to discredit a conspiracy theory. Another example was the demolition of the Reichstag in 1954; conspiracy theorists will probably like the images of molten steel pouring down in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8xpsrUpPY Ssscienccce ( talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
othing and may give readers the idea that it is physically impossible, which it obviously isn't. So I suggest again that it be removed. Ssscienccce ( talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"" Did they actually look for evidence for explosives? -- 41.150.201.159 ( talk) 18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please elaborate the article by listing possible motivations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.159.110 ( talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I have started a discussion about this at:
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Q: Why isn't my favorite idea addressed? Why isn't the book by my guru mentioned? A: Any monomanic with a keyboard can make a website, or write a book. Because we don't publish original research, reliable sources must address people and ideas before Wikipedia can write about them. In short, get in the Washington Post first, then get in Wikipedia.