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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Some users have suggested to move the info here, so I am providing a link:
Hope it is of use to anybody. —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(talk)
05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As the top of the page says: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
A Sit Down With An 9/11 Fire Fighter
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
in removing the paragraph referring to the j. mcmichael citation
An early version of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, explicitly stated in opposition to the mainstream explanation, was formulated by J. McMichael. His ironic essay "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics" recalled Romero's initial 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. [1] These ideas were then developed in greater detail by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman on their websites, with little attention from the mainstream media. citation needed
my comment said WP:OR. i should have said WP:RS—j. mcmichael's identity and credentials are a mystery.
nonetheless, i remain vaguely unsettled, as the mcmichael articles and the role they play in the early development of the controlled demolition hypothesis are in their own way informative.
i sent an email to the address he gave, asking for some information. i will restore the paragraph if i get sufficient background to overcome WP:RS concerns. Peterhoneyman 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The original reason for including it was that Jim Hoffman cited it as a "classic" here. I was sure there were other references to it by prominent proponents of the CDH. All I was able to find was this pretty good early history (though by no means an RS).-- Thomas Basboll 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed Larry Silversteins quote to Itallic 14 August 2007
Here is a bio of Eric Hufschmid. Presumably, Huschmid is the source of this bio.
Eric Hufschmid lost interest in school and the media during high school. He felt that the world was designed for people with the mind of a 12 year old. He decided that when he left home at age 19, he would never get a television or subscribe to any publications. He never bothered going to college. After a few years of working ordinary jobs he took a short course in computer programming, and eventually ended up in business for himself developing CAD/CAM software.
After he noticed suspicious aspects of the September 11th attack, he sent email to professors, scientists, engineers, and other people to look into the attack. Nobody showed any interest, so he decided to publish his analysis of the September 11th Attack. His book is referenced by people around the world to support the accusation that the conspiracy is much larger than 19 Arabs. Today Eric thinks that the reason schools and the media are so idiotic is because there is a deliberate attempt to deceive people about the crimes that are occurring.
Hufschmid's web page features denials of global warming, the Warren report, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon walk; labels 9/11, the Columbine massacre, and the election of the Pope as Zionist conspiracies; accuses Albert Einstein of engaging in "odd sexual practices"; and equates Linux with Marxism.
I question Eric Hufschmid's qualifications as a reliable source. Peterhoneyman 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
on WP:RS, jimmy wales is quoted
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
if you can back up the claim
The controlled demolition hypothesis has been pursued mainly by experts in fields other than structural engineering and by a network of amateur investigators.
with a reliable source, then go ahead and put it back. otherwise, it is not "content" and merits deletion. Peterhoneyman 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
it's a small point, but i think the quoted material in the bažant citation (referenced in the last sentence of the lede)
As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was [followed by a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure].
subtly injects POV into the article. (also, the lede sentence is kind of clumsy. get me rewrite!) Peterhoneyman 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many structural and mechanical engineers have dismissed the possibility of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, considering them, as in the NIST report, an example of the "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse."
I don't see any independent credentials for the founders/owners. There's no evidence they aren't lying about their membership. It's possible they should be noted further down as self-claimed proponents, but they don't belong in the lead as being actual proponents. 15:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How can you claim they are not real engineers when they are willing to have their names, pictures and qualifications published on the website as supporting it? Looking at just a few of them such as Frank DeMartini - WTC Construction Manager, Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus Department of Structural Engineering and Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction Dynamics Federal Institute of Technology and David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – University of Sydney....these look genuine to me. Wayne 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WLRoss' disclaimer that the weeks or months of preparations "assumes standard industry safety precautions" is inaccurate. Interior abatement is not merely a safety precaution, it is essential to ensuring that controlled demolition will succeed in collapsing the building. Here's what Stacy Loiseaux says about the pre-demolition preparation:
We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out.
Peterhoneyman 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
To avoid arguement i have left that edit out. Instead I have added edits quoting reliable sources with the alternate view. After all this article is not for "Debunking CD" but "CD hypothesis" so views for and against are legitimate. The links for the quoted parties may not be the usual sites accepted as RS's as Tom harrison has pointed out but, as the edits are not the websites own editorial or comment but actual quotes/views by prominent and reliable people talking in their fields of expertise this makes these people RS's in their own right. Wayne 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A statement by a lawyer for a couple of censored Truthers about admissible evidence is not admissable by Wikipedia standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
lolocopter! nice theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does the credibility of these basement explosions theories come from? An engineer that was inside the sixth floor of a building, using only his sense of hearing and touch was able to discern that the explosives were in the lower levels and basement? If they were, he would have been directly above them, and would have died. In all video evidence, the building collapses from top down, the lower floors remaining completely intact while the upper floors are collapsing. This would obviously not occur if explosives were centered in the lower levels.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander ( talk • contribs) 09:51, September 11, 2007
Wowest 03:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried adding the 9/11 Truth Movement template to this article but it was reverted with a reason that "9/11 Truth is not the focus of the article". I don't understand this as all the proponents of the hypothesis are very much a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the issue is the one of the most prominent parts of "9/11 Truth". I would have thought this justifies the presence of the template. Please can the reverter (or somebody who agrees with them) explain their reasoning to me? Corleonebrother 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like try a few things with this article. (1) Merge the first three sections into one (organized historically). (2) Trim the WTC7 and Main Towers sections to their essentials. (3) Reduce "popularizations" to a list of links to other articles (describing notable episodes in (1) above). (4) Dissolve the information in "reactions from engineers" into the work under (1) and (2). Right now, this article simply contains too much information to be useful as an encyclopedia article.-- Thomas Basboll 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin reverted my additions on 9/18/2007, with the comment, "Revert WP:OR or WP:SYN suggesting that firefighters support the theory, and that floors 'disappeared'."
Here were my additions:
In the paragraph comparing the two tower collapses:
Well before the failure reached ground-level, the falling top-piece disappeared. After the top-piece had disappeared, catastrophic failure continued from the top of the remaining floors down.
And in the same paragraph, I added the emphasized text below:
As the cloud *of debris and dust* reached the level of other buildings, it expanded through the streets of surrounding blocks *; however, in each case the tower continued to fail from the top down*.
Later in the article, after this:
Some firefighters who had reported explosions later came to a different view of what they had perceived. For example, one said, "We realized later after talking and finding out" that the ten or so "explosions" he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually "the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit." [2]
I added this:
The firefighters did not explain how the rest of each building would have begun to collapse after the noises were over, if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand. Their explanation also does not account for the numerous explosions audible on videos taken before the collapse, in which the noises are clearly heard well before any collapse had begun. Several of the firefighters who initially reported explosions described the incident they witnessed as a "pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" or "ba, ba, ba, ba, ba" sound, indicating vertical progression with their hands, without mentioning that this was the sound of the buildings falling.
I have several questions for Arthur Rubin.
1) Did you do any Original Research to reach your conclusion that the top-pieces did NOT disappear?
2) If, as you suggest, you actually believe that the top-pieces did not disappear, please, by all means, tell all of us where they went? I think we've all seen the videos. Where did the top-pieces go, if they didn't disappear, sir? I'm dying to hear your explanation. Or perhaps you have some pictures showing us one or both top-pieces lying around somewhere near ground-zero after the collapse.
3) If, as you suggest, you disbelieve that "catastrophic failure [of the towers] continued from the top of the remaining floors down", then I suppose you believe the remainder of each tower failed from the bottom up? Hmmmm. Are you SURE you're not a truther of some kind? Because I have to tell you, that's not the 9/11 I witnessed on my television screen.
4) Saying which, if a head of state were assassinated on live television, and someone put up an article describing what they and the rest of TV-viewing humanity had seen on their screen, would you delete it on the grounds that viewing the footage -- which was nearly everyone's sole indication that something of note had occurred -- is Original Research? Witnessing a noteworthy event, either in person or on your TV screen, is not "research". It is observation. The de facto rule of this wiki is that things observed, if politically acceptable, get pre-blessed by one or more administrators, and then they not only can, but MUST, be "exempted" from the absurd original research rule and displayed proudly and prominently, even featured. But if an obvservation by an editor is not deemed politically acceptable, it is immediately CRUSHED and defamed as "original research." Any further attempt to display the information without pre-approval apparently runs the risk of serious consequences. It didn't use to be this way on WP, folks!
5) You reverted "of debris and dust". Now I must say, I've taken a lot of abuse on this half-baked excuse for a reference work. But I really think this takes the cake. You are claiming that my statement that the "cloud" consisted of "debris and dust" is some kind of original research. My god, man, what in the ever-loving name of -- ahem. What are we SUPPOSED to think it's made of?
6) You object to the suggestion that some firefighters who heard loud noises originally supported the CD theory. I call your attention to the previous two sentences, the ones before the ones I added in that paragraph: "Some firefighters ... later came to a DIFFERENT VIEW [my emphasis] of what they had perceived.... 'We realized later after talking and finding out' that the ten or so 'explosions' he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually 'the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.'" I note with interest that YOU DID NOT REMOVE THESE SENTENCES FROM THE ARTICLE. By this you allow your personal opinions to take precedence over the principle of NPOV.
6) As for the statement "if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand," the relevant point that needs to be made in this paragraph is that the firefighters, in their attempt to explain the sounds they heard, specifically say that the sounds were caused by collapsing floors. We know that more than just those floors collapsed (UH OH MAYBE I'M DOING O.R., MAYBE I SHOULD BE BANNED), yet the firefighters never make any attempt to claim that this sound was heard for the entire duration of whichever collapse they witnessed. In other words, their own explanation, on its face, makes no sense. They're saying the floors above the damage made this sound as they collapsed, but the floors below the damage made no such sound. If the sound was just the natural sound of a collapsing floor, then BY DEFINITION it should have been made by each floor, not just the ones above the damage. We needn't even get into the question of what they believed and when they believed it, because their explanation, whether intentionally or not, is nonsense. Even if it had been their first impression of the sounds, we would still have to conclude that it's nonsense.
7) As for the final sentence that was deleted, about firefighters' descriptions of what they heard ... again, does it suggest they thought it was CD? Perhaps. It certainly suggests that they had considered it possible, especially when considered in combination with their subsequent statement, "We realized later after talking and finding out...." But again, I did not concoct this idea. I was not trying to say, "They believed X." I was letting their words and gestures speak for themselves, and stand or fall on their own merit. So the question again is, are you going to stand by your reversion of simple statements and gestures that you apparently agree are factually correct, simply on the grounds that there is no secondary source cited? I suggest that if you concur that the statements are accurate, put in a "citation needed", and give me some time to find one. Otherwise you're just using a procedural fig leaf to try to crush any facts that might be inconvenient for your preferred beliefs. The real questions should be "Is it commonly accepted to be true?" and "Is it relevant to the article?" If the answer to both questions is yes, and if we're not talking about bona fide research but just simple observation of a video (or even reading a reliable source that happens to be first-hand), then we should keep it in the article pending the search for an appropriate citation. 65.32.173.99 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The question in the FAQ reads "Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?" And the answer includes this sentence: "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." To me, this clearly support the claim that NIST is pursuing blast scenarios and that these are relevant to the question of controlled demolition.-- Thomas Basboll 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: "While NIST is not pursuing the controlled demolition hypothesis as such, it is considering 'hypothetical blast scenarios' in its investigation of the collaspe of WTC7."-- Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Quintiere is not a proponent of controlled demolition. I have therefore moved his criticisms of the the NIST investigation to the collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they belong (it seems to me). Here's the text I've removed:
Putting it back in will demand finding a CDH proponent to make use of his comments (in a non-selfpublished source). The model here is the way Manning appears in the article.-- Thomas Basboll 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have repeatedly replaced the propagandistic POV adjective "leading," which suggests, without evidence, that the handful of engineers and architects who overtly support the OCT are somehow superior to the hundreds who reject the OCT or the thousands who haven't thought about it at all. I've tried "several" and "certain," which are accurate, in the past. The word "leading" does not appear in either of the sources in the footnote. The articles, which are now obsolete, allege, without evidence, that the OCT is "generally" accepted by the community of architects and engineers. Given the rapidly growing professional membership of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, this type of ignorant claim is no longer excusable. Someone keeps putting "leading" back in without justification. The footnote identifies two engineers, so for now, I have replaced "leading" with "two." If you change it back with NPOV language, rather than "leading," I will leave it alone.
Wowest 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Arthur. That's even better. ... Wowest 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A magazine from a non-profit organization that talks about bad-science and the people who do it as is mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.74.67 ( talk) 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make what might seem to be some drastic cuts to this article and would like to explain my reasons first. This article is not an argument for controlled demolition but an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. That means that the sources should provide either reliable statements of the hypothesis (in non-self-published sources) or reliable statements about the hypothesis (in news coverage and analysis for example). Those are the acceptable primary and secondary sources given the real topic of the article (which is not the collapse of the WTC but a hypothesis about the collapse). Primary sources of evidence, including official reports and news reports that do not address controlled demolition directly, are likely to constitute WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. They can be included only along with the sources of statements of or about the CDH that cites them. I may not have put that as clearly as one could, and I'm willing to discuss it. Please let's avoid making this a discussion about POV-pushing and stick to the task of making this a better article.-- Thomas Basboll 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've completed the major cuts. The next thing I want to do is to copy-edit the sections, hopefully focusing and tightening them.-- Thomas Basboll 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think about integrated the reactions of engineers in the history section?-- Thomas Basboll 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The comprehensive data of the collapses collected in many reports of NIST evidence the free fall regime of all collapses on September 11, 2001.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I made an edit to this article, where I provided evidence (which I cited) that the term "pull" it is not used to refer to a controlled demolition using explosives. [1] It was subsequently removed because it was "propaganda". What I wrote, however, is a fact, and I cited a web site belonging to a group that does professional controlled demolitions. I don't see how this is propaganda in any way. In fact, I would like to see a reputable source that can show that "pull" is used by controlled demolition engineers to refer to demolishing a building with explosives. - Bonus Onus 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, I just did your research for you and found the 1996 interview you mentioned. I assume it is this one [2]. I read through the whole thing and although the word "pull" does occur in the interview a number of times, it is never used in reference to an explosive demolition of a building. Here are a few of the quotes with context:
"sometime[s], we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings....Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done." (notice, this is "pulling away from another building," simply a directional description, of the way a building has to move. not talking about a conventional demolition. When talking about actually carrying out the implosion, Loiseaux says "bring down" )
"The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself." (again, this describes direction, explains the difference between an implosion and an explosion. no refrence to "when we pull a building..." or anything like that)
"you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush." (Again, pull forward, not down. and no use of the term pull as part of the actual demolition. Instead, Loizeaux says "when the structure is coming down" )
Some examples of what terms Loizeaux acually uses to refer to the implosion of a building:
"you can make the building come down that way"
"We just took down a building in Vegas—the Sands Hotel."
"We've had jobs where we've already got the contract to bring a building down and Warner Brothers or whoever comes on site and says, "Hey, can we film that?""
"Our biggest problem, when we come right down to the wire with shooting buildings, is ground control."
"But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies [from the Oklahoma City Federal Building] right up until days before we actually brought down the building"
- Bonus Onus 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Pull is used in military. It deals with the lever. In the past you used to pull then push the lever down of the blaster box. Military all you do is pull the lever to the blaster box. . {subst:unsigned2|04:12, December 15, 2007|72.189.135.113}}
In "An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rejected the hypothesis, as have many structural and mechanical engineers," a previous editor had changed "many" to "most," and I reverted it. No evidence was provided for this assertion. As far as I am aware, there have been no surveys. There is a group of approximately 200 engineering and architectural professional who officially reject the "Official (U.S. Government) Conspiracy Theory" (OCT): http://www.ae911truth.org/ I am not aware of any professional group which was organized specifially to SUPPORT that theory. Wowest 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Harold's edits related to free fall, which present the issue as moot. Though I can see how it might have happened, he has misunderstood both the controlled demolition hypothesis and Bazant's position. The Bazant & Verdure paper makes it clear that "the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top." That is all that is being debated: everyone agrees that the collapses did not take "much longer" than free fall. Some think that's suspicious and some do not. But there is no significant disagreement about the speed. It also looks like Harold has interpreted Bazant ca. 50% figures to mean that if free fall were 10 seconds, the actual collapses took about 20. That's not what was meant, as far as I can tell.-- Thomas Basboll 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS (That is: if the actual duration exceeded free fall by about 50% they did not fall half as fast.)-- Thomas Basboll 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Nothing needs to be inserted into "small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each floor". The explosives could be put inside the box columns much more easily with the added benefit that no one would notice as the core columns are all in areas where office workers have no access. Bazant has made an overestimate of how much TNT is required as he is assuming the TNT pulverised all the concrete. The collapse itself is more than capable of doing it. Experts estimated 30% of gravitational energy went into pulverising the concrete. This increases the free fall speed by 1.75 seconds. Add that to the 10 seconds that is free fall speed for the towers (9.2 in a vacuum) and you get 11.75 seconds as the absolute minimum. Any less and you need to find an additional source of energy input. The experts all agree fall time was around 10 seconds. The problem is that the CD theorists tend to synth different CD scenarios together. This makes it easy to debunk them because readers assume everything they claim should happen. For example there is no need to pulverise the concrete and cut the columns at the same time. CD experts have stated that to bring the towers down would require only 762 kg of Thermite in each of the core columns in a single basement level. That is 36 tons. Remember that the columns are hollow…. each one has a 0.6 cubic meters capacity internally. 762 kg of Thermite is around 0.22 cubic meters. Thermite is a powder so it can be poured into the columns easily. This amount assumes optimum efficiency and the minimum amount that could still bring the towers down is around 12 ton of Thermite. Wayne 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article could contain a short summary of the discussion between these entities? Petition to NIST, NIST's response. I think there is a problem with secondary sources, I've found only this, not too reliable. Btw, I'd expect 911 Scholars to respond to NIST again, but they have only 8 days left... SalvNaut 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They did renew their request here:AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf. No secondary sources I know of... but since NIST've taken time to engage in discussion it's worth being noted in the article. Salv. 83.31.35.109 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CD theory is inextricably linked with conspiracy theory, it seems Balzat's work and conclusions (which agree with and cite NIST findings) if cited then logically should include the following directly from the work: Acknowledgment. Partial financial support for the energetic theory of progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation through grant 0740-357-A210 of the Infrastructure Technology Institute of Northwestern University. Richard M. Lueptow, professor at Northwestern University, and Pierre-Normand Houle of Montreal, are thanked for useful comments. Also, the report is extremely technical and has not been analyzed for accuracy. Atruthseeker2 ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thomas, you removed the sentences Detailed modeling and simulation by NIST reached the same conclusion. However, NIST found it impossible to construct usable mathematical models of the subsequent structural response of the building. because they seem to suggest that NIST modelled (and confirmed) Bazant and Zhou's analysis. in fact, that is the case. see chapter 6 of the NIST final report. Peterhoneyman 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific, Peter? I could be wrong about this (and I just had a quick look through Chapter 6) but, again, my impression is that everyone (including Bazant and NIST) agree that NIST did not do any modeling of the progressive collapse. The report only addresses the response of the building up to the start of collapse. It is true that Bazant and Zhou made some preliminary suggestions about the initiating mechanism and that NIST did more or less confirm it (rejecting Eagar's and FEMA's proposal). So perhaps the best way forward here is to separate the CDH's criticism of the collapse-initiating mechanism and its criticism of the mechanics of progressive collapse. As it stood, it seemed to me that the article said that NIST confirmed Bazant and Zhou's "order of magnitude calculation" with detailed modeling. As far as I can tell, their paper is not even mentioned.-- Thomas Basboll 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Some interesting stuff I wasn't aware of that has possible relevance to the article. To date there has been no independent report done by experts not reliant on government funding in their employment. The Silverstein-Weidlinger report was the study of why the towers collapsed done in support of the Silverstein insurance claim and used largely the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA study. Bazants study contradicted it's findings in almost every aspect yet the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA/Weidlinger studies also did Bazants. These experts not only simultaneously support the pancake theory and the column collapse theory but reject the pancake theory and the column collapse theory depending on which report they are writing in. The primary authors of the FEMA study were also the primary authors of the NIST report (John Gross and Therese McAllister) and these contradict each other as well. It seems the experts cannot stick with the same story which in fact is consistent with NISTS latest release which stated they could not explain why the towers collapsed. Wayne 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for the entire collapse of the towers are the structure elements' soften of fire and impact of the upper layers' collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)i don't know what to do with all these citations ... and this is only a fraction of them. i don't think it's appropriate, but some people are apparently library-challenged, and seem to think that the only literature on the subject is that which is cited here. (they should get out more often.) so if someone with taste sees fit to revert, i won't object. (on the contrary, i will applaud.) but wonder if there is an appropriate place for all these citations. i am not planning to write a critical review of the engineering literature on the WTC collapses ... Peterhoneyman 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
it's probably obvious that i was irritated by the claim that bažant stands alone in the peer-reviewed literature, so i did a quick-and-dirty search and came up with this handful (or two) of papers (and relevant quotes), all of which clearly embrace (and, in some instances, explain) the progressive collapse model. in that sense, they just as clearly reject CDH.
The impact of the aircraft or the resulting explosion destroyed the exterior frame. It was carrying a large part of the gravity load and its destruction caused the progressive failure of the entire structure. Localized damage from the impact and the initial explosion caused a number of supports to fail; as a result, the building shifted the load to adjacent members, which became overloaded and progressively collapsed. These planes were large and heavy, and as a result they were able to destroy a number of floors that braced the exterior columns. The vertical gravity load was then transferred possibly to the interior core of the building, which was then overloaded beyond the point of failure, resulting in one of the worst disasters in human history.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The analysis presented points to a compelling fire induced collapse mechanism rather unique to the type of structure that the WTC Twin-Towers represented.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)It appears that the insulation thickness on the truss rods was deficient and caused the heating of the steel that led to weakening and collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)In conclusion the technical note presents a possible progressive failure mechanism for the WTC Twin Towers in a major fire, not considering any structural damage. It is therefore not a forensic analysis of the actual events of September 11 and should not be perceived as such. In the author 's opinion, the analysis presented does, however, accommodate a provisional conclusion that this collapse mechanism could have occurred, triggered primarily by the insufficient lateral support capacity of the slender floor system of the WTC Twin Towers. A clear design improvement for similar structures could be a secondary lateral support system for the columns at appropriate intervals that would arrest the development of this kind of progressive collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)At the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center (WTC) Towers, extensive structural damage, including localized collapse, occurred at several floor levels directly impacted by the aircraft. Despite this massive localized damage, each structure remained standing for approximately 1 h or 1 h 30 min. Although the damage to the beams and columns in the perimeter tube of each tower were clarified in the published ASCE/FEMA report, the damage to the floor system and inner core columns were not estimated. The purpose of this study is to determine why the towers remained standing after impact through several analytical studies, including impact analyses using a simplified model to estimate the overall damage, a rigorous finite element model to estimate the local damage, and stress analyses after some structural members are lost. The results of the stress analyses show why both buildings did not collapse immediately after impact, and WTC2 collapsed sooner than WTC1.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The World Trade Center collapse has brought attention to progressive collapse of tall buildings and the study of possible countermeasures. From the viewpoint of energy transfer, this analysis explains why the collapse could not stop by itself once began.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)As burning jet fuel spread through the buildings, it ignited much of their contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. Over a period of many minutes, the heat output from these fires induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The reasons for the entire collapse of the towers are the structure elements' soften of fire and impact of the upper layers' collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)At such high temperatures, the modulus and strength of the steel columns in impacted floors were reduced and could no longer support the weight of the floors above them. They buckled and the floors above them crashed down on the rest of the towers. The remainder of the buildings fell by dynamic buckling.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I agree with Peter that these are interesting studies and that they improve our understanding of progressive collapse. But they are not about controlled demolition. Using them to support the claim that engineers have "rebutted" CD is a violation of Wikipedias official policy on synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be much better to use this research to support the claim that controlled demolition is largely ignored by the engineering community, which is satisfied with progressive collapse as an explanation.-- Thomas Basboll 07:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Steven Jones' thermite theory is the one most often endorsed I think, and yet it currently only gets a brief mention here in the 'Main towers' section, as an explanation for the streaming molten material. But as I understand it, one of his biggest pieces of evidence is the high temperatures in the ground under all three buildings in the days/months after the attack - evidence for slow-cooling once-molten steel/iron. This is not mentioned in the article at all. Also, the placement in the 'Main towers' section suggests it does not apply to Building 7, but in fact it does.
There is a longer paragraph in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article about the thermite theory. Perhaps some of that paragraph could be brought into this one - but where to put it? Corleonebrother 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
i can't find an authoritative source for this
and the link given is broked. :-(
new civil engineer is a UK magazine, but (as far as i can tell) my library doesn't get it, and (as far as i can tell) lexis doesn't index it. the best i can do is this blog
i'll keep trying ... Peterhoneyman 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
apologies for leaving that reflist in -- it's hard to preview citations so ... well, anyway ... thanks for your patience \(^_^)/ Peterhoneyman 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of removing the scarequotes around "official" myself, but I think they have been demanded by consensus in the 9/11CT area. After all, it is the account the proponents of CH call "official". Support of the official view like to refer to it as "mainstream", which I think is too vague. I'dlike to hear other people's thoughts on it. But, like I say, I like the way it looks after Peter's changes.-- Thomas Basboll 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
it's not unusual for a scholarly journal to have long lag times. i suspect seffen's paper exists, is complete, has been accepted, and is in the queue for publication. i also suspect that because of the rude and vile requests for preprints (many of which i have seen copied on various blogs), all preprint requests (even my oh so correct and polite ones) are being ignored. be that as it may, i don't think the article should cite seffen's paper at all until an editor has seen what the paper says. Peterhoneyman 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states:
Criticism of the NIST report plays a prominent role in presentations of the hypothesis.
I take this to mean criticism of the report itself, i.e. its methods, representations, omissions, etc, rather than criticism of the theory it advocates. And yet the only sentence I can find in the rest of the article that follows up on this is this one:
Supporters of the controlled demolition hypothesis find it troubling that NIST did not simulate the structural response of the lower parts of the buildings, which they find of primary interest.
I think we need to explain somewhere about the criticism of the report itself, as it is usually a central theme in talks by CDH proponents. There is a tiny section at Collapse of the World Trade Center#Criticism, but it is limited to only one sentence and from a relatively mainstream source. I am not sure whether we need to expand that section to include criticisms from CDH proponents, or make an explicit section in this article about it. Corleonebrother 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of Kevin Ryan's work, and also Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones and others at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most are self-published, so we should be able to come up with a short list of the ones that are published by a reputable publisher. Steven Jones' "Why Indeed?" was published in David Ray Griffin's "9/11 and the American Empire" so does this qualify? Are there any other examples that you know of? And what about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Request for Correction that they sent to the NIST earlier this year - could we use this? Also, please can you provide a link for "the data quality act submission" - I am not sure what you mean. Cheers, Corleonebrother 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the section, based only on Steven Jones' paper. Corleonebrother 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article may be fairly long already, but I think it's missing a section on what I'd say is the strongest argument against this hypothesis: the sheer implausibility of it. This hypothesis rests on the assumption that somehow, large quantities of explosives could be brought into multiple, actively-used office buildings, without anybody inside noticing them; and subsequently secretly detonated, sometime after the planes hit the towers; and that no one involved in what would have to be a fairly vast conspiracy has admitted it. Surely someone must realise what a highly implausible suggestion that is? (If you think it isn't - try sneaking large quantities of explosives into, say, the Empire State building, and see how far you get.)
The other big unmentioned problem here, which I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to, is the lack of a motive for the 'controlled demolition' of the towers. Given that they were presumably going to be hit by planes as part of the plot anyway, what possible reason could whoever was behind it have to do it? I just can't imagine why anyone would go to such unnecessary lengths - to fill the towers with explosives, and hit them with planes as well. It just doesn't add up to a plausible hypothesis.
I realise I might be violating WP:FORUM a bit here, but I think these are genuine serious problems with this hypothesis, and would like to see them included in the article. Terraxos ( talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The CDH is not pursued within the engineering community. It is a marginalized view. It is true that some architects and engineers are proposing it, but they have not yet succeeded in raising it within their disciplines. The point of the section is to make it clear to the reader where the CDH stands in the larger professional community. Making it appear accepted in that community is misleading, as even proponents will agree. They are meeting all kinds of resistance, and this section must identify it.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it is a marginalized view. It may or may not be a minority at this time but by citing two examples of support of the CT and ignoring that there is support within the community is not NPOV. The present wording of the misleading IMO. "unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers" is very strong language from a semantic perspective and not representative of the true situation. I am just trying to balance the article. Tony0937 ( talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to have a section in this article that makes it clear that the CDH is a marginalized position in the engineering ocmmunity. That is, it is very difficult for engineers to say anything in support of CDH, and very little is generally said about it. It is simply dismissed.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets look at some sets. Taking have a community as a whole (all engineers) as the complete set we have the following possible subsets.
Of the various subsets we have Known numbers for only two of them. Any assumptions about Unknown numbers is purely speculative . Unless someone have made a poll that I am not aware of those are the facts that we have to work with. Tony0937 ( talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Northwestern University Professor of
Civil Engineering
Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition hypothesis assumes).
[5]I contacted Wikipedia about using sources that are not accepted as reliable sources (I specifically mentioned A&E911T). They told me to take it to the talk page. The main criteria is that it can't be a single source claim (or a copy from a single source). Of course the reply from WP says it is not an official statement so they want to stay out of it lol. Wayne ( talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I finally get time to proofread the article and it gets protected lol.
I'm requesting an edit. The line “Such an explanation is now about to be published.” Needs to be deleted. The paper is rather inadequate. All it does is confirm that the official theory is "plausable" without in any way ruling out the CD theory. A glaring error is that the paper assumes the core columns were the same size for the entire height of the buildings which (to my mind) invalidates it entirely. If the paper survives peer review once published then it can be included but it is POV to mention it until then.
Wayne (
talk)
22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a couple reverts recently over the following line (italics mine): Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis with some noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation.<ref name="popmechanics"/>Other demolition experts dismiss these objections and support the possibility of controlled demolition.<ref>[Interview with Danny Jowenko February 22 2007]</ref>
First, this information is terribly cited, as it doesn't say where the alleged interview was published. I actually thought it meant a personal interview conducted by a Wikipedia editor (the only case in which it would be appropriate to cite information that way, except that personal interviews fail WP:V).
Second, Danny Jowenko is one demolition expert, not "other demolition experts".
Third, Danny Jowenko is on record specifically discounting the controlled demo hypothesis for WTC 1 and 2. He calls it "bizarre...Don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. It would take a year." ( video clip)
Jowenko's supposed belief that WTC7 was imploded actually stems from this ambush interview where he was shown one angle of WTC Seven collapsing, not being told it was on 9/11, and he made an ass of himself. That's the only verifiable information. There is also this alleged telephone interview by a 9/11 Truther, where Jowenko apparently re-confirms his belief in the face of internet rumors that he'd retracted it. That's the evidence - a tape of someone with a Dutch accent on a phone line released by a conspiracy theorist.
Finally, Jowenko never discussed the difficulty of stealthily preparing an active office building for demolition. He is being cited here as original research by synthesis. To my knowledge he has simply not commented on that objection to the CD theory.
In summary, this information is mis-attributed, original research, misleading because it doesn't make clear we're talking only of WTC7, and comes from a non-reliable source. As usual, the 9/11 Truth brigade are seeing what they want to and ignoring what's right in front of them. The information needs to go. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Trying to dismiss Jowenko's position on Building 7 with "he made an ass of himself" is pretty weak. The video is clear where he tells what he thinks of it. When told it was on 9/11/01 he does not then say "Oh, then that couldn't have been a demolition." But even if he did, that, in and of itself, would be meaningful, if nothing else, as an explanation for why so many people are easily "fooled" by the way that Building 7 came down. It seems strange that you would not want to include key information like this.
bov (
talk)
01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The line Arthur removed was very poorly sourced. Jowenko's statement was made in a Dutch TV-documentary, right? Let's start there; provide that reference. Next, has D R Griffin done anything with it in any of his books? Has Jowenko been mentioned in news coverage, even if only to be debunked? My sense is that very little has been done with this among proponents. (I did hear that it has been included in Loose Change: Final Cut. That suggests he can be quoted at least without a BLP violation--I understand that Louder Than Words has been very thorough about getting permissions.) In any case, if we can source this properly, then Jowenko's contribution to the WTC 7 issue belongs in that section. It is at least as relevant as the Romero controversy, which was covered by PM.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The image of the towers' destruction which I originally posted (by Aman Zafar) has been removed from here repeatedly, and now is gone. Those on here who are in discussions trying to get Tom Basboll to include more information would probably do better to simply get this image back on the page -- an image is better than 1000 words . . .
Tom Basboll created this page and has done a fantastic job of it -- best not to focus efforts on him.
The third image down from here is what I used --
Zafar has given his explicit permission to use the image on the demolition hypothesis page, which I've posted to my user page so I have it, here. It was deleted on October 12th, 2007 by a user who has frequently tried to delete parts off of Jim Hoffman's page. It was deleted exactly one year to the day before that. The deletion log is here. The discussion on that page is here.
Similarly, the hoax B7 image with the smoke should be taken off or qualified in some way -- it is now the only image on the page and this is wrong.
bov ( talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Above, Wayne has pointed out what he calls a "common misconception" about the possible demolition of the WTC: that every floor would need to be rigged and that it would take a lot of explosives. I think Wayne is right about this. It is already mentioned briefly in the engineering community section (first paragraph, last sentence) but it is an important enough point to be elaborated separately. The difference between and/or similarity of CD and PC have been suggested on both sides and the result is quite confusing. For example, some argue against CD by saying it would take an enormous amount of explosives--but if PC is correct then it only took the equivalent of rigging a single floor (the plane impact floors). On the other side, supporters of CD say it wouldn't take very many explosives--but if that is correct then perhaps the damage on the impact floor is enough. How many floors does CD actually propose? How few would make the CDH (structurally) unnecessary? How many would make CDH (practially) impossible? I think clarifying this issue would improve the article.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If all models regardless of scale couldn't cause the WTC to fall and these tests, rather than being reported, are redone using parameters that exceed what the physical, photographic and eyewitness evidence supports (which was admitted by NIST) and then presented as proof of why they did fall. Is that not an inconsistancy that even a layman could recognise? Wayne ( talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is not yet any mention of the physical testing in the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Whatever Wayne and Arthur get out of this discussion probably belongs there, more than here, because NIST is an RS for the invesigations. Though we've made some justifiable exceptions, Ryan's work is not really an RS even for this article (because it is self-published).-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This letter by Kevin Ryan is a response to a paper written some time ago by Mackey, a weapon industry US scientists [7]: it's a 200page defense of NIST report. I skimmed through Mackey's paper and I must admit it impressed me - it was full of references to NIST, case by case analysis, reasonable arguments. However, having no time to read it carefully and check each reference I could judge it only on that basis. The more I was waiting for a response from CT movement.
Ryan response is very interesting, he shows how careful scientists he is and how well he knows the case. He points out mistakes, not careful referencing by Mackey, and shows his and claim about WTC fireproofing again in clear light. (I must admit that I haven't checked his references either, but it's a matter of who you trust - judge yourself). Ryan also clarifies some personal stuff regarding him and UL, which is less relevant to CDH but still interesting to read. The whole discussion (200p. paper vs 11 pages response by Ryan which I recommend to read), apart from being very informative, shows how difficult is for a layman to follow the discussion with understanding, and how NIST made this task even harder from the beginning by publishing a report that (citing Ryan:)
I don't think we are able to report this Mackey-Ryan exchange of arguments, nor 9/11 families Request for Correction vs NIST, neither there are secondary sources to do so. Then, it's reasonable to assume that anyone interested in CDH would be interested in reading these. However, as of now, I don't think that the wiki article serves well as a pointer to such sources. So my proposition would be to create a new section ("External Links", "Disputes"?) where links to such resources are put. At least aforementioned two cases deserve to be there: Request... earned response from NIST; Mackey can be seen as a representative of a CDH-skeptic Randi forum. I also see there a Purdue Study, Ryan response to it, etc. What do you think? salVNaut ( talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A Boston Globe article: the_science_of_how_buildings_fall_down. Not clearly connected to CDH but obviously of interest to anyone here. salVNaut ( talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the function of citing the polls that state people believe it was controlled demolition. At least, I think the polls ought to be qualified. Perhaps, alongside it could be mentioned that 6 percent of Americans believed the Apollo Moon Landings were faked, to give the poll some perspective? 66.57.225.84 ( talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(Moved from user talk pages, lightly edited for context.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
PM misquoted what the subject said. Romero only made two statements: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." Reporter makes a statement saying Romero has got a lot of email and Romero replies: "I'm very upset about that, I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." Everything else in the retraction is what the reporter asked or said. The actual quote should be more appropriate. Wayne ( talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(End of moved text.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
Please look at the Good Article criteria....here: [8]...this article completely fails the GA criteria. The title is POV, there is no hypothesis...there is only the conspiracy theories regarding this event. A hypothesis has to have at least some basis in fact, and this article is not based in fact. It serves as an advocacy platform for non-science, not facts. If it was well written, it would be very clear to denounce the CD conspiracy theory for what it is. Scientists use the term hypothesis when they have direct and rational reasons to believe that something is likely to be true, based on observable evidence...this doesn't even come close to being a hypothesis. But, most importantly...this article violates the undue weight clause of NPOV...severely. Sorry, but unless the POV issues are straightened out, I think it would be a bad precident to promote this article to GA.-- MONGO 10:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: For those who are interested (and have access - I'm going to have to order it), this [10] may be the most academic source of information about the CDH (or CDA) we have yet. Episteme is a pretty well-respected (albeit still new) philosophy journal, with a solid editorial board. Clarke apparently applies a Lakatosian framework (cf. my post above).-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
bazant07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help)
popmechanics
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Some users have suggested to move the info here, so I am providing a link:
Hope it is of use to anybody. —
Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪
(talk)
05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As the top of the page says: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
A Sit Down With An 9/11 Fire Fighter
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
in removing the paragraph referring to the j. mcmichael citation
An early version of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, explicitly stated in opposition to the mainstream explanation, was formulated by J. McMichael. His ironic essay "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics" recalled Romero's initial 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. [1] These ideas were then developed in greater detail by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman on their websites, with little attention from the mainstream media. citation needed
my comment said WP:OR. i should have said WP:RS—j. mcmichael's identity and credentials are a mystery.
nonetheless, i remain vaguely unsettled, as the mcmichael articles and the role they play in the early development of the controlled demolition hypothesis are in their own way informative.
i sent an email to the address he gave, asking for some information. i will restore the paragraph if i get sufficient background to overcome WP:RS concerns. Peterhoneyman 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The original reason for including it was that Jim Hoffman cited it as a "classic" here. I was sure there were other references to it by prominent proponents of the CDH. All I was able to find was this pretty good early history (though by no means an RS).-- Thomas Basboll 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Changed Larry Silversteins quote to Itallic 14 August 2007
Here is a bio of Eric Hufschmid. Presumably, Huschmid is the source of this bio.
Eric Hufschmid lost interest in school and the media during high school. He felt that the world was designed for people with the mind of a 12 year old. He decided that when he left home at age 19, he would never get a television or subscribe to any publications. He never bothered going to college. After a few years of working ordinary jobs he took a short course in computer programming, and eventually ended up in business for himself developing CAD/CAM software.
After he noticed suspicious aspects of the September 11th attack, he sent email to professors, scientists, engineers, and other people to look into the attack. Nobody showed any interest, so he decided to publish his analysis of the September 11th Attack. His book is referenced by people around the world to support the accusation that the conspiracy is much larger than 19 Arabs. Today Eric thinks that the reason schools and the media are so idiotic is because there is a deliberate attempt to deceive people about the crimes that are occurring.
Hufschmid's web page features denials of global warming, the Warren report, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon walk; labels 9/11, the Columbine massacre, and the election of the Pope as Zionist conspiracies; accuses Albert Einstein of engaging in "odd sexual practices"; and equates Linux with Marxism.
I question Eric Hufschmid's qualifications as a reliable source. Peterhoneyman 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
on WP:RS, jimmy wales is quoted
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
if you can back up the claim
The controlled demolition hypothesis has been pursued mainly by experts in fields other than structural engineering and by a network of amateur investigators.
with a reliable source, then go ahead and put it back. otherwise, it is not "content" and merits deletion. Peterhoneyman 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
it's a small point, but i think the quoted material in the bažant citation (referenced in the last sentence of the lede)
As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was [followed by a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure].
subtly injects POV into the article. (also, the lede sentence is kind of clumsy. get me rewrite!) Peterhoneyman 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Many structural and mechanical engineers have dismissed the possibility of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, considering them, as in the NIST report, an example of the "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse."
I don't see any independent credentials for the founders/owners. There's no evidence they aren't lying about their membership. It's possible they should be noted further down as self-claimed proponents, but they don't belong in the lead as being actual proponents. 15:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How can you claim they are not real engineers when they are willing to have their names, pictures and qualifications published on the website as supporting it? Looking at just a few of them such as Frank DeMartini - WTC Construction Manager, Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus Department of Structural Engineering and Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction Dynamics Federal Institute of Technology and David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – University of Sydney....these look genuine to me. Wayne 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
WLRoss' disclaimer that the weeks or months of preparations "assumes standard industry safety precautions" is inaccurate. Interior abatement is not merely a safety precaution, it is essential to ensuring that controlled demolition will succeed in collapsing the building. Here's what Stacy Loiseaux says about the pre-demolition preparation:
We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out.
Peterhoneyman 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
To avoid arguement i have left that edit out. Instead I have added edits quoting reliable sources with the alternate view. After all this article is not for "Debunking CD" but "CD hypothesis" so views for and against are legitimate. The links for the quoted parties may not be the usual sites accepted as RS's as Tom harrison has pointed out but, as the edits are not the websites own editorial or comment but actual quotes/views by prominent and reliable people talking in their fields of expertise this makes these people RS's in their own right. Wayne 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A statement by a lawyer for a couple of censored Truthers about admissible evidence is not admissable by Wikipedia standards. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
lolocopter! nice theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does the credibility of these basement explosions theories come from? An engineer that was inside the sixth floor of a building, using only his sense of hearing and touch was able to discern that the explosives were in the lower levels and basement? If they were, he would have been directly above them, and would have died. In all video evidence, the building collapses from top down, the lower floors remaining completely intact while the upper floors are collapsing. This would obviously not occur if explosives were centered in the lower levels.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander ( talk • contribs) 09:51, September 11, 2007
Wowest 03:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried adding the 9/11 Truth Movement template to this article but it was reverted with a reason that "9/11 Truth is not the focus of the article". I don't understand this as all the proponents of the hypothesis are very much a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the issue is the one of the most prominent parts of "9/11 Truth". I would have thought this justifies the presence of the template. Please can the reverter (or somebody who agrees with them) explain their reasoning to me? Corleonebrother 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like try a few things with this article. (1) Merge the first three sections into one (organized historically). (2) Trim the WTC7 and Main Towers sections to their essentials. (3) Reduce "popularizations" to a list of links to other articles (describing notable episodes in (1) above). (4) Dissolve the information in "reactions from engineers" into the work under (1) and (2). Right now, this article simply contains too much information to be useful as an encyclopedia article.-- Thomas Basboll 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin reverted my additions on 9/18/2007, with the comment, "Revert WP:OR or WP:SYN suggesting that firefighters support the theory, and that floors 'disappeared'."
Here were my additions:
In the paragraph comparing the two tower collapses:
Well before the failure reached ground-level, the falling top-piece disappeared. After the top-piece had disappeared, catastrophic failure continued from the top of the remaining floors down.
And in the same paragraph, I added the emphasized text below:
As the cloud *of debris and dust* reached the level of other buildings, it expanded through the streets of surrounding blocks *; however, in each case the tower continued to fail from the top down*.
Later in the article, after this:
Some firefighters who had reported explosions later came to a different view of what they had perceived. For example, one said, "We realized later after talking and finding out" that the ten or so "explosions" he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually "the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit." [2]
I added this:
The firefighters did not explain how the rest of each building would have begun to collapse after the noises were over, if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand. Their explanation also does not account for the numerous explosions audible on videos taken before the collapse, in which the noises are clearly heard well before any collapse had begun. Several of the firefighters who initially reported explosions described the incident they witnessed as a "pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" or "ba, ba, ba, ba, ba" sound, indicating vertical progression with their hands, without mentioning that this was the sound of the buildings falling.
I have several questions for Arthur Rubin.
1) Did you do any Original Research to reach your conclusion that the top-pieces did NOT disappear?
2) If, as you suggest, you actually believe that the top-pieces did not disappear, please, by all means, tell all of us where they went? I think we've all seen the videos. Where did the top-pieces go, if they didn't disappear, sir? I'm dying to hear your explanation. Or perhaps you have some pictures showing us one or both top-pieces lying around somewhere near ground-zero after the collapse.
3) If, as you suggest, you disbelieve that "catastrophic failure [of the towers] continued from the top of the remaining floors down", then I suppose you believe the remainder of each tower failed from the bottom up? Hmmmm. Are you SURE you're not a truther of some kind? Because I have to tell you, that's not the 9/11 I witnessed on my television screen.
4) Saying which, if a head of state were assassinated on live television, and someone put up an article describing what they and the rest of TV-viewing humanity had seen on their screen, would you delete it on the grounds that viewing the footage -- which was nearly everyone's sole indication that something of note had occurred -- is Original Research? Witnessing a noteworthy event, either in person or on your TV screen, is not "research". It is observation. The de facto rule of this wiki is that things observed, if politically acceptable, get pre-blessed by one or more administrators, and then they not only can, but MUST, be "exempted" from the absurd original research rule and displayed proudly and prominently, even featured. But if an obvservation by an editor is not deemed politically acceptable, it is immediately CRUSHED and defamed as "original research." Any further attempt to display the information without pre-approval apparently runs the risk of serious consequences. It didn't use to be this way on WP, folks!
5) You reverted "of debris and dust". Now I must say, I've taken a lot of abuse on this half-baked excuse for a reference work. But I really think this takes the cake. You are claiming that my statement that the "cloud" consisted of "debris and dust" is some kind of original research. My god, man, what in the ever-loving name of -- ahem. What are we SUPPOSED to think it's made of?
6) You object to the suggestion that some firefighters who heard loud noises originally supported the CD theory. I call your attention to the previous two sentences, the ones before the ones I added in that paragraph: "Some firefighters ... later came to a DIFFERENT VIEW [my emphasis] of what they had perceived.... 'We realized later after talking and finding out' that the ten or so 'explosions' he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually 'the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.'" I note with interest that YOU DID NOT REMOVE THESE SENTENCES FROM THE ARTICLE. By this you allow your personal opinions to take precedence over the principle of NPOV.
6) As for the statement "if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand," the relevant point that needs to be made in this paragraph is that the firefighters, in their attempt to explain the sounds they heard, specifically say that the sounds were caused by collapsing floors. We know that more than just those floors collapsed (UH OH MAYBE I'M DOING O.R., MAYBE I SHOULD BE BANNED), yet the firefighters never make any attempt to claim that this sound was heard for the entire duration of whichever collapse they witnessed. In other words, their own explanation, on its face, makes no sense. They're saying the floors above the damage made this sound as they collapsed, but the floors below the damage made no such sound. If the sound was just the natural sound of a collapsing floor, then BY DEFINITION it should have been made by each floor, not just the ones above the damage. We needn't even get into the question of what they believed and when they believed it, because their explanation, whether intentionally or not, is nonsense. Even if it had been their first impression of the sounds, we would still have to conclude that it's nonsense.
7) As for the final sentence that was deleted, about firefighters' descriptions of what they heard ... again, does it suggest they thought it was CD? Perhaps. It certainly suggests that they had considered it possible, especially when considered in combination with their subsequent statement, "We realized later after talking and finding out...." But again, I did not concoct this idea. I was not trying to say, "They believed X." I was letting their words and gestures speak for themselves, and stand or fall on their own merit. So the question again is, are you going to stand by your reversion of simple statements and gestures that you apparently agree are factually correct, simply on the grounds that there is no secondary source cited? I suggest that if you concur that the statements are accurate, put in a "citation needed", and give me some time to find one. Otherwise you're just using a procedural fig leaf to try to crush any facts that might be inconvenient for your preferred beliefs. The real questions should be "Is it commonly accepted to be true?" and "Is it relevant to the article?" If the answer to both questions is yes, and if we're not talking about bona fide research but just simple observation of a video (or even reading a reliable source that happens to be first-hand), then we should keep it in the article pending the search for an appropriate citation. 65.32.173.99 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The question in the FAQ reads "Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?" And the answer includes this sentence: "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." To me, this clearly support the claim that NIST is pursuing blast scenarios and that these are relevant to the question of controlled demolition.-- Thomas Basboll 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: "While NIST is not pursuing the controlled demolition hypothesis as such, it is considering 'hypothetical blast scenarios' in its investigation of the collaspe of WTC7."-- Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Quintiere is not a proponent of controlled demolition. I have therefore moved his criticisms of the the NIST investigation to the collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they belong (it seems to me). Here's the text I've removed:
Putting it back in will demand finding a CDH proponent to make use of his comments (in a non-selfpublished source). The model here is the way Manning appears in the article.-- Thomas Basboll 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I have repeatedly replaced the propagandistic POV adjective "leading," which suggests, without evidence, that the handful of engineers and architects who overtly support the OCT are somehow superior to the hundreds who reject the OCT or the thousands who haven't thought about it at all. I've tried "several" and "certain," which are accurate, in the past. The word "leading" does not appear in either of the sources in the footnote. The articles, which are now obsolete, allege, without evidence, that the OCT is "generally" accepted by the community of architects and engineers. Given the rapidly growing professional membership of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, this type of ignorant claim is no longer excusable. Someone keeps putting "leading" back in without justification. The footnote identifies two engineers, so for now, I have replaced "leading" with "two." If you change it back with NPOV language, rather than "leading," I will leave it alone.
Wowest 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Arthur. That's even better. ... Wowest 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A magazine from a non-profit organization that talks about bad-science and the people who do it as is mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.74.67 ( talk) 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to make what might seem to be some drastic cuts to this article and would like to explain my reasons first. This article is not an argument for controlled demolition but an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. That means that the sources should provide either reliable statements of the hypothesis (in non-self-published sources) or reliable statements about the hypothesis (in news coverage and analysis for example). Those are the acceptable primary and secondary sources given the real topic of the article (which is not the collapse of the WTC but a hypothesis about the collapse). Primary sources of evidence, including official reports and news reports that do not address controlled demolition directly, are likely to constitute WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. They can be included only along with the sources of statements of or about the CDH that cites them. I may not have put that as clearly as one could, and I'm willing to discuss it. Please let's avoid making this a discussion about POV-pushing and stick to the task of making this a better article.-- Thomas Basboll 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've completed the major cuts. The next thing I want to do is to copy-edit the sections, hopefully focusing and tightening them.-- Thomas Basboll 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What does everyone think about integrated the reactions of engineers in the history section?-- Thomas Basboll 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The comprehensive data of the collapses collected in many reports of NIST evidence the free fall regime of all collapses on September 11, 2001.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I made an edit to this article, where I provided evidence (which I cited) that the term "pull" it is not used to refer to a controlled demolition using explosives. [1] It was subsequently removed because it was "propaganda". What I wrote, however, is a fact, and I cited a web site belonging to a group that does professional controlled demolitions. I don't see how this is propaganda in any way. In fact, I would like to see a reputable source that can show that "pull" is used by controlled demolition engineers to refer to demolishing a building with explosives. - Bonus Onus 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Wayne, I just did your research for you and found the 1996 interview you mentioned. I assume it is this one [2]. I read through the whole thing and although the word "pull" does occur in the interview a number of times, it is never used in reference to an explosive demolition of a building. Here are a few of the quotes with context:
"sometime[s], we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings....Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done." (notice, this is "pulling away from another building," simply a directional description, of the way a building has to move. not talking about a conventional demolition. When talking about actually carrying out the implosion, Loiseaux says "bring down" )
"The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself." (again, this describes direction, explains the difference between an implosion and an explosion. no refrence to "when we pull a building..." or anything like that)
"you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush." (Again, pull forward, not down. and no use of the term pull as part of the actual demolition. Instead, Loizeaux says "when the structure is coming down" )
Some examples of what terms Loizeaux acually uses to refer to the implosion of a building:
"you can make the building come down that way"
"We just took down a building in Vegas—the Sands Hotel."
"We've had jobs where we've already got the contract to bring a building down and Warner Brothers or whoever comes on site and says, "Hey, can we film that?""
"Our biggest problem, when we come right down to the wire with shooting buildings, is ground control."
"But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies [from the Oklahoma City Federal Building] right up until days before we actually brought down the building"
- Bonus Onus 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Pull is used in military. It deals with the lever. In the past you used to pull then push the lever down of the blaster box. Military all you do is pull the lever to the blaster box. . {subst:unsigned2|04:12, December 15, 2007|72.189.135.113}}
In "An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rejected the hypothesis, as have many structural and mechanical engineers," a previous editor had changed "many" to "most," and I reverted it. No evidence was provided for this assertion. As far as I am aware, there have been no surveys. There is a group of approximately 200 engineering and architectural professional who officially reject the "Official (U.S. Government) Conspiracy Theory" (OCT): http://www.ae911truth.org/ I am not aware of any professional group which was organized specifially to SUPPORT that theory. Wowest 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted Harold's edits related to free fall, which present the issue as moot. Though I can see how it might have happened, he has misunderstood both the controlled demolition hypothesis and Bazant's position. The Bazant & Verdure paper makes it clear that "the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top." That is all that is being debated: everyone agrees that the collapses did not take "much longer" than free fall. Some think that's suspicious and some do not. But there is no significant disagreement about the speed. It also looks like Harold has interpreted Bazant ca. 50% figures to mean that if free fall were 10 seconds, the actual collapses took about 20. That's not what was meant, as far as I can tell.-- Thomas Basboll 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS (That is: if the actual duration exceeded free fall by about 50% they did not fall half as fast.)-- Thomas Basboll 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help){{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Nothing needs to be inserted into "small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each floor". The explosives could be put inside the box columns much more easily with the added benefit that no one would notice as the core columns are all in areas where office workers have no access. Bazant has made an overestimate of how much TNT is required as he is assuming the TNT pulverised all the concrete. The collapse itself is more than capable of doing it. Experts estimated 30% of gravitational energy went into pulverising the concrete. This increases the free fall speed by 1.75 seconds. Add that to the 10 seconds that is free fall speed for the towers (9.2 in a vacuum) and you get 11.75 seconds as the absolute minimum. Any less and you need to find an additional source of energy input. The experts all agree fall time was around 10 seconds. The problem is that the CD theorists tend to synth different CD scenarios together. This makes it easy to debunk them because readers assume everything they claim should happen. For example there is no need to pulverise the concrete and cut the columns at the same time. CD experts have stated that to bring the towers down would require only 762 kg of Thermite in each of the core columns in a single basement level. That is 36 tons. Remember that the columns are hollow…. each one has a 0.6 cubic meters capacity internally. 762 kg of Thermite is around 0.22 cubic meters. Thermite is a powder so it can be poured into the columns easily. This amount assumes optimum efficiency and the minimum amount that could still bring the towers down is around 12 ton of Thermite. Wayne 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article could contain a short summary of the discussion between these entities? Petition to NIST, NIST's response. I think there is a problem with secondary sources, I've found only this, not too reliable. Btw, I'd expect 911 Scholars to respond to NIST again, but they have only 8 days left... SalvNaut 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They did renew their request here:AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf. No secondary sources I know of... but since NIST've taken time to engage in discussion it's worth being noted in the article. Salv. 83.31.35.109 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CD theory is inextricably linked with conspiracy theory, it seems Balzat's work and conclusions (which agree with and cite NIST findings) if cited then logically should include the following directly from the work: Acknowledgment. Partial financial support for the energetic theory of progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation through grant 0740-357-A210 of the Infrastructure Technology Institute of Northwestern University. Richard M. Lueptow, professor at Northwestern University, and Pierre-Normand Houle of Montreal, are thanked for useful comments. Also, the report is extremely technical and has not been analyzed for accuracy. Atruthseeker2 ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thomas, you removed the sentences Detailed modeling and simulation by NIST reached the same conclusion. However, NIST found it impossible to construct usable mathematical models of the subsequent structural response of the building. because they seem to suggest that NIST modelled (and confirmed) Bazant and Zhou's analysis. in fact, that is the case. see chapter 6 of the NIST final report. Peterhoneyman 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific, Peter? I could be wrong about this (and I just had a quick look through Chapter 6) but, again, my impression is that everyone (including Bazant and NIST) agree that NIST did not do any modeling of the progressive collapse. The report only addresses the response of the building up to the start of collapse. It is true that Bazant and Zhou made some preliminary suggestions about the initiating mechanism and that NIST did more or less confirm it (rejecting Eagar's and FEMA's proposal). So perhaps the best way forward here is to separate the CDH's criticism of the collapse-initiating mechanism and its criticism of the mechanics of progressive collapse. As it stood, it seemed to me that the article said that NIST confirmed Bazant and Zhou's "order of magnitude calculation" with detailed modeling. As far as I can tell, their paper is not even mentioned.-- Thomas Basboll 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Some interesting stuff I wasn't aware of that has possible relevance to the article. To date there has been no independent report done by experts not reliant on government funding in their employment. The Silverstein-Weidlinger report was the study of why the towers collapsed done in support of the Silverstein insurance claim and used largely the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA study. Bazants study contradicted it's findings in almost every aspect yet the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA/Weidlinger studies also did Bazants. These experts not only simultaneously support the pancake theory and the column collapse theory but reject the pancake theory and the column collapse theory depending on which report they are writing in. The primary authors of the FEMA study were also the primary authors of the NIST report (John Gross and Therese McAllister) and these contradict each other as well. It seems the experts cannot stick with the same story which in fact is consistent with NISTS latest release which stated they could not explain why the towers collapsed. Wayne 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The reasons for the entire collapse of the towers are the structure elements' soften of fire and impact of the upper layers' collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)i don't know what to do with all these citations ... and this is only a fraction of them. i don't think it's appropriate, but some people are apparently library-challenged, and seem to think that the only literature on the subject is that which is cited here. (they should get out more often.) so if someone with taste sees fit to revert, i won't object. (on the contrary, i will applaud.) but wonder if there is an appropriate place for all these citations. i am not planning to write a critical review of the engineering literature on the WTC collapses ... Peterhoneyman 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
it's probably obvious that i was irritated by the claim that bažant stands alone in the peer-reviewed literature, so i did a quick-and-dirty search and came up with this handful (or two) of papers (and relevant quotes), all of which clearly embrace (and, in some instances, explain) the progressive collapse model. in that sense, they just as clearly reject CDH.
The impact of the aircraft or the resulting explosion destroyed the exterior frame. It was carrying a large part of the gravity load and its destruction caused the progressive failure of the entire structure. Localized damage from the impact and the initial explosion caused a number of supports to fail; as a result, the building shifted the load to adjacent members, which became overloaded and progressively collapsed. These planes were large and heavy, and as a result they were able to destroy a number of floors that braced the exterior columns. The vertical gravity load was then transferred possibly to the interior core of the building, which was then overloaded beyond the point of failure, resulting in one of the worst disasters in human history.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The analysis presented points to a compelling fire induced collapse mechanism rather unique to the type of structure that the WTC Twin-Towers represented.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)It appears that the insulation thickness on the truss rods was deficient and caused the heating of the steel that led to weakening and collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)In conclusion the technical note presents a possible progressive failure mechanism for the WTC Twin Towers in a major fire, not considering any structural damage. It is therefore not a forensic analysis of the actual events of September 11 and should not be perceived as such. In the author 's opinion, the analysis presented does, however, accommodate a provisional conclusion that this collapse mechanism could have occurred, triggered primarily by the insufficient lateral support capacity of the slender floor system of the WTC Twin Towers. A clear design improvement for similar structures could be a secondary lateral support system for the columns at appropriate intervals that would arrest the development of this kind of progressive collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)At the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center (WTC) Towers, extensive structural damage, including localized collapse, occurred at several floor levels directly impacted by the aircraft. Despite this massive localized damage, each structure remained standing for approximately 1 h or 1 h 30 min. Although the damage to the beams and columns in the perimeter tube of each tower were clarified in the published ASCE/FEMA report, the damage to the floor system and inner core columns were not estimated. The purpose of this study is to determine why the towers remained standing after impact through several analytical studies, including impact analyses using a simplified model to estimate the overall damage, a rigorous finite element model to estimate the local damage, and stress analyses after some structural members are lost. The results of the stress analyses show why both buildings did not collapse immediately after impact, and WTC2 collapsed sooner than WTC1.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The World Trade Center collapse has brought attention to progressive collapse of tall buildings and the study of possible countermeasures. From the viewpoint of energy transfer, this analysis explains why the collapse could not stop by itself once began.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)As burning jet fuel spread through the buildings, it ignited much of their contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. Over a period of many minutes, the heat output from these fires induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The reasons for the entire collapse of the towers are the structure elements' soften of fire and impact of the upper layers' collapse.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)At such high temperatures, the modulus and strength of the steel columns in impacted floors were reduced and could no longer support the weight of the floors above them. They buckled and the floors above them crashed down on the rest of the towers. The remainder of the buildings fell by dynamic buckling.
{{
cite journal}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I agree with Peter that these are interesting studies and that they improve our understanding of progressive collapse. But they are not about controlled demolition. Using them to support the claim that engineers have "rebutted" CD is a violation of Wikipedias official policy on synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be much better to use this research to support the claim that controlled demolition is largely ignored by the engineering community, which is satisfied with progressive collapse as an explanation.-- Thomas Basboll 07:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Steven Jones' thermite theory is the one most often endorsed I think, and yet it currently only gets a brief mention here in the 'Main towers' section, as an explanation for the streaming molten material. But as I understand it, one of his biggest pieces of evidence is the high temperatures in the ground under all three buildings in the days/months after the attack - evidence for slow-cooling once-molten steel/iron. This is not mentioned in the article at all. Also, the placement in the 'Main towers' section suggests it does not apply to Building 7, but in fact it does.
There is a longer paragraph in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article about the thermite theory. Perhaps some of that paragraph could be brought into this one - but where to put it? Corleonebrother 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
i can't find an authoritative source for this
and the link given is broked. :-(
new civil engineer is a UK magazine, but (as far as i can tell) my library doesn't get it, and (as far as i can tell) lexis doesn't index it. the best i can do is this blog
i'll keep trying ... Peterhoneyman 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
apologies for leaving that reflist in -- it's hard to preview citations so ... well, anyway ... thanks for your patience \(^_^)/ Peterhoneyman 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of removing the scarequotes around "official" myself, but I think they have been demanded by consensus in the 9/11CT area. After all, it is the account the proponents of CH call "official". Support of the official view like to refer to it as "mainstream", which I think is too vague. I'dlike to hear other people's thoughts on it. But, like I say, I like the way it looks after Peter's changes.-- Thomas Basboll 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
it's not unusual for a scholarly journal to have long lag times. i suspect seffen's paper exists, is complete, has been accepted, and is in the queue for publication. i also suspect that because of the rude and vile requests for preprints (many of which i have seen copied on various blogs), all preprint requests (even my oh so correct and polite ones) are being ignored. be that as it may, i don't think the article should cite seffen's paper at all until an editor has seen what the paper says. Peterhoneyman 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The opening paragraph states:
Criticism of the NIST report plays a prominent role in presentations of the hypothesis.
I take this to mean criticism of the report itself, i.e. its methods, representations, omissions, etc, rather than criticism of the theory it advocates. And yet the only sentence I can find in the rest of the article that follows up on this is this one:
Supporters of the controlled demolition hypothesis find it troubling that NIST did not simulate the structural response of the lower parts of the buildings, which they find of primary interest.
I think we need to explain somewhere about the criticism of the report itself, as it is usually a central theme in talks by CDH proponents. There is a tiny section at Collapse of the World Trade Center#Criticism, but it is limited to only one sentence and from a relatively mainstream source. I am not sure whether we need to expand that section to include criticisms from CDH proponents, or make an explicit section in this article about it. Corleonebrother 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking of Kevin Ryan's work, and also Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones and others at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most are self-published, so we should be able to come up with a short list of the ones that are published by a reputable publisher. Steven Jones' "Why Indeed?" was published in David Ray Griffin's "9/11 and the American Empire" so does this qualify? Are there any other examples that you know of? And what about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Request for Correction that they sent to the NIST earlier this year - could we use this? Also, please can you provide a link for "the data quality act submission" - I am not sure what you mean. Cheers, Corleonebrother 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the section, based only on Steven Jones' paper. Corleonebrother 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This article may be fairly long already, but I think it's missing a section on what I'd say is the strongest argument against this hypothesis: the sheer implausibility of it. This hypothesis rests on the assumption that somehow, large quantities of explosives could be brought into multiple, actively-used office buildings, without anybody inside noticing them; and subsequently secretly detonated, sometime after the planes hit the towers; and that no one involved in what would have to be a fairly vast conspiracy has admitted it. Surely someone must realise what a highly implausible suggestion that is? (If you think it isn't - try sneaking large quantities of explosives into, say, the Empire State building, and see how far you get.)
The other big unmentioned problem here, which I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to, is the lack of a motive for the 'controlled demolition' of the towers. Given that they were presumably going to be hit by planes as part of the plot anyway, what possible reason could whoever was behind it have to do it? I just can't imagine why anyone would go to such unnecessary lengths - to fill the towers with explosives, and hit them with planes as well. It just doesn't add up to a plausible hypothesis.
I realise I might be violating WP:FORUM a bit here, but I think these are genuine serious problems with this hypothesis, and would like to see them included in the article. Terraxos ( talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The CDH is not pursued within the engineering community. It is a marginalized view. It is true that some architects and engineers are proposing it, but they have not yet succeeded in raising it within their disciplines. The point of the section is to make it clear to the reader where the CDH stands in the larger professional community. Making it appear accepted in that community is misleading, as even proponents will agree. They are meeting all kinds of resistance, and this section must identify it.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that it is a marginalized view. It may or may not be a minority at this time but by citing two examples of support of the CT and ignoring that there is support within the community is not NPOV. The present wording of the misleading IMO. "unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers" is very strong language from a semantic perspective and not representative of the true situation. I am just trying to balance the article. Tony0937 ( talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to have a section in this article that makes it clear that the CDH is a marginalized position in the engineering ocmmunity. That is, it is very difficult for engineers to say anything in support of CDH, and very little is generally said about it. It is simply dismissed.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Lets look at some sets. Taking have a community as a whole (all engineers) as the complete set we have the following possible subsets.
Of the various subsets we have Known numbers for only two of them. Any assumptions about Unknown numbers is purely speculative . Unless someone have made a poll that I am not aware of those are the facts that we have to work with. Tony0937 ( talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
<ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Northwestern University Professor of
Civil Engineering
Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition hypothesis assumes).
[5]I contacted Wikipedia about using sources that are not accepted as reliable sources (I specifically mentioned A&E911T). They told me to take it to the talk page. The main criteria is that it can't be a single source claim (or a copy from a single source). Of course the reply from WP says it is not an official statement so they want to stay out of it lol. Wayne ( talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I finally get time to proofread the article and it gets protected lol.
I'm requesting an edit. The line “Such an explanation is now about to be published.” Needs to be deleted. The paper is rather inadequate. All it does is confirm that the official theory is "plausable" without in any way ruling out the CD theory. A glaring error is that the paper assumes the core columns were the same size for the entire height of the buildings which (to my mind) invalidates it entirely. If the paper survives peer review once published then it can be included but it is POV to mention it until then.
Wayne (
talk)
22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a couple reverts recently over the following line (italics mine): Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis with some noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation.<ref name="popmechanics"/>Other demolition experts dismiss these objections and support the possibility of controlled demolition.<ref>[Interview with Danny Jowenko February 22 2007]</ref>
First, this information is terribly cited, as it doesn't say where the alleged interview was published. I actually thought it meant a personal interview conducted by a Wikipedia editor (the only case in which it would be appropriate to cite information that way, except that personal interviews fail WP:V).
Second, Danny Jowenko is one demolition expert, not "other demolition experts".
Third, Danny Jowenko is on record specifically discounting the controlled demo hypothesis for WTC 1 and 2. He calls it "bizarre...Don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. It would take a year." ( video clip)
Jowenko's supposed belief that WTC7 was imploded actually stems from this ambush interview where he was shown one angle of WTC Seven collapsing, not being told it was on 9/11, and he made an ass of himself. That's the only verifiable information. There is also this alleged telephone interview by a 9/11 Truther, where Jowenko apparently re-confirms his belief in the face of internet rumors that he'd retracted it. That's the evidence - a tape of someone with a Dutch accent on a phone line released by a conspiracy theorist.
Finally, Jowenko never discussed the difficulty of stealthily preparing an active office building for demolition. He is being cited here as original research by synthesis. To my knowledge he has simply not commented on that objection to the CD theory.
In summary, this information is mis-attributed, original research, misleading because it doesn't make clear we're talking only of WTC7, and comes from a non-reliable source. As usual, the 9/11 Truth brigade are seeing what they want to and ignoring what's right in front of them. The information needs to go. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Trying to dismiss Jowenko's position on Building 7 with "he made an ass of himself" is pretty weak. The video is clear where he tells what he thinks of it. When told it was on 9/11/01 he does not then say "Oh, then that couldn't have been a demolition." But even if he did, that, in and of itself, would be meaningful, if nothing else, as an explanation for why so many people are easily "fooled" by the way that Building 7 came down. It seems strange that you would not want to include key information like this.
bov (
talk)
01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The line Arthur removed was very poorly sourced. Jowenko's statement was made in a Dutch TV-documentary, right? Let's start there; provide that reference. Next, has D R Griffin done anything with it in any of his books? Has Jowenko been mentioned in news coverage, even if only to be debunked? My sense is that very little has been done with this among proponents. (I did hear that it has been included in Loose Change: Final Cut. That suggests he can be quoted at least without a BLP violation--I understand that Louder Than Words has been very thorough about getting permissions.) In any case, if we can source this properly, then Jowenko's contribution to the WTC 7 issue belongs in that section. It is at least as relevant as the Romero controversy, which was covered by PM.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 08:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The image of the towers' destruction which I originally posted (by Aman Zafar) has been removed from here repeatedly, and now is gone. Those on here who are in discussions trying to get Tom Basboll to include more information would probably do better to simply get this image back on the page -- an image is better than 1000 words . . .
Tom Basboll created this page and has done a fantastic job of it -- best not to focus efforts on him.
The third image down from here is what I used --
Zafar has given his explicit permission to use the image on the demolition hypothesis page, which I've posted to my user page so I have it, here. It was deleted on October 12th, 2007 by a user who has frequently tried to delete parts off of Jim Hoffman's page. It was deleted exactly one year to the day before that. The deletion log is here. The discussion on that page is here.
Similarly, the hoax B7 image with the smoke should be taken off or qualified in some way -- it is now the only image on the page and this is wrong.
bov ( talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Above, Wayne has pointed out what he calls a "common misconception" about the possible demolition of the WTC: that every floor would need to be rigged and that it would take a lot of explosives. I think Wayne is right about this. It is already mentioned briefly in the engineering community section (first paragraph, last sentence) but it is an important enough point to be elaborated separately. The difference between and/or similarity of CD and PC have been suggested on both sides and the result is quite confusing. For example, some argue against CD by saying it would take an enormous amount of explosives--but if PC is correct then it only took the equivalent of rigging a single floor (the plane impact floors). On the other side, supporters of CD say it wouldn't take very many explosives--but if that is correct then perhaps the damage on the impact floor is enough. How many floors does CD actually propose? How few would make the CDH (structurally) unnecessary? How many would make CDH (practially) impossible? I think clarifying this issue would improve the article.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
If all models regardless of scale couldn't cause the WTC to fall and these tests, rather than being reported, are redone using parameters that exceed what the physical, photographic and eyewitness evidence supports (which was admitted by NIST) and then presented as proof of why they did fall. Is that not an inconsistancy that even a layman could recognise? Wayne ( talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
There is not yet any mention of the physical testing in the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Whatever Wayne and Arthur get out of this discussion probably belongs there, more than here, because NIST is an RS for the invesigations. Though we've made some justifiable exceptions, Ryan's work is not really an RS even for this article (because it is self-published).-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This letter by Kevin Ryan is a response to a paper written some time ago by Mackey, a weapon industry US scientists [7]: it's a 200page defense of NIST report. I skimmed through Mackey's paper and I must admit it impressed me - it was full of references to NIST, case by case analysis, reasonable arguments. However, having no time to read it carefully and check each reference I could judge it only on that basis. The more I was waiting for a response from CT movement.
Ryan response is very interesting, he shows how careful scientists he is and how well he knows the case. He points out mistakes, not careful referencing by Mackey, and shows his and claim about WTC fireproofing again in clear light. (I must admit that I haven't checked his references either, but it's a matter of who you trust - judge yourself). Ryan also clarifies some personal stuff regarding him and UL, which is less relevant to CDH but still interesting to read. The whole discussion (200p. paper vs 11 pages response by Ryan which I recommend to read), apart from being very informative, shows how difficult is for a layman to follow the discussion with understanding, and how NIST made this task even harder from the beginning by publishing a report that (citing Ryan:)
I don't think we are able to report this Mackey-Ryan exchange of arguments, nor 9/11 families Request for Correction vs NIST, neither there are secondary sources to do so. Then, it's reasonable to assume that anyone interested in CDH would be interested in reading these. However, as of now, I don't think that the wiki article serves well as a pointer to such sources. So my proposition would be to create a new section ("External Links", "Disputes"?) where links to such resources are put. At least aforementioned two cases deserve to be there: Request... earned response from NIST; Mackey can be seen as a representative of a CDH-skeptic Randi forum. I also see there a Purdue Study, Ryan response to it, etc. What do you think? salVNaut ( talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
A Boston Globe article: the_science_of_how_buildings_fall_down. Not clearly connected to CDH but obviously of interest to anyone here. salVNaut ( talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the function of citing the polls that state people believe it was controlled demolition. At least, I think the polls ought to be qualified. Perhaps, alongside it could be mentioned that 6 percent of Americans believed the Apollo Moon Landings were faked, to give the poll some perspective? 66.57.225.84 ( talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
(Moved from user talk pages, lightly edited for context.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
PM misquoted what the subject said. Romero only made two statements: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." Reporter makes a statement saying Romero has got a lot of email and Romero replies: "I'm very upset about that, I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." Everything else in the retraction is what the reporter asked or said. The actual quote should be more appropriate. Wayne ( talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
(End of moved text.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))
Please look at the Good Article criteria....here: [8]...this article completely fails the GA criteria. The title is POV, there is no hypothesis...there is only the conspiracy theories regarding this event. A hypothesis has to have at least some basis in fact, and this article is not based in fact. It serves as an advocacy platform for non-science, not facts. If it was well written, it would be very clear to denounce the CD conspiracy theory for what it is. Scientists use the term hypothesis when they have direct and rational reasons to believe that something is likely to be true, based on observable evidence...this doesn't even come close to being a hypothesis. But, most importantly...this article violates the undue weight clause of NPOV...severely. Sorry, but unless the POV issues are straightened out, I think it would be a bad precident to promote this article to GA.-- MONGO 10:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: For those who are interested (and have access - I'm going to have to order it), this [10] may be the most academic source of information about the CDH (or CDA) we have yet. Episteme is a pretty well-respected (albeit still new) philosophy journal, with a solid editorial board. Clarke apparently applies a Lakatosian framework (cf. my post above).-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
bazant07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings' collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones's paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.
{{
cite interview}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |callsign=
ignored (
help)
popmechanics
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).