![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Should a section be devoted to the published paper by The Open Chemical Physics Journal dated 2009, 2, 7-31 called "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"? signed nmollo
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Still the issue remains, the possible need for a new section. I came to this article expecting to find the topic addressed directly. "discussed to death" is not addressing the possible need for a new section about the peer reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". signed nmollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.186.158 ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that this article deserves a note (which I may add at some point if no one else does).
Also, could someone be so kind and summarize briefly the argument why there is no mention about "Active thermitic material discovered in WTC dust" paper in this article? salVNaut ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's very obvious that these words, all submitted by the "Editorial" ID, have been written by people who work for the journal, not by external contributors:
Cs32en 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute
A new subsection was added, currently titled "Other observers". I have no objection to this topic being added, but there's a problem: all of the references used to support the assertions being presented are out-of-date. In these references, the assumed argument is that the WTC buildings were brought down by conventional controlled demolition. Since the release in April 2009 of the paper presenting the alleged finding of nanothermitic material (a military grade substance) in the WTC dust (
ref), I am not aware of anyone arguing that the WTC was destroyed using conventional demolition materials and methods. For the article to be relevant in today's environment, references used should have been written in this context; they should have been written after the release of the nanothermite paper in April. The "conventional demolition" argument has minimal (if any) relevance to the topic today.
Documents currently referenced:
Wildbear ( talk) 05:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
What purpose did a controlled demolition of the towers serve? Surely at least some of the writers on the topic have tried to give a reason why a controlled demolition was needed in addition to ramming a couple of planes into the buildings?
I can understand imputing a motive on the government for the plane attacks - you can certainly argue
that either letting them happen, or maybe even assisting the plot (either directly, or just by clearing the way for them) would have a big political reward for the risks entailed (especially the more passive routes) - if you assume a suitably cynical and callous bunch of politicians (and that is hardly unreasonable given history).
But what does a controlled demolition add to the political value of the attacks? The towers burning for weeks and then having to be pulled down weeks or months later would seem to be enough to generate all the outrage and political capital required for whatever wars/laws were required, so why go from almost no risk of being caught to having to plant thousands of charges in a heavily occupied and well secured building for little or no additional benefit? -- 86.129.6.0 ( talk) 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the word "conspiracy" be removed from the title of this page and from the contents themselves. Here are my reasons for suggesting this:
a) used properly, the word simply means "A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot" ("The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"). Thus the mainstream version of al-Qaeda being responsible for the 9/11 attacks is also a "conspiracy theory". This word is therefore not helpful in distinguishing between the mainstream view and the various alternative theory.
b) the word is mostly used inproperly, as a way do suggest that the theory put for his somehow the result of a paranoid mind or that it lacks any basis in fact or logic. Since the mainstream theory on the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 has changed over time (for example, NIST has rejected the "pancaking theory" ( http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) and since no explanation for the collapse WTC7 it would appear that there is no foundation to reject *any* theory "a priori".
I suggest that the expression "conspiracy theory" be replaced with "controlled demolition theory" which is far less subjective and far more descriptive.
Thank you, -- Andrei Raevsky ( talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like many of the counter claims to explosives being planted in this building are in the context of how explosives are planted in controlled demolitions. They don't seem to be refuting claims about people placing explosives in places that will be working with the fire and debris created by air planes that crash into a building.
It seems like there should be a better seperation between discussions and arguments relating to traditional controlled demolitions; vs. controlled demolitions under the condition of a building on fire after being struck by planes; and vs. the idea of people planting in areas that are intended to work with a building being damaged by high temperature fires that have been corrupting the stability of the architecture. Each of these seem to be very different in nature and probably shouldn't be mixed and matched or grouped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.185.43 ( talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Focus Money, a mainstream German weekly journal, has published an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. It title is "We don't believe you!". The article reports on the major arguments put forward by proponents of the hypothesis. It asks "What distinguishes these concerned citizens from those who believe that everyone who doesn't accept the official version would be a crazy conspiracy theorist?" and comments "NIST [...] has not taken into account the possibility of a controlled demolition. The strange justification: Controlled demolitions usually start from the bottom." It also reports about the study of Steven Jones and Niels Harrit, who claim to have found nano-thermite in the debris of the World Trade Center. A similar article (written by a different journalist) has appeared in a German TV journal and in a German science magazine.
Cs32en 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Freefall is aplicable to the twins (the north tower fall in 10 sec and southern in 8 sec), that's freefall. Alakasam ( talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I could not find what you say on page 146.
At the speed that the towers fell, it was almost a free fall. This indicates that there was implosion. You can see in any video. The conclusions reached by the U.S. government can not explain why the buildings disintegrated. Alakasam ( talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I say all this so that we keep this in mind when writting. Alakasam ( talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to be rude, NRen2k5. It is a conspiracy theory article, so suggestions from a genuine conspiracy theorist should be given consideration. Let's take it point by point:
146 is NIST's page number. Your pdf reader's page number may be 196.
This is acknowledged by NIST, which termed it "essentially in free fall". However, using the statement stand-alone in the article, outside of reliably sourced conspiracy theory context, would be what Wikipedia calls " original research".
Maybe, but you will need a reliable source to say so. You will need a source more widely recognized as "reliable" than question911.com, if you want this assertion to appear in the article.
That is a statement of your personal opinion, and as such is not usable in the article. For any changes to be made to the article, you need to present information about conspiracy theory obtained from reliable sources.
You will need a reliable source to show why this assertion is relevant to this article, and who made the assertion.
The matter of angle-cut columns is questionable as evidence unless your sources show that the photographs were taken before the cleanup began. If you have reliable sourcing for this, and can show how it is relevant to this article, it might be usable.
This is already documented in the article (rather than firefighters, the article uses the term "eyewitness accounts").
Wildbear (
talk)
05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
When I have more time I'll do. Is there any official article where says which sources are good?, because I don't want to convince you, I want to do right. Alakasam ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a serious problem here: you required a reliable source to support information that is purely speculative. What kind of reliable media are going to even try to mention the possibility of a self attack by the US government? Use reliable sources for the main article (
September 11 attacks). Request for reliable sources here is silly. Remember that the name of this article is World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. If there was something confirmed by a reliable source would not go in this article. Common sense.
Alakasam
02:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I like that much more and is much more logical than
Wildbear claims.
Alakasam
19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The alternate hypothesis that the collapse may have involved planted explosives is not in itself a "conspiracy theory".
There is no question that some group of people conspired together to attack the buildings, one way or another.
They may have chosen a combination of approaches.
The use of the "conspiracy theory" derogatory term is unnecessary in this context; such a theory has more to do with who is responsible, not how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A little simple reasoning demonstrates why all these conspiracy theories are rubbish, or at the least very, very likely to be so. First Ockham's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one. What is more likely, that a lot of burning aviation fuel caused a structural collapse; or that there is a huge conspiracy, involving presumably dozens of operatives, that has been successfully concealed for ten years now, despite a change of presidency even, when any one of the supposed operatives in the alleged conspiracy could make $millions selling their story to the press? Watergate was a far smaller conspiracy than the one proposed here and that all came out in a couple of years. Then there is motivation, cui bono, especially with WTC7 controlled demolition theory. What possible motive is there for destroying WTC7? Who would gain anything? Destruction of files? Come on, you don't need to destroy a whole tower block to destroy some files. Because WTC7 was the base for the whole conspiracy? It was steel and concrete. It was no evidence of anything. No-one gained anything from the destruction of WTC7 so logically it's extremely unlikely that it was a controlled demolition.
Maybe the article could have some mention of this?
SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti should appear as a reference in this article and should be mentioned in the body under the "Main Towers" subsection of "Propositions and hypotheses" as an alternative to the Bazant theory. MacQueen and Szamboti argue in their mathematical analysis that Bazant's required "jolt" from deceleration of a solid block of descending stories is not substantiated in data obtained from measuring actual photographic evidence of the rate of WTC tower collapses. Without such evidence, the Bazant theory must not stand alone as an explanation for explaining the collapse of the WTC towers.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (PDF) Jblossom ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Bild really a good source for anything much other than football, celebs and scandal? This edit seems to assume that it is. I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Popular Mechanics some sort of scientific journal? I don't understand how their analysis can be used as "proof" of anything. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
~Popular Mechanics is a very well respected publication in the field of engineering whether you agree with their analysis of the situation or not. TheMadcapSyd ( talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
-No it is not. It serves more like an entertainment magazine, replete with predictions of what we will be driving in the future like hovercars and such. On one hand, the article talks about peer-reviewed scientific journals and the next it is citing Popular Mechanics....
67.71.58.61 ( talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics has a lot of stories leading you to believe in UFO's, unfortunately, I can't say that in the article because it would be WP:OR, original research, and I can't find an "reliable source" ( WP:RS) article debunking Popular Mechanics for the tabloid journalism that it is. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I am most decidedly not in the conspiracy camp, but it seems ridiculous to use Popular Mechanics as a credible source. Nicmart ( talk) 04:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Total waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't assume good faith or comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I want to point out that this is a theory, not a conspiracy theory. Truth be told, the accepted narrative about what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It proposes that a conspiracy of foreign nationals flew planes into buildings and so forth. It is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. On the other hand, the theory about controlled demolitions isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. It is a theory about how the buildings may have come down that is different from the accepted narrative. Who may have planted the bombs / thermite / whatever there is not determined by the theory. One might say the government, or one might say it was Al Qaida. But terming this theory a "conspiracy theory" is a way to discredit it from the get go. For the record, I do not believe the theory of controlled demolitions. But slanting the theory as merely a conspiracy theory, in the negative sense, does us no favors. This is a structural problem with the article itself. A fairer article would term it a theory, and explore along the way how some people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory in the negative sense. 202.62.73.138 ( talk) 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is worth noting the obvious conflict of interest in the NIST report, and that their models were kept secret in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests. NIST's work has not been peer reviewed. Popular Mechanics bases the entire article on the NIST report. To suggest that these two organizations independently examined the evidence is misleading. It does not imply in any way that the scientific community generally accepts the standard explanation. This article should acknowledge that the scientific community has not reached consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 ( talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC) It makes little sense to claim the CD theory is generally accepted to be wrong solely on the basis of people who would have a conflict or interest in claiming otherwise. This article does not make a compelling case for the existence of a large number of scientists who independently reject the CD theory. NIST report has caused controversy among physicists and engineers. NIST has acknowledged that it is unable to explain the free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. The P M article and other articles that reject CD theories carefully ignore this piece of evidence which in itself makes a very strong case for CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 ( talk) 07:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) The title of this article is absurd and absolutely non factual. One thing is "controlled demolition theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. another thing is: "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition in the context of a certain conspiracy. As far as i know, the controlled demolition theorists that stick to the technical and factual analysis of the 9/11 don't analyze the "conspiracy context", they only analyze if the buildings went down by plane, controlled demolition, or whatever other technical cause. They don't analyze the facts of why, who, and when conspired to bring the buildings down. The conspiracy subject is not the subject of many controlled demolition theorists. So the article title is highly innacurate and it doesn't reflect its content that only analyzes and describes the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. Simple logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.178.239 ( talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Every event in the course of human interaction involves conspiracy. To label something as a "conspiracy theory" is to suggest that is a fringe theory, far from proven, and probably not true. This is not the case with the demolition of the world trade center. It simply *is* a demolition. I would consider that scientific mainstream. I find it very strange the Wikipedia does not report accurately on this. There are two possibilities: they are willfully complicit in the cover-up - or they are unable to suspend trust in authority long enough to see that this was plainly a controlled demolition. At least they should knowledge the magnitude of the group of scientists pushing for truth. These are not people who normally dabble in conspiracy theory or revisionist history. The fact that so many respectable scientists are convinced that this as a demolition deserves attention. "Reality takes precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ian.thomson - your refusal to look at the evidence instead of tossing around insults suggests you are part of the cover-up. I mean it's pretty simple stuff - a building cannot crush itself at free fall acceleration. Free fall implies 0 resistance. I have yet to hear anyone explain how that can happen without explosives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. But at the end of the day there is no ministry of truth and the individual is forced to evaluate source based on hi/her own intuition. How do we know the NYT is reliable? Because it says so in the NYT of course! I am hoping to appeal to common intuition that the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is in fact very easy to see if you just watch the video. Having convinced yourself that it was a demolition you will realize that the msm is not free. If it were, it would have reported this fact already. So the least wikipedia could do is admit that this is not a settled issue. That there is a huge number of respectable scientists speaking out against the government. That the government does not always tell the truth - that the msm is not independent. As it is, wikipedia is just part of the propaganda machine on this issue. They make it seem as tho this is a settled issue. And citing popular mechanics is so weak - that's not a peer reviewed journal. The case against cd theories revolves around one engineer - Bazant. There are many more engineers who support controlled demo theories— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk • contribs)
Your confounding several different theories. There are thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists who support the controlled demolition theory. These are not the same people who study reptilians etc. You are trying to taint the truth movement by associating it with other conspiracies and ignoring the fact that it is rooted in hard science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is clear evidence that the engineering community does not generally accept the standard collapse theory. Regardless of the interviewer, these scientists and engineers have credentials. What makes A&E911 Truth an unreliable source? Wikipedia cites a paper by a single engineer Bazant as proof of its claim? what makes him a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) How is Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science, not worth anything? Why is Popular Mechanics more reliable than Europhysucs News? I would like to see an equivalent number of engineers/scientists outside of the government who can defend the official collapse theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) The Washington Journal is not a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did you even look at all these links? Who decides what is a reliable source? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to transcend the bias of mainstream sources. There is a large number of engineers/scientists who disagree with NIST's findings. This article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I understand it is not WIkipedia's job to determine the truth of this theory. But they should accurately represent the nature of the movement. These sources confirm that a large number of scientists and engineers believe the CD theory. Whether or not they are correct, wikipedia should cover AE4 9 9 11 truth, Scentists for 9 11 truth. They aren't even mentioned here. You make it sound like Jones is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you tried to hide the links I provided when they are not that different to links already cited in this article suggest a conscious effort to hide the truth on this subject. I repeat "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." IS FALSE. "Consensus" implies that (almost) everyone agrees. And yet there are thousands of dissenters, some of them quite outspoken. This article deliberately downplays and covers up this fact. Bazant seems to be just about the only non-government engineer who is willing to defend the official theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC) You have non-mainstream sources already cited all over this article. You have a C-span interview with David Ray Griffin. You said the C-span interview with Richard Gage is not reliable. You have the Daily Mail as a source and you declared the Daily Express to be unreliable. I want an answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) And I want a real citation for "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I just notice that Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth is already listed as a source for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This article claims the engineering community has reached consensus in agreement with NIST. It does not provide a source for this or acknowledge the scale of the dissenting group of engineers and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please provide sources for those statements. The links provided don't lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Also the dissenting engineers are not "Conspiracy Theorists." They are professional engineers who have never before researched "conspiracy theories." And they are far more numerous than the engineers who defend the government theory. Neither group speaks for the majority of engineers. The majority of engineers are silent on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
How exactly do distinguish a "mainstream" engineer from a non-mainstream one? lol. You have not provided sources for the ASCE, ISE claims. There is almost no literature in peer reviewed journals defending the official collapse theory. Bazant and one or two others. I sent links to at least 5 - 10 professionals who support CD theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) The dissenting petition has thousands of signatures from professional architects and engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) You have not provided sources for the ASCE claim. Thus your entire proof of the engineering "consensus" rests on Bazant and Eagar. Yet there are thousands of engineers who disagree. How can you claim there is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Perhaps a video of the collapse of Building 7 should appear somewhere in this article - just to give an intuitive motivation for the theory |
More waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Open Chemical Physics Journal
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Stop trying to push the official story
|
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Should a section be devoted to the published paper by The Open Chemical Physics Journal dated 2009, 2, 7-31 called "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"? signed nmollo
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Still the issue remains, the possible need for a new section. I came to this article expecting to find the topic addressed directly. "discussed to death" is not addressing the possible need for a new section about the peer reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". signed nmollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.186.158 ( talk) 06:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that this article deserves a note (which I may add at some point if no one else does).
Also, could someone be so kind and summarize briefly the argument why there is no mention about "Active thermitic material discovered in WTC dust" paper in this article? salVNaut ( talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It's very obvious that these words, all submitted by the "Editorial" ID, have been written by people who work for the journal, not by external contributors:
Cs32en 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute
A new subsection was added, currently titled "Other observers". I have no objection to this topic being added, but there's a problem: all of the references used to support the assertions being presented are out-of-date. In these references, the assumed argument is that the WTC buildings were brought down by conventional controlled demolition. Since the release in April 2009 of the paper presenting the alleged finding of nanothermitic material (a military grade substance) in the WTC dust (
ref), I am not aware of anyone arguing that the WTC was destroyed using conventional demolition materials and methods. For the article to be relevant in today's environment, references used should have been written in this context; they should have been written after the release of the nanothermite paper in April. The "conventional demolition" argument has minimal (if any) relevance to the topic today.
Documents currently referenced:
Wildbear ( talk) 05:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
What purpose did a controlled demolition of the towers serve? Surely at least some of the writers on the topic have tried to give a reason why a controlled demolition was needed in addition to ramming a couple of planes into the buildings?
I can understand imputing a motive on the government for the plane attacks - you can certainly argue
that either letting them happen, or maybe even assisting the plot (either directly, or just by clearing the way for them) would have a big political reward for the risks entailed (especially the more passive routes) - if you assume a suitably cynical and callous bunch of politicians (and that is hardly unreasonable given history).
But what does a controlled demolition add to the political value of the attacks? The towers burning for weeks and then having to be pulled down weeks or months later would seem to be enough to generate all the outrage and political capital required for whatever wars/laws were required, so why go from almost no risk of being caught to having to plant thousands of charges in a heavily occupied and well secured building for little or no additional benefit? -- 86.129.6.0 ( talk) 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the word "conspiracy" be removed from the title of this page and from the contents themselves. Here are my reasons for suggesting this:
a) used properly, the word simply means "A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot" ("The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"). Thus the mainstream version of al-Qaeda being responsible for the 9/11 attacks is also a "conspiracy theory". This word is therefore not helpful in distinguishing between the mainstream view and the various alternative theory.
b) the word is mostly used inproperly, as a way do suggest that the theory put for his somehow the result of a paranoid mind or that it lacks any basis in fact or logic. Since the mainstream theory on the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 has changed over time (for example, NIST has rejected the "pancaking theory" ( http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) and since no explanation for the collapse WTC7 it would appear that there is no foundation to reject *any* theory "a priori".
I suggest that the expression "conspiracy theory" be replaced with "controlled demolition theory" which is far less subjective and far more descriptive.
Thank you, -- Andrei Raevsky ( talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems like many of the counter claims to explosives being planted in this building are in the context of how explosives are planted in controlled demolitions. They don't seem to be refuting claims about people placing explosives in places that will be working with the fire and debris created by air planes that crash into a building.
It seems like there should be a better seperation between discussions and arguments relating to traditional controlled demolitions; vs. controlled demolitions under the condition of a building on fire after being struck by planes; and vs. the idea of people planting in areas that are intended to work with a building being damaged by high temperature fires that have been corrupting the stability of the architecture. Each of these seem to be very different in nature and probably shouldn't be mixed and matched or grouped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.185.43 ( talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Focus Money, a mainstream German weekly journal, has published an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. It title is "We don't believe you!". The article reports on the major arguments put forward by proponents of the hypothesis. It asks "What distinguishes these concerned citizens from those who believe that everyone who doesn't accept the official version would be a crazy conspiracy theorist?" and comments "NIST [...] has not taken into account the possibility of a controlled demolition. The strange justification: Controlled demolitions usually start from the bottom." It also reports about the study of Steven Jones and Niels Harrit, who claim to have found nano-thermite in the debris of the World Trade Center. A similar article (written by a different journalist) has appeared in a German TV journal and in a German science magazine.
Cs32en 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Freefall is aplicable to the twins (the north tower fall in 10 sec and southern in 8 sec), that's freefall. Alakasam ( talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I could not find what you say on page 146.
At the speed that the towers fell, it was almost a free fall. This indicates that there was implosion. You can see in any video. The conclusions reached by the U.S. government can not explain why the buildings disintegrated. Alakasam ( talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I say all this so that we keep this in mind when writting. Alakasam ( talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to be rude, NRen2k5. It is a conspiracy theory article, so suggestions from a genuine conspiracy theorist should be given consideration. Let's take it point by point:
146 is NIST's page number. Your pdf reader's page number may be 196.
This is acknowledged by NIST, which termed it "essentially in free fall". However, using the statement stand-alone in the article, outside of reliably sourced conspiracy theory context, would be what Wikipedia calls " original research".
Maybe, but you will need a reliable source to say so. You will need a source more widely recognized as "reliable" than question911.com, if you want this assertion to appear in the article.
That is a statement of your personal opinion, and as such is not usable in the article. For any changes to be made to the article, you need to present information about conspiracy theory obtained from reliable sources.
You will need a reliable source to show why this assertion is relevant to this article, and who made the assertion.
The matter of angle-cut columns is questionable as evidence unless your sources show that the photographs were taken before the cleanup began. If you have reliable sourcing for this, and can show how it is relevant to this article, it might be usable.
This is already documented in the article (rather than firefighters, the article uses the term "eyewitness accounts").
Wildbear (
talk)
05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
When I have more time I'll do. Is there any official article where says which sources are good?, because I don't want to convince you, I want to do right. Alakasam ( talk) 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a serious problem here: you required a reliable source to support information that is purely speculative. What kind of reliable media are going to even try to mention the possibility of a self attack by the US government? Use reliable sources for the main article (
September 11 attacks). Request for reliable sources here is silly. Remember that the name of this article is World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. If there was something confirmed by a reliable source would not go in this article. Common sense.
Alakasam
02:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I like that much more and is much more logical than
Wildbear claims.
Alakasam
19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The alternate hypothesis that the collapse may have involved planted explosives is not in itself a "conspiracy theory".
There is no question that some group of people conspired together to attack the buildings, one way or another.
They may have chosen a combination of approaches.
The use of the "conspiracy theory" derogatory term is unnecessary in this context; such a theory has more to do with who is responsible, not how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 ( talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A little simple reasoning demonstrates why all these conspiracy theories are rubbish, or at the least very, very likely to be so. First Ockham's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one. What is more likely, that a lot of burning aviation fuel caused a structural collapse; or that there is a huge conspiracy, involving presumably dozens of operatives, that has been successfully concealed for ten years now, despite a change of presidency even, when any one of the supposed operatives in the alleged conspiracy could make $millions selling their story to the press? Watergate was a far smaller conspiracy than the one proposed here and that all came out in a couple of years. Then there is motivation, cui bono, especially with WTC7 controlled demolition theory. What possible motive is there for destroying WTC7? Who would gain anything? Destruction of files? Come on, you don't need to destroy a whole tower block to destroy some files. Because WTC7 was the base for the whole conspiracy? It was steel and concrete. It was no evidence of anything. No-one gained anything from the destruction of WTC7 so logically it's extremely unlikely that it was a controlled demolition.
Maybe the article could have some mention of this?
SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The following paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti should appear as a reference in this article and should be mentioned in the body under the "Main Towers" subsection of "Propositions and hypotheses" as an alternative to the Bazant theory. MacQueen and Szamboti argue in their mathematical analysis that Bazant's required "jolt" from deceleration of a solid block of descending stories is not substantiated in data obtained from measuring actual photographic evidence of the rate of WTC tower collapses. Without such evidence, the Bazant theory must not stand alone as an explanation for explaining the collapse of the WTC towers.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (PDF) Jblossom ( talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Bild really a good source for anything much other than football, celebs and scandal? This edit seems to assume that it is. I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Is Popular Mechanics some sort of scientific journal? I don't understand how their analysis can be used as "proof" of anything. 2CrudeDudes ( talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
~Popular Mechanics is a very well respected publication in the field of engineering whether you agree with their analysis of the situation or not. TheMadcapSyd ( talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
-No it is not. It serves more like an entertainment magazine, replete with predictions of what we will be driving in the future like hovercars and such. On one hand, the article talks about peer-reviewed scientific journals and the next it is citing Popular Mechanics....
67.71.58.61 ( talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Popular Mechanics has a lot of stories leading you to believe in UFO's, unfortunately, I can't say that in the article because it would be WP:OR, original research, and I can't find an "reliable source" ( WP:RS) article debunking Popular Mechanics for the tabloid journalism that it is. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I am most decidedly not in the conspiracy camp, but it seems ridiculous to use Popular Mechanics as a credible source. Nicmart ( talk) 04:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Total waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't assume good faith or comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I want to point out that this is a theory, not a conspiracy theory. Truth be told, the accepted narrative about what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It proposes that a conspiracy of foreign nationals flew planes into buildings and so forth. It is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. On the other hand, the theory about controlled demolitions isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. It is a theory about how the buildings may have come down that is different from the accepted narrative. Who may have planted the bombs / thermite / whatever there is not determined by the theory. One might say the government, or one might say it was Al Qaida. But terming this theory a "conspiracy theory" is a way to discredit it from the get go. For the record, I do not believe the theory of controlled demolitions. But slanting the theory as merely a conspiracy theory, in the negative sense, does us no favors. This is a structural problem with the article itself. A fairer article would term it a theory, and explore along the way how some people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory in the negative sense. 202.62.73.138 ( talk) 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It is worth noting the obvious conflict of interest in the NIST report, and that their models were kept secret in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests. NIST's work has not been peer reviewed. Popular Mechanics bases the entire article on the NIST report. To suggest that these two organizations independently examined the evidence is misleading. It does not imply in any way that the scientific community generally accepts the standard explanation. This article should acknowledge that the scientific community has not reached consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 ( talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC) It makes little sense to claim the CD theory is generally accepted to be wrong solely on the basis of people who would have a conflict or interest in claiming otherwise. This article does not make a compelling case for the existence of a large number of scientists who independently reject the CD theory. NIST report has caused controversy among physicists and engineers. NIST has acknowledged that it is unable to explain the free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. The P M article and other articles that reject CD theories carefully ignore this piece of evidence which in itself makes a very strong case for CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 ( talk) 07:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC) The title of this article is absurd and absolutely non factual. One thing is "controlled demolition theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. another thing is: "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition in the context of a certain conspiracy. As far as i know, the controlled demolition theorists that stick to the technical and factual analysis of the 9/11 don't analyze the "conspiracy context", they only analyze if the buildings went down by plane, controlled demolition, or whatever other technical cause. They don't analyze the facts of why, who, and when conspired to bring the buildings down. The conspiracy subject is not the subject of many controlled demolition theorists. So the article title is highly innacurate and it doesn't reflect its content that only analyzes and describes the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. Simple logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.178.239 ( talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Every event in the course of human interaction involves conspiracy. To label something as a "conspiracy theory" is to suggest that is a fringe theory, far from proven, and probably not true. This is not the case with the demolition of the world trade center. It simply *is* a demolition. I would consider that scientific mainstream. I find it very strange the Wikipedia does not report accurately on this. There are two possibilities: they are willfully complicit in the cover-up - or they are unable to suspend trust in authority long enough to see that this was plainly a controlled demolition. At least they should knowledge the magnitude of the group of scientists pushing for truth. These are not people who normally dabble in conspiracy theory or revisionist history. The fact that so many respectable scientists are convinced that this as a demolition deserves attention. "Reality takes precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ian.thomson - your refusal to look at the evidence instead of tossing around insults suggests you are part of the cover-up. I mean it's pretty simple stuff - a building cannot crush itself at free fall acceleration. Free fall implies 0 resistance. I have yet to hear anyone explain how that can happen without explosives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure. But at the end of the day there is no ministry of truth and the individual is forced to evaluate source based on hi/her own intuition. How do we know the NYT is reliable? Because it says so in the NYT of course! I am hoping to appeal to common intuition that the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is in fact very easy to see if you just watch the video. Having convinced yourself that it was a demolition you will realize that the msm is not free. If it were, it would have reported this fact already. So the least wikipedia could do is admit that this is not a settled issue. That there is a huge number of respectable scientists speaking out against the government. That the government does not always tell the truth - that the msm is not independent. As it is, wikipedia is just part of the propaganda machine on this issue. They make it seem as tho this is a settled issue. And citing popular mechanics is so weak - that's not a peer reviewed journal. The case against cd theories revolves around one engineer - Bazant. There are many more engineers who support controlled demo theories— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk • contribs)
Your confounding several different theories. There are thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists who support the controlled demolition theory. These are not the same people who study reptilians etc. You are trying to taint the truth movement by associating it with other conspiracies and ignoring the fact that it is rooted in hard science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
This is clear evidence that the engineering community does not generally accept the standard collapse theory. Regardless of the interviewer, these scientists and engineers have credentials. What makes A&E911 Truth an unreliable source? Wikipedia cites a paper by a single engineer Bazant as proof of its claim? what makes him a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) How is Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science, not worth anything? Why is Popular Mechanics more reliable than Europhysucs News? I would like to see an equivalent number of engineers/scientists outside of the government who can defend the official collapse theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) The Washington Journal is not a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did you even look at all these links? Who decides what is a reliable source? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to transcend the bias of mainstream sources. There is a large number of engineers/scientists who disagree with NIST's findings. This article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I understand it is not WIkipedia's job to determine the truth of this theory. But they should accurately represent the nature of the movement. These sources confirm that a large number of scientists and engineers believe the CD theory. Whether or not they are correct, wikipedia should cover AE4 9 9 11 truth, Scentists for 9 11 truth. They aren't even mentioned here. You make it sound like Jones is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you tried to hide the links I provided when they are not that different to links already cited in this article suggest a conscious effort to hide the truth on this subject. I repeat "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." IS FALSE. "Consensus" implies that (almost) everyone agrees. And yet there are thousands of dissenters, some of them quite outspoken. This article deliberately downplays and covers up this fact. Bazant seems to be just about the only non-government engineer who is willing to defend the official theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC) You have non-mainstream sources already cited all over this article. You have a C-span interview with David Ray Griffin. You said the C-span interview with Richard Gage is not reliable. You have the Daily Mail as a source and you declared the Daily Express to be unreliable. I want an answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) And I want a real citation for "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC) I just notice that Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth is already listed as a source for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) This article claims the engineering community has reached consensus in agreement with NIST. It does not provide a source for this or acknowledge the scale of the dissenting group of engineers and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Please provide sources for those statements. The links provided don't lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Also the dissenting engineers are not "Conspiracy Theorists." They are professional engineers who have never before researched "conspiracy theories." And they are far more numerous than the engineers who defend the government theory. Neither group speaks for the majority of engineers. The majority of engineers are silent on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
How exactly do distinguish a "mainstream" engineer from a non-mainstream one? lol. You have not provided sources for the ASCE, ISE claims. There is almost no literature in peer reviewed journals defending the official collapse theory. Bazant and one or two others. I sent links to at least 5 - 10 professionals who support CD theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) The dissenting petition has thousands of signatures from professional architects and engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) You have not provided sources for the ASCE claim. Thus your entire proof of the engineering "consensus" rests on Bazant and Eagar. Yet there are thousands of engineers who disagree. How can you claim there is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 ( talk) 05:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Perhaps a video of the collapse of Building 7 should appear somewhere in this article - just to give an intuitive motivation for the theory |
More waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
Open Chemical Physics Journal
External links modifiedHello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 9 external links on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC) Stop trying to push the official story
|