Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 4

message: As Durin notes above, we've been over this before. In any case, on page 4 of the FEMA report (which the section cites), we are told that among the buildings surrounding the towers "two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse". These are named as WTC 5 and 7. The report then says that "the collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist." As I see it, FEMA and the CDers simply agree on the "particular significance" of the collapse of Building 7. They disagree about the most likely explanation. And that is all the article says. Now, I know that various debunkers have emphasized the damage to WTC 7, but I have not yet found any official support for the idea that whatever debris damage there may have been turns the collapses into something other than "fire-induced" (even building 5, which was very badly damaged as far as I recall, is described in this way). If there is a source that can correct my impression of this then this just means we have to note that the CDH emerged as an attempt to solve an (officially recognized) puzzle about WTC 7 that was eventually (officially) solved by the discovery of sufficient structural damage. Like I say, my sense of the status of the investigations, however, is that its still a fire theory.--Thomas Basboll 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably correct that the only published reliable material on the collapse of WTC does currently state fire was the culprit...but NIST is not done yet on this issue. There is also this report though it is not published, it has plenty of images showing obvious damage prior to the collapse.--MONGO 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and the article does note that the investigations are not done. Most of the damage that that page identifies is also part of the official record. (BTW it seems to be a pro-CDH page. Is that right? I agree it is definitely not RS.) The official story does not say there wasn't any damage (nor do CDers claim that the official story says that). The damage simply wasn't significant when compared with the end result.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was WTC 7 officially brought down by fire? 

message: Subject(s) of 911ct are mutually exclusive and name violets wp:npov, wp:wta… and so on… I would (yet again) kindly ask that this template is removed until we reach some sort of neutral ground. As you may have noticed, this already resulted in edit warring between quite a  # of editors; as a result, template and some of related pages were/are locked in very unfortunate state and with extremely poor wording. Lovelight 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with using conspiracy theory in article titles. Neutrality is not half way between you and me, it's the result of presenting the sources. The reliable sources say the conspiracy theories around 9/11, including controlled demolition, are conspiracy theories. That's why the main article is called 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the navigation template is :Template:911ct. The ct is for conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would kindly point to few of those reliable sources? I'd like to see the illustration of what are you talking about. For example I'd like to see the reliable source that would directly link cd hypothesis with the term conspiracy. Lovelight 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We've discussed this already. Lovelight 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We've discussed this already. Lovelight 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have. I guess you do not find repetition convincing either. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me reformulate, I've already invited you to the discussion, you haven’t really responded to any of the arguments, you did use your spade though. Cheers. Lovelight 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with your assessment, and to expend it a bit further, if we are recognizing there are these non-neutral terms', then let's recognize them, as encyclopedia we are not defined by different sides of the same coin, or journalism. You've just pointed to the same pov we are trying to illustrate (and to call it spade???). Lovelight 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, I'd also agree that it isn’t very pressing issue (however, it does have broad implication, as well as circulation), that's way I'm puzzled by this urge to stick it everywhere. Lovelight 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point. For the purposes of this article, which is about a controversial hypothesis, arguments "for" and "against" it must be seen as non-neutral, wheras reporting and academic study can, in some cases, be described as neutral (in the middle). Non-netural argument must simply be identified as such ("proponents say", "critics argue") while neutral statements ("WTC 7 collapses at 5:20pm") must sourced to less involved parties. (I'd say that NIST and FEMA can in many cases be counted as neutral, even though NIST does have a position on CD. Longer argument there.) What we are dealing with here is a series of accounts of 9/11 that have been marginalized as "conspiracy theories". That's all I take that label to mean, which is why I have become increasingly accepting of it. There is, as it were, always a set of invisible scare quotes around it. I do understand those who are more deeply offended by it, however.--Thomas Basboll 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the point of these links?  They add nothing tothe article, and cannot, often, be used.  These fail WP:RS and are thus imteresting but irrelevant.  The talk page is to discuss the article, not one's own political or other opinion.  Even on talk pages wikipedia is not a soapbox  Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you picking on me:)? Tom offered far more interesting shotcut's than I did. Well since you insist, I've used these to clearly show there are alternative perspectives to all this & that our insisting on term conspiracy in relationship to the control demolition hypothesis is pushing of unnecessary pov. imho, of course. Lovelight 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not picking on you.  Please do not attempt to personalise this, it will not be useful or effective.  Please stop using Wikipedia as a soap box.  Fiddle Faddle 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just relax a bit will you? I've put a smile there, didn’t I? Lovelight 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  In extraordinary turn of events you could simply give all this a little more thought, who knows, you might end-up with change of opinion? Lovelight 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion is that the  various pages surrounding the 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists document a social phenomenon.  That is the thing that is documented, no more and no less.  Some of those articles are poor articles and require POV to be stripped away, but they still document or seek to document that phenomenon.  Whether there was such a conspiracy or not is entirely irrelevant.  What is relevant is the documentation of the social phenomenon of belief in and support for the theory and theorists.  Much time is wasted by dealing with the ideas ofpeople who simply do not understand what a Wikipedia article really is.  Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No time is wasted in teaching people what a Wikipedia article is. Over the past half a year of so, I have been learning (1) how the WTC collapsed, (2) what people out there believe about the collapse of the WTC, and (3) how Wikipedia works. One of the important aspects in re (3) is that boldly editing an encyclopedia article about a topic in an attempt to make it conform with your sense of the facts gives you an indication of how well grounded your sense of those facts is. Edits that initially seem disruptive sometimes indicate a need for better sourcing, clearer language, and even fact-checking. Both the initial edit and the article at the time may have been in error. (Cf. the first sentence, which took while to, as you put it Fiddle, "crack".) Like I say, I have only seen this article improving, no matter how hopeless and thankless other people may think the task is.--Thomas Basboll 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, teaching is never wasted.  Excllent distinction.  I am simply looking at "dealing" with people who know better (0.9 probability), and who are treading the fine line and tiptoeing around WP:POINT.  Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 911ct

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:911cd}} 

message: Re , 
what are the reliable sources for the plumes being anything other than "material ejected due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed?" And I see you restored the phrase 'official theory.' Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need a reliable source to support the idea that plumes were anything other than what NIST says. What we need is a reliable source to confirm that these plumes are cited by proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis as evidence. (That's easily done.) Without the words "the official theory attributes" this sentence becomes a non-sequitor.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plumes

message: Why is Tom Harrison posting articles from "Rense" as representative of the 9/11 truth movement researchers?  Rense is never linked to from the main 9/11 websites, never appears at conferences, never has done a book on 9/11 and promotes hoaxes that 99% of the 9/11 researchers have openly exposed, like the 'Jews Did It' claim that Tom keeps trying to smear everyone with -  Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement, Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth, etc.  Find one significant 9/11 site - not a UFO hoax site like Rense, which is obviously not a 9/11 site - that promotes the idea that Silverstein being Jewish had anything to do with his being focused on.  Go ahead and show me.  No significant site would ever promote this because we are not anti-semites, as much as it is Tom's goal to smear this group of activists with UFO and anti-semitic writings.  He's posted Rense around before but it does not represent the movement.  bov 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without researching it — what is a "significant" 9/11 site?  (And the anti-semitic theory is notable.  I remember reading about the theory shortly after 9/11.  If Rense is a notable member of that group, he should be mentioned, although not necessarily in this article.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rense

message: They even stated the reasons for it's collapse (I.E. the official lie) 20 minutes before the event occurred. **BUSTED!!!**
Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip.
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head.
www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/bbc_reported_wtc_7_collapsed_20_min_before_it_fell.htm 
::Another page covering this (and updated on a single page) is here.  bov 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

message: I was saddened to see that Thomas Basboll has quit editing from wikipedia - he created this page and he did a fantastic job of keeping it one of the very few neutral pages on the issue of the alternatives to the official version of 9/11 in existance.  I hope he will consider returning.  bov 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tom Basboll Has Quit

message: I have largely expanded on this section since it seems to be the crux of arguments made by both proponents and detractors of the demolition hypothesis.  I have added in additional information from NIST as well as the comments of NCST members about the adequacy of recovered steel at the WTC.
(RationalRich 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debris removal section 

message: Gazpacho, sorry, I was looking at the wrong ref. But the next question is, what is nistreview.org, and are they a reliable source? Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nistreview.org is the publsiher and as such they are the ones that need to be the RS.  Unless this is a verfiable self-published source it doesn't meet the requirements.  --Tbeatty 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Either we belive he wrote the letter (I have no idea why not to belive this) and then we read what he wrote. Proponents of CD always bring up the debris removal and lack of proper access to steel evidence, and this is indicated in the section with proper citations. Now, the role of editors is to put this claim in context, adding both dissonant and compliant voices from reliable people. Whether Quintiere supports CDH or not does not matter in this case. What matters is if he is a reliable person to voice opinion on debris removal. He was in National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee and he reviewed NIST work. The NCSTAC report, or this, prove that. This makes him the relevant person to include a statement of. It is him who is a RS in this case, not nistreview.org. An email to a webmaster is needed to confirm the genuineness of the letter? SalvNaut 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tarpley URL is broken, so I can't find out what he said. But the Quintiere remark is relevant only if he or some other CDH advocate has verifiably referred to it. If the article started to accumulate facts trying to shore up the CDH or critique of the CDH, that would be exactly what the "original synthesis" policy warns against. That's why I took out the Stacy Loizeaux reference, because she wasn't talking about CDH at all, while Blanchard was. Maybe there's a need for an "Investigation of the September 11, 2001 attacks" article if there isn't one already. Gazpacho 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OIC 

message: Is this Youtube Video enough to source information about Jones describing iron-rich droplets found in the dust from WTC and him using this as a proof for very high temperatures during WTC collapse? Or should we wait until something is published? SalvNaut 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron droplets in WTC dust according to Jones 

message: Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are openly rejected by almost everyone in the movement and are described as "agents" regularly and openly.  Numerous scientists and engineers have refuted their ridiculous claims in papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies (at least 8 letters are dedicated to that here).  Physicist Greg Jenkins did the video interview with Wood to help the people to understand her thinking process (I guess some people on here don't realize that he supports the controlled demolition theory).  To get a sense of what people think of these 'researchers' WITHIN the movement, read the average opinions of these people on the popular comment site, 911Blogger here,here, here, here, etc.  They should not be on the top of this page without a significant qualification regarding the viewpoint that most people have of them -- "they don't speak for us." bov 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article is based on nonscientific views of what happened, then I can't see why any view that can be referenced should be removed. It would be wrong to cherry pick which unsubstantiated piece of misinformation over another that should be in here, and besides, all this info here doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny anyway. Otherwise, what we end up with on this article is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center.--MONGO 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is mildly interesting that one group of conspiracists is afraid the other conspiracists may be disinformation agents. We might want to note that in the article, to the extent that any of it is cited to a reliable source. The psychological implications are probably better left to the reader. 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I read this article, the more it seems to have become a stage for a what some might construe as a real alternative theory...it isn't. This article should document the different hypothesises that might contradict the known evidence of the case. Cherry picking what are and what aren't "accurate" alternative theories makes this article a POV fork.--MONGO 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's been a POV fork since inception. Despite the efforts of many, it remains a sewer hole. It should have been deleted a long time ago. I gave up on it a long time ago. --Durin 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely. However, I concur with Durin, though won't make the effort myself, and even if someone were to try and get this featured, I wouldn't make any effort to keep that from happening.--MONGO 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If bov is correct and these folks are indeed considered "agents" of some kind, then these doubts need to be reflected in the article as well. Mongo, the more you read the official take on events (as presented here on wikipedia), the more you're entitled to think we are talking about real theory, while its crispy clear that we are actually talking about "unsubstantiated piece of misinformation". Lovelight 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Problem is, using selective references here to support an argument for which there is no proof of anyway, is the wrong way to take this article. I find all conspiracy theories related to the collapse of the WTC to be implausible, so trying to decide which ones are ridiculous from which ones that "appear" to be more factual is cherry-picking of the evidence. I believe all conspiracy theories regarding the collapse should be presented or none of them should.--MONGO 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Tom Harrison keep adding Wood and Reynolds to the top of the page? 

message: I've moved old discussions from December through the end of January to a new archive page. If you wish to continue any of the discussions that have been archived, please do not edit the Archive page. Instead, create a new comment section here, and link to the Archive page for others to read. -- Kesh 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I made small but critical edits (which have been removed) to the controlled demolition article in the interest of preserving neutrality. But I do have a POV on this difficult subject and it is inevitable that my POV would influence any changes that I made. The controlled demolition article on the events of September 11, 2001 and all articles relating to reasonable, scientific and well-documented alternative theories to the highly dubious stories offered by US government agencies to explain what really happened that day seem to be the subject of routine censorship and blatant bias by some wiki participants. For example, Dr. Wood, who is plainly a "notable" person by any reasonable standard, has no entry in wikipedia whatsoever. This is oppressive and constitutes censorship. Others may not agree with alternative theories or the individuals, like Dr. Wood and Dr. Stephen Jones who espouse them, but that does justify eliminating or marginalizing information concerning them.
I really think that POV is unavoidable. Perhaps there is a better way.
Different POVs? Different Articles.
wikipedia obviously has a problem with subjects that become highly political and controversial. While the practice of locking or deleting articles may be intended to preserve neutrality and objectivity, it is rightly or wrongly perceived as censorship and suppression of information. I don't think that it is reasonable or even possible to try and achieve perfect neutrality on intensely disputed issues. On those subjects where there are irreconcilable POVs Why not have two or more articles which are satisfactory to differing POVs? 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurn X (talk • contribs) 12:50, June 16, 2007
:We discourage the use of horizontal lines as separators, even though the software allows it.  And we suggest you sign your messages on talk pages using ~~~~, rather than "manually" signing, as you did.  I fixed that formatting for you to meet Wikipedia guidelines.
:We strongly discourage what you suggest, which we call Wikipedia:POV forks.  Please discussion your suggestions in the talk page to that article, although I doubt the consensus will change.
:As for the "facts" of the issue, it's clear that this article, and all 9/11 Conspiracy Theory articles, represent a minority viewpoint.  We may need to be careful in the main 9/11 article not to present the mainstream theory as "fact", but we need to be even more careful not to present non-mainstream theories as fact.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you may disagree, WP:NPOV is policy on Wikipedia. If you want to change that policy, you should begin with a discussion at WP:Village pump. Editing articles with your own POV will not change the policy and may result in censure by admins. A better solution is to discuss what, exactly, you want to change about the article here on the Talk page and see if we can come to a consensus about it that supports Wikipedia's policies. -- Kesh 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Arthur Rubins comment "represent a minority viewpoint" got me thinking as to how many this minority is. A search of polls show 16% support CD and 36%, while not actually supporting it say CD is still possible. Tellingly 77% say they support some elements of the conspiracy theories. This makes conspiracy theories technically the mainstream view lol. Wayne 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Controlled Demolition article 

message: This article will ever fail at being neutral and encyclopedic. Take a look at some content on it now. For example, "Several journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives" Excuse me? Since when did journalists become demolitions experts? I could just as well say "some inmates at a local insane asylum speculated that peregrine falcons were seen pecking at the sides of the buildings immediately before collapse". So WHAT if journalists speculated? Who gives a flying leap what journalists think? --Durin 12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several journalists at the WTC witnessed and described explosions, and others reported that witnesses they spoke with at the scence saw and heard explosions. If you would like to look at some of the sources being cited, this is quite clear.--JustFacts 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you miss the point. What qualifications do random journalists have with regards to explosion? None. Same goes for witnesses; eye witness testimony in court is notoriously inaccurate, much less news reports. To use this as the basis for part of the article is patently absurd. --Durin 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of the conspiracy theories are based on those reports, claiming they support the demolition hypothesis. The section may need reworded, but the initial journalist/witness comments led to that conspiracy theory. -- Kesh 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Which of course shows the flimsy nature of the conspiracy theories. That aside, that the theory is based on this doesn't mean we should be using these as sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank you, --Durin 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:RS states we report what the sources say, furthermore journalists for reputable papers and magazines are reliable sources. --74.73.16.230 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  And on and on it goes 

message: "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".[13] To date, however, no such detailed model has been put forward."
I think it's done, now : Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings (And there is a fancy video on Youtube : ) Kromsson 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Convincing enought, yeah.Kromsson 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Trying to frame this as unreliable because it's not "independent" is rather shaky. By that logic, any organization that has any government funding is not "independent." And I'm not surprised the tired canard of "scientists agree with what they're paid to believe" has cropped up again. -- Kesh 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That's why I included this as the last, side, argument. However, a look at the link about Mr. Sozen, at his and his DOD colleague involvement in OKC study and in WTC study from the beginning makes me feel a strong need for a bit more independent research. Anyway, don't forget that CD proponents main arguments are not based on who did the research but on how was it done and physical evidence.  SalvNaut 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The collapse simulated 

message: * Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the gallery pictures in the Pantograph story, the tanker truck crashed before it reached the bridge and the fuel drained into the ditch below the two bridges compromising the integrity of the structural steel on the westbound bridge. The tanker contained 8,000 gallons of fuel and burned for about 30 minutes. Interesting. --Dual Freq 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illinois bridge fire 

message: I changed the reference to squibs back to 'possibly' from 'supposedly' for two reasons.  First, the context of the paragraph it is contained in is from the viewpoint of the 'proponents', thus a skeptical qualifier is not warranted, and is incorrect.  Secondly, in this context, 'supposedly' violates WP:WTA.  Dreadstar  †  17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough ... the subsequent change to "which they attribute to" seems like an improvement. Peterhoneyman 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree! Tom's attributed statement is a big improvement.  And thanks for the nudge of support!  Dreadstar  †  18:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't include your original research in the article.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squibs

message: is not actually supported by the reference.  The relevant clause from the letter is:.  This doesn't actually say he does find it "interesting and worthy of further consideration. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are playing word games. Why don't you do the same for the references that dismiss Dr Wood's hypothesis Complete Truth 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not playing word games.  I'm just reading the reference.  You should try it some time.  The key word, as I see it, is may.  He doesn't say whether he finds it interesting.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  So, what you're telling me, is that common sense doesn't tell you that he does find it interesting? Complete Truth 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common sense tells me that whether he finds it interesting depends on classified information, so he can't comment.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: "Ellen is the subject of a blistering battering on the Web site of an outfit that calls itself "9/11 Researchers." While conspiracy theories are nothing new - Rosie O'Donnell gave voice on "The View" to the belief the government was involved - these bozos blast fellow conspiracy groups for not going far enough."bov 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Garcia's fax