Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks! RxS 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, as you deleted my information I conclude I should have been more verbose. My intention was to provide some Reliable Primary Source (this firefighter) for as yet unexplained events which might merit inclusion in the article. I hope my intention is clear now, and I hope you take a look at either the video or the article on the wearechange website. I am re-inserting my comment. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  firefighter testimony 

message: 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.McMichael, J. "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics." Public Action News Service, October 21, 2001 (revised November 25, 2001).  These ideas were then developed in greater detail by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman on their websites, with little attention from the mainstream media.
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)
replies: text: i did not receive a reply to the email that i sent to j. mcmichael, using the address in his article.  so i am prepared to stand by my sense that the citation is not a reliable source. Peterhoneyman 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  j. mcmichael citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Second that. bov 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what information is he used as a source? The only mention I can find of his name in this article is that he appears to have written a book; is the existence of the book contested? Weregerbil 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the section now emphasizes the book, not its author. Peterhoneyman 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Hufschmid 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleting "content" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you show a reliable source that indicates they are lying? Usually when an organization publishes its lists of members we assume its valid unless there was some sort of public investigation or report that discredits this list. Now you might consider the members crack pots, but they are still members unless shown to be otherwise. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sure they are members but there's no way to tell of they are really engineers or architects which is the whole point. They just verify the info with the applicant, and the degree field on the sign up sheet isn't even a required field. The supposed expertise of the members is what is being cited, and there's no way to tell if they are legit. RxS 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps we should refer to them as "members, architects, and engineers". Since they accept non-engineers without a gripe. I don't think we have any right to contest the people who claim to be engineers (unless there is reason to do so). But if the site is willing to accept non-engineers we shouldn't refer to all members as engineers. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you're going to claim that a group of engineers or architects have a professional opinion about something and use that opinion as a basis to change content, then you'd better be sure that they really are engineers or architects. And since ae911truth isn't a neutral third party source, we have no idea if they are who they claim to be. RxS 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I gotta side with wayne again, but for the reason i stated earlier. If these people claim to be architects (even if the organization itself doesnt do a background check) we need to consider they are telling the truth unless a reliable source tells us otherwise. We dont usually go around disbelieving credentials claim to have until we are given reason to do so. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a check on some of the people who claim to be architects and engineers and not only are they genuine but several have their own pages on WP.This brings up the problem of Tom harrison repeatedly reverting this content based on WP:RS. As I pointed out before, the particular edits are not the websites own editorial or content. The website is quoting people who are reliable sources themselves and it is this that is the focus of the edits. What these people are saying is factual and appropriate for the website they are on regardless of that websites own reliability. This is attested by these peoples authority to publish their pictures and qualifications with what they have said. I point out the following from WP's own guidelines:1. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.2. Self-published and questionable sources: material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.There is no doubt these peole are experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-parties and in the case of one edit the source was a video of one expert actually saying what the edit claimed he said and you can't get more reliable than that. I assume Tom harrison reverted that one as unreliable because he suspects manipulation of the video by the website that carried it? These people are signing a petition for an enquiry into the collapse which is why you wont find this petition (or views) in normal RS's as these refuse to support other than the official theory.Having said that I point out that I tried to make the edits as nuetral and non confronting as possible. Because these edits were reverted I'm forced to find RS's which, from the few I've found so far, are far more confronting than my original ones which i wanted to avoid to keep the articles tone as nuetral as possible (despite the fact that the article as it is is already biased against CT's anyway). I repeat my earlier assertion: Until such time as an enquiry establishes the cause of the collapse the official theory and the controlled demolition theory must be treated equally. Wayne 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ae911truth.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: The word essential seem to be your word. From that quote the subcontractor seems to be talking about what they do in a typical situation. It doesnt seem clear to me that the quote is talking about a rush job - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The disputed phrase in the article states "... although this assumes standard industry safety precautions to protect the public were followed."  Loiseaux makes clear that interior abatement is unrelated to safety. The disputed phrase is inaccurate. Peterhoneyman 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are overlooking that in fact the WTC did collapse at near free fall speed which proves removal of interior walls is not required. It just facilitates the collapse.I looked into this before adding that qualifier (in fact the entire claim should not even be in the article as it is false). I used the records of Controlled Demolition Inc. They claim their most difficult controlled demolition job - equivalent to 12 high rise buildings and containing 70 elevator shafts which, due to structural problems, required rigging every column on every floor (normally only 3 - 5 floors need rigging in a high rise) - took 3 months planning, 4 months for the safety precautions and a 12 man team 192 hours to drill and set the more than 4,000 charges. Getting out the calculator finds that if you do not take any safety precautions (completely consistent with the CT's) a 2 man team could rig the WTC with explosives in 6 hours per floor. Assume 5 floors in each building and dont forget that the WTC towers were completely empty for long periods prior to 9/11 so it cant be discounted. I'm not saying I support controlled demolition theories but until there is an investigation both theories are POV as there is evidence for both the CD (possible) and government account (probable) so both theories must be treated as valid. I'll make up my mind once an investigation proves or disproves what happened. Wayne 04:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not addressing my objection: interior abatement is unrelated to "standard industry safety precautions."  Furthermore, Loiseaux plainly states that interior abatement ("preparatory operations") is not performed by CDI, which invalidates your calculations. Peterhoneyman 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read again. The change i made never mentioned interior abatement. My calculations are based on setting the explosives only. Work it out yourself....If whoever ignored public safety and any other procedures not related to actually blowing stuff up then it's possible to set up a controlled demolition in a day if you have enough people (6?). Wayne 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: For the most part i agree with wayne. I dont see the link between internal abatement and general lack of safety. Maybe im just missing somewhere here. However by the same token, the fact that you ran the numbers yourself doesnt mean much because thats original research. We need a quote that indicates that the numbers assume no safety precautions (otherwise the numbers look like they assume normal procedures the way i read it). - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preparation time for controlled demolition 

message: 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)
replies: text: …huh? What are you trying to say here? -- Kesh 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement I removed from the article, which states that Judy Woods' lawyer believes there is more "admissible evidence" for the particle beam theory than for any other theory for the destruction does not meet Wikipedia guidelines.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely.  it is unvarnished unsubstantiated rhetoric by a mouthpiece-for-hire.  Peterhoneyman 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissible evidence 

message: lolocopter! nice theories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rofltrain 

message: 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
:Yeah, but try explaining that to a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy believer. It's a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to evidence, but it's a frequently claimed one. -- Kesh 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Here I am, right on schedule!  William Rodriguez, a long-time janitor at the WTC has stated, in numerous public forums, that he heard a large explosion from somewhere below sublevel B a few seconds before he heard the impact of the aircraft far up in the building. He then encountered a co-worker who had been injured by the subterranean explosion. Just because there were early subterranean explosions does not mean that there were no later explosions. In fact, if you look at the collapse videos, some sort of explosions hurl "dust" -- apparently newly pulverized concrete -- up into the air above the towers just before they begin to collapse. 
Wowest 03:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The engineer was actually in the 6th sub basement of the north building not the 6th floor. He was not alone but had another engineer with him. They stated that just before 9am there was a power surge and the floor shook so they called the chief engineer who told them there was an explosion and to stay where they were. The sub basement was filling with smoke so they went up the stairs to the C level workshop but it was nothing but rubble (they noted a piece of equipment weighing 50 tons was no longer there) so they both went up to the parking garage and that was gone as well. They said they though a bomb had gone off in the garage. They then went up to B level and that too was destroyed, next was the lobby and they left the building.A construction worker was in the 4th sub basement of the north building and he said that seconds after the first explosion (the plane hitting) there was a second explosion that blew the walls out on his level. He eventually escaped through the south building. It is undeniable there were basement explosions but the cause is anyones guess. Wayne 11:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  basement explosions? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some suggestions 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am removing the speculation NIST has lately developed "hypothetical blast scenarios" that could be of interest to proponents of controlled demolition. An encyclopedia is not a place to speculate what might perhaps possibly be of interest to some conspiracy theorists somewhere. Weregerbil 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical blast scenarios 

message: :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)
replies: text: I'm no expert on this, but the fair use rationale seems to have been added to this image by mistake. According to the image page, the owner of the copyright has given permission to use it. There is no need to invoke fair use and the solution seems to be just to remove the rationale.--Thomas Basboll 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg

message: 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:
:James Quintiere, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, when criticizing NIST report, called the spoliation of the steel "a gross error". Quintere criticized the NIST report as lacking physical evidence to support its conclusions.
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)
thread_title:  Quintiere's remarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: The sentence we are talking about has a source, namely, Bazant and Verdure. Their paper includes the following sentence: "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 as follows:" (and they go on to present the familiar "official" account). That such a statement can pass peer-review in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is an indication of the status of the controlled demolition hypothesis. The word "leading" provides the important piece of information that the CDH has no currency in the engineering community.--Thomas Basboll 09:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree with thomas.  it is hardly "propagandist" to characterize bažant — a member of the national academy of science and the national academy of engineering (an extremely rare honor), recipient of six honorary doctorates, and one of the 250 most-often cited engineers in the world — as a leading structural/mechanical engineer: it is fully justified and the opposite of "ignorant." the same holds for eagar, who holds the thomas lord chair in materials engineering and engineering systems at mit.  their work is representative of leading structural and mechanical engineers.  moreover, they have no peer among the "rapidly growing membership" of ae911t. eliding an accurate term to mollify a CDH proponent violates NPOV. Peterhoneyman 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While "leading" can be justified in refering to specific people it is propaganda when it is used to imply that those rejecting the official theory are not leaders in their fields which is provably false. I point out that a prominent member of 911 truth is a member of the World Academy of Art and Science, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board and is listed in "The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders". I suspect that outranks Bazant when talking about "leading". Wayne 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as you mention "the national academy of engineering (an extremely rare honor)" as somehow giving superiority for the official theory, another 911 truth member is also a member of National Academy of Engineering, plus an elected fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology. Also it seems just about every member of the Institute of Structural Engineering is a truther. To imply these people are ignorant is rediculous. Wayne 04:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for the info -- what are their names? Peterhoneyman 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: btw, the rare honor is to be in both NAS and NAE. i don't have numbers on it, but it is very unusual. Peterhoneyman 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leading" architects and engineers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Skeptic is "mainstream" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources and synthesis 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: That is only one company and post 911. I read a 1996 interview with one of the owners of Controlled Demolition Inc (I believe it's the oldest and largest company in the US) and they mentioned bringing a building down five times, they used the term "pull" three times, "melt the building" once and "bring down" once. In that interview "pull" was the most common term used. Incidentally this is the same company that was contracted to remove the WTC debris. Wayne 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'd like to see the link to that, or a source on where it is published. Second, are you sure they were talking about a demolition using explosives and not one involving attaching cables from the building to heavy equipment and physically pulling the building over? -Bonus Onus 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: imho, it's a moot point.  the only bearing it has on CDH is the silverstein comment in his interview on PBS.  since he is not in the demolition business, the use of the term in that industry is irrelevant.  what counts is what silverstein meant, which he explained through a spokesman.  that should be the end of it. Peterhoneyman 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have agreed with you except that Silverstein used the term later for another of the Trade Centre buildings (I think it was WTC6) that really was brought down by CD. Wayne 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Peter is right. It shouldn't even matter anyway, except for that CTs only trust evidence from a mainstream source such as Silverstein when it supports their theories. Again, Wayne, you make a claim but do not support it. CTs have been asserting the pull is controlled demo lingo for an explosive demo even though there is absolutely no evidence of the fact. Please provide some evidence for why you removed my edit or I will put it back in. Thanks. -Bonus Onus 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Implosion World is not a very good source and has not changed the status of the issue. The discussion has not continued beyond the PBS documentary and the CDHers interpretations. The issue has been covered and the last sentence (which I've reverted again) makes it seem like it is, or ought to be, moot. It isn't, and, like I say, a self-published on-line rejection of the interpretation by a demolition expert doesn't settle anything in an encyclopedia.--Thomas Basboll 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have continuously been unable to provide any credible evidence that "pull" *is* controlled demo lingo for an explosive controlled demolition of a building. I, on the other hand, have provided a number of pieces of evidence which show that it *is not* acceptable industry terminology. Your assertion that Implosion World is "not a very good source" also lacks proof. To me, it seems to be a very good, informative source for information about the controlled demolition industry. Simply read the site's About page  and you will see that not only does it have a long history of accurate reporting about the CD industry, it has also been independently recommended by a number of websites and print media including USA today , Yahoo , and Discover magazine . Next time please don't discredit a source just because it presents evidence that contradicts your opinion. Either show that the source has continuously provided incorrect or faulty information, or otherwise show vetted third-party sources that discredit the source directly. Regardless, you removed an edit I made that provided a factual assertion, backed up by evidence. It certainly is a relevant piece of information to the discussion that the readers of the article deserve to know. Either that, or you should remove the whole reference to "pull it" in this article. -Bonus Onus 03:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pull" in controlled demo lingo 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, a secondary source would be nice. Not least because I (we?) don't have time to read these items closely enough to summarize them accurately right now. But if you want to give it a shot, maybe post a draft here first.--Thomas Basboll 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It will be easier to understand what you are saying if you present it as suggested edit. I.e., what exactly do you want to add to the article?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  STJ911truth request for correction to NIST and NIST's response 

message: 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)
replies: text: NIST did not model and confirm Bazant's analysis because their computor models could not make the buildings collapse at all, which they admitted was the reason they did not investigate past the point just prior to when the buildings did collapse. Wayne 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ok, i see that i didn't express myself clearly (... argh).  simply put, since one of the arguments for the CDH is NIST's inability to completely model the collapse, the article should discuss that and place it in context of what was modeled, by whom, and the outcome of the modeling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhoneyman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it a shot within the next few days. I think I'll start with the "near free fall" observation, move on to the progressive collapse (where no detailed modeling exists), and then the initiating mechanism (impact damage plus fire, where there is lots of modeling). In all three cases, I will integrate the mainstream rebuttal as we go in order to make the point of dispute clear. How does that sound?--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIST modeling 

message: 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)
replies: text: These citations probably belong in the main collapse of the World Trade Center article. They state the commonly accepted view, but do not explicitly engage with CDH.  I think even a non-critical survey of the engineering literature on the WTC collapses would useful. But you could also just add it to the bibliography of the main article. (NOTE: I removed them from the CDH section of the main article for the same reason. Used as sources of "rebuttals", they actually misrepresented the claims of the authors cited: they really express no opinion about CDH.)--Thomas Basboll 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My problem is with the POV twisting used to discredit CD. As far as I'm aware Bazant IS the only peer-reviewed paper that considered CD. You can't include papers on the collapse that didn't in with those that reject CD. Then there is the continuation of the sentence which attributes a statement by Bazant to multiple sources. Compounding this is the frequent replacement of neutral words actually used by the source with stronger ones because they are more in line with the editors views. I'm all for debunking (or proving) CD but lets do it from a neutral viewpoint not from a preconceived belief. Wayne 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i understand, but very few scientists/engineers consider CDH worth the time of day.  bažant is senior enough that he can publish on anything he wants, but for most academics, it would not be considered a great career move to devote time or energy on (what is seen as) wild-eyed nonsense.  this is not to say that the literature does not have papers that attempt to extract new knowledge out of the WTC collapses -- it does; see above.  i maintain that these papers also rebut the CDH by developing models and theories that are consistent with progressive collapse (and inconsistent with CDH). Peterhoneyman 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you are coming from but most experts are supporting progressive, pancake and column failure and seem undecided which is more likely and many have supported all three depending on the beliefs of the originator of the paper they worked on. CD can't be discounted no matter how unlikely until it is investigated. That most experts wont even consider it a stumbling block against proving it wasn't CD. This article doesn't help as it gives the impression that supporters of CD are idiots instead of people who want to know what the truth is and most would likely accept the evidence if proved once and for all that CD did not happen. You will always get the extremists from both ends of the spectrum who are convinced they are right but it is wrong to slant the article to either of those ends. Wayne 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CDH has been investigated.  and refuted.  furthermore, every paper that produces a feasible model for the WTC collapses without relying on CDH adds weight to the refutation by showing that what occurred is consistent with and a consequence of our understanding of mathematics, physics, and engineering.  the authors of those papers don't say "we considered the possibility that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition, but our results indicate otherwise" because it would subject them to professional ridicule, but in fact they do just that: if their models did not predict what was actually observed, scientists and engineers would be forced to broaden the scope of their hypotheses. that turns out to be unnecessary.  this — occam's razor — is why the science and engineering community rejects CDH. the trouble with the research produced by CDH proponents is that they start with CDH and work backwards toward its explanation, instead of starting with a mathematical model, as the papers in the engineering literature do, and deriving the consequences.  i have never seen a feasible engineering model for CD.  if you know of one, please share it.  Peterhoneyman 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citiation madness 

message: 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)
replies: text: The question of temperatures is important, and difficult to present clearly. Jones argument is that, while there is no evidence of extremely hot fires (i.e., hot enough to weaken steel), there is evidence of heat beyond anything a fire could produce (i.e., hot enough to produce molten metal in great quantities). These extreme temperatures are in fact mentioned in the WTC7 section. The 9/11CT article has problem with its sources: it does not cite proponents of the theory but official primary evidence for the theory. This means it violates WP:SYNTH and looks (in that paragraph) like a POV-fork. I hope we can avoid that here. In fact, it is quite easy to avoid: just cite Jones' paper ("Why Indeed?") for the claim that there was molten metal and for his explanation of it. (NIST, as I recall, has not directly granted that there was any molten metal, let alone suggested it would be difficult to explain.)--Thomas Basboll 07:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted the thermite theory paragraph from the main article now, as you rightly say it is SYNTH, and goes into far too much detail.  The changes you made here this morning have encompassed the main points from it, and addressed my concern about this article barely mentioning the high temperatures in the rubble.  I still think it could be made clearer that the theory applies to WTC7 as well as the main towers.  Corleonebrother 11:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where USGS study comes in. Jones referred to it in his talks (and papers?) and I'm quite sure Griffin cited this study. I liked this version describing Thermite Hypothesis a lot. It might seem to have suffered from synthesis, but it was based mainly on talks (and books?) given by Jones and Griffin. SalvNaut 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is cited in "Why Indeed?" or "Why the Official Theory" I don't think it will be a problem.--Thomas Basboll 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermite theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: The exact reference is Oliver, Antony. "Lasting lessons of WTC", New Civil Engineer June 30, 2005. It was in the article in this version. I'm guessing it was lost when someone converted it to a ref template.--Thomas Basboll 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lasting lessons of WTC" citation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  citation hacking 

message: 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)
replies: text: the Origins and history section claims It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition (which, btw, i just marked as needing a citation), so i think it is fair to leave the air quotes off in subsequent use. Peterhoneyman 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official "air quotes" 

message: : Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (change one "official" to "mainstream", where the latter is correct, whether or not intended.)
:: I'm not quite sure how you mean that, Arthur. "correct," even? "Your opinion is incorrect, comrade?" It is the official account, and, therefore, quoted without question by mainstream corporate media, at least if they want to have embedded journalists in the field. I don't think it's actually a beneficial change....Wowest 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not referring to an "official" account (9/11 Commission, NIST, etc.); it's referring to the generally accepted "mainstream" account.  "Official" is wrong in this context.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, these issues are too specialized to involve a "mainstream" version. (Mainstream/alternative works better when it comes to 9/11 as a whole.) I suggest something like "the received view" or "the engineering consensus".--Thomas Basboll 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official" versus "mainstream" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Properly speaking, the article doesn't cite Seffen. It uses information in the press release (and the BBC's story) to describe the state of knowledge about the collapses and how a specific area of ignorance has provided conditions for the CDH to develop. The engineering reactions section also only cites the press release. This is what we have seen. (To my mind, nothing would change if one editor had read the article. The source has to be publicly available, as the press release is.)--Thomas Basboll 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: imho the paragraph mentioning seffen is vacuous as it stands because bažant published "a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began" some time ago.  of course, i am eager to see what seffen's flaks are making such a big deal out of.  (parenthetically, i agree with your parenthetical comment.) Peterhoneyman 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could perhaps make it more precise, I.e., "Although Bazant and Zhou explained the collapse soon after it happened, a detailed account of the residual capacity of the building," etc. ... The puzzle (for me) is given Bazant and Zhou, and Bazant and Verdure, what does Seffen mean when he says there was a need for a "credible explanation of the totality ..."? My guess is: Bazant doesn't go through it step by step, but just makes a rough calculation. YOu may be right that only reading the paper will solve this puzzle.--Thomas Basboll 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  seffen 

message: The opening paragraph states:
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: 
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)
replies: text: A section on criticism on of the NIST report by CDHers would be useful. Last I checked, however, most of the critiques were presented in lectures and self-published pieces. I think that's the reason it's underdeveloped here. Kevin Ryan's work would be a good source if it were published by a reputable publisher. (I don't think that's happened yet). Another place to look might be in the formal objections that have been made (the data quality act submission)--but we will need to arrive at a consensus about the use of those documents.--Thomas Basboll 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To my knowledge, Jones's paper (which definitely qualifies) is all there is if we rule out self-published sources. The Request of Correction invoked the Data Quality Act (we are talking about the same document). I'm not sure it is an RS for CDH's critique of NIST. News coverage is, of course, not exactly overwhelming.--Thomas Basboll 08:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have reinstated the deleted section from Corleonebrother submition. The part about the aluminum very relevant since it is part of NIST's FAQ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. I think also believe that Steve Jones comment about "tweeking" is relevant. Garbage In Garbage Out. Have you got US$2,534.33 so you can test it out  http://www.csiberkeley.com/index.html (They used SAP2000 apparently. Tony0937 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the NIST Report

message: 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)
replies: text:  I don't know much about WP:FORUM, so I have answered your questions on your user talk page. Wowest (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best way to avoid turning this into a forum is to deal with this issue in terms of reliably sourced criticisms of the hypothesis. The argument you make here is not new and does indeed seem to be missing from the article (I'm afraid it may have gone out with some the bath water I let out recently). I'll try to reconstruct it and put it back in. The difficulty of planting the explosive is not only recognized by proponents of CDH, it is what makes the hypothesis interesting to them: if there were such explosives, whoever was behind 9/11 would have had extraordinary access to the WTC. It is precisely because you and I can't do it that the CDH implies that 9/11 was an "inside job". As for necessity, most argue the other way round: after the decision was made to bring down the towers, the planes became a necessary diversion. (The idea being that if the towers had stood there would be insufficient ground to go to war with Afghansistan, etc.). All this belongs somewhere in the article and can be sourced to Griffin and Tarpley, and their critics, like Popular Mechanics and NIST.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plausibility of the hypothesis 

message: 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)
replies: text: I understand your concern. But the hypothesis must be considered marginal and unambigously rejected (in the engineering community) until it appears in an academic engineering journal. So far, it has been mentioned in that context only to be summarily dismissed. NIST dismissed it without testing any of its claims. AS far as I can tell, member of A&E are at odds with their community (of engineers). I haven't even found a trade journal or magazine that takes CDH seriously yet. The best thing for us to do would be to look at your best source of the engineering community's reaction.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engineering community 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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.Other demolition experts dismiss these objections and support the possibility of controlled demolition.[Interview with Danny Jowenko February 22 2007]
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/talkedits> 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it, on WP:BLP grounds, in that it puts possibly defamatory words into Danny Jowenko's mouth without a WP:RS.  (I don't think http://www.pumpitout.com is a reliable source, but it never actually appeared in the article, only in a comment.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course you have. bov (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As usual, the OT brigade are seeing what they want to and ignoring what's right in front of them. Why should he discuss the difficulty of stealthily preparing an active office building for demolition? There was more than enough time to do it in the week prior to 9/11 when the buildings were EMPTY. Where did you get 200 floors from? A CD would require 1 to maybe 5 floors and could be rigged in less than a day. The same interview also makes mention that another major demolition company said the OT "is possible" and while not mentioning CD, it does imply CD is also and additionally it was mentioned that US companies would not dare give credence to a CDT for fear of losing work. In fact the article is extremely biased in excluding eyewitness testimony to the basement explosions that have never been disproved or explained while inferring all testimonies of explosions have been. If you dont want an opposing view then I suggest removing all references to demolition experts as it is undeniable that they do not all dismiss CD. I also pointed out a sentence that is undisputably POV requiring deletion earlier but it gets ignored while a controversial claim is reverted immediately. You official conspiracy theorists need to allow a NPOV treatment for the article. Wayne (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (It's OCT, OT would mean "Off Topic" in this context, yet another brigade on this article.)  If someone would propose a RS for Jowenko's statement, I'll put it back, even though the article is protected.  I was objecting to putting words in his mouth, which another source states he says were misinterpreted, without a RS.  And credible demolition experts leave no more than one or two floors without explosives, so your figure of "1 to maybe 5 floors" is not credible.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a common misconception of OCT supporters who can't be bothered to factcheck a claim made to make it look like too much work was needed to make CD plausable. A direct quote from a demolition company on how to demolish a skyscraper: “The explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way. But we (also) work on several upper floors to help fragment debris...Usually anywhere from two to six.” Wayne (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you watch the video, he's reacting specifically to the claims in a pro-CD video (I think it was Loose Change) that as the tower came down, plumes or jets caused by explosions were visible floor-by-floor. He immediately pointed out that A) this would involve a huge effort to wire all those floors and B) the buildings collapsed starting at the point of impact, not from the bottom as with a controlled demolition. He may or may not believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, or at least gave the superficial appearance of a CD, but he's clearly on record as calling the CD hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 "bizarre" and untenable. <eleland/talkedits> 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you claiming that WTC7 is not part of the WTC? I also point out that it is indisputable that there were basement explosions so that leaves only how many upper floors needed to be done if in fact CD was responsible. I dont actually support CD but if it is at all possible it has to be treated as a valid theory and not dismissed as a claim made by "nuts" or "kooks" as many editors here keep calling people who want the article to be nuetral instead of concentrating on debunking the theory. Wayne (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inclusion of Danny Jowenko line 

message: 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)
replies: text: You seem to only have non-commercial permission, which is not considered adequate, as much as I'd like it to be for some other pictures I have.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I looked at this (including Zafar's website) just before it was deleted my sense was the same as Arthur's. Zafar had given WP permission to use it, but had not put the picture into the public domain.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is on this page of his site, almost half-way down the page.  Is that not what you mean by public domain?  How is wikipedia considered "commercial" permission?  I used the exact wording suggested by wikipedia for the permission.  I still don't understand what the issue is when he has explicitly given permission for it to be used on wikipedia in this article.  If it's an issue of the right tag, than can someone please explain to me which one it should be?  bov 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal question, as I understand it, is wether a reader of Wikipedia will be able to use the image in any way he/she chooses in the future. I think Zafar retains copyright to any future commercial (and political) uses of the image. The photographer, in that sense, still owns the image. Therefore it can't be used in Wikipedia. But I'm not an expert on this, I'm only explaining what I thought at the time.--Thomas Basboll 07:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to find anyone who is able to tell me what the real issue is.  People delete it but they don't really explain what the problem was.  It seems it would be easier for me to just keep reposting it as it appears to take quite some time before anyone notices and removes it, and then never really says what the problem was. bov 07:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what should Zafar do to enable an image to be used here?  Would he have to not have a copyright notice?  Maybe this would be the right tag? bov 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That tag  is certainly adequate, but  is the minimum allowable.  What you seemed to be quoting on your talk page is the inadequate (former)  or the really inadequate .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removed image of the collapse events 

message: 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)
replies: text: Quite right.  Any discussion about the official explanation being untenable without specific mention of alternative explanations belongs there.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even (or especially) if the officially explanation holds, a discussion of the sorts of testing and modeling that went into it belongs there. The UL tests, it seems, can be satisfactorilly described just using the NIST report as a source. (Even Ryan seems to be satisfied with the report's description. He just doesn't approve of the conclucions drawn from them.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this discussion to Collapse artile? 

message: This letter by Kevin Ryan is a response to a paper written some time ago by Mackey, a weapon industry US scientists: 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:)
:Throughout this paper, Mr. Mackey conveniently ignores the fact that all the tests NIST performed were ultimately useless. That is, none of the results produced can be traced to the final computer generated findings in a straightforward manner. In fact, for some of the tests performed, like those for the floor testing and the steel temperature estimates, NIST now simply admits that they did not use the results in any meaningful way. These admissions can be seen in NIST’s response to a Request for Correction, filed by 9/11 families and concerned citizens, and in our recent appeal to that response.
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)
replies: text: I think we can offer SJ911T and AE911T as external links. But I don't think we should report on the disputes that develop there.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A great read. A new references section maybe?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another great read 

message: 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)
replies: text: The polling info is provided to give a sense of the social significance of the hypothesis. It tells the reader that CDH is not being pursued by just a handful of people (hundreds, say). I think comparing the 6 percent figure to the faked Moon landings hypothesis would discredit the CDH by association. There is no need to do that. There are many things, reasonable and otherwise, that only 6 percent of Americans believe. Listing them would not provide perspective. (That the poll info as it stands allows you to put the hypothesis in perspective, however, attests to the usefulness of including it.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answering "yes" on a phone poll is not "pursuing" a theory. Although, if the information is reliably sourced, it's relevant. No need to "inoculate" the reader with WP:OR#SYN comparisons to the Apollo hoax conspiracy or the like. Just as long as it is not phrased to imply that more than an extremely tiny minority of experts consider the hypothesis worth pursuing. <eleland/talkedits> 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "pursue" was too strong a word. We agree about the rest.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of citing polls 

message: (Moved from user talk pages, lightly edited for context.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the impression PM had talked to Romero themselves. The PM article represents his most recent statement on the affair.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Romero may have said that to PM but it is still a misquote when compared to his original statement. He said planted explosives were definitely the cause and that "the collapse resembled other controled demolitions" (see the context?). Highlighting that he said "resembled" does not negate his original belief that explosives were involved (as PM implies) as it uses the word in isolation thus losing it's context. As such the original is more reliable than PM. I also point out that the WP article falsely implies that he is refering to his mention of explosives rather than the collapse. Wayne (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the whole point is that Romero claimed, when interviewed by PM, to have been misquoted by the AJ. So obviously the original AJ quotation will conflict with the PM statement. It's best just to leave it at "he later said he had been misquoted", which leaves open whether or not he actually had been.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah but he was not misquoted by the AJ and therin lie the problem. AJ claimed he said "the collapse resembled other controled demolitions" while Romero told PM that he was misquoted and "only said that was what it looked like" which is exactly what the AJ said. Don't forget to put that first statement in context as what he said before that changes the entire meaning of the statement (basically they have changed a descriptive sentence into a stand alone statement to distort the meaning). PM manipulated what was said to imply the explosives claim was a misquote as well. Having said that I notice the edit suggesting possible motive for recanting has been deleted. The edit has to be relevant because it is supported by Romero and PM or why would they mention it? Wayne (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the context is there as it stands. If Griffin, Tarpley or Jones have speculated about Romero's motives for retracting and we source it to them then I would consider leaving it in. The back and forth has to end somewhere and I think the Emperor's Clothes is too marginal a source of the accusation that someone "got to him" (even given PM's coverage of it). It just isn't a major part of the defense of the CDH.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romero's retraction 

message: Please look at the Good Article criteria....here: ...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)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't think it will pass a first review. But it certainly didn't meet the "quick fail" criteria. So nominating it seems like a good way to get improvements going again. While I don't think you fit the description of a reviewer, a list of specific shortcomings would be great.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Start with the title..we have been over that issue in the past. As I mentioned above..there is no hypothesis...there is only a conspiracy theory about it. Yeah, I know, you took that word from a comment made by the leading reseacher on the NIST team that examined the collapse, but even that was out of context.--MONGO 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title was dealt with by the community as part of the delete discussions.  However, I have been changing my mind about it lately and I think "accusation" might be a more precise term (because it is assumed that those who could know whether the "hypothesis" is true, already do). Implementing it will require a pretty serious rewrite of the article (making the central idea the "cover up" of the alleged demolition, not the way however, and it may be hard to win consensus. So it would be great if you could rehash your criticism in detail. If it becomes an article about accusations of a coverup, and at the same time becomes a good article all the better.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest buying a dictionary. A hypothesis does not require facts. All that is required are unexplained phenomena and some explanation that might remotely be possible (no matter how unlikely) to explain them and I'm sure we all agree that these exist regardless of which theory you believe.Hypothesis noun:  a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.The title is correct as the theory exactly fits the dictionary definition. Wayne (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have several dictionaries mind you...which one shall I use...for ease of cross refence, why not look at one that is online  and it seems the best example that demostrates what a hypothesis is in correlation with a theory where a hypothesis: "implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation"...however, in this case, since the only explanation that does work for why the towers collapsed was due to high speed impacts by wide body jets laden with aviation fuel in which the resultant damage from the aircraft collisions followed by fire as well as the added weight of the aircraft themselves combined to limit the structures ability to remain standing....other "theories", (which this doesn't come close to being) are easily debunked due to their abject preposterousness. I due, however, tend to agree interestingly with Thomas as he states that this is more akin to an "accusation", since a controlled demolition would have involved a plethora of people committed to both doing the deed and remaining silent about it forever...so if the buildings had been imploded, then they have committed an egregious criminal act...and we, as editors trying to write a NPOV article about the impossible implosion are essentially accusing these shadowy characters of this heinous crime.--MONGO 12:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself does not make the accusation (just as it doesn't propose the hypothesis); it explicitly states that proponents make the accusation, i.e., the "inside job" implication. But I think the accusation angle will work best as an accusation of "cover up" rather than direct culpability. Direct accusations about who ordered it are rare. The figures remain sufficiently "shadowy" to be in no position to take offence. (The exception is of course Silverstein, but the issue is presented in the standard way...actually following Popular Mechanics quite closely.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My biggest issue with calling the conspiracy theories 'hypothesis's is that it implies the scientific method is being applied when even the most minor consideration of any show them to be proceeding from an unreasonable position, with unreasonable assumptions, to arrive at an unreasonable conclusion.John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much whether they are applying scientific method. Very few sciences actually apply any idealised rational method when you look closely at their practices. More current views of science define it as research conducted within a "paradigm" (Kuhn) or "discourse" (Foucault) or "research programme" (Lakatos). But here the hypothesis also fails to qualify, mainly because the researchers are marginalized in the relevant fields. Now, there is no simple (sociological) truth about whether the hypothesis is being "suppressed" or just ignored (for lack of evidence). But it is pretty clear what the proponents of the hypothesis think. There are also plenty of good sources to write an article about (and the current version is pretty good, this issue notwithstanding).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for Good Article?