Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 1

message: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common response to this is that the WTC was by no means an "ordinary" demolition. Steven Jones, I think, has argued that if thermate was used it would not be set off by the fires (and would have had to be encased anyway to focus their effects on the steel, so it would not simply have burned off). Obviously I don't know if he's right about that. In any case, it looked to me like Jowenko was saying that it was certainly not demolition like he would do it in the light of day. Shady characters involved in a conspiracy to make it look like something other than a demolition might do it differently, I would think.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not quite sure we're understanding each other here. Demolition experts who have talked about this have said the WTC collapses looked nothing like anything they would have arranged. But they've also got much better working conditions: plenty of time and free access to an empty building. Conspiracy theorists think the demolitions were carried out in a covert military operation of some kind. Instead of placing a minimum amount of charges in optimal positions, they may have had to settle for excessive amounts of explosives whereever they could conveniently hide them without being discovered. This would explain the visually explosive nature of the collapses and enormous amount of damage to surrounding buildings (that controlled demolitions try to avoid). The main issue is not how the explosives were planted, but whether they were necessary to bring on a collapse at all. If the official engineers are right, what we saw is exactly what one would expect to see an hour after an airplane hit the building. The controlled demolition hypothesis depends on the falsity of that claim, not on the truth of claims about who, how, when, and where the explosives were planted. I don't know of any conspiracy theorists who claim to have answers to those questions.--Thomas Basboll 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Jowenko's reaction here is very interesting. If this was controlled demolition, then it looks like whoever did it was less careful to make it look like something else. Actually, when he was told about the fires he seemed so completely puzzled that I concluded that the building must have been rigged before hand. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demolition opinions

message: In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.
Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that.
:Yes, Jowenko's reaction here is very interesting. If this was controlled demolition, then it looks like whoever did it was less careful to make it look like something else. Actually, when he was told about the fires he seemed so completely puzzled that I concluded that the building must have been rigged before hand. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC Building 7 Collapse

message: ===Dr. Greening===
Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening.
Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here).
This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers.
This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite.
He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds
different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:
:"Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!"
He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.
My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that. 
Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? --SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources to get familiar with? 

message: Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening.
Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here).
This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers.
This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite.
He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds
different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:
:"Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!"
He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.
My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that. 
Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? --SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Greening

message: This professor from Edinburgh made an extensive study about fires and buildings collapsing with relation to WTC7. He even set on fire some 24-storey high tower. He did not find any explanation for WTC7 collapse because of fires. His paper can be found here. His work is reported in UK newspapers, so there are scond sources. --SalvNaut 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof. Torero

message: Hey Rx StrangeLove, you've added criticism to the section "Ejected debris". This is great, we need this, but: The sentence you've added begins: "However, critics point out... ". 
I propose no to formulate sentences using "point out", but rather using "claim". We won't be able to check every fact, (and we shouldn't because it's WP:OR) so we should phrase sentences with care.
Well, then if you read the FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building, you can find on the page 4:
:"A column section from WTC2 was embedded into north edge of the floor slab of the 29th floor [...] several sections of exterior column trees [..]".
Coulumn section was not from aluminium, nor were exterior column trees. Still, I don't know how they were ejected. --SalvNaut 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing criticistm 

message: Interesting idea to move building 7, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Anyone want to explain it?--Thomas Basboll 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Building 7? 

message: It seems that people are so excited to revert any changes of their precious labels of "conspiracy theorists" that they happily revert to wrong information which was previously corrected -- the current link to Jones' paper goes to a BYU page where it is no longer located, and Judy Wood is no longer a '9/11 scholar' but has already been outed as "no-plane" advocate attacking Jones with Morgan Reynolds.  Her paper was disputed throughout the scholars community for its errors and should not be linked to.  But those whose main goal in life is to shackle anyone questioning the (Bush appointed) NIST findings with the branding of 'conspiracy theorists' don't actually seem to have an interest in the CONTENT of the article . . . Locewtus 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Refs and Content 

message: I agree with Locewtus. Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn.--Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--SalvNaut 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  The problem is that there are people who are pig ignorant and damned angry at the rest of us for merely suggesting such an idea.  They play the role of "helpful" editors when in their heart of hearts, they want to destroy the article by blunting out points, diluting our analysis, inserting contradictions so that it will easily pass an AfD (the coup de grace). --Demosfoni 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please study WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, or you will not get very far. Tyrenius 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorists 

message: In order to avoid repeating all the controversies that we have on other 9/11-related pages, I want to suggest that we organise sections in part by the quality of their sources.
So, for example, the existence of the theory and its basic idea (which Tom harrison wants to have a citation for already in the lead) can be established in the hypothesis section (at the start of the article) with reference exclusively to NIST, Bazant and Verdure, (perhaps Cherepanov who also uses it as a foil, but for a different effect), and, I would add, Sunder's remark in New York Magazine (I think) that he had read Steven Jones' paper, was "sympathetic", but that it was not consistent with the facts as he knew them. That would also occasion a reference to Jones' paper (in the Scott and Griffin volume), of course, which, I would argue, is the standard reference for a presentation of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in so far as it gets the hypothesis right (which is not every time) I think Popular Mechanics would be a great source for its content. The core of the hypothesis could probably be identified in the way the PM, Jones, and NIST (very little) accounts overlap.--Thomas Basboll 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  basic idea of the hypothesis and its very existence 

message: This article is unencyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not as I find this article to be a soapboxing repository and POV push of complete nonsense.--MONGO 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're on the case, Mongo. Check back in a couple of weeks. I think it's getting better. But it'd be great if you could offer some suggestions as to how to make it more encyclopedic. At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend.--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deletion instead of using the article as a platform to push the conspiracy theory nonsense is the way to go. At what point does the fact that Steven Jones's radical views have resulted in having him put on admin leave get mentioned? Instead, all that is mentioned is his work...seems a bit misleading to not make it clear that it is precisely this work that has him in hot water, don't you think?--MONGO 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion's been tried. Didn't work. But, yes, there needs to be some mention of the professional/academic risk implicit in defending the hypothesis. We could perhaps move the last sentence of the "hypothesis" section into the first section of an "implications" section and note that arguing for CD can get you into hot water. I'll do it if no one else beats me to it.--Thomas Basboll 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be some mention of the professional/academic risks? You're joking of course. The only risk is when those who claim to be scientists allow their politics to cloud their ability to make educated statements about known evidence. I suggest someone make it clear, multiple times that Steven Jones is on paid academic leave due to his apparent misrepresentation that his work had been properly vetted, and his accusatory commentary about persons in high positions, which were simply his opinions...basically, he engaged in slander. Don't get too comforatble thinking that you can hide CT cruft here.--MONGO 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for you advice. I've had a go at it; you might have a better way of putting it. The part about his work not being vetted could go right after the "outsiders" remark, where it would fit nicely (I'll get right on that). Yes, I think Jones may be in a good deal of political trouble. (It's only slander if it is false, of course. Nudge, nudge.) I'm pretty comfy now with thought that I can display what humanity knows about the controlled demolition hypothesis here now.--Thomas Basboll 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not advice but a demand. Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT.--MONGO 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cannot decode previous remark as wikipedic. This is the first time I've run into a wikipedian who has framed his suggestions in terms of demands and promises. But anyway, thanks again, for making 'demands' of the quality of this article, which is how I imagine this is to be taken (since authority is not really a useful interpretation of anything around here). Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beware Thomas.  You are speaking to one of the elite Wikipedia:Administrators who has in his power the ability to really piss people off and create other such havoc.  It's best to walk away slowly and not make direct eye contact.  Actually, you can see here that MONGO is good friends with Weregerbil  User_talk:MONGO#Good_stuff and Peephole User_talk:MONGO#Crossing_the_Line(what a surprise!).  Two of our very best friends. --Demosfoni 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you get rid of this page, you should get rid of the Magic Bullet Theory sections, or the Roswell sections, anything having to do with conspiracy theories. The fact is this is what people believe, some people very credible, others not. Its a thought in modern times, just as Rosswell is.  Isee no reason to conclude that its a soapbox any more then the elephant page is the elephant lovers soapbox. Don't let your personal feelings on the subject cloud your judgement and bias you. it belongs here. --Wolfofwar 08:49, 27 September 2006
Basball, it's a bit creepy the way some editors attempt to push others around, threaten to delete article you've worked so hard for. Who the --- does he think he is? Can something be done? Please try to ignore all but thoughtful comments by those who have bothered to engage their minds before starting to type. Keep up the good work on this article.--JustFacts 02:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: Good reversion of a BLP violation. That repeatedly inserted spam line (in addition to it being possibly a vandal move to insert the same unsourced negative statement about a living person again and again) was a policy violation. · XP · 00:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrienous reversion 

message: There is no legitimate need or reason to spam this throughout. Once is fine for readers. This is not an anti-Jones website, nor a pro-Jones website. Advocacy in either direction is forbidden for all users, admin or otherwise.  · XP · 00:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paid leave mention 

message: I removed:
:While the controlled demolition hypothesis can, strictly speaking, be distinguished from the broader "9/11 conspiracy theories," and is compatible with any number of different variants, its proponents have also made specific proclamations about who could be responsible for arranging the demolitions. This aspect of debate about controlled demolition makes it especially controversial.
as original research, there are no cites or links, nothing here that is referenced at all. Who says all this? Rx StrangeLove 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I removed a couple sections:
:Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.
:This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.
Neither are referenced and the second seems pretty original researchy. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  angular momentum 

message: I think we need to establish consensus about who the major representatives of the hypothesis are (i.e., who are the significant figures that defend it, either as a claim or as a call for futher investigation). Here is my list of sources.
*Steven E. Jones. (2006)  "Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?" (in the Griffin and Scott volume). (Also printed in volume 3 of the Journal of 9/11 studies, available online here 
*Webster Griffin Tarpley. (2006) 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Chapter 6. (available online in PDF format here)
*David Ray Griffin. (2006) "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" in Research in Political Economy Volume 23 ("The Hidden History of 9-11-2001) Pages 79-122. (Also available online here)
 
I take those to be core statements. They have the virtue of being books, not internet sites, and current. I do think Jim Hoffman's and Jeff King's online presentations deserve mention, too, however. Please make your arguments against any of these known soon, and suggest possible additions. I will then add section on major proponents of the theory, which will of course also serve as a way of focusing the article's content.--Thomas Basboll 10:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any identification of some people as major proponents, or of some ideas as core elements, has to be backed up by citation to reliable sources who say X, Y and Z are the major porponents, or that A and B are core elements. Tom Harrison Talk 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chronicle of Higher Education emphasies Jones and Griffin as major figures.; New York Magazine focused on Tarpley. Is that the sort of thing you mean? What would your list of proponents look like?--Thomas Basboll 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My list of proponents? If I were going to write an essay on New World Order conspiracy theories since 9/11, I would not do it here. This is not a collaborative research project. We do not discuss who is most important, and then vote on who to list. Those the article lists as proponents should be those presented as such in the academic works written about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Until there are such academic works, no one should be called a major proponent, and all such original research should be removed. Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are working on the article, I thought you might have some ideas about the people it is about. Are you saying that there is no way to assert that the controlled demolition hypothesis has proponents or who they are or which are most influential?--Thomas Basboll 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As I have said before, you are getting ahead of the sources in this area. That you or I could probably write an interesting article based on our somehwhat-informed opinion is beside the point. The sources do not yet exist to support the article you want to write. Doing so in their absence is original research. Tom Harrison Talk 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we present their minority view....in the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Any other treatment gives them undue weight. --Mmx1 16:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That question is about to be settled by an AfD. Right now it looks like it's going to be a keep, in which case the hypothesis will have been deemed duly weighty for its own article.--Thomas Basboll 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Mmx1. It may not be possible to present this material well outside of the context of other 9/11 conspiracy theories. If the consensus is that the article not be deleted, it may need to be dramatically shortened to follow our other policies about original research and neutral presentation, or lengthened to let all voices be heard, even those that embarass the more 'mainstream' conspiracy theorists. Rather than spend time in mediation repeating agruments everyone has already heard, it might be better to let those who care the most about this subject develop the article as they please for a few months, and then revisit it to see how it looks. Tom Harrison Talk 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur with Mmx1 and Tom Harrison.  To take controlled demolition out of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (or drastically cut the section), takes the central aspect of the conspriacy theories out of that article and plunders it.  Let's please cut down all the OR and poorly cited material (per WP:RS) and merge this back into the main 9/11 conspiracy theories. As well, I entirley agree about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I think the AFD is going to settle the question of whether controlled demolition can be developed independently of the conspiracy theory section. I think it can and should. (The collapse of the WTC could arguably be merged into the main 9/11 article, but there are obvious reasons not to do that. The same applies here.) We will see if we succeed. It certainly can't be merged in its present form.--Thomas Basboll 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the last part of Tom's remark in principle. The question, of course, is who is going to do as they please. That's why I've brought up this issue of main proponents. I think it is the people who can agree on a shortlist of primary sources (as identified by a shortlist of secondary sources) that will have enough common ground to develop the article. So I guess I'm asking if Tom and Mmx will allow us (whoever "we" are) to go forward as I have suggested for a few months, or whether we will have to seek mediation to establish that minimum of common ground.--Thomas Basboll 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My idea is that it might be more productive for me to withdraw and let you and whoever make of it what you will. Tom Harrison Talk 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll accept that challenge, and I sincerely hope you'll like the results. I would add that the next step after that might be a detailed peer review (rather than a edit war or an AfD.)--Thomas Basboll 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major presentations of the hypothesis (pro)

message: I'm removing the section that implies that he is sympathetic to the demolition hypothesis and that "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"[9] is a standard reference in these discussions.  Both use this to back the statements up. The only mention of Shyam Sunder in the article is this:
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”
Clearly he is sympathetic to outbursts (of frustration presumably) and is not talking about the demolition hypothesis. He is quite clear on what the facts are. And how the fact that he read it means that it is a standard reference doesn't compute. Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you missed the lead up to that remark: "The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones ... in front of Dr. Sunder ... 'I hope you read this...', ... the woman said. // 'Actually, I have read it,' Dr. Sunder said with a sigh." I'll grant that he expresses his sympathy with how the woman feels, not with what Jones says. That is, he can see why people might feel compelled by Jones' arguments. But the really interesting thing about that quote is that he has read Jones' paper. I think that fact should go in. The article was clear about his take on the fact.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the fact that he read it has any meaning, he didn't endorse it (or criticize it for that matter), he's probably read most of the 9/11 related material and that fact by itself doesn't mean anything. And as far as the other thing, he's clearly talking about peoples feelings and not the demo thing. I don't see how what he said can be read that he can understand why people are compelled by Jones' arguments, he's pretty clearly talking about emotional reactions to the 9/11 events. Rx StrangeLove 12:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing the "standard reference" remark is just empirically inaccurate. Everyone who argues for CD knows about Jones' paper and makes some use of it. Every recent piece of journalism about it mentions him. His university has expressed concerns about it. Etc.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shyam Sunder 

message: As of now, we have one massive evidence section, one very short criticism section, and then a sort of large discussion of the issues at the bottom.  In addition, some of the articles read like a back-and-forth debate, such as the Molten Metal section - we read what Jones has to say, a response from NIST, a response from Jones, a response from NIST...  I find that inconducive to the article's purpose.  The NPOV problems that crop up as well can be dealt with on an individual basis, but are not very easy to find and fix.  Some of the smaller subsections either have no criticism, or the criticism is located far away from the claims and in another section entirely.
I suggest an overhaul of the organization organization: within every subsection of debate (for example, Molten Metal) we could arrange it a clear CT position and a clear official position, each just to say their respective pieces and positions.
Molten Metal
Molten metal reports, official story, analysis and explanation.
Critism of official reports, thermite proposal, various experiments and CT reports, counterarguments for forthcoming "offical" propositions.
Criticism
Rebuttal of CT arguments, slag, etc, etc.
I believe that this format would be better organized, easier to read, and provide a better comprehensive understanding of the topic than a back-and-forth banter between the sides.  In addition, it makes it easier to find diagnose NPOV problems, and make it easy to see which arguments are given no criticism, of which there are many. 75.33.140.40 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this is a mess. The article as it stands advocates and promotes the theory. For example, right near the top it devotes a bunch of space to a comment even the person quoted doesn't stand behind. That doesn't belong. This is based on bad science and even worse reporting, which to be fair isn't a reason for deletion but it sure doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If this is not deleted, which would make sense there needs to be a lot of pruning. There is no reason to go over every little detail, the way it stands now it has a POV tone and blatantly argues for the demo theory. The anon is right..maybe a couple paragraphs outlining the theory, one for the critics and some references. Anyway, the newspaper quote can go for starters. Rx StrangeLove 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Romero quote is legit. It is of historical interest to people who want to understand where this hypothesis came from. Pretty much all the space was used to make it clear that he doesn't stand by his original statement and to note that he does stand by the "look" of the thing. All this is informative. Popular Mechanics, in their treatment of the hypothesis, understood that Romero's statement was an important part of the story. That's why they covered it. And that's why we should.--Thomas Basboll 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His quote shouldn't be used in a way that furthers the demo theory, and besides there's material there already that talks about where hypothesis came from. That's the sort of thing that is making this a mess....the details upon details. The origins are clear from the remaining material. Rx StrangeLove 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear. Do you think Popular Mechanics was being unecessarily detailed? There were scattered remarks in the days immediately after the attacks from controlled demolition experts (a couple of Danish examples have recently been circulating again), usually in the spirit of explaining how vast the Al-Qaeda must have been. This was before any official story had taken form. The most credible of these (i.e., not the non-expert opinions of journalists), have been preserved in CT theories. Romero's is a good clear statement, and its notability has been emphasized on both sides of the debate. We can easily source the use of Romero's remark to one or several CT theorists as well to balance the PM debunking. It does not "further" the hypothesis, it explains the basis on which it arose.--Thomas Basboll 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I meant that the examples are too much, there's an explanation of what some of the first impressions were and an example (Dan Rather)...that's all it needs to make the point. Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I think we should drop Rather and keep Romero. Both Tarpley and Griffin use Romero on the pro side to substantiate the first impression, and Popular Mechanics offers balance on the con side, while reaffirming that "that is what it looked it." Romero is better qualified to have a first impression in this regard than Rather.--Thomas Basboll 06:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV & organizational concerns; proposal for reorganization 

message: This is a stretch, the whole section that follows this sentence only proves that there was smoldering (maybe) steel in the weeks after the event. Unless there is a neutral, objective finding somewhere that "steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives", this section has to go. Even Jones says "that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done", so there's no basis for this section at all. What this boils down to is that there was material smoldering for a while after 9/11. Rx StrangeLove 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It  took more than eight months to remove all of the debris from Ground Zero.
There's no claim that the amont of time it took to clean up is related to controlled demolition. Rx StrangeLove 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives" 

message: I'm going to work on some of the survey stuff. A history of the hypothesis. Major current proponents (see above). Its place in 9/11 CTs and the 9/11 truth movement. And a summary of the parts of the official explanation that bear on this. Also, I'm going to make a small section that describes the uncontroversial aspects of the collapses. The other task, it seems, is to shorten the evidence section radically. I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes.--Thomas Basboll 11:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proceeding... 

message: *Removed a reference to Jeff King....cited from his personal web page.   --Mmx1 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discarded Sources 

message: After reading the analysis at AfD Closing Rationales I think the obvious tasks are:
#To shorten this article dramatically, discarding POV statements but making sure analysis of published POV is retained
#To remove links to suspect "references" unless those references are highlighted as in some way suspect, or "Pending review" (though those shoudl really be on the talk page and reviewed in or out.
May I suggest that this is treated as a "miniwikiproject" and people "take sections" (stating here which they are working on and flagging that section in the article itself if it is more than a five minute job)and clean them up, doing it quickly to avoid accusations either of delay or indeed of POV pushing?
This article is not small, but a small team of editors who commit to NPOV should be able to tackle it fast now the AfD threat is currently lifted.  Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've given myself some jobs above. I would add (as I also did when Tom Harrison gratiously backed off above) that we should try to bring this article into shape to get peer reviewed before someone AfD's it again.--Thomas Basboll 12:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in any way a template expert, so I have created a draft template that you may find useful at User:Timtrent/sandbox.  If it works (and please feel at total liberty to edit it there), please grab it and make it a template, and use it during the edits here.  I believe we have to show that work is taking place in addition to letting people inspect the edit history.  I won't be offended if either you choose not to use it at all, or if there is a better template available already.  Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks following the second AfD 

message: The numbers will fluctuate because the cite system is fluid. This is why I suggest we enter a "snapshot" of the text containing these so co-ordination of fix or delete can take place.  Where a reference is used several times we must be aware that deleting the first reference link "orphans" any remaining refs.
==="Ref 73" (currently)===
There are two instances of this ref, but no trace of the reference wording.  Thus the first instance must have been deleted.
Current locations:
9/11 researchers have proposed the idea that WTC7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds [73], although the FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.[74]
and 
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.[73]
I suspect the ref has value in the first instance.  I can't guess the value in the second.  Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from Jones's paper - I'll fix it.SalvNaut 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got the second. missed the first.  I don't want just to assume, so will you check and look at the remaining instance of "73"?  Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned ref tags 

message: There are two instances of this ref, but no trace of the reference wording.  Thus the first instance must have been deleted.
Current locations:
9/11 researchers have proposed the idea that WTC7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds [73], although the FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.[74]
and 
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.[73]
I suspect the ref has value in the first instance.  I can't guess the value in the second.  Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from Jones's paper - I'll fix it.SalvNaut 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got the second. missed the first.  I don't want just to assume, so will you check and look at the remaining instance of "73"?  Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ref 73" (currently)

message: The controlled demolition hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community and has been explicitly rejected by official investigators. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology has found no evidence of controlled demolition, it is, however, studying the effects of "hypothetical blast events" in attempting to understand the collapse of Building Seven. Likewise, Zdenek P. Bazant, who co-authored the first published analysis of the collapses of the two towers, has proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse mechanism that the official explanation invokes. But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as a serious research hypothesis for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering.
Three statements, in particular, can be identified. Since being made available on the Internet in September of 2005, a paper written by  Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, fast became a standard point of reference for people defending the idea of controlled demolition. It has since been published in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin is a retired professor of theology who is currenly best known for his book The New Pearl Harbor. He has published his own version of the hypothesis in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Finally, Webster Griffin Tarpley, best known for his investigation into the murder of Aldo Moro and his unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush, devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the hypothesis.
While they do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts, all three refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before being accepted as true. The three statements of the hypothesis overlap in many ways, but they each offer a distinct perspective. Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarises suggestive physical features of the collapses, he adds a reading of the oral histories that were released by the New York Fire Department in August of 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eye-witness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Finally, Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasising expert opinions proposing controlled demolition shortly after the attacks, the behavior of government agencies (especially the New York Mayor's Office) in the handling of the WTC site, and public criticism of the official investigation into the collapses.
===Comments===
This is how I imagine the section on major proponents might look. It gives a good sense of the sort of research that exists (and does not exist) to support the hypothesis. Again, if there are disagreements about the notability of the figures, or you want another proponent added, feel free to make suggestions. I'm posting this mainly to give a sense of how it might look in prose form.--Thomas Basboll 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part seems very good to me. What about Jim Hoffman? There are about 38,400 Google hits for "controlled demolition" Hoffman, (Tarpley has 25,500) but he hasn't receive much mainstream media coverage. Problem with connecting him with hypothesis is that he is just an "ordinary"(well, he had achievments) mathematician and software engineer. Then, maybe it's even more worth mentioning that he made his way up through the Internet. He contributed to hypothesis with gathering evidence on the websites (Jones reffred to his site regarding WTC7) and with his "pulverization energy approach." (this approach has been taken by others, too - Griffin reffers to Hoffman) Another small paragraph? SalvNaut 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would seem strange to me to have Tarpley as a proponent, but not Hoffman.  Griffin & Tarpley heavily reference Hoffman on the demolition evidence, which he organized and researched, and Jones was interested in demolitions but said he didn't seriously begin to investigate until he saw Hoffman's websites which had citations and were credible.  So each one of them relied on Hoffman's work in some way.  Hoffman's only book at this point is Waking Up From Our Nightmare, with Don Paul, which was published by I/R Press, an unknown.  He has published in reputable science journals, but not for his 9/11 work.  His 9/11 work has primarily been promoted on his websites, which he created for the purpose of researching 9/11.  Locewtus 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Hoffman is a major "current researcher", but I've been reluctant to include him because he's self-published. The fact that Jones and Griffin make use of his work does count in his favor, though. I'll try to write something; we can decide based on that. I think Tarpley adds the important element of how the clean-up was carried out (and the fact that Controlled Demolition, Inc., of OKC fame was involved.)--Thomas Basboll 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current research (draft) 

message: This is how I imagine the section on major proponents might look. It gives a good sense of the sort of research that exists (and does not exist) to support the hypothesis. Again, if there are disagreements about the notability of the figures, or you want another proponent added, feel free to make suggestions. I'm posting this mainly to give a sense of how it might look in prose form.--Thomas Basboll 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This part seems very good to me. What about Jim Hoffman? There are about 38,400 Google hits for "controlled demolition" Hoffman, (Tarpley has 25,500) but he hasn't receive much mainstream media coverage. Problem with connecting him with hypothesis is that he is just an "ordinary"(well, he had achievments) mathematician and software engineer. Then, maybe it's even more worth mentioning that he made his way up through the Internet. He contributed to hypothesis with gathering evidence on the websites (Jones reffred to his site regarding WTC7) and with his "pulverization energy approach." (this approach has been taken by others, too - Griffin reffers to Hoffman) Another small paragraph? SalvNaut 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would seem strange to me to have Tarpley as a proponent, but not Hoffman.  Griffin & Tarpley heavily reference Hoffman on the demolition evidence, which he organized and researched, and Jones was interested in demolitions but said he didn't seriously begin to investigate until he saw Hoffman's websites which had citations and were credible.  So each one of them relied on Hoffman's work in some way.  Hoffman's only book at this point is Waking Up From Our Nightmare, with Don Paul, which was published by I/R Press, an unknown.  He has published in reputable science journals, but not for his 9/11 work.  His 9/11 work has primarily been promoted on his websites, which he created for the purpose of researching 9/11.  Locewtus 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Hoffman is a major "current researcher", but I've been reluctant to include him because he's self-published. The fact that Jones and Griffin make use of his work does count in his favor, though. I'll try to write something; we can decide based on that. I think Tarpley adds the important element of how the clean-up was carried out (and the fact that Controlled Demolition, Inc., of OKC fame was involved.)--Thomas Basboll 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This just turned up at the 9/11 CT article. Not sure we can use it here either, but it's too detailed for the WTC summary:
:For the impact from a single aircraft hitting the tower at the 90th floor would likely not generate sufficient energy to bring a whole bulding structure made of steel down. More detailed analysis can be found in the article written by Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, entitled Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job.
--Thomas Basboll 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving text from 9/11 CT article 

message: It's been moved to the archive so I post it again:
Pulverization
*Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.[26]
*:This quote comes from an outdated version of his work. The latest version has the majority of the material removed. If he won't stand behind it, we should not include it. (From his page: This paper is currently under development, taking into consideration critiques by various reviewers) The whole section needs to be removed.
:::Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I don't think that the latest version of his paper invalidates the previous ones and those are still available. I know nothing about Hoffman changing his mind on this. Should we restore it, then? SalvNaut 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does as a  reference when the author doesn't stand behind it anymore. (additional comment) We shouldn't add this back...that was probably clear from my comment but... Rx StrangeLove 14:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a "phraseology issue" the term "pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust" is probably unsound, though a good "emotional description" of any billowing and fast moving dust cloud.  However a pyroclastic cloud contains substantial heat as well.  If the man says it then it is not our POV but his, thus valid for inclusion.  The question is, "Do we comment on that?" Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, did you remove the original from the archive page when reinstating it here?  We need to in order to avoid doubling things up.  The first archive attempt was necessarily approximate.  Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoffman's pulverization argument

message: And here's one more. Do you think Jeff King's early work deserves inclusion (include or keep). Hoffman also sites his "How Strong is the Evidence" among the classics . Griffin uses him in his paper.--Thomas Basboll 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note I am not suggesting using "classics" as sources for any information about the hypothesis. I am proposing we mention them in a historical overview. We are not trying to decide on reliability, only whether or not they seem to have had influence.--Thomas Basboll 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how is Hoffman a reliable indicator of who's had "influence"? --Mmx1 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoffman has been singled out for praise by both Jones and Griffin. He has been a major influence. His sense of the classics is at least interesting.--Thomas Basboll 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Citation by Hoffman, Griffin, Tarpley, or Jones is not sufficient inclusion criteria. Neither notability nor reliability are transitive. Tarpley, Griffin, and Jones get a tenuous nod because of their mention in reliable secondary sources. The reliability of their work is still in question. However, that makes no assertion as to the reliability or notability of people they cite. And much worse, Hoffman, whose notability is much more tenuous, is no credible source for what is "classic" or "important". --Mmx1 14:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is. We are talking about single short mention of historical argument by King that inspired others. We are describing this hypothesis - nothing else. You, Mmx1 seem to look at this, like we were presenting facts - nothing of this kind. I think, that when properply phrased, such mention will not give any impression to the reader about the factuality of the argument.SalvNaut 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not required to present anyone's or everyone's POV, merely what is notable. Reliable secondary sources (e.g. media reports) are our best resource for that. Individuals cited by secondary sources do not carry the same level of reliability - we leave it to the secondary source to sort between the relevance and reliability of primary sources. --18:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff King's "How Strong is the Evidence" (a classic?) 

message: Hoffman has a list of "classic articles" here . My own impression is that he's right to include "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" by J. McMichael among these, and it should be presented in the historical section. Please indicate whether you think we should include or drop this one also, with reasons.
:*Drop all. Does no one read WP:RS? Self-published essays should not be used as sources. 911review is part of Hoffman's webring. Classic according to who? And who's J. McMichael? This is absurd. Any sort of "history" should be presented from a reliable secondary source, not this self-published nonsense. Hoffman's site is just a blog. It looks more professional and static than a blog, but all it is are self-posted essays by himself and others. --Mmx1 14:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. Hoffman's site is much more than a blog, but even if all he had contributed was a single post on his personal blog: in the history of certain topics a seminal post may deserve mention, if it is mentioned and used by the more easily identifiable majors.--Thomas Basboll 14:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: We can include Hoffman not for his own findings, but when his findings are refered to by major proponents (which is often a case), so it is not a case of self-published essay, as then his research is important to the occcurence of the hypothesis. SalvNaut 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me the part of WP:RS that provides an exception to "self-published sources" because they are "important" --Mmx1 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is a whole section under WP:RS about Using online and self-published sources, so there are exceptions. First sentence is Evaluate the reliability of online sources and first point is With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked. So, if we use Hoffman's site to illustrate a point that Jones or Griffin made, (or if they refered explicitly to Hoffman), then we would rely on their reliability, not Hoffmans. SalvNaut 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Include most - the issue is not how perfect each source conforms to standards, but what role they had in the history of the evolution of the theories.  Hoffman was instrumental in the process and documents all types of sources.  I don't support links to indymedia articles, though.  If someone won't put their name to it, or it only comes, otherwise, from Rense, I wouldn't include it, even just for historical reasons.bov 21:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" (a classic?) 

message: A couple sentences here that don't have any real basis:
:It has also been inspired by eye-witness accounts of sounds and flashes of light that have been occasionally interpreted as "secondary explosions" (which, if they occurred, preceded the collapses and so could not have been caused by them) and reports of what some witnesses describe as molten metal in the basement (which is taken as evidence of temperatures well beyond those that could be explained by fire or the friction of the collapses). 
Sounds and flashes of light are pretty vague and ignores that fact that there were raging fires going on in the buildings. There didn't need to be a collapse for there to be sounds and flashes of light in that environment. The second sentence talks about molten metal but doesn't say anything about what kind it was or why fires couldn't have caused it.  Both are uncited and as they stand are original research. I'm going to snip them. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple sentences 

message: On the (current) reference cite 19, there is a reference to http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf with regards to molten metal, and on (current) reference cite 18 there is a reference to http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf regarding the same issue. Note that on page 1 of the WTCTHERM.pdf reference it quotes FEMA as saying " a stream of molten METAL" (emphasis mine), supposedly directly quoting the FEMA report noted in cite #18. However, the actual quote from the cited FEMA report says: " a stream of molten MATERIAL". This might seem minor, but it is a substantial difference. FEMA speculates but does not conclude that the material is in fact metal. I have changed the "Molten metal" section on this article to reflect this difference, and caution people against using the WTCTHERM.pdf document as a reference. --Durin 18:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 911myths.com misquoting FEMA

message: In order to properlyControlled Demolition, Inc. "Controlled Demolition, Inc.: About us" bring down a 47 story building, conventional demolition procedures would require weeks of preparation and planning (e.g. where to place the demolition charges at key structural points so that the building collapses neatly into its own footprint).
I can't spot the relevance of linking the phrase 'controlled demolition procedures' to the 'About us' page of Controlled Demolition Inc.  I think they had something relevant to say elsewhere in the article, but this seems like a link for link's sake to a professional demolition company.  This is part of thinning out the forest so a route can be found through it to the bare facts, I think  Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person linkining probably reffered to "[...]CDI’s 10-person explosives-handling crew arrived on site one (1) week before the scheduled implosion date to commence loading and wiring operations[...]". The claim in this paragraph seems valid as it speaks about "conventional demolition procedures". On the other hand, CD expert Jovenko puzzled if maybe WTC7 could have been brought down by 20 pople running with torches for a couple of hours, pre-cutting colums, and then wiring a couple of charges only (that would be something!:)) Still, I think it is a known fact that typical controlled demolitions took some time to plan. SalvNaut 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoon feed me!  That ref goes to the "About Us" page.  Can't see the relevance of that ref at this place in the article.  Is it hiding in plain sight?  Have I just missed it?  Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I can't use spoon, neither :) I just followed (copy pasted from your post) the second link at the end of the sentence - not the one near the "properly". The first one seems to serve as an explanation of how "proper" demolition should be understood (by prof. team). The second reference should be enough, don't you think? SalvNaut 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The one to the "About us" page is just a gratuitous and even spammy link.  It can go with pleasure.  Go for it.  I wasn't specific enough when I posted the original.  mea culpa Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implications of controlled demolition of 7 WTC

message: It's a trivial little thing, but I added an image of the NIST report at the head of the article. · XP · 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the reason for adding this image when the report doesn't support the topic of the page?  I don't see that as a trivial thing.  The primary image at the top of the page should not 'debunk' the content of the page.  I recommend the third image down on this page, which I have obtained permission to use. bov 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a better image, yes. My intention wasn't to list something that debunked anything, but since alternate views of the NIST docs are the central thrust of the article, I went with that. Upload yours with the sourcing and go for it; maybe add it above the NIST report image? Your call. · XP · 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom of the wtc7.net page, it states "These photographs are property of the copyright holder, Aman Zafar, who posted them at http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/ . They are reproduced here to aid in the investigation of the attack."  On Aman's site, it says "Please also note all these pictures are taken on 35mm film and are copyright of Aman Zafar (i.e. ME!!!!)." Bov, have you obtained the permission from Aman Zafar to use these pictures?  It's important to respect the copyright, in respect to images used on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Image use policy.  There is a specific protocol to follow for obtaining permission to use images on Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Aude (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Aman Zafar has given me permission to use his images on wikipedia as long as his site is referenced. bov 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aman's images would be very useful to Wikipedia, however we have a specific protocol to follow.  Even use of just the one image would be fine. The copyright holder needs to agree to allow us to use it under the GFDL or a GFDL-compatible license.  This means that Wikipedia content (these images included) may be used by anyone, allowing modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes and also of modified versions.  We can stipulate attribution of the image(s) to Aman and reference to his site as conditions. The procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is right to remove this image from this article until the copyright issue is resolved, my thoughts about the additions (below) notwithstanding.  Once that copyright issue and the current speedy delete nomination is resolved we will know whether it is legitimate to add it back or not.  I am thus about to remove it, even if temporarily.  Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's necessary to resolve the copyright issue, which is indeed a separate consideration than Fiddle Faddle's below.  If Aman agrees that Wikipedia can use the image, licensed under GFDL, that would be most welcome.  It could have a use somewhere on Wikipedia, if not here.  But, if Aman doesn't agree to these conditions, we need to respect that. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIST image 

message: Mmx1 and I have been discussing whether or not the collapse times are controversial or accepted on both sides (official and CD). My view is that everyone agrees that the buildings collapsed "essentially in free fall", putting the towers at a round 12 seconds and building 7 at just under 7 seconds. Mmx1 has been emphasising that a portion of the cores in each case remaining standing a bit longer (max. 25 seconds after collapse initiation). In the case of building 7 (and this has already been fixed in the article) it is important to distinguish between the proposed sequence of events inside the building and the time from when the penthouse collapses. The official story simply tries to explain these collapses at free fall speed, while demolitions don't accept their explanation. The speed of the collapses, however, are not, as I see it, at issue. Any thoughts?--Thomas Basboll 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What constitutes the end of the collapse? When the top floor hit the ground? When there's no significant structural movement? There's no satisfactory answer to that, and no reliable way to determine what was occuring within the dust cloud, which is, in my opinion, why the NIST avoids the question. Hence the more generic statement "left nothing but rubble" with no fixed endpoint. The collapse "time" is a notion floated by the conspiracy theorists, the most sound of which is based on seismic data. I have not seen a convincing estimate based on video footage for the reasons laid out in the NIST rebuttal and challenge you to produce one that is not "controversial". The seismic intervals of 9 and 11 seconds, respectively, for the two towers, are claimed by NIST to refer to "exterior panels", not the main mass. As you can see here, there are exterior pieces of debris (including one large chunk of the exterior panels) next to undamaged floors and truly "free-falling". I mention this only to illustrate the "exterior panels" the NIST referred to; I am not arguing that it was "slower" than free-fall; but one can reasonably conclude that. The official reports describe it as "essentially free-fall" in manner; further concluding that they are in agreement about the duration of the collapse would constitue original research and reading far too much into the statements. "Essentially" leaves a lot of wriggle room especially when NIST never directly addresses the issue of "collapse time". --Mmx1 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question, however, is whether the CD makes any stronger claim (to knowing how long it took) than the 12 seconds (on page 33 of the main volume of NIST report), "essentially in free fall", and the insignificant resistance of the structure underneath the impact zones. CD rejects the idea that it makes sense that the structure offered so little resistance (when NIST says it was essentially free fall, it makes clear that the tops of the building are falling through the bottoms of the building without meeting significant resistance). The hypothesis addresses the primary collapse (not the secondary collapse of "portions of the core") and allows that it might have taken up to 16 seconds. Bazant and Verdure explain why it shouldn't have taken much longer. CD says it should have taken upwards of a minute (if it makes sense at all). I don't think there is basis for framing the collapse times as controversial. Everybody is basially saying "near freefall". Nobody is making any more precise claims here.--Thomas Basboll 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse times 

message: What makes Hoffman a notable proponent? He hasn't received much media coverage, and google results are not an indicator of nobility. His references are all self-published, and he has no qualifications ("postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS). In fact, there was evidence of astroturfing of his links on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, where even the proponents were disturbed that his website seemed to be so heavily promoted. --Mmx1 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that evidence he should be downgraded from notable (if that is asserted anywhere) to "another proponent", possibly "another vociferous proponent", if he is to be included.  Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not resolve the issue that the article is still relying heavily on his self-published sources in gross violation of WP:RS. You can at least make an argument for Basboll's three because there are non-self-published versions of their work (though that is not a guarantee of reliability). --Mmx1 13:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is slow and steady work to fix it.  Do feel like taking this on?  Do we need a consensus first?  Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd like to establish this clearly on the talk page first. --Mmx1 14:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's the perfect example of someone who fails WP:RS, we don't need a poll for this. I don't see anything that would argue for an exception in this case. There are other instances of WP:RS failure here that will have to be dealt with. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you may very well be correct, we are trying very hard to be as consensus based as possible over areas which may well be contentious.  I hope you will not object that I am copying your comments verbatim to the consensu building process below.  The overall objective is to create an entirely NPOV article from the article that was sent twice to AfD.  As you'll appreciate, this is hard to do without assessing all evidence carefully. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with "pyroclastic cloud argument" argument, but his analysis of pulverization energy goes along with what Griffin and Jones points out, and   I think it should be included beside theirs findings summary.SalvNaut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmx1:"postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS -> he has a demonstrable published expertise (in a field of his own), check an article about him.SalvNaut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification:My proposition is to include Hoffman's findings, arguments, links to his research only as a supplement of similiar arguments raised by major proponents (Jones very often refers directly to Hoffman's page in his paper). He should also be mentioned in the hypothesis' history section. Check discussions below for arguments. SalvNaut 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The full quote from WP:RS well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise,. Minimal surfaces have as much to do with structural engineering as cold fusion. --Mmx1 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: He should be mentioned in the history section about the hypothesis. The facts about fuel are easily verifiable. Why would you think he is wrong about that? He made a research, you didn't. SalvNaut 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are looking very carefully at whether the source is reputable.  One could argue with some justification that many peple made researches.  The question is over whether this person's research is judged sufficienty reputable to be included.  There is a thought that, where the research is widely quoted and yet does not qualify formally under WP:RS that WP:IAR might cover it.  Please note that I am wholly neutral on Hoffman, and that this comment is not an endorsement nor a criticism of his research as a source.  Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are we including Hoffman? 

message: Please let us determine Hoffman's genuine relevance for inclusion in the article.  I suggest state Include or Drop, both with reasons.  It is probabaly not a matter of a numeric vote, but a decent consensus based on well argued opinions.  I suggest we treat it as a very formal discussion below.  Is 48 hours sufficient for this?  if not please be bold and say so in this heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "pyroclastic cloud argument" argument, but his analysis of pulverization energy goes along with what Griffin and Jones points out, and   I think it should be included beside theirs findings summary.SalvNaut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmx1:"postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS -> he has a demonstrable published expertise (in a field of his own), check an article about him.SalvNaut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification:My proposition is to include Hoffman's findings, arguments, links to his research only as a supplement of similiar arguments raised by major proponents (Jones very often refers directly to Hoffman's page in his paper). He should also be mentioned in the hypothesis' history section. Check discussions below for arguments. SalvNaut 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The full quote from WP:RS well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise,. Minimal surfaces have as much to do with structural engineering as cold fusion. --Mmx1 18:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: He should be mentioned in the history section about the hypothesis. The facts about fuel are easily verifiable. Why would you think he is wrong about that? He made a research, you didn't. SalvNaut 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people are looking very carefully at whether the source is reputable.  One could argue with some justification that many peple made researches.  The question is over whether this person's research is judged sufficienty reputable to be included.  There is a thought that, where the research is widely quoted and yet does not qualify formally under WP:RS that WP:IAR might cover it.  Please note that I am wholly neutral on Hoffman, and that this comment is not an endorsement nor a criticism of his research as a source.  Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus - Include Hoffman?

message: If there is consensus about someone (Hoffman, King) to be important for the hypothesis, then he should be included here. Why? 
Now, there are two cases possible:
#hypothesis is false: How should this article look then? I think it should mention everyone important for the existence of the hypothesis. If Hoffman is important, he should be mentioned. It would be very interesting for the reader (in this case) to see how had this false hypothesis emerged, what kind of pitfalls in reasoning caused it, who and how fell for it (Jones while basing some of his findings on Hoffman's, etc.).
#hypothesis is true: no need to explain, then.
imho.SalvNaut 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your point here.  The challenge is doing this without the article appearing to endorse their views where they do not qualify under (eg) WP:RS and thus being legitimately accused of being POV pushing.  How do you propose this could be achieved? Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a challenge. My proposition is to include their findings, arguments, links to their research only as a supplement of similiar arguments raised by major proponents. SalvNaut 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For good order: Hoffman is cited in the New York Magazine piece.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York piece makes no assertion to relative importance.  This is a fundamental flaw of your argument. The New York piece itself can be used as a reliable secondary source; that does not open the door to using anyone cited by it as a primary source. Hoffman's works remain self-published material making allegations about third parties, unrelated to himself. That disqualifies it from use as a source as per WP:RS--Mmx1 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still proposing we use only use Griffin, Jones and Tarpley when sourcing elements of the hypothesis. King and Hoffman, however, are mentioned in some of these and in some of the secondary sources we have. It would make for a more informative article to mention them in the history leading up to the three current statements. But I don't propose using their work as sources of further information about the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People important to the hypothesis should be mentioned 

message: Reading the article, the two words may be used interchangeably.  However they are different, the one being a constituent component and the other being  an incendiary compound.  I'm flagging this for further attention while I think of it.  Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having watched part of a rather long video by Jones he explains that he uses thermite and thermate somewhat interchangeably and makes a distinction between them in that explanation.  I think we can safely ignore this, though a final note with a comment to that effect might be worthwhile? Fiddle Faddle 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Thermate]] vs [[Thermite]] 

message: Please see  this diff where a section stating Hoffman's arguments has been removed with the edit history "we can't be making arguments on Wikipedia, violates the rules against original research".
I do not see that this is wikipedia making an argument.  Instead I see it as reporting arguments made by Hoffman.  I believe we may need to discuss this.  Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor may have been suggesting that if Hoffman himself had posted this it would be OR. We simply need to list Jones' arguments instead, and source it to his not self-published paper. They are roughly the same.--Thomas Basboll 09:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence (2)

message: The bullet point "Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions." worries me.  To me it states as a fact that there were explosions.  As a TV viewer of the collapse I can only say that I saw a building collapse fast.  I can imagine great noise and bangs.  What I do not think I could state with certainty is that there were explosions.
However the hypothesis that there were explosions is fundamental to this article, since we are dealing with the hypothesis.
So, am I right to be concerned about this bullet point, or am I just looking at it too cyncially and too late in my evening?  I can't judge that tonight.  Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it must just be me then?  Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about this. I think the list here should be of uncontroversial facts that could be interpreted in ways leading to more controversial conclusions. You are right that it looks like the explosions are presented as facts.--Thomas Basboll 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can simply detox it: Demolition waves: As the towers collapsed there was a great similarity to the appearance of synchronized rows of confluent explosions.  I'm going to edit that one in the article in that manner as an example.  It is imperfect, but it is a start.  Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Waves of explosions?

message: I have just tidied the references in this section, but as a clerical exercise only.  Frankly I am becoming nervous of this section.  So I am putting it up for discussion.
My feeling is that this organ "Counterpunch" may not have sufficient reputability as a source to substantiate the claim that "The FBI has the recorders" for ANY article.  
However, the article is not about the recorders, nor the FBI, nor the collapse.  It is about the controlled demolition hypothesis.  On that basis I feel that a section such as this adds no value to this article and should be removed.
I may simply remove this myself after further thought.  I certainly won't object if anyone beats me to it.  Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Done.--Tbeatty 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been restored. I disagree with the restoration.  I cannot see what it has to do with this article.  Please convince me, SalvNaut, that it is relevant in any way to this article. I see no relevance to the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis at all.  It mayhave relevance to an article on all sorts of other things, but not this one, however well sourced.  Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I wish I had said something before, but I agree with the removal. It really has nothing to do with this article....it may have some general meaning to conspiracy theorys in general but not specific to this. I was wanting to remove that section for a while now and was happy to see someone else did it. Unless there's a really convincing argument I'll take it out again. Rx StrangeLove 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken it out for now.  If restoration is needed it is in the history so the work is not lost.  We should not have a revert war over it one way or the other, we need to build consensus instead Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get what it means and how it relates to this article...what do they have to do with controlled demolition? Rx StrangeLove 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, ok, it relates very weakly.. by Jones, and the conspiracy theory as a whole. I'll try to put it nicely under 9/11 conspiracy theories.SalvNaut 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you sourced it well.  It has a place in one of the articles, just not this one.  The key point is that it is connected to the collapse, and you make that point yourself.  It is not connected to the controlled demolition theory.  It is an interesting fact or pseudo-fact depending upon where one stands on the conspiracy theories in general, because it could be part of any cover up, but it is not part of the controlled demolition hypothesis.  Or, to summarise, "Great sourcing, just need a different home"  Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cockpit Flight and Voice Recorders 

message: I have reorganized the opening sections in a more "flat" style (to use FF's adjective above). It still needs a few sources, and I'll work a bit more at the prose as well. I've tried to respect the discussions we have had here over the past few days, and I'm pretty happy with the results. (I especially like the first paragraph on the sense of surprise, the structural damage, and the fires.) Happy editing...--Thomas Basboll 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a minor change or two, turning a "fact" into a suggestion and referencing the book the new pearl harbor fully.  Looking good so far.  I think over a day or two we can flatten it even further.  Great job.  Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Referenced a couple more books.  Fiddle Faddle 08:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview and History 

message: I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of this sentence;  "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering."  I think it is one of those that makes perfect sense when it is written but has several meanings when read.  Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification needed

message: "Mainstream academia gives no credence to the controlled demolition hypothesis."
I'm sorry, but Jones, Barrett, Woods, Woodward--and there are others--are credentialed members of mainstream academia, and they are on record as giving credence to the CD hypothesis. Therefore the absolute statement--which, to be true, would require that NO member of the academic mainstream give ANY credence to the hypothesis--is demonstrably false. Whoever wants to record what he or she believes to be the attitude of mainstream academia will have to come up with a statement that's verifiably true.
Cordially, O Govinda 10:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The attitude of mainstream academia 

message: ======
I think the time for this tag is past.  I have removed it.  The article is now, I think, cleaned up.  I see no reason for this tag to remain in place.  However, I may be mistaken.  if re-adding the tag please do not simply add it back.  If you see a further reason for this specific tag please state reasons here.  Since one of the objectives has been to clean the article up, and since much has been removed that was not relevant I feel that any re-addition of the tag requires more thna simple tagging.  Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been through the evidence section yet, which is where the NPOV charge will be most relevant. I'll go through it one section at a time with my handy-dandy flattening tool, and add a brief explanation about the relationship between the CT theories, the CD hypothesis, and the evidence. Once the evidence has been presentend in a neutral way, balance will depend on the criticism section. Just one d---ed thing after another...--Thomas Basboll 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a comment from Rx S just vanished from here inexpliccably.  I'm looking for it to restore it.  Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (restored comment)::I think we're a ways from being able to remove this. There are still some pretty fundemental issues with sources. I don't want to start quoting policy right now, but it's a question we're going to have to resolve...I know there's already been some discussion about it, but it's not clear that we've worked out issues of questionable and self published sources. WP:SOURCE is a new proposal that folds some policys into a single page, deletes WP:V and so on. It got me thinking more about this. I just don't have the time right now to focus on it, but I think that tag still has some meaning here...Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: I think the time for this tag is past.  I have removed it.  The article is now, I think, cleaned up.  I see no reason for this tag to remain in place.  However, I may be mistaken.  if re-adding the tag please do not simply add it back.  If you see a further reason for this specific tag please state reasons here.  Since one of the objectives has been to clean the article up, and since much has been removed that was not relevant I feel that any re-addition of the tag requires more thna simple tagging.  Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{cleanup|september 2006}}</nowiki>

message: I am becoming more comfortable with removing this tag.  Unlike the  tag I do not feel comfortable with unilateral action to remove it and feel we need to reach a consensus on neutrality before we take this step. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been through the evidence section yet, which is where the NPOV charge will be most relevant. I'll go through it one section at a time with my handy-dandy flattening tool, and add a brief explanation about the relationship between the CT theories, the CD hypothesis, and the evidence. Once the evidence has been presentend in a neutral way, balance will depend on the criticism section. Just one d---ed thing after another...--Thomas Basboll 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: a comment from Rx S just vanished from here inexpliccably.  I'm looking for it to restore it.  Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (restored comment)::I think we're a ways from being able to remove this. There are still some pretty fundemental issues with sources. I don't want to start quoting policy right now, but it's a question we're going to have to resolve...I know there's already been some discussion about it, but it's not clear that we've worked out issues of questionable and self published sources. WP:SOURCE is a new proposal that folds some policys into a single page, deletes WP:V and so on. It got me thinking more about this. I just don't have the time right now to focus on it, but I think that tag still has some meaning here...Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{npov}}</nowiki>

message: Like some of the other evidence sections, the molten metal section seems to me to discuss the evidence in too great detail. (It offers pretty much the whole debate.) It would be sufficient to identify the two contentious examples: that pouring from the towers before the collapses and that found in the basements after the collapses. The official story says aluminum in the first case and is (as far as I can tell) simply not interested in the second case. The CD hypothesis takes them as evidence for thermite. (Jones, as I understand him, says "molten steel" is unlikely.) Written in more flowing prose, this is all we need to say, IMHO.--Thomas Basboll 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree.  Always shorter, always simpler, and always well cited.  Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molten metal section too long? 

message: This comment transferred from other section of talk page for discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this I see the same lack of sense that you see.  This militates towards removal, I think.  Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debris

message: First: The article is really moving along. Hats off to all of you who are making such fine and thoughtful contributions.
I've gone through the article to make changes mostly related to wording, style, flow, and the like. But I've also made some substantive changes. I'll list here whatever I think is major enough to note. I'm submitting the list in good faith. If I've failed to list anything, my apologies. And if I've blown anything, please fix it. 
*Under "Overview": "Referring back to the initial surprise among engineers, which was owed largely to the fact that no buildings of this kind had ever before experienced global collapse as a result of local damage, it is argued that the additional energy needed to undermine the structure must have come from secondary devices. . ."
Was the lack of precedent what so surprised the engineers? Did the argument made really have much to do with their surprise? That's why I've added "citation needed."
* Under "Brief History": 
:*Nixed "the hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community." Unsourced, and contradicted by the next sentence (NIST is addressing it) and by the actions of non-mainstream engineers. 
:*Changed the progressive-collapse mechanism "that the official explanation invokes" to the progressive-collapse mechanism "to which he [Bazant] and others have attributed the collapses." As noted in the article, NIST seems to have set aside the theory of simple progressive collapse. 
:*Deleted "While they [CD people] do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts." Seemed needless. Adds no real info. 
*Under "Evidence":
:*Added two brief paragraphs about "progressive collapse." The article refers to it in several places, but we hadn't explained what it is. The source, by the way, is the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," March 2005: for the first paragraph added, page 6 of the article; for the second paragraph, page 8. Would someone pretty please be kind enough to add the references?
:*Under "Molten metal" I mostly moved things around. Also merged two paragraphs that said pretty much the same thing twice. Perhaps I somewhere deleted a sentence or two of what was getting to be (as discussed on this page) over-complex argumentation.
::I also added a phrase or so to say what "thermite" and "thermate" are.
:*Under "Squibs":
::I've tried to segregate what was observed from how it was interpreted. 
::The article talked about "the time between the events" being "much too rapid due to gravitational acceleration." I put this in simpler language and added the rest of Jones's point--that the squibs appear before the floors visibly start falling. I also added Jones to the sentence, since he was the source cited. 
:*Under "Chemicals" I added "FEMA's finding of sulfur has already been discussed above." Otherwise, "no presence of explosive residue" would contradict what the article has already told the reader, and leave him perplexed. 
:*Under "Collapse Precedents," that the collapses were "anomalies" is super-obvious. So I changed this to "difficult to attribute to fire."
:*Under "Steel temperatures," deleted that the twin towers "were not open-sided car parks." Ducks are not zebras. I think we can count on the reader to notice.
Again, my apologies for any mistakes I may have committed. 
Cordially, O Govinda 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What substantive changes I've made (12 Oct 06) 

message: The terminology is awkward.
*A "Squib" is an explosive.
*A plume of stuff is not a squib
We need to exercise caution when terming a "thing" as a "Squib" or we join up the dots Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's why I separated the observed "plumes" or "puffs" from the believed "squibs." Like this: They "believe these to be the 'squibs' typical of controlled demolitions." --O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squibs 

message: The statements in this section contradict one another so quickly that amidst the jumble one can hardly understand what arguments are being made. 
My guess is that editors with contrasting views were so keen to have their say and lessen the strength of one another’s arguments that the original points have been lost in the process.
Any hope of retrieving them?
--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steel temperatures 

message: Still needs work, I think. My comments are the same as for the section on "Steel temperatures."
--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The debris 

message: The original argument by the debunkers, concerning Ronan Point, has been lost amidst the arguments made against it. We need to go step by step: We know that a corner of Ronan Point collapsed. Now, before we hear from the CD fans, what do the debunkers say this demonstrates?  
Also: The Hoffman quote on progressive collapse is out of sequence here. (It could go above, where progressive collapse is discussed.)
--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Small point: Did MIT officially devote their staff members? Or were these simply MIT faculty working on their own initiative or at the behest of others? 
Cordially, O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structural and civil engineering research 

message: I noticed, admittedly after someone else added a cat, that we had no real categories here.  I've added the obvious contender, but think we could do with others added as we think of them.  Fiddle Faddle 21:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I see that Peephole has deleted the image that Bov added on this page.  Please do not delete images without discussion.  The image improves the understanding of the issue of the page by including a visual of the event.  I also agree with Bov's decision to remove the addition of the 9/11 conspiracy template which Tom H has added - it clutters the page and includes people who say that nukes were used in NYC, missiles hit the Pentagon, have a Mossad/Jews focus, etc., which have nothing to do with this page.  To me a template which advocates those promoting nonsense, and is controlled by people on here who call anyone who challenges the official version "9/11 deniers," is transparent. Locewtus 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you may feel that the demolition hypothesis is "nonsense," it is very different from the other events of 9/11.  Unlike proposals of missiles, there is massive and redundant documented evidence for the manner of the collapses in the form of videos, photographs, witness testimony, seismic recordings, etc. -- none of which exist at all for nearly every other aspect of the attacks.  With so much redundant evidence, one can measure and analyze the physical characteristics of the event and make hypotheses based on those.  The official reports use many of the same images and videos to make their claims as well.  No such evidence exists for the Pentagon attack or for other questionable areas, like the issue of the put options.  That is why the demolition hypothesis is different - it involves a scientific analysis of an event with the multiple lines of evidence leading to the proposition of a hypothesis. bov 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be a lot of material written about this, there's not much neutral and reliably sourced evidence. That's what makes it the same as some of the others mentioned above. The 9/11 conspiracy template belongs on this article, no question. Unless someone comes up with a better reason than those above I'm going to add it. Rx StrangeLove 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact is, there are no images of the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, yet there is a huge amount of such information about the WTC -- no matter what websites out there think (they're mostly entirely non-notable to you anyway, so why should you now care what they think?), the fact remains that there is a significant difference between the evidence for these events.  One has the scene on film, one does not.  That's fairly massive when we are talking about a scientific hypothesis!  Lots of people believe a lot of things, but that's not the issue here.  The issue is about the facts of what makes this different, and it is the evidence. bov 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse Image (2)

message: You can try to hide it, but truth will out. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF TRAINS IN THE WTC Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: IRWolfie- hatted the above for not suggesting article content, and that's fine, we can leave it for now. But in fact, I do think there's a place in the article for parody and satire of the theories. Tom Harrison Talk 13:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's only a place if reliable sources discuss it and it has sufficient due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

text: That post was hilarious, best CT parody I've seen in a while. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth

message: This stuff is highschool physics.  Why is it not on this page?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I
Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Evidence WTC7 freefall 

message: .....but a smear and disinformation campaign - as are all wiki articles discussing alternate theories. The article is supposedly about the demolition conspiracy theories, but more space is given to rebuttals rubbishing the theories than the theories themselves.
The rebuttals cited are often examples that have long been discredited, so i'm wondering whose hand is at work here? The whole thing stinks of government disinformation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.151.6.240 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because the truth contradicts your foolish historical revisionism, doesn't mean it's not the truth. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not a fair article 

message: the last paragraph seems to be written like somebody's opinion piece or an essay. i'm not contesting the factuality or fallaciy but i cant figure ot if it's a reported speech, a personal opnion or just POV text. could some one fix it? 115.240.81.188 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I tend to agree with the anonymous above. Besides, what is the logic behind giving the last word in this article to a professor of psychology, who dismisses the theory using some exaggerated hyperbolic argument about the amount of explosives needed, while NIST itself (nearly) proved that there is no need for explosives at all to demolish WTC towers in a way we observed it happening. lessismore (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The point to using a statement from a psychologist is that people involved in a conspiracy, especially one of this magnitude, would talk. And none have. In addition, you can't have it both ways. Using a jet and a small amount of explosives to bring down a building is insane. That method leaves way too many factors to chance. Either you believe the ridiculous idea of a controlled demolition, which would require several tons of explosives, or you believe that structural steel weakened to less than 50% of its strength by heat would probably cause a building of that size to collapse. That's why so many people hate these crazy conspiracy theories. The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding. Primium mobile (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree that this psychologist shouldn't be a part of a theory regarding the destruction of a building. And Primium mobile, the article itself states that quite a few people spoke in support of this hypothesis and got fired from their positions or changed their minds a week later. I think anyone involved would have known at the time what they were in for. There's not exactly much comfort space for getting cold feet later in an operation if the "truthers" conspiracies are true. And who would believe the odd one or two people who claimed to have been part of the whole thing and involved anyway? And the ridiculous impossibility of it being an inside job (or a government conspiracy or "higher government/illuminati/whatever" conspiracy) seems just as much a ridiculous impossibility as the crazy conspiracy about of a group of middle-eastern ameteur "terrorists" doing it too, if you ask me. The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding. That's why the conspiracy theories even exist, I believe... it seems more logical a high powered government and/or inside help is responsible rather than a bunch of angwy muslims. Believe whichever conspiracy you want, but psychology and your opinion on impossibility are both quite irrelevant factors in this article. 94.197.122.84 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  You calling them "a group of middle-eastern ameteur terrorists" is you trying to minimize what they were. "Oh they were simply some middle eastern people, middle easten people couldn't have pulled something like this off." Why couldn't they? What made them incapable of doing something like this? You say "The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding", well what exactly are you talking about? Because last time I checked, it wasn't that complicated of a plan, especially compared to the inside job/controlled demolition theories a few people believe. The reason their plan worked is because they planned it for years and it was remarkably simple, and most importantly it was doable, especially in 2001. Facts are the facts, you can't argue the facts, and the facts are that 19 d-bags took control of 4 planes and crashed them. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amateurs? What is an amateur terrorist? You mean the same terrorist groups that managed to hold off the United States Military for the last ten years? Do you think they were stupid? Primium mobile (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Para 

message: This sentence is not supported by the reference:
:"A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]"
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf
This is a 12 page paper that is devoted to explaining a method of estimating kinetic energy from video footage. It is not an article explaining the fall of the WTC towers. It has no information about the structure. The only WTC data it shows is an estimate of the amount of energy liberated obtained by plotting the displacement of a mass over 18 seconds time. It does not explain how the energy got there. It starts assuming the energy is available.
The relevant conclusion states:
:Implications and Conclusions 
:1. If the total �internal� energy loss during the crushing of one story �representing the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story� exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story, collapse will continue to the next story. This is the criterion of progressive collapse trigger �Eq. �5��. If it is satisfied, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone �regardless of by how much the combined strength of columns of one floor may exceed the weight of the part of the tower above that floor�. What matters is energy, not the strength, nor stiffness.
The article basically says that once you have the energy, the tower will fall to the ground by gravity alone. And that the WTC had to have a lot of energy (one order of magnitude) in order to fall as it did.
This is certainly not supportive of the implied POV that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by that collapse alone would bring WTC down. Moreover the article is arguably supportive of explosive demolition. Stapler80 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propositions and hypotheses --- Main towers --- sentence is not supported by reference. 

message: Why was it done?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.194.48 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the fact that there has been no abolition of civil liberties. ----DanTD (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: See PATRIOT act.  Some civil liberties were abolished (or, to be precise, there is no way to tell whether they have been abolished, as the violations are classified.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about a reason for this staged collapse? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I have reversed Nevard's deletion of the quote and related text in the first section. He has not discussed his reasoning here, and I believe his explanation tagged to the post doesn't make sense. The same paragraph discusses the NIST report and Popular Science article (which relies in part on the report), and the remarks of Lee Hamilton, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission are relevant to the report. Coastwise (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center applies equally here: you are placing your own interpretation on a primary source to interpret Hamilton's words. Again, you must use a reputable secondary source that interprets the statement, rather than placing a contextless quote in the article in a manner that conveys an impression that Hamilton is questioning the report, rather than simply expressing his limited understanding of the report and the fact that the investigation, like any such investigation (such as an NTSB report) is a probable surmise rather than a statement of absolute fact. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the quote by Lee Hamiltion, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission

message: An IP is adding statements like "saw molten steel" to the article as fact: using the summary provided by the History Channel excerpt, it's more like "looked like molten steel," I also note that the links themselves are copyright violations and can't be linked on Wikipedia, at least not to YouTube. There's a right way to reference and link, hopefully directly to a non-copyvio version of the History Channel bits, but they can';t be taken out of context and used to draw an emphatic conclusion. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, neither of the two recently linked videos amount to reliable sourcing, they are only useful as statements of Truther viewpoints and must be treated as primary sources for everything else. I saw a History Channel link yesterday when I checked the links, and don't have time today to sort this out, or to determine if these links are copyright violations. However, in general please be careful about using primary sources to make a synthesis or draw conclusions of fact. In general linking to YouTube and declaring that a given statement is thereby proven doesn't proive much; it's a bit like linking to a video of the Zapruder film and drawing a definitive conclusion on the Kennedy assassination.  Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Channel videos 

message: Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title? Why tag it as a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence to support the official report but instead there is evidence to debunk it? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4
94.69.14.54 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the article is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the incident. It is not about the event itself. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me give you a piece of advice, conspiracy videos on YouTube made by some guy in his basement, no matter how talented he is at making videos, is not a reliable source. They misconstrue facts, twist reality, and pick and choose what evidence fits their version of the truth rather than the actual truth. Using them as the basis of your belief system and the way in which you approach the world is something most normal people could not comprehend. Zdawg1029 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title? 

message: Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center's failure to cut a column using conventional thermite is still irrelevant, and there are examples of controlled demolitions doing exactly what they couldn't. Our Sky Ride article mentions that the east tower of the attraction was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs. Pictures can be found on google books (credits to metabunk.org for finding them). I have said it before, wikipedia shouldn't promote pseudoscience just to discredit a conspiracy theory.
Another example was the demolition of the Reichstag in 1954; conspiracy theorists will probably like the images of molten steel pouring down in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8xpsrUpPY Ssscienccce  (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the purpose of your comment? Are you trying to add something? Take something out?Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, forgot to mention that. I suggested in the previous thermite section (5 topics back) that it should be removed, because it proves n
othing and may give readers the idea that it is physically impossible, which it obviously isn't. So I suggest again that it be removed. Ssscienccce  (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The reader should get the idea that, in the context of the World Trade Center buildings, it is physically impossible. There should be no doubt that the "thermite theory" has absolutely no support beyond the "truther" community.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no, they should get the impression that it is possible, but that all the evidence points to the buildings collapsing from structural damage and fires.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence? Please show it to me, or better yet, put it in the article. Even better still, give it back to the government or, I'm sure they're really missing those much needed pieces of evidence. The reader shouldn't get the impression of your opinion on the matter, just scientific facts. I personally no nothing about thermite, but it sounds like it indeed does have support beyond the "truther" "community".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.122.84 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The WTC was not destroyed because thermite was planted around the buildings. It is such a far-fetched, impossible theory that it makes my cat laugh. If you look at what it would take to do that, you would understand how ridiculous it is. If you look at what happened, you would understand how ridiculous it is. If you look at how the buildings collapsed, you would understand that the controlled demolition theory is impossible. If thermite was used to bring the towers down, where exactly in the buildings was all of it placed? How did they get it all in there? How did no one notice? The truther community for some reason does not understand how controlled demolitions work, how they are rigged and how they are carried out. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermite again 

message: "NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"" Did they actually look for evidence for explosives? --41.150.201.159 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum for you to ask questions on. This is a page where we discuss improvements to the article. So if you want to propose a change to the article, and you have a reliable source for it, then state it here. If you just want to spread your beliefs, go elsewhere.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

text: They found none.  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this could be rationally used to source a change in the article, unlike the comments by IP 5.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did they actually look? 

message: Could someone please elaborate the article by listing possible motivations?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.159.110 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wondering about this myself. Not so much what the alleged motivations are for staging an attack, because that's basically the false flag argument. I mean: Have any conspiracy theorists posited a good reason why controlled demolition was necessary for a conspiracy's goals? In the absense of explosives, what effect would (remote-controlled?) jetliners have on the buildings? (There would be some damage and deaths, right?) Why would this effect be politically (or otherwise) insufficient? ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of motivations 

message: I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I have started a discussion about this at:
*Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#FAQ_needed:
--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we going to explain that we can't say the word VICSIM, without saying the word VICSIM? 71.127.138.128 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ needed: