Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 2

message: I think, when we are all content, that we need to look at Peer Review of this article.  There is always the danger of standing too close to an article and we may be in danger of that.
But peer review can be a salutary process.  We only want to undergo it when the article is ready.  hence my question:  What remains to be done?
I'm using sub-headings to create the list and then suggest we signifiy the closure of each section.  The ") (R)" is to differentiate this subheading from a working subheading elsewhere inthis talk page.  I'm envisaging a task list here, bulleted and closed, with discussion taking place elsewhere on the talk page Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just inform you that there is a response to this argument. People working in WTC described strange activities like redecorations, wirings weeks before 9/11, there were powerdowns, etc. Sniffing dogs were removed (this was in some newspaper). (you can watch it here, but I haven't seen those facts published, yet). SalvNaut 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, you are hopeless. Redecorations and rewirings are NOT strange, and are NOT the same as priming the place with explosives. Priming the place with explosives is not something you can do with "strange activities". It is a completely obvious activity that can NOT go unnoticed. Look for example at the fourth image in this page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm Do you really think  that this kind of activity had been reported as "rewiring and redecoration?" No, there is no response to this argument. --Regebro 10:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wanted to inform you... You might deduce from it what you want, of course. A statement about conventional demolitions has it's place in the article and you can find one at the exact end. If you find something more interesting and better sourced, please contribute.SalvNaut 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's nice of you, to inform me. Just FYI: You can probably assume I'm more informed than you already. ;) But you are of course welcome to inform me anyway. --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're talking a cross purposes here. The criticism that Regebro mentions is obviously one that should be put in this section simply because it really has been put forward. (Leslie Robertson offered a version of it in his radio debate with Steven Jones, if I recall.) SalvNaut, I think, really is "just informing" us that answers to this objection have also been proposed. Nothing hopeless about that, but I think following every back and forth would be beyond the scope of an article. If the WTC was demolished, it was obviously not done in a manner consistent with the HowStuffWorks article. How it might then have been done is also beyond the scope of this WP article. This article will not settle the issue; it will simply present the main points of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadly correct. SalvNaut 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are answers to everything, and answers to that to, and answer to that to, and so on. But sooner or later, the answers get stupid or evidently wrong, and you have to end it somewhere. For example, if you say "George Bush is behind the 9/11 disaster", one "answer" is "That's impossible, he was in a classroom reading a book at the time". Yes, it's an "answer", but it's a bloody stupid one. Of course we shouldn't include this as a serious argument against the alternatve 9/11 theories. We can't include any "answer", it has to have some sort of reasonability or notability to be included. When somebody points out that preparing a building for demolition is a major undertaking that would not have gone unnoticed by ANYONE in that building, the answer the "there were reports of some redecoration and rewiring done" is NOT a reasonable or notable answer. Really.  --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have agreement here. Regebro finds a notable critic of CD who has pointed to the difficulties of planting the explosives without being noticed. We add this to the criticism section. There is no reason at this point to include speculative rebuttals usinf the information SalvNaut provides (the exchanges between critics and proponents are not especially intense on this issue). The comparison to classical controlled demolitions fails in a number of ways, one might add, but this has only led CD proponents to point out that this was no ordinary controlled demolition. That back-and-forth is implicit after the first step is taken.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone should mention that the so-called "sqibs" are very obviously NOT demolition explosions.  A cursory look at them shows that the puffs of debris/smoke get LARGER over time which is exactly what you would expect if they were caused by increasing air pressure in the floors immediately below the collapsing sections.  A demolition squib's puff is at its LARGEST immediately after detonation and gets less intense over time ~~anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.240.149 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What remains to be done? 

message: Appears complete to me Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro (only section with no heading) (R)

message: *Check for NPOV
*Check for sound evidence from WP:RS sources
====Molten metal (R)====
====Symmetry and Squibs (R)====
====Molecular and Chemical Analysis (R)====
====Oral History Support for Demolition (R)====
====Lack of Collapse Precedents (R)====
====Steel temperatures (R)====
====The debris (R)====
*debris section non sequitur resolution Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence (R)

message: *debris section non sequitur resolution Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The debris (R)

message: In this section, there is only arguments FOR that the collapse would be possible without explosives. The arguments AGAINST controlled demolition are missing. For example, if they installed the whole towers with explosives for a controlled demolition, something that takes WEEKS why didn't anybody notice? I don't have time right now, but if nobody else does it, I'll try to create something. --Regebro 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just inform you that there is a response to this argument. People working in WTC described strange activities like redecorations, wirings weeks before 9/11, there were powerdowns, etc. Sniffing dogs were removed (this was in some newspaper). (you can watch it here, but I haven't seen those facts published, yet). SalvNaut 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, you are hopeless. Redecorations and rewirings are NOT strange, and are NOT the same as priming the place with explosives. Priming the place with explosives is not something you can do with "strange activities". It is a completely obvious activity that can NOT go unnoticed. Look for example at the fourth image in this page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm Do you really think  that this kind of activity had been reported as "rewiring and redecoration?" No, there is no response to this argument. --Regebro 10:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wanted to inform you... You might deduce from it what you want, of course. A statement about conventional demolitions has it's place in the article and you can find one at the exact end. If you find something more interesting and better sourced, please contribute.SalvNaut 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's nice of you, to inform me. Just FYI: You can probably assume I'm more informed than you already. ;) But you are of course welcome to inform me anyway. --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're talking a cross purposes here. The criticism that Regebro mentions is obviously one that should be put in this section simply because it really has been put forward. (Leslie Robertson offered a version of it in his radio debate with Steven Jones, if I recall.) SalvNaut, I think, really is "just informing" us that answers to this objection have also been proposed. Nothing hopeless about that, but I think following every back and forth would be beyond the scope of an article. If the WTC was demolished, it was obviously not done in a manner consistent with the HowStuffWorks article. How it might then have been done is also beyond the scope of this WP article. This article will not settle the issue; it will simply present the main points of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 19:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadly correct. SalvNaut 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are answers to everything, and answers to that to, and answer to that to, and so on. But sooner or later, the answers get stupid or evidently wrong, and you have to end it somewhere. For example, if you say "George Bush is behind the 9/11 disaster", one "answer" is "That's impossible, he was in a classroom reading a book at the time". Yes, it's an "answer", but it's a bloody stupid one. Of course we shouldn't include this as a serious argument against the alternatve 9/11 theories. We can't include any "answer", it has to have some sort of reasonability or notability to be included. When somebody points out that preparing a building for demolition is a major undertaking that would not have gone unnoticed by ANYONE in that building, the answer the "there were reports of some redecoration and rewiring done" is NOT a reasonable or notable answer. Really.  --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have agreement here. Regebro finds a notable critic of CD who has pointed to the difficulties of planting the explosives without being noticed. We add this to the criticism section. There is no reason at this point to include speculative rebuttals usinf the information SalvNaut provides (the exchanges between critics and proponents are not especially intense on this issue). The comparison to classical controlled demolitions fails in a number of ways, one might add, but this has only led CD proponents to point out that this was no ordinary controlled demolition. That back-and-forth is implicit after the first step is taken.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Someone should mention that the so-called "sqibs" are very obviously NOT demolition explosions.  A cursory look at them shows that the puffs of debris/smoke get LARGER over time which is exactly what you would expect if they were caused by increasing air pressure in the floors immediately below the collapsing sections.  A demolition squib's puff is at its LARGEST immediately after detonation and gets less intense over time ~~anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.108.240.149 (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism (R)

message: At the end of the "Overview" section, I've added a footnote to Jones's "Why Collapse" article. The cited work, however, merely serves as an example. The example doesn't adequately demonstrate what the statement says, that the hypothesis is "normally presented" as being in need of testing. I'd have prefixed the footnote with "For example," but I didn't know how to make the Wiki software do that. 
Also: The mention to "Page 44" pertains only to this particular citation, not (as it might seem) to the whole string of citations that all connect to this same reference.
Does someone know how to fix this?
Cordially, O Govinda 10:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simple and complex at the same time.  The FIRST reference on the page to a footnote needs to have the description.  The rest simply have the name of the footnote.  You need to read the cite.php instructions and see if you can make it do what you need it to do.  It may be that you need to cite the section you need separately.  See also :Template:cite web for adding much else besides a simple reference.  this template is embedded inside the <ref.</ref> tags or used standalone, depending upon your need Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics of footnotes 

message: Under "Evidence / Molecular and Chemical Analysis," we had this:
:Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[37] and says he found chemicals consistent with the presence of thermate (a mixture of thermite and other oxidizing agents used in incendiary munitions). Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[38][39]
:FEMA’s finding of sulfur has already been discussed above.
Well, notes 38 and 39 do lead to environmental studies that don't indicate the presence of explosive residue. 
But I suppose the reader could be forgiven for expecting that the studies, when cited in this context, looked for the presence of explosive residue. 
When you read the studies, it's clear they did not.
The first study (from the USGS) limits itself, on the page cited, to listing and briefly discussing the "Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating material." From the discussion it's clear that whether any of this material would be consistent or inconsistent with explosive residue simply wasn't under consideration. 
The second study (from a journal called Environmental Health Perspectives) deals, as the study's title tells us, with "the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center." The focus of the study is clearly on the possible threats to health posed by "lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials." 
And, in contrast to not indicating "the presence of explosive residue," that second study speaks of the "pulverized building debris and products of incomplete combustion produced by the explosion that ignited the thousands of liters of jet fuel." (emphasis supplied)
The studies, therefore--and they seem like quite good ones--are generally irrelevant to the argument they're implicitly cited to support. And one of the two articles cited, though surely not envisioning controlled demolition, even assumes that at the root of the environmental mess under study was, yes, an explosion.
Since neither study says anything, pro or con, about possible explosive residue, their use here to suggest that there was none amounts to original research.
Neither study, by the way, mentions UC Davis.
I've therefore deleted the sentence.
If someone has done scientific research directly addressing the question of explosive residue and has come up with findings different from those of Jones, that research might be worthwhile to cite. 
I should add that the present citations are the latest of several I've followed in this article, only to find that claim and citation don't match. 
Cordially, O Govinda 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this judgment. Most readers of this and related articles will want to know where official sources engage with directly with CD, i.e., where the positions explicitly clash. We need to be very precise when suggesting that "other studies show" something contrary to CD.--Thomas Basboll 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments not upheld by the citations provided for them 

message: In the first paragraph on building seven we find the following unsourced observation:
:Large fires in such structures are rare, and incidents where those fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled for many hours are so few that statistical inferences have not been drawn about the general ability of these structures to withstand extended fires.
As I understand it, the belief among engineers in "the general ability of these structures to withstand extended fires" was never based on statistics. While it may technically be true that actual buildings have not statistically "proven" themselves against major fires, it is not true that experts didn't have confidence in them, nor that this confidence was unfounded. Materials are designed and fire tested in many ways and no one expected building seven to collapse. I'll remove it unless there are objections (please provide a good source.)--Thomas Basboll 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible OR in Building 7 section 

message: It seems to me that that there are two distinct phases in the history of the CD hypothesis, perhaps three. There's the early days (actually the first three years) of internet-based research; then there is the entry of Griffin (2004) and Jones (2005) when the hypothesis is published on paper and begins to get coverage in the press. Another component of the history needs to be noted: CD proponents have been some of the most detailed critics of the all the official investigations. The CD argument therefore develops alongside the official account and soem of the most pivotal moments in the hypothesis are occasioned by the publication of official reports.--Thomas Basboll 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know, you are correct about the history. Well, that would show once more how critique of official investigation is important to CD hypothesis. Then, Ryan is an important person in the history of this critique.SalvNaut 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work on early history