Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 2

message: Its a fact, a burn of kerosene would not provide enough heat to melt steel.
Some people therfore have claimed that it might have been controled demolition.
There is however another way to get enough heat.
The reaction is more complex however all materials have been in place at the time.
Aluminium normaly does not burn, and we think of it as a harmless material. Aluminium is however highly reactive, altough it's natural oxydation closes itself from more oxydation. Unlike the corosion of iron Aluminium corosion forms a closed surface. That's the reason why it doesn't keep on going oxidyzing, like iron does. 
But Aluminium still is potentialy highly reactive. 
A thermite reaction is a reaction when aluminium oxydizes in a fire. 
Perhaps you have heard that a modern car burn in which its aluminium burns at 2500°C (4500°K) 
This temperature is enough to melt steel which is done at about 1500°C. 
To get a thermite reation all that is required is a good starting temperature.
Apparently some car accidents provide enough starting heat for such reactions.
Now imagine an airplane. It goes a bit faster and it is mostly build of aluminium and feuled with kersonene. 
The problem with the thermite reaction of aluminium is that it's a special burn.
A water sprinkler system will not stop the burn, as aluminium is a highly reactive material.
At these temperatures it will use the oxygen of the water to burn. 
(thermite reactions burn also under water).
More information about thermite reactions [thermite]
:This is insanity. This talk page is not the place to come up with our own pet theories about what happened. Besides, the NIST report does not claim the steel melted (i.e. changed its physical state). The steel bent due to the high temperatures, causing buckling and the eventual collapses. Nobody has claimed that melting occurred, or needed to occur in order for the buildings to collapse. Rhobite 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen!--MONGO 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this place is for the small minded...probably best to put controlled demolition information in  this article.--MONGO 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right...expand your horizons and ensure all controlled demolition info is put into the linked article...stop wasting your time on morons like me.--MONGO 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting steel, kerosene is not enough, however aluminium will do 

message: 9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions 
1 Feb 2006, Miami Herald 
20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11 
Jan 31, 2006 DailyKos 
Possible Detroit "Super Bowl" Terrorist Attack? 
30 Jan 2006, Email message 
Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax  
30 Jan 2006, Yahoo News story 
Daily Kos (with a rolling forum) 
Deseret Morning News reports on Scholars for 9/11 Truth: 
28 Jan 2006, Deseret Morning News 
Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11  
27 January 2006, Daily Kos (with a poll) 
The US military's plans for an information war: 
27 Jan 2006, BBC news report 
The PDF file of the plan 
An email from Ian Henshall: 
26 Jan 2006 report on Oxford Union 911 meeting 
Top Russian General Says International Terrorism is a Ruse: 
24 Jan 2006 
Deseret Morning News reports on upcoming paper by Professor Jones: 
10 Nov 2005, Deseret Morning News 
SkeenaR 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide these in external links as the manner in which you present them makes it impossible or at least very difficult for us to cross reference the info.--MONGO 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the News

message: There is the undue weight clause in Wikipedia's neutral point of view which clearly states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."...this is a policy that Wikipedia must honor. --MONGO 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are not vandalism, but yours may be due to your violation of the undue weight clause and using private websites which are not peer reviewed...you should see 3RR as well.--MONGO 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am willing to make a slight expansion on my version, with a mention of a few notables, but that should be sufficient...fringe information does properly belong in the article mentioned by Tom or in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article.--MONGO 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that Tom's and my statements here make the issue clear...the link above to WP:NPOV clearly demostrate that the extreme minority viewpoint does not have to hold the overwhelming concensus hostage. When there is one piece of evidence that supports any findings of contolled demolition, aside from opinions and selective reasoning, then I want to be the first to see it. Until then, this misinformation you keep pushing is going to be in subarticles under proper titles.--MONGO 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPOV]] 

message: I'm new here at wikipedia. And I have been quite happy up til now. Now I find the behaviour here amazing. Maybe it is because I am new to this but I just don't get it:
Why should the official explanation, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, not be properly citated, so we and other can verify it, while other viewpoints should be both peer-reviewed and citated proper? Shouldn't we keep all viewpoints to the same verifying standards?
Why are MONGO saying "find the citations yourself...stop cluttering the page with this" (how is "stop cluttering" a constructive remark?) when removing the citation needed tags? It is a clear and obvious policy that:
1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it. WP:V
Is it okay just to delete citation needed tags, without coming up with proper citation? As far as I can read in WP:V I can actually delete every part of this article that hasn't been properly citated, and then anybody who will reinsert that will have to come up with the sources and citation. Why then has MONGO reinserted every part of the article that prior has been deleted because of lack of sources, without aplying a source of citation?
How can SkeenaR be reported for 3RRs when both Tom and MONGO, (who both are personally engaged in this article) has done four reverts together? Is it okay to do that just because you are two admins?
Can anybody explain how all this is ok????
--EyesAllMine 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We did four reverts combined while the other editor did 4 on his/her own. That's the difference...see WP:3RR. The article doesn't need 2 dozen citation requests scattered all over the place...it's ridiculous.--MONGO 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The deletion of that was due to my username being tossed around like so much cheese...no one has to tolerate accusations like that...the list was a copy and paste directly off the website and was a copyviolation to do so...that is an immediate deletion, period.--MONGO 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone starts throwing your username around like mine was, let me know and I'll delete it. It was a copy and paste and that makes it a copyvio...a blockable offense. You can report my actions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and make sure you include this link.--MONGO 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It would have been easier to take citation needed as a legitimate request for information if one had not been for The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire. I think these were added to make a point. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just don't get it 

message: It took me about thirty seconds with Google to find a reference for bin Laden having studied engineering. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the citation request tags? Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an exercise in redundacy.--MONGO 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite requested 

message: Tom Harrison, in an apparent effort to intimidate authors with physical threats, has opined that a particular author should be "shot on sight". Besides being a criminal offense, (incitement to violence), it is a clear indication of his mindset. For the record, I personally would never advocate murder, or attempted murder of those with whom I disagree. Tom Harrison apparently feels otherwise. 69.231.8.216 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon IP 69.231.8.216 removes entire sections of text from the dicussion pages here : for no apparent reason...it wasn't due to it being a copy violation. Anon IP also fills the article up with hideous citation requests, even after being asked not to :. Don't you think Tom was being cheeky...it's hardly likely that he was being literal...this has nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC...do you have any real proof that this happened? I'd like to see the proof, not continuous jargon from fringe elements that continuously try to make people think that just because there is less than zero chance that controlled demolition occurred, that that in itself doesn't make it impossible.--MONGO 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Harrison issues threats, incites violence 

message: How come this article on a web page of a small university in Australia has been used as a reference, and not the NIST investigations recent findings? Isn't it best to go to the source for reference? --EyesAllMine 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian page is a good user-friendly summary with minimal jargon, and is from outside the US, which some have thought was important in the past. The NIST findings are cited as well. Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"
It is stating that this is one possible reason for failure. Shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect this? --EyesAllMine 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't deal with politically based conspiracy theories in this article...you're more than welcome to put these speculations in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 11:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 216.57.0.210, (aka anon editor), That's interesting...I was taught that we didn't break the Japanese code unitl after Pearl Harbor , , . Besides, the controlled demolition nonsense is mentioned, and properly linked to the article in which this misinformation is supposed to be located. What was that about uncited assertions?--MONGO 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 216.57.0.216, the is no official "theory" at the moment. There is a finding of evidence based on an overwhelming preponderance of information...and none of that information indicates there was controlled demolition or a government coverup. WTC7 is being finalized.--MONGO 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Sydney 

message: How come it is going to take you guys so long before you finally  understand what this debate is even about. That the government reports are being criticized. By a significant minority. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Please. Please everyone else read it too. Tom and Mongo are not the end all be all. They still have yet to understand what we have been discussing. SkeenaR 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In comparison to the thousands of researchers, investigators, law enforcement personal, medical personal, fire fighting personal, academics and scholars that were involved in the analysis of the facts of what really happened, and not to mention that none of the people on the list provided have proven that controlled demolition happened...point 3 of the undue weight clause applies to their misinformation. A few dozen nonexperts simply on some kind of list is not anything more than just that. This story is over.--MONGO 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes everyone, have a look at how SkeenaR here made this edit to the talk page:  and it is a copy and paste from: . Also note that he/she removed my information to his talk page  when I informed him/her of the copywrite violation, in an effort to cover something up I suppose and also that I didn't block him for this because he/she is a newer editor that may have been unaware. It seems that there is more education to come. Does anything about your opinion about my credibility have anything to do with controlled demolition. Do you have any proof to offer of controlled demolition?....I didn't think so.--MONGO 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What makes this a ludicrous conspiracy theory as opposed to a credible alternate theory is the utter implausibility that all of the conspirators before and after the fact could and would conceal any evidence of a conspiracy to take down the towers by a controlled demolition. patsw 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what patsw is saying is that this controlled demolition bunk is "ludicrous"...and that word seems quite appropriate. What is "WP"?--MONGO 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: really...oh you mean what policy...I've not once seen anyone post it as WP...maybe since there is no one policy. I think we have clearly shown that a few dozen non notables with no training in controlled demolition are clearly in the realm of extremely non notable. If even ONE can prove controlled demolition, then that would be a different story. You have nothing of scientific value to add aside from the far fetched stuff you've picked up from these websites. Happy editing!--MONGO 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Skeena...most of these people are simply not notable...some have no credentials that can be googled to even prove they exist...I think a few may even be delusional.--MONGO 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please learn what this discussion about

message: Merge what with what? This is a vote without a specific question. patsw 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the merge notice was just taken off the article, so this discussion is harder to follow.  As per changed section title, this was a discussion of merging this article with Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  I closed the tag since it had 6 oppose votes and zero support votes.  Consensus would required 75-80% support; and I just don't see 20+ support votes suddenly coming in with no more opposes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea...--MONGO 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The opposite of yes.--MONGO 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your behavior is borderline trolling and is disruptive to this project at this point and I am soliciting outside views on this matter.--MONGO 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: you created the page since you failed to reach concensus here to include this heresay. You then tried to merge them together right after the creation, a bad faith effort to push a POV into this article. I also just got through speedy deleting two images you uploaded that were copyvios...the ice you are on is getting thinner, Skeena.--MONGO 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess my kindness has gone unnoticed. Since you have been made well aware of the copywrite policies by now, you can assume the consequences should you violate them again. I'm hoping that you won't post text and or images that do not conform with our policies again.--MONGO 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]] 

message: * Oppose --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: This is basically what we have been discussing the whole time. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth article is the previously deleted material that is a large portion of the entire dispute on this page. There is support for this material to be merged. This matter is in no way resolved and thus the tag should go up.SkeenaR 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The opposite of yes.--MONGO 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your behavior is borderline trolling and is disruptive to this project at this point and I am soliciting outside views on this matter.--MONGO 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: you created the page since you failed to reach concensus here to include this heresay. You then tried to merge them together right after the creation, a bad faith effort to push a POV into this article. I also just got through speedy deleting two images you uploaded that were copyvios...the ice you are on is getting thinner, Skeena.--MONGO 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess my kindness has gone unnoticed. Since you have been made well aware of the copywrite policies by now, you can assume the consequences should you violate them again. I'm hoping that you won't post text and or images that do not conform with our policies again.--MONGO 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: We only own copyright on pictures we produce (graphic mock ups). Anything else is free reign.
 
Best regards, Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.propagandamatrix.com
Original Message 
From: xxx
To: prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: image use request/wikipedia user
Hi Paul,
I go by the username Skeenar as a contributor on Wikipedia and I would like to know if it is possible to contribute pictures from the PrisonPlanet website without violating copyright regulations.
 
Sincerely,
Skeenar
 
As well as www.prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Prisonplanet] and Propaganda Matrix the same rule applies to the following.
*www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars] 
*www.prisonplanet.tv prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used PrisonPlanet TV]
*www.infowars.net infowars.net is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars.Net]
*Arnold Exposed
There was a dispute over this matter. SkeenaR 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image use

message: Regardless of people's opinions on this matter, engaging in a revert war is not the way to go about resolving it. MONGO, SkeenaR, EyesAllMine...all of you need to stop revert warring over the tags. If the revert warring does not stop, temporary blocks will be applied. --Durin 13:35, 7 February 2006
: Maybe we should ask for this srticle to be peer-revieved? What do you think? This article need more eyes - don't you think? --EyesAllMine 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is only performed when the article is near featured article status, and even if all the facts here were to your liking, it's doubtful it would qualify due to the articles instability...which seems to be a relative recent situation due to some people's attempts to add nonsense. You can of course file a request for comment if what you seek is more opinions.--MONGO 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Photochopped?: When you blow this image up to full resolution you get some very odd distortions in the lower left hand corner, that look like airbrushing, not to mention, the debris seems to be perfectly vertical, the smoke cloud seems to not exist anymore, and the lighting in the foreground is different than in the back? Not to mention for some reason there aren't any buildings visible behind it in the background--152.163.100.134 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:WTC-remnant.jpg]] 

message: Tom, the discussion between you and EyesAllmine (first and second post) in Ongoing debate among engineers sounds reasonable. SkeenaR 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'm not sure that I have much more to add right now though. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate among engineers

message: The FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers. New Civil Engineer published an article titled Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed, in which one party claims "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." and "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings." (WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation). Other articles have been titled All this work is just the start, Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected and Huge investigation but questions remain .
In 2005 fire engineers B Lane and S Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. However there is no evidence in NIST’s preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It
appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and
stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."
Another distinct minority has challenged the findings of NIST and FEMA, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred and asking for a new, indepedent investigation. For more information, please see: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.
The above was deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=39060900&oldid=39059702 by MONGO together with other small edits. I made a comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACollapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=39070661&oldid=39068464 which also was deleted here. My intention is to bring balance and help getting this article better, by using apprved sources etc. Claiming that an debate among engineers is a "conspiracy theory" seems to me to be a paranoid assumption. 
It is not much fun when every single edit I make gets deleted. Without any discussion or explanation on the talk page. I will not participate in an edit war. So now I really dont know what to do. --EyesAllMine 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nut theory has changed just as much.. need I mention the pod theory again? Rhobite 15:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing debate among engineers