Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 3

message: This talk page really needs cleaned up.  We have 60 some odd entries, and I am sure not all of them are current.  I imagine atleast 25% of this could be archived. DerwinUMD 04:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Jim Hoffman's done it already. He wrote a review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' presentation by Ryan.SalvNaut 22:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kevin Ryan, point by point - discussion

message: I noticed that Hufschmid has been added to the history.  While it is true that he came out early on with a book and that it helped to introduce the idea of the demolitions to people, he was very soon rejected by many groups when people learned of his attacks on average people (sheeple) and his anti-semitic views (holocaust denial and worse).  Try clicking on some of the links on his site here.  
The article wording currently mentions nothing about what he became known for soon after his book so it gives a false impression that he has good standing in the activist community.  Those who associate with him are generally the same people who associate with Jimmy Walter (nukes at the WTC, etc) and Chris Bollyn, a writer for American Free Press, which shares the same mailing address with the Barnes Review, which says that Hitler should be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize. 
The argument against including more about Hoffman was that he wasn't published in mainstream published books the way Griffin, Jones and Tarpley were, but neither was Hufschmid, and far worse, so I don't see why a personal history of his efforts should be on the page.  Hufschmid's book also paired the idea of the demolitons with the idea that a real plane didn't hit the Pentagon, that instead, a missile must have.  Virtually no one supports the idea that a missile hit and this is the primary idea used to discredit the entire movement.  Thus the self-published book was highly flawed in its reasoning on the Pentagon but that idea was just as prominent as the demolition idea. 
 
Oilempire has this to say about Hufschmid -
:Hufschmid is a Holocaust denier, and proud of it. In a January 6, 2006 essay, he wrote, “People who question the official story of the Holocaust are not Holocaust Deniers. Rather, they are Holocaust Truth Seekers, or HoloHoax Exposers.” http://www.erichufschmid.net/Separating_truth_from_lies.htm
:Mr. Hufschmid also claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and is widely considered an embarrassment among the reality-based parts of the 9/11 truth movement. Hufschmid's article is one of the least informed rants in favor of Holocaust Denial available anywhere, and promotes the cause of Herr Zundel.bov 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be best for you just to be bold and put your suggestion in the text. I think a suitably worded sentence like the following might be added to the end of the paragraph: "However, due to his endorsement of the 'no-planes' hypothesis and other controversial ideas not related to the WTC, he has not been an influential figure in developing the hypothesis."--Thomas Basboll 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. bov 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hufschmid

message: The current Jones-Griffin-Tarpley hypothesis would not exist without - to some extent - the early work not only of Hufschmid but also Hoffman, whose site, 911research.wtc7.net, is the highest google ranked website on the Internet which focuses on the demolition hypothesis.  It's been surprising to me that this apparently this has no meaning on here, that the fact that around 10,000 people per day visit the site and learn about demolition isn't of note. Hoffman's contribution was major in a number of ways (he essentially organized the key points of demolition - the symmetry, the rapidity, etc. - and did key early analyses of the official reports), but the insistence on here has been that a major publishing house has to have published the work for anyone to be mentioned.  Griffin, Tarpley and Jones all attribute a significant amount of credit to Hoffman for their work, yet he must be essentially invisible on here because he has not submitted a book to Random House.  Pop Mech has cited him specifically in their latest book.
Hoffman recently did an event with Steven Jones at UC Berkeley as one of the two main presenters on the demolitions, yet, only Jones can really be mentioned here.  It seems bizarre. bov 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a couple of sentences noting some of the things you are saying here, with references to PM and other reliable sources if possible (some newspaper coverage of 9-11 Research, for example) would be in order. I've been shying away from him because he difficult to defend at WP policy level (and this article is likely to be policed rather vigorously). Anyone who really knows something about CD knows that Hoffman is more important than Tarpley to this hypothesis. He just doesn't have his papers in order, as it were. We are still waiting for a peer-reviewed paper or book about the history of this controversy (one that doesn't participate directly in it). It would, of course, have to give a prominent place to Hoffman. We could then safely give him the attention he deserves here.--Thomas Basboll 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Your comments are appreciated. bov 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hoffman and the current Jones-Griffin-Tarpley hypothesis

message: While I think this article still needs a lot of cleaning up, I wonder if anyone is still worried about its neutrality. There are basically two senses in which it might lack NPOV. Either the criticism section is insufficiently developed, or there are too many sentences that use POV language in the whole article. If you think this article lacks NPOV please make no more than three specific criticism below (preferably citing specific sentences) in order of importance. We can then fix them and move on to the next three, if any remain.--Thomas Basboll 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality dispute 

message: The facts mentioned in the captions of these pictures has been discussed on the 9/11 CT article. I propose we sort it our here and transfer a sentence or two back to that article. I've taken them out until the matter is settled.--Thomas Basboll 21:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building Seven Collapse Sequence 

message: I just removed this from the critcism section:
:Engineers from the firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson said in 1993 the World Trade Center was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 crash because they knew a smaller plane had crashed into the Empire State Building. But even then, they warned that it wouldn't be safe from a subsequent fire. "Our analysis indicated that the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from the jet] would dump into the building," lead structural engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times in 1993. "There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed."http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.architect13sep13,1,1989358.story?coll=bal-attack-headlines However, he added, "The building structure would still be there."http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227. The Seattle Times article ended by saying, "Although Skilling is not an explosives expert, he says there are people who do know enough about building demolition to bring a structure like the Trade Center down. 'I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it.'"
This can't be a criticism of CD since the remarks were made in 1993. In any case, they seem to confirm the core elements of the CD hypothesis: that a plane would not bring down the building and that controlled demolition could. I don't think any CD'ers have used this info, however. If they have, we can include it.--Thomas Basboll 21:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skilling's support for CD (before the fact)? 

message: I've worked on it a bit tonight, and this is as far as I've gotten. I think PM should be added explictly (and McCain's foreword to that book, if I recall, uses the "disrespecting the victims" argument -- he's the right sort of source for that.) Also, we might do a bit more point-by-point refutation. This would probably also help us to focus the evidence section. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I can see there's some dispute about including a link to the film 9/11 Mysteries. The hypothesis has been propogated to a large extent by way of videos. These are of variable notability, but not all of them are irrelevant. What's the cases for and against this one?--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: note the new "popularizations" section. I think links here would be useful and informative.--Thomas Basboll 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main argument against inclusion was "not to make a case here". Personally, I've never found properly described sources, which were used in right places, as case-making. 9/11 Mysteries is an amateur video, which has gained much recognition(953 976 hits on Google Video and it's only one of many available versions there!). Even Steven Jones voiced his interest in and approval of this video (I could search for a quote if it's still avail.). SalvNaut 23:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please find that remark and reference the sentence. (For readability, maybe just put Jones's endorsement and the Google stats in the footnote.)--Thomas Basboll 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 Mysteries 

message: Hi everyone. I've gone through the whole article and tried to work it into shape for peer-review. There are still some things to be done, and I've marked the areas that are in particular need of cleanup and expansion. I'd suggest we do a quick job on each of these areas, and then see if we can get some outside editors to review it. I've collected all the rebuttals in the criticism section, and I'm planning to turn it into more orderly prose soon. Do add any major arguments you feel are missing.--Thomas Basboll 23:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent extensive edits: heading for peer-review? 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
**Comment - the lead paragrpah in my view is suficient length and is a useful introduction Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated Review Tool output

message: I just reverted some material on Scott Forbes and the idea that there was a power down. We need much better sources to establish this as a fact, and non-self-published controlled demolition proponents who use his claims for anything. We also need to include it up in the main section (if such sources can be found), not the criticism section. Sorry.--Thomas Basboll 12:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power Down 

message: It is highly advised that anyone editing 9/11 pages do a thorough reading of the "Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense" section on this page. Kings 32 06:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He means Talk:Steven E. Jones#Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense, which is totally inappropriate in that talk page.  I believe it also to be totally inaccurate, but haven't had time to verify. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: *Since it's been deleted, see  It just goes to further prove that conspiracy theorists by and large believe they have the one, true answer and all other theories are without merit. In this case, it's an assertion that the WTC towers were taken out by space based beam weapons. I hadn't heard that one before. --Durin 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense - recommended reading 

message: Given that the conspiracy theory template is 
*erroneous - includes and describes people like Jeff Rense, a UFO promoter, as a "prominent member of the 9/11 truth movement," even though he is not even listed on the Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 page.
*spotty - only covers a select few people - some of whom promote hoaxes like nukes and no planes - and describes them "prominent members of the 9/11 Truth Movement," yet omits people like Jeff King, Carol Broulliet, Kevin Ryan, etc. because they have no pages since they haven't made slick DVDs or are not millionaires like Jimmy "nukes" Walter.
*inaccurate - includes films like 'In Plane Site' which feature pod and no plane hoaxes that have been debunked by the majority of activists and researchers in the movement.
I see no reason to have a highly erronenous and skewed CT "template" featured on this page which does not even have "conspiracy theories" in its title.  This page is about the rationale of the scientific hypothesis for demolition.  Tom Harrison, who has had no role in this page, continues to repost it and repost Jeff Rense to the content of the template, despite being asked repeatedly not to. bov 02:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 Conspiracy Theory template

message: There is some material in the overview article on 9/11 conspiracy theories about "mini-nukes" and other exotic technologies being used to demolish the twin towers.  Maybe somebody should add a comment on this here? --Robert Merkel 02:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of any published material (book, paper), which was later referenced by reliable secondary source (newspaper,journal,tv programme, etc..) about this theory. Please check WP:RS, WP:Notability and find some sources if possible. Wouldn't mini-nukes left some detectable radiation (none was detetced, right?)? SalvNaut 01:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in 9/11 conspiracy theories; I merely point out that if it's mentioned there it should also be mentioned here.  I don't care if it's removed from both articles.  Yes, it is completely beyond the realms of plausibility that nuclear weapons could have been used to demolish the Twin Towers without leaving lethal and easily-detectable levels of radioactive fallout behind.  --Robert Merkel 12:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add material on "mini-nukes" 

message: As far as I can tell there is one single action remaining before this article is submitted for peer review, which is to cite the one  tag left, which is here:
::Done I think. It was mainly Jones's argument about temperatures sufficient to weaken steel frame. He refered to NIST study in his paper. SalvNaut 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great.  Strike it through in the automated peer review tool section, remove it form the to do list,and seriously consider beikng bold and submittig for peer freview.  Fiddle Faddle 00:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Striked. I think it's Thomas Basboll's privilege to do so, I suppose he would like to participate in the process. He might be back from his Wikibreak any day now.SalvNaut 01:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please look at the To Do list and complete current final actions 

message: I have edited the reference to comply with the "Cite Web" template, extracted the relevant quotation from within it, and modified the place in the intro where the quote is applied to remove the extra detail since it is firmly and attributably in the footnote.  We should note that this reference dos not state that there was damage caused by débris.  It states instead "An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;".  This means that the document is not definite about external débris.  Since we can only report valid sources and not speculate this is the correct way of handling this issue.
Another editor has said I removed it because I did not like it.  The edit history shows that I removed it because it did not, in my view, reference débris sufficiently and did not substantiate the statement made with it.  Fiddle Faddle 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the fellow above, abrasive as he may be, did actually quote exactly what the NIST has stated.....yet that has once again been removed. He may have used inaccurate wording first time around, but he seemed to have gotten it right the second time. But the fact that that WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane remains, while the ancillary and equally important fact that debris damaged the building, as quoted from NIST, has been removed...why is that, I wonder. If NIST isn't valid, then not a single other refrence in this article is either.--MONGO 10:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, MONGO.  I covered it within the style of the opening paragraph, and ensured that the full quotation is present in the footnote.  I agree that a cursory glance would lead one to think "deletion" which is why I felt it wise to cover it here.  I am in absolute agreement with you over facts.  I don't care a fig for the various conspiracies - I disbelieve them - but I believe the article itself must cover them properly and give correct weight to citable and reliable sources.  What I was unhappy about previously was that the initial reference was so broad as to make it like looking for a needle in a haystack.  What we have now is, I hope, an authoritative reference, well documented, and carrying perhaps more weight that the originating editor gave it.  The important thing about this reference is that it has this "and/or" in it, so it does not define what actually happened.  Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn is "Thsi is what NIST says".  Fiddle Faddle 10:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reference for damage to WTC7's central column 

message: *
*
--Stone 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Please look at the citations, one by one, and improve them by using the correct citation template within each ref (see the "To Do list").  A list of urls is not acceptable, especially when we are asking for a peer review.  I'm sure we had this cracked a month or so ago, but I imagine the article changed substantially.  I'm doing them a few at a time, but do not, please, rely on me to finish it.  Fiddle Faddle 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using google videos as sources for any matters of fact is questionable. A transcript produced and maintiained by a reliable news source would be better. Tom Harrison Talk 15:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with using the google video as a source. A youtube video, shows pretty much the same thing but continues talking about how the building was pulled down with cables. Now I wouldn't use either source as a reference, but it seems that pulling down a building with cables is a very different process from the supposed controlled demolition of WTC7 with explosives. I certainly don't think this usage of "pull" proves that this is common slang for destroying a building. --Dual Freq 20:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point about Google and YouTube videos is made also on the Peer Review page.  Additionally there are many editors patrolling articles to remove links to questionable material based on copyright.  I think we must at least comment out the references to those videos with a note in the comment to show what we have done and why.  This may require some segment rewrites.  We should at least be able to cite a text source in each case if we cannto cite a video source.  Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started to comment these out.  The reason I'm commenting them out is to both remove them and not lose track of where they were inserted.  Fiddle Faddle 22:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I commented them all out.  That solves the copyright issues, but it may leave a comment that requires a citation as an orphan.  Please will someone check my work. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need a citation for "Criticism of the controlled demolition hypothesis can be divided into two main categories." I've noted it with a citation needed tag. What we need is an academic or journalistic source who has studied this and concluded that criticism falls into the two main categories that we then go on to describe. Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I raised this with Tom on his talk page after he added the tag.  I'll make a similar comment here, because we need to resolve either a citation or whether one is required here.  I don't mean this in any way to criticise Tom's adding the tag; I am in a genuine quandary over what to do.  Reason?  To me it is as self evident as the colour of the sky, and I see it as a "normal statement" when drafting such an article.  I think Tom judges that to be unencyclopaedic.  So, how do we handle this?  Fiddle Faddle 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Too much of this is our own (not that I contributed much here) social science research. It's original research by synthesis. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the published materials this article cites advance the position the article is about. I think it would help if you provided an example of an arrangement of claims and sources you believe violate the OR policy. There may be examples, but I think most of them can easily be fixed by citing the source that itself advances the position in question.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Criticism of the controlled demolition hypothesis can be divided into two main categories." I've noted it with a citation needed tag. What we need is an academic or journalistic source who has studied this and concluded that criticism falls into the two main categories that we then go on to describe. Tom Harrison Talk 21:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that one's a good call. I don't think there is a source for that claim (I wrote it) and the section hasn't really developed in line with it anyway.--Thomas Basboll 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been scratching my head about it for a while.  I think it adds nothing to the article with or without a citation.  I feel that it is a generic thing about any conspiracy theory that it gets entangled with any deaths the event caused, and as such goes better in an article higher in an article hierarchy than here.  This hypothesis is not of itself either respectful nor disrespectful regarding the dead, is it?  Fiddle Faddle 21:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most notable instance is the Leslie Robertson/Steven Jones radio interview (already cited in the article). It was used there specifically in relation to controlled demolition. The other notable (but more general) instance is McCain's intro to the Popular Mechanics book. Tucker Carlson called Jones' ideas "offensive" (but didn't explain why). I think it's worth having in there, especially with the note that it is the association to CTs that causes the offense.--Thomas Basboll 22:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't strongly object to it if others think it's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I have just updated the ToDo list to reflect the need to be consistent with citations.  The templates are here:  Wikipedia:Citation templates and a peer reviewer has emphasised the need for their use.  Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review emphasises consistent citations

message: I am looking at this paragraph:
"All these authors refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before it can be accepted as true. Their three accounts 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 on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarizes 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 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eyewitness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasizing 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. This criticism of both the motives and the methods of official investigations is central to the defense of the controlled demolition hypothesis and here Ryan's contribution has become influential."
The key sentence criticised is "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition."
Taken as a freestanding sentence I can see that it could be read to be pejorative towards Jones's work.  But with the other descriptions of the other people alomngside it the sentence appears to me simply to compare and contrast the three people.
The question is "What, if anything, should be rephrased?"  Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A possible answer is to rephrase to ""Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with exhibit similarities to controlled demolition."  This removes the possibly judgemental struck out words.  I'll go ahead in a few minutes and make that change.  Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think the "seem" was put in as a concession to the opposite POV complaint, which the proposed version would be subject to. Whether or not these features are "similarities" (vs. mistaken associations made by proponents) is likely to be controversial.--Thomas Basboll 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue with "seem" being present or absent.  The words I felt were awkward implied that Jones took the "easy" route.  Feel perfectly free to add "seem" back from my persepctive.  Fiddle Faddle 14:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be better: "Jones concentrates on the (alleged/perceived) physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." Physical implausibility is a claim made by CD proponents. RxS 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or maybe "Jones concentrates on (what some people see as the) physical implausibility (inherent in) the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." RxS 21:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested POV from Peer Review 

message: It seems to me that the peer review process depends in the main on "loyal reviewers" making the reviews.  That is not wholly effective when an article has the scope for substantial controversy.  We've seen that controversy in the past and the article has improved because of it.
I think it would be of great use to the article if many of those who found the article's pre and just post AfD incarnations to have been flawed if they were asked to look at the peer review invitation, and to join the review.  I think that should be balanced by inviting those who were positive about the article, too.
I do not think there can be any accusations of spamming since the invitations are even handed and are to participate in the Peer Review process, not, specifically not, to be positive or negative about the article, but to review it in a wikipedian manner.
If the work that has been done is as valid as we believe it to be then the article can only improve further as a result.  A downside is that I imagine there is nothing to prevent any editor, peer review or not, from nominating for deletion, but that is an ever present issue anyway.
So I open it to "the floor" as a suggestion.  Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That thought notwithstanding, I have placed an invitation to review on the village pump. Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the best from a peer review 

message: The Peer Review has a comment that the opening (lead) paragraph should contain the names of the principal proponents of the CD Hypothesis.  Because there are so many bit players in this I think we should phrase it as "Key proponents postulating various forms of controlled demolition include..." and certainly list Jones and three of four more main people.  I'm not sure that we should list anyone minor here.  Thoughts, please?
When listing someone we will have to be careful to unwikilink the name lower down.  Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jones, Ryan, Hoffman, Griffin and Tarpley would suffice for me.--Thomas Basboll 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I suggest you feed them in, and then remove any referring task from the to do list, and also make a reply on the peer review page, striking the relevant part of the suggestion to sgnify completion?  They seem like the major list to me, too.  Do we need citations at this point imthe text or will further down suffice?  Fiddle Faddle 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I have left the wikilinks in down below, however. I'm not sure I understand why they should be removed. It seems to me that it would ease navigation to be able to click directly from the point where one gets curious, to the relevant article.--Thomas Basboll 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be misremembering WP:MOS, but I think it suggests that a wikilink to another article appear once and once only.  To me it is a small thing and I agree with you over convenience of navigation.  Perhaps it is a case of WP:IAR.  From thissi point on I am simply thinking "Featured Article Status", and trying to remove all obstacles to a successful niomination :)  Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: I'd like to cut three whole subsections from the claims section:
*3.4 Symmetry 
*3.5 Squibs 
*3.6 Molecular and chemical analysis
The first two are covered in the "similarities" section (could perhaps be expanded there a bit. The last is simply too esoteric, though it could perhaps be merged into a discussion of the fire temperatures.--Thomas Basboll 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, yes it could be done. But some text should be moved and sources. As for the 3.6 - we should agree on whether it is a significant part of Jones's hypothesis or not (yet?). Those results are presented (not published) on journalof911studies.com and Jones was talking a lot about it in all of his lectures from late 2006. Opinions? (I don't think it deserves its own section but I think it has its place in the section) SalvNaut 21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be enough to rename the "molten metal" section "thermite" and summarise all evidence related to that claim there.--Thomas Basboll 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think naming it "Thermite" could be considered to be OR unless the text is very carefully crafted.  It could look as if we, the editors, have reached a conclusion in favour of thermite.  Fiddle Faddle 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Thermite hypothesis" maybe? --Thomas Basboll 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "Jones's thermite hypothesis".  Assuming Jones to be the thermite guy, that is.  Of course he also spoke of thermate.  Trust him to be awkward! Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've implemented changes with the title "Molten metal and thermite hypothesis". SalvNaut 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cut from claims section 

message: I see this page can now be deleted, but there are a lot of people that voted to keep it. So now what do we do?--Beguiled 21:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it can't be deleted at this point. The AFD has to pass with a Delete result for the article to be deleted. --Wildnox(talk) 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We wait for the discussion to close. The result there determines the fate of the page, not whether or not you want the article to exist. --Wildnox(talk) 21:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What you do next is very simple.  You have registered your opinon on the AfD page.  That is the end of your power over the article's deletion or survival.  So you sit back and wait and watch and you work with the commmunity and its consensus.  If the consensus is that it be deleted then your opinion has prevailed.  If the consensus is that it be kept, or if there is no consensus (when it is kept by default), then you accept that you are at variance with the community.  Fiddle Faddle 21:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not make accusations here, and be aware of the terms of WP:AGF.  Remeber that all of your actions are a matter of public record.  Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry.  I am guilty of a typo.  I said "your actions" which looks accusing.  I meant to type "our actions".  Yes, everyone's actions are a matter of public record.  If you want to discuss Wikipedia Policy you should do so at Wikipedia:Village pump where such matters are raised and discussed..  Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Great comment. Very accurate and hopefully professors will teach students how to use Wikipedia. I'll add that it should be teached all the time how to use all available sources of information properly. We live in era of information. Good choice and good assessment of information is becoming essential. SalvNaut 21:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Beguiled|Beguiled]] 

message: Was this vandalism...? F.F.McGurk 20:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think really a content issue.  If this thing were not controversial, of course, then no-one would be having a controversy about it. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admin revert? 

message: There's no real mention of what the significance of the core failing first would be. In any case, it seems like a pretty small detail to give a whole section to. We can't have everything here.--Thomas Basboll 15:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to weed out minor items where we can.  The choice is whether it is germane to the hypothesis.  if it is just "gosh the antenna fell down" then it is nothing to do with the hypothesis, and is just a bit more stuff that collapsed.  If it is "Because of the way the antenna fell, Fred concludes as follows" then it stays.  I haven't read the antenna part in detail, but I think you know what I mean.  Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read it in detail it seems to me to be wholly irrelevant to the CDH.  Go for it.  Fiddle Faddle 15:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop of antena 

message: While they seem accurate, I'm not sure that these new sections belong in this article. That the engineering consensus is against CDH is clear both from the lead and from the overview. There is already a link to the main collapse article. The problem with these sections is that they shift the article in the diretion of being about the collapses rather than a hypothesis about them. The more the article is shifted in that direction (even by means of mainstream information), the more it comes to function as a POV fork.--Thomas Basboll 07:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However well wrtten they are they are not about the hypothesis.  They belong in the article about the collapse.  Fiddle Faddle 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed them, a section at a time, so that, if consensus is different, they may be recovered easily, and referred each removal to this talk page.  I am very mindful of the article being accused of being a POV fork, acknowledge the summary status of those sections, but feel they are well written but in the wrong article Fiddle Faddle 07:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right to say that the sections serve as "framing material". That's the problem. They frame the content of the article as the collapses themselves, not a hypothesis about them. The visual appearance stuff is pretty much covered in the claims section, but could perhaps be added there. Keep in mind that there are specifically four CDH advocates in this article's claims section. "Into their footprints" has become shorthand for "radial symmetry" and none of the advocates used in this article deny that the debris field was large. In fact, they wonder where the energy to spread debris around like that came from. The "into their footprints" argument is to be contrasted with "falling over like a tree". Nor do any of the advocates used in this article make the mistake of attributing "pancake collapse" to the official consensus. There was some discussion at the beginning about how to select "notable" proponents. I'm quite comfortable with our solution to that problem (though I would still give Hoffman a greater role if I could.)--Thomas Basboll 09:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: I think Griffin does still make fun of the pancake collapse theory. He really should know better. But this could be noted as a feature of Griffin's version of the collapses (if he really still is using it).--Thomas Basboll 09:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the sections were short.  I also think they were well written and I acknowledge the hard work that this took.  My feelings are simply that the framing takes place and should continue to take place in the main aarticles about the collapse.  This article is highly specific regarding its topic - it is only about the CDH - and is to be kept very narrow indeed.  If any framing is needed it is that "The towers collapsed, and that collapse is dealt with in [[article name."  But that is already in the article.  The objective of an article in Wikipeida is not to be 100% of the knowledge surrounding something, but to add something that other articles do not while referencing those articles with precision.  Fiddle Faddle 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, the engineering consensus section adds one fact (buckling of the exterior columns) that is not already mentioned in the first paragraph of the overview, where there is also a link to the main collapse article. I don't see what reasserting the consensus again contributes to the article.--Thomas Basboll 14:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In re the new subsection, the main collapse article is not the relevant main article for an overview of the CD issue. It was much better as it was. Turning it into a subsection doesn't really change the fact that almost all the information has already been covered.--Thomas Basboll 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions of visual appearance and engineering consensus sections 

message: This is a Peer Review comment, presented "as is".
Rebuttals should be close to the corresponding arguments, not in a ghetto near the bottom of the article.
We should reach a consensus on this prior to actin since it could mean a substantial alteration to the article.  Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely disagree with this. The whole hypothesis should be presented together. As far as I can tell, we are not including any claims that have clear and unambiguous rebuttals. (The main counterargument is that the alleged anomalies "don't add up" and that there is a better way to make sense of the collapses.) Perhaps the mistake is building the criticism section up on a claim-by-claim basis, as though these need to be refuted individually.--Thomas Basboll 08:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "whole hypothesis" can be presented in a sentence or two. The arguments in support require more explanation, and come from various people who do not necessarily advocate all of them. As to the alleged lack of specific rebuttals, you are mistaken. Gazpacho 09:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this article should include too many claims that are advocating only by individuals. It's the overlapping set of core claims that are encyclopedic; the rest the reader will have to find by further reading (we've provided plenty of references; an actual bibliography might be an idea though). Let's take the specific rebuttals you mention one at a time. Which one's were you thinking of?--Thomas Basboll 09:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's important to keep in mind that this article presents "one side of the issue". Again, if the issue is "what made the towers collapse" then this article is a POV fork. The issue is "what do people who propose CDH claim". I think the criticism section needs to be smaller, more focused and more laconic. That is, it should appear less eager to rebut and more (in line with the engineering consensus) confident that there is nothing really to rebut. Sunder's "I am sympathetic to how these people feel, but facts are facts" is more representative of the qualified response to CDH than point-by-point engagements (which are very, very rare, and often undertaken by amateurs.) I imagine that these reviewers have gotten the wrong impression of the sorts of criticism that is being offered of this hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal proximity 

message: It is unclear what the point of the "pull it" section is. No interpretation of Silverstein's remarks that supports controlled demolition is offered. The relevant interpretation is of course the idea that it is an informal way of saying "demolish the building". That's a pretty central piece of conspiracy lore attached to this hypothesis. I don't see a reason to leave it out. David Ray Griffin, one of our key sources in this article, does bring it up here. He's puzzled about why Silverstein would admit to such a thing, but there's no doubt about what Griffin thinks Silverstein said.--Thomas Basboll 19:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please get off this hobby horse of talking about deleting the article.  You are free to nominate it for deletion at any time, even today, if you judge that to be the correct action.  The article's job is not to show anything except the facts of the hypothesis and the items which make it up.  The reader's job is to make a judgement.  If we make the article "show" anything except citable facts then the article becomes original research.  Fiddle Faddle 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He said "pull it". It's recorded on the video, you might want to search for it. Silverstain was, of course, explaining that he had meant "to pull [firefighters]". SalvNaut 19:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pull it" 

message: I have to say, I kind of like this section as it now (with both the pros and the cons in there), though it goes beyond the heading. It needs to be trimmed and clarified a bit (even beyond where the tags are), but it describes the issue nicely. In fact, I wonder if we could just leave it at that. I.e., remove the criticism section and the particular claims, adding a bit more to this section. Then have the WTC 7 the same way. It might work.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  I think one change to this sentence is needed:  Video footage of both tower collapses shows that, while fires were still burning, the top sank into the damage area and rotated.  OK, it rotated.  About what axis?  Or did it tilt?  Is tilt rotation or is it a skewed vertical collapse?  Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it a bit more. If we can agree that the CDers are basing their arguments on aspects of the collapse that the official story passes over very quickly (using their "order of magnitude" calculation) then I think balance can be achieved. Physical evidence of CD, like molten metal and squibs should then be summarized in a couple of sentences, with references. That is, we can position the part of the argument that can be made sense of in the space left open by the official investigation. It's that sort of thing the reader will want. (Is there anything to this? Hasn't NIST covered it? Well, the answer in a number of instances is no. Or at least not in detail.)--Thomas Basboll 22:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At least one reliable source, the Nation, recently pointed out that CD (along with other CTs) lives in the space left by officially unanswered questioned and official lying (about things like Iraq, air quality, etc.). I am working on this article precisely because I got tired of watching YouTube (I'm exagerating). The hypothesis you are talking about (built on narrative devices not evidence) does not deserve an article (it deserves passing mention in the 9/11 CT article). I'm working on an article about a notable topic. We have identified four reliably published statements of a hypothesis. Let's focus on them rather than what their followers on the Internet use them for.--Thomas Basboll 08:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  <quote>At least one reliable source, the Nation</quote> Now, THAT's funny.Mzmadmike 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual appearance section 

message: I have asked each to come here to speak to their reversions.  I reverted what I hope is the final one of these.  The edits themselves may or may not need discussion, but they were not vanadalism.  Fiddle Faddle 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression was they were patroling the recent changes with VandalProof and swept up a few things that were not vandalism, which is easy enough to do. If not, I suppose they will speak up here. Tom Harrison Talk 01:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My sole contribution to the mess was to see Gazpacho's reversion, read the edit summary "(reverted bot)", and revert back to Where's version on the basis that the reversion Gazpacho made was erroneous, since Where is not a bot.  I operated on the belief that Gazpacho's reversion under an inaccurate edit summary were a good faith error.  As it says in Help:Edit summary, "edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial."  Normally, I would trust the edit summary that an editor gives, but this one was unmistakably at odds with the facts.  From my own perspective, I never viewed the edit I reverted as being vandalism, just as a mistake.  So, I ask that you all take my actions in the spirit in which they were intended.  --Ssbohio 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry in that I clearly erred, as the edits in question were not vandalism. As far as the content dispute goes, I am unsure. -- Where 04:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions by [[User:Where]] and [[User:Ssbohio]] 

message: I've done some work on the WTC 7 to make it a more stand alone section. I am now going to move it up so that it goes in right after the overview. As it stands, the article takes way too long to get to any real claims and arguments, merely summarizing various statements disagreements. It seems to me that WTC 7 offers a nice way of getting a sense of what the hypothesis is all about it early in the article.--Thomas Basboll 20:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving WTC 7 

message: I'm ready to endorse merging the criticism section into the claims section (now called "main towers", which I also think should be kept). If we can keep the esoterica to a minimum (perhaps add a section to gather these little tidbits), and arrange interesting confrontations of major claims and counterclaims, then I think we'll be shipshape in a few days.--Thomas Basboll 20:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graudal merge of "Main towers" and "Criticism" section 

message: Here's what I think can still be done:
#Merge the dust cloud and molten metal/thermite sections and reduce to max. 5 sentence.
#Reduce analogy section.
#Thorough copy edit.
How do you all like it?--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list for main towers section 

message: I just had a quick look through the main towers section. I'd suggest basing each section on the most relevant proponent's writings. That is, the "fire theory" section should refer to Ryan, the "thermite" section to Jones, "dust clouds" to Hoffman, "oral histories" to Griffin and "debris" to Tarpley. The "main argument" section will probably draw on a combination of these. As always, this is about using sources that are "primary" for the hypothesis, not for the collapses themselves.--Thomas Basboll 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not synthesize an argument no one has made. Tom Harrison Talk 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's why we need to cite the CDers who raise the issues in the individual sections, not their sources of evidence. The "combination" that will go into the main argument section will ideally be a general overlap of things they all say.--Thomas Basboll 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is more often accepted as truth than presented as such. Even someone like Tarpley (who is more than sure of his case) presents it as a hypothesis in need of futher testing in his book. Griffin and Jones set the tone by arguing for a new investigation: this of course implies that there is not evidence at present to be sure. Even if one of our four proponents has said something that suggests they believe it was controlled demolition, I think there is plenty of material to suggest that they normally qualify this remark by pointing out that more investigation (by more qualified people than them) is necessary. If you have some good examples to the contrary, let's look at them and see if they outweight such cautionary statements.--Thomas Basboll 14:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main towers: sources and sections 

message: First, what an amazing job has been done in pruning the article.  It's currently down to 47KB
Recognising that the references with quotes shoudl stay, and that some references are not yet cited correctly, which will increase the article byte count, we still need to précis the article wherever possible.  One of the challenges I have seen in tryng to do so is doing it without introducing any validation of the CDH by the words in the article.
Nonetheless it needs to drop down to a readable length without being dumbed down.  Any further ideas?  Fiddle Faddle 12:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trimming is good in some cases, but only one of the four featured articles I have worked on are anywhere near 32kbs....so don't make that a mandatory goal before you send this to FAC.--MONGO 12:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  The goal is the careful mixture of brevity and readability.  It must contain all the material it should contain and none of the material it should not.  The goal is quality.  Quantity is secondary.  If it must even increase, but quality rises and brevity of expression rises coupled with readability then we have done that part well.  An odd side effect of a need for tighter expression is a small size increase.  Fiddle Faddle 13:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the need for brevity 

message: If someone wants to have that paragraph there is has to be a balanced presentation of the status of the hypothesis, not an(other) assurance that the mainstream rejects it. (Already clear in first paragraph.) I'd prefer to remove it.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never been comfortable with that paragraph.  It smacks of OR.  Fiddle Faddle 18:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second paragraph in lead 

message: I have commented these out because such references refer to items of dubious copyright.  If the original item can be sourced and made freely available to Wikipedia that is a different matter.  Fiddle Faddle 18:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google video in references 

message: Which previous fires are there which have been "uncontrolled" and have not resulted in teh building collapsing? Midgley 18:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure anything depends on previous fires (though the standard case is the Windsor Building in Madrid). FEMA was pretty clear about this issue: "The collapse of [WTC 5 (partial) and 7] is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure ... had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse" (Executive Summary, p. 4 ).Thomas Basboll 19:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous fires 

message: I think this article should still be deleted, but at least it is better than it was. It still needs a title that makes it clear that it is a conspiracy theory. Calling it a hypothesis is rather silly I think.--Beguiled 20:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but there's arguments about "conspiracy theory" being a POV term. While I agree that it is a conspiracy theory, it's impossible to get consensus on the matter, so a more neutral term is what we're stuck with. -- Kesh 22:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Beguiled, if you think it should be deleted, propose it for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or don't. It just passed AFD 9 days ago. It has passed AFD three times now. It will pass again. Let's not drag this out another time, when it hasn't got a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of being deleted. — coelacan talk — 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothesis? 

message: Though peripheral to this article, it was created because of discussions here.  I wanted to notify editors of all opinions that it has been nominated for deletion.  That deletion may be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:911ct.  Please visit that discussion and join the discussion.  Whatever oyur opinion is, t matters that sufficient opinions are registered to form a true consensus.
For those who also wish to comment on :Template:911tm it has also been nominated by the same editor at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:911tm.  Comments there would also be welcomed.  Fiddle Faddle 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template [[:Template:911ct|911ct]] 

message: One thing we haven't dealt with yet, but which seems to be motivating some of the tensions in this article, is the question of whether the hypothesis is properly "scientific". This issue cuts both ways. Jones normally stops to explain how things are done in science, in part to criticize the way the NIST investigations were done. Ryan also develops this criticism in terms of "Bush science". Eagar, of course, dishes it out the other way: talking about the "reverse scientific method" of starting with your conclusions, etc. It could make for an interesting section in this article.--Thomas Basboll 11:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts about the meaning of "science" 

message: I reverted WhoWillTellThePeople's edits again last night, but given how late it was I didn't get a chance to properly explain. I'm going to rectify that now.
The edits are phrased in a POV manner. For example, the edit about "squibs" was phrased as if there were squibs in the towers. That's an unverifiable statement. If the information were rephrased that the puffs of dust resembled squibs used in CD (and a source were provided for that), we could then include that information.
My suggestion is that WhoWillTellThePeople bring the statements they wants to include to this talk page and (one at a time) we can discuss them and help create neutral wording to include them in the article. The back-and-forth edit warring isn't helping any of us, so I hope we can work together on this. -- Kesh 15:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your reverts, Kesh. There may be a few things that Who is right needs to be added; but at this point I think we're still struggling with the basics.--Thomas Basboll 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, changes like these should be discussed here first. RxS 17:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:WhoWillTellThePeople|WhoWillTellThePeople]]'s edits 

message: I feel that "According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. " may be what we have been searching for.  In case this gets lost in the mists of time, I have posted the diff here.
It is explicit about what follows.  It avoids the words that are in dispute.  It neither validates nor invalidates the hypothesis.  Thomas, for me, has cracked it.  Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sentence:  "According to"