Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 8

message: I have noticed in this article statements like this have a tendency to crop up:
*"Some theorists..."
*"Some believe..."
*"Others argue..."
These are Weasel words. Instead of giving vague statements like this, we need to give statements like:
*"Joe Blow of the Institute for Studying Stuff believes..."
Also, I have managed to cull out many of the statements with primary source citations, but we need to also take a serious look at the secondary sources we have. Many of the sites like 911truth.org are seriously questionable when it comes to the Wikipedia policy of Reliable Sources. As near as I can tell, Steven E. Jones, AlJazeera, and the article the "HOP level" quote is from are the closest things we've really got.--DCAnderson 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any assertion that relies upon 911truth.org should be removed as a matter of course, as it's a POV-pushing non-reviewed mouthpiece for the conspiracists.  Morton devonshire 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obfuscation of Sources 

message: OK. I have several questions, all of which relate to this article. First, when it comes to "original research", would the citation of facts that have not been cited before in this context count as original research? (I posted it earlier, though it was deleted. It was two contrasting statements (which contradicted each other...) regarding the release of Flight 93 info...) I haven't seen anyone else posting anything about it anywhere, and I am the only one who has put it together. That said, it is based on reliable sources, namely NTSB documents and statements by federal prosecutors. (I posted links to them too...)
Oh, and the section regarding "no transcripts being released" needs to be changed in regards to the recordings being played at the Moussaoui trial. Orville Eastland 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the relevant part of the OR policy would be "...any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Does that apply to what you are asking about? Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A clarification regarding original research

message: I added the citation for the term pull. Patsw, I hope adding just one is good enough for you. It was right on this talk page by the way. I am reposting a comment from above here as well. 
"that's exactly because the content of the article was outdated and sometimes obsolete, that I first started to rewrite and update the content, hoping to eventually reach a minimum up-to-date quality article. But I gave up after my modification were reverted before I could even finish the job. Seems we have a case of "if they don't know, you can't tell 'em" here. for example people are still reinserting that there is doubt about pulling being a controlled demolition term for pulling a building down, even though it has been widely in use for decades.
(...) such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction. excerpt from the 1960's chapter of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" by author Brent L. Blanchard , or you can hear it here or see it in the howstuffworks article explaining how building implosion works:Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble..
Thanks to doctor9 and other this has been edited out at least twice before I even finished working on the WTC 7 section. There's not even a link to the building implosion article anymore. Why is it that one has to explain to clueless laymen who don't dare research or read by themselves to justify an inclusion in a wikipedia article ? Do anyone here know that absence of evidence is not evidence and absence and that in absence of evidence a wikipedian should research the evidence instead of deleting and reverting ASAP. izwalito"
Talk about an excercise in redundancy. Actually, I think this is the fourth time I had to edit in that spot. Just me. If anyone still has doubts about that term speak up NOW. --SkeenaR 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the term "pull" has been used in demolition, and also in firefighting.  It really is not fair to dispute that the term "pull" has been used in demolition when the cite documenting this keeps getting deleted. That is not fair.  At the same time, we need to point out that the term "pull" also refers to pulling firefighters out of a building to prevent injury or death.--Cberlet 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And in skeet shooting!--Bill 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I spoke with experts at Controlled Demolition, Inc. just this morning and asked them about "pull" or "pull it" and they stated that they never use this terminology. Can someone point me to where this terminology is used?--MONGO 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Look, call them yourself, they won't talk to you since you have no credentials, but you can try and email them......maybe someone from there will chime in at Wikipedia and help to qwell all this junk science.--MONGO 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Being Butchered

message: "some of the claims are being further supported" I don't understand exactly what this means. Tom Harrison Talk 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's right. They didn't say (as I recall), "Those are conspiracy theories, and therefore unworthy of our attention." They examined the assetions of the theories popular at the time, and found them lacking. Of course, the proponents of the theories say they were not found lacking, but weren't fully understood, or were misrepresented. I think it could be better expressed. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that the change from "publications such as..." to "the publications" was done as retaliation for my edit of "researchers such as Jim Hoffman" to "software engineer Jim Hoffman." --Bill 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assume good faith, Bill.--DCAnderson 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: Here's two versions of the Paul Watson's theory linked to www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm prison planet] 
:1 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview.
:2 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has suggested that this statement was a Freudian slip where Mr. Silverstein mentioned an order to collapse the building. He suggests because "pull" is a common industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered
I wrote the first version because Paul Watson doesn't have a cite for "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition."  A cite is necessary because I wasn't able to verify Paul Watson's assertion to be factual.
In the meantime it can't be asserted as fact and instead is cited it as his own writing.  Note I have quoted his own words from the article.  The article doesn't refer to "pull" as "the moment a collapse is triggered".
I wonder what sort of research Watson did on this article.  For example, the New York City Fire Deparment is not organized into "brigades" but "companies".
I don't know if "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition."  As I wrote in an edit summary adding the  template, request citation for "pull" as a standard industry term to demonstate its usage prior to 9/11/2001 in this manner.
According to Watson, Silverstein made a reference (in Watson's words "an apparent admission") to an order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition (that is a "planned demolition" or "pull").
The second version is not an accurate summary of Watson's article:  Watson doesn't suggest it was a Freudian slip, slip of the tongue, or carelessness on Silverstein's part.  From watching the clip one can see that Silverstein is careful and not careless in recalling this conversation with the FDNY chief on the site.
The second version is ambiguous: "collapse the building" is not Watson's claim at all, it is that Silverstein destroyed the building by ordering its controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. on Septemer 11, 2001. patsw 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pull is industry jargon for planned demolition 

message: I missed what vandalism prompted this protection, but it's been up for a while now and I'm requesting it be unprotected. BTW, what was the vandalism? SkeenaR 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:VAN--MONGO 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the protection is very good for this sort of subject. Registered users can edit, and such a controvercial topic is in lots of danger of being screwed up by anon crack-pots and anti-conspiracy believers alike. Fresheneesz 11:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unforunately Wikipedia's policy on this is that the only thing that can justify locking a page is vandalism that is actually occuring on an ongoig basis or to protect the page from sockpuppets of a banned user. You can't lock a page just because it is controversial. We did have a banned user try to edit, but he only made 2 edits and they seemed to be part of a larger wave of editing across multiple pages. This is an isolated incident, and as near as I can tell doesn't really justify the lock. If he comes back and does it again later, I suppose it will be justified, until then I say we should remove the lock.--DCAnderson 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: placed the block to deal with edits by a banned user working from an IP address. You could ask him to unprotect, or you could request unprotection. I expect Jayjg will remove the protection as soon as it's safe to do so. Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it safe yet? Bov 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the semi-protection.  Please keep an eye out for any further edits by banned users.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, the page was vandalized 54 minutes after the unprotection... Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, someone else, but the valuable contributions to this page by IP editors has, as far as I can tell, been nil. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection

message: The section on the Pentagon seems to do a good job of citing secondary sources.
The problem is, is that it seems to have a large number of claims and statements attributed to an unspecified group of nebulous "9/11 Researchers."--DCAnderson 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:Weasel|Weasel Words]] in section on the Pentagon