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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Start

This is a subarticle of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page; I took this information from there. Once the VfD is over, if this article remains then the sections copied to this article should be excised from the original article and this whole page should be summarized briefly there.

Demolition opinions

Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in before: below was what I wrote)

I would like to add something that I haven't seen yet in all info about 9/11. A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:

1. the WTC collapse goes from top to bottom: no controlled collapse ever has been done like that: explosives are always put at the bottom so the building collapses from its own inertia.
2. Since both towers collapse from top to bottom this means there had to be explosives at all floors, top to bottom, that would have been detonated in order (starting at top working down to bottom). This is not possible because there was a fire on the floors hit; if there were any explosives in the building, they would have just burned. And, more important: every explosive uses a detonator. Those detonators would have exploded way before because they go off at a temperature of 320 degrees celsius; hence no explosives could have used.

The video Loose_Change_(video) shows enlarged puffs of smoke coming out the WTC towers some 30 floors below the collapse and states that this is evidence of explosives. However, as Jowenko concludes, these were bolts and parts of the steel construction popping out because of the enormous strain by the collapse. This collaborates with the remarks made by firemen in the 9/11_(film): "Bolt by bolt started popping out".

His opinion was double checked (as shown in the Zembla documentary) by a team from the TU Delft TU (Technical University) of Delft and they came to the same conclusion based on their calculations.

The most common response to this is that the WTC was by no means an "ordinary" demolition. Steven Jones, I think, has argued that if thermate was used it would not be set off by the fires (and would have had to be encased anyway to focus their effects on the steel, so it would not simply have burned off). Obviously I don't know if he's right about that. In any case, it looked to me like Jowenko was saying that it was certainly not demolition like he would do it in the light of day. Shady characters involved in a conspiracy to make it look like something other than a demolition might do it differently, I would think.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Ok, Well, I can add then that to rig both WTC's in that way, would have been something that would have been done at the time of construction, which seems to me as something ridiculous because that would mean that the complot would data back to the early 70's? If it was not done at construction there would be another problem: according to Jowenko, the amount of wiring to do such a job (regardless of the kind of explosives) would be enormous (months). The wiring would have to be done also where it would not be obvious. Also: this means that at all floors (top-down) they would have to had people pretending to do construction work over a (long) period of time...

I'm not quite sure we're understanding each other here. Demolition experts who have talked about this have said the WTC collapses looked nothing like anything they would have arranged. But they've also got much better working conditions: plenty of time and free access to an empty building. Conspiracy theorists think the demolitions were carried out in a covert military operation of some kind. Instead of placing a minimum amount of charges in optimal positions, they may have had to settle for excessive amounts of explosives whereever they could conveniently hide them without being discovered. This would explain the visually explosive nature of the collapses and enormous amount of damage to surrounding buildings (that controlled demolitions try to avoid). The main issue is not how the explosives were planted, but whether they were necessary to bring on a collapse at all. If the official engineers are right, what we saw is exactly what one would expect to see an hour after an airplane hit the building. The controlled demolition hypothesis depends on the falsity of that claim, not on the truth of claims about who, how, when, and where the explosives were planted. I don't know of any conspiracy theorists who claim to have answers to those questions.--Thomas Basboll 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

WTC Building 7 Collapse

In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.

Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that.

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

Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Exactly: Given the tennants of that building (among them the CIA I understand), it makes more sense that they would rig it in case of an catastrophic event: that way they would make sure no confidential/secret information would leak! Some firemen might otherwise stumble over highly classified information. Also: why would 'they' take the time and effort to make the WTC collapse look like a catastrophic event, but not do the same with building 7? As Jowenko said it has all the trademarks of a controlled demolition! He thought it was unlikely - but not impossible - to rig it in 4 hours, even in a burning building. So it migth have been a hasty job... (this is off course speculation) Personaly (also not relevant for Wikipedia), I find it more plausible that the WTC 7 collapse was controlled demolition (for reasons stated above) And the WTC collapse was just that: a catastrophic event, not demolition.

At this stage, this interview might be briefly mentioned, but, like I say, I hope someone follows up on it and gets a more detailed analysis, preferably in writing, out of him.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) The whole documentary is still online and I would not be surprised (since it was also subtitled for the hearing impaired) if there is a complete written out version. But it is in Dutch and would need to be translated...

Citation

I removed the {{Fact}} tag from the first sentence because obviously no citation is needed, since this page is explaining precisely what the Controlled-Demolition Theory is. If that doesn't make sense, please state your reason(s) here. Thanks! Mujinga 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Who says that's what it is? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For me it is clear that this article is explaining (or 'saying' to use your word) what the theory is. I dont really understand your objection, perhaps if I give an example I can make myself clear. Let's take the article about The Queen of England, which states as its first sentence:

Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is the Queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth Realms.

There is no need to give a citation here to 'prove' that the Queen really is the Queen, since the article is about her. That is the proof in itself. Thus, and I hope you follow my logic, there is no need to give a citation for the Controlled Demolition Theory in an article which explicates what that theory is. Hope that helps! Mujinga 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One difference is that there are reliable sources about the Queen. What are the reliable sources who say that there is a controlled demolition theory, and what that theory is? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues

There are multiple problems with the citations on this page, and some other things that need revising.

First paragraph

• This would suggest that a great deal of planning went into the attacks and that many people were involved.

  This needs a cite, otherwise it should be removed. It's original research if a proper source can't be found.

Agreed, I removed this sentence Mujinga 10:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal

• He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers).

  The fact that the tests were done in 5 inch steel cups needs to be added in order to give a proper indication of methodology

Ejected debris

• A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.[19]

  Unless there's another source for this, it needs to be removed. The cite contains no calculations, only numbers going up and down as an indicator moves up and down an illustration of the building.

Section removed Rx StrangeLove 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Section restored. I've added link to calculations (http://911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip).

Please don't rush with removals. I am not sure if editors are working on this article or still on the same section on 9/11 conspiracy theories. --SalvNaut 08:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition

• Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[23]

  The link for the cite is broken, other than that link there is no other source for the claim/results of the tests he is said to have conducted. The whole section should be removed unless another source is found.

Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Section restored - link fixed. --SalvNaut 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones

• It should be noted somewhere that "he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area" (from the Wikipedia article) in order to give readers the proper prospective on his authority, and give them some motivation to investigate his professional ability to make these claims.

Pulverization

• Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.[26]
• :This quote comes from an outdated version of his work. The latest version has the majority of the material removed. If he won't stand behind it, we should not include it. (From his page: This paper is currently under development, taking into consideration critiques by various reviewers) The whole section needs to be removed.

Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think that the latest version of his paper invalidates the previous ones and those are still available. I know nothing about Hoffman changing his mind on this. Should we restore it, then? SalvNaut 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

moved back to main talk page on 30 September 2006. Further comment on this topic continues there, so it is struck out here to avooid duplication Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.

• Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners

  This is blue sky at this point. Nicholas DeMasi can't be found or will not talk about it, regardless of the fact that he added the story in a self-published book put out by a charity group. I was asked to take federal agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes (and they found 3 of them, unbelievable). Mike Bellone wasn't even on the search, but saw what he took to be black boxes. He also has been criticized for his handling of TRAC finances and for wearing an official uniform when he's only an honorary fireman. We shouldn't be repeating bad reporting.

Symmetry and Squibs

• They argue that while a possible theory is that the 7 WTC squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.[5]

  This link is broken. Since much of this section rests on this cite, it needs to be pared down substantially. In addition, that link is used as a cite in 4 or 5 other places on the page. It either needs to be replaced or some of the foundation material needs to be removed.

A lot more of the supporting material in this article is unscientific or just pure assertion but we can leave that to another time. Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources to get familiar with?

Dr. Greening

Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening. Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here). This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers. This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite. He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:

"Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!"

He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.

My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that.

Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? --SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Torero

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

Moved here

This page has been moved from Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) - you can find some archives there and older ones at the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Controlled Demolition section.

Phrasing criticistm

Hey Rx StrangeLove, you've added criticism to the section "Ejected debris". This is great, we need this, but: The sentence you've added begins: "However, critics point out... ". I propose no to formulate sentences using "point out", but rather using "claim". We won't be able to check every fact, (and we shouldn't because it's WP:OR) so we should phrase sentences with care.

Well, then if you read the FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building, you can find on the page 4:

"A column section from WTC2 was embedded into north edge of the floor slab of the 29th floor [...] several sections of exterior column trees [..]".

Coulumn section was not from aluminium, nor were exterior column trees. Still, I don't know how they were ejected. --SalvNaut 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving Building 7?

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

Errors in Refs and Content

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

Conspiracy theorists

I agree with Locewtus. Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn.--Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree.--SalvNaut 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. The problem is that there are people who are pig ignorant and damned angry at the rest of us for merely suggesting such an idea. They play the role of "helpful" editors when in their heart of hearts, they want to destroy the article by blunting out points, diluting our analysis, inserting contradictions so that it will easily pass an AfD (the coup de grace). --Demosfoni 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please study WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, or you will not get very far. Tyrenius 01:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

basic idea of the hypothesis and its very existence

In order to avoid repeating all the controversies that we have on other 9/11-related pages, I want to suggest that we organise sections in part by the quality of their sources.

So, for example, the existence of the theory and its basic idea (which Tom harrison wants to have a citation for already in the lead) can be established in the hypothesis section (at the start of the article) with reference exclusively to NIST, Bazant and Verdure, (perhaps Cherepanov who also uses it as a foil, but for a different effect), and, I would add, Sunder's remark in New York Magazine (I think) that he had read Steven Jones' paper, was "sympathetic", but that it was not consistent with the facts as he knew them. That would also occasion a reference to Jones' paper (in the Scott and Griffin volume), of course, which, I would argue, is the standard reference for a presentation of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, in so far as it gets the hypothesis right (which is not every time) I think Popular Mechanics would be a great source for its content. The core of the hypothesis could probably be identified in the way the PM, Jones, and NIST (very little) accounts overlap.--Thomas Basboll 21:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

This article is unencyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not as I find this article to be a soapboxing repository and POV push of complete nonsense.--MONGO 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

We're on the case, Mongo. Check back in a couple of weeks. I think it's getting better. But it'd be great if you could offer some suggestions as to how to make it more encyclopedic. At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend.--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think deletion instead of using the article as a platform to push the conspiracy theory nonsense is the way to go. At what point does the fact that Steven Jones's radical views have resulted in having him put on admin leave get mentioned? Instead, all that is mentioned is his work...seems a bit misleading to not make it clear that it is precisely this work that has him in hot water, don't you think?--MONGO 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion's been tried. Didn't work. But, yes, there needs to be some mention of the professional/academic risk implicit in defending the hypothesis. We could perhaps move the last sentence of the "hypothesis" section into the first section of an "implications" section and note that arguing for CD can get you into hot water. I'll do it if no one else beats me to it.--Thomas Basboll 21:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some mention of the professional/academic risks? You're joking of course. The only risk is when those who claim to be scientists allow their politics to cloud their ability to make educated statements about known evidence. I suggest someone make it clear, multiple times that Steven Jones is on paid academic leave due to his apparent misrepresentation that his work had been properly vetted, and his accusatory commentary about persons in high positions, which were simply his opinions...basically, he engaged in slander. Don't get too comforatble thinking that you can hide CT cruft here.--MONGO 21:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for you advice. I've had a go at it; you might have a better way of putting it. The part about his work not being vetted could go right after the "outsiders" remark, where it would fit nicely (I'll get right on that). Yes, I think Jones may be in a good deal of political trouble. (It's only slander if it is false, of course. Nudge, nudge.) I'm pretty comfy now with thought that I can display what humanity knows about the controlled demolition hypothesis here now.--Thomas Basboll 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not advice but a demand. Fix the problems that are in this article or it will be removed as an egregious violation of WP:NOT.--MONGO 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cannot decode previous remark as wikipedic. This is the first time I've run into a wikipedian who has framed his suggestions in terms of demands and promises. But anyway, thanks again, for making 'demands' of the quality of this article, which is how I imagine this is to be taken (since authority is not really a useful interpretation of anything around here). Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 22:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Beware Thomas. You are speaking to one of the elite Wikipedia:Administrators who has in his power the ability to really piss people off and create other such havoc. It's best to walk away slowly and not make direct eye contact. Actually, you can see here that MONGO is good friends with Weregerbil User_talk:MONGO#Good_stuff and Peephole User_talk:MONGO#Crossing_the_Line(what a surprise!). Two of our very best friends. --Demosfoni 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you get rid of this page, you should get rid of the Magic Bullet Theory sections, or the Roswell sections, anything having to do with conspiracy theories. The fact is this is what people believe, some people very credible, others not. Its a thought in modern times, just as Rosswell is. Isee no reason to conclude that its a soapbox any more then the elephant page is the elephant lovers soapbox. Don't let your personal feelings on the subject cloud your judgement and bias you. it belongs here. --Wolfofwar 08:49, 27 September 2006

Basball, it's a bit creepy the way some editors attempt to push others around, threaten to delete article you've worked so hard for. Who the --- does he think he is? Can something be done? Please try to ignore all but thoughtful comments by those who have bothered to engage their minds before starting to type. Keep up the good work on this article.--JustFacts 02:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

>>"At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend."

Even I'm forced to admit, it's pretty darn good. bov 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

...er, just found all this. How is this person declaring he can remove an article without afd? Will of the people, etc. · XP · 03:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Tyrienous reversion

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

paid leave mention

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

Original research

I removed:

While the controlled demolition hypothesis can, strictly speaking, be distinguished from the broader "9/11 conspiracy theories," and is compatible with any number of different variants, its proponents have also made specific proclamations about who could be responsible for arranging the demolitions. This aspect of debate about controlled demolition makes it especially controversial.

as original research, there are no cites or links, nothing here that is referenced at all. Who says all this? Rx StrangeLove 03:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

angular momentum

I removed a couple sections:

Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft (10 m) long and large sections of steel destined for recycling were quickly sent to areas in SE Asia.

This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence.

Neither are referenced and the second seems pretty original researchy. Rx StrangeLove 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Major presentations of the hypothesis (pro)

I think we need to establish consensus about who the major representatives of the hypothesis are (i.e., who are the significant figures that defend it, either as a claim or as a call for futher investigation). Here is my list of sources.

• Steven E. Jones. (2006) "Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?" (in the Griffin and Scott volume). (Also printed in volume 3 of the Journal of 9/11 studies, available online here [1]
• Webster Griffin Tarpley. (2006) 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Chapter 6. (available online in PDF format here[2])
• David Ray Griffin. (2006) "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" in Research in Political Economy Volume 23 ("The Hidden History of 9-11-2001) Pages 79-122. (Also available online here[3])

I take those to be core statements. They have the virtue of being books, not internet sites, and current. I do think Jim Hoffman's and Jeff King's online presentations deserve mention, too, however. Please make your arguments against any of these known soon, and suggest possible additions. I will then add section on major proponents of the theory, which will of course also serve as a way of focusing the article's content.--Thomas Basboll 10:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any identification of some people as major proponents, or of some ideas as core elements, has to be backed up by citation to reliable sources who say X, Y and Z are the major porponents, or that A and B are core elements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education emphasies Jones and Griffin as major figures.[4]; New York Magazine focused on Tarpley.[5] Is that the sort of thing you mean? What would your list of proponents look like?--Thomas Basboll 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My list of proponents? If I were going to write an essay on New World Order conspiracy theories since 9/11, I would not do it here. This is not a collaborative research project. We do not discuss who is most important, and then vote on who to list. Those the article lists as proponents should be those presented as such in the academic works written about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Until there are such academic works, no one should be called a major proponent, and all such original research should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are working on the article, I thought you might have some ideas about the people it is about. Are you saying that there is no way to assert that the controlled demolition hypothesis has proponents or who they are or which are most influential?--Thomas Basboll 14:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, you are getting ahead of the sources in this area. That you or I could probably write an interesting article based on our somehwhat-informed opinion is beside the point. The sources do not yet exist to support the article you want to write. Doing so in their absence is original research. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Objectionist criterions on presenting minority points of view that are not present on other articles should not be considered (admin status gives the recommender's opinion no additional weight, as admin status has no relevance on editorial decisions), if they are not willing to participate in framing those conditions for actual use. Saying you will paint a wall with blue paint, while refusing to help out on procuring paint, or you know, actually painting, is not acceptable. This article will not have any additional "restrictions" or "conditions" placed on it than any other articles. Only the Arbitration Committee by completion of their process is authorized to place editorial restriction or probration on articles. · XP · 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I propose. Based on NIST and Bazant and Verdure we can assert that the controlled demolition hypothesis (a) exists and (b) conflicts with the official/generally accepted account. Mainstream journalism confirms this and provides us with three (so far) names: Jones, Griffin, and Tarpley. This leads us to their own presentations, i.e., the sources I've cited. We then present their research (not ours) as a minority view on the collapses. To organize the presentation we use a simple heuristic, requiring no original research: we foreground the evidence that all three presentations draw on. While there is a little bit of synthesis in this way of doing it, it by no means "advances a position". All it does is answer the question, What is the controlled demolition hypothesis? If Tom, or someone else, opposes this, then we may have to seek mediation. Until a basic consensus is established on this, the result will be predictable and, to my mind, a poor article.--Thomas Basboll 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we present their minority view....in the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Any other treatment gives them undue weight. --Mmx1 16:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That question is about to be settled by an AfD. Right now it looks like it's going to be a keep, in which case the hypothesis will have been deemed duly weighty for its own article.--Thomas Basboll 17:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mmx1. It may not be possible to present this material well outside of the context of other 9/11 conspiracy theories. If the consensus is that the article not be deleted, it may need to be dramatically shortened to follow our other policies about original research and neutral presentation, or lengthened to let all voices be heard, even those that embarass the more 'mainstream' conspiracy theorists. Rather than spend time in mediation repeating agruments everyone has already heard, it might be better to let those who care the most about this subject develop the article as they please for a few months, and then revisit it to see how it looks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I also concur with Mmx1 and Tom Harrison. To take controlled demolition out of the 9/11 conspiracy theories (or drastically cut the section), takes the central aspect of the conspriacy theories out of that article and plunders it. Let's please cut down all the OR and poorly cited material (per WP:RS) and merge this back into the main 9/11 conspiracy theories. As well, I entirley agree about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think the AFD is going to settle the question of whether controlled demolition can be developed independently of the conspiracy theory section. I think it can and should. (The collapse of the WTC could arguably be merged into the main 9/11 article, but there are obvious reasons not to do that. The same applies here.) We will see if we succeed. It certainly can't be merged in its present form.--Thomas Basboll 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the last part of Tom's remark in principle. The question, of course, is who is going to do as they please. That's why I've brought up this issue of main proponents. I think it is the people who can agree on a shortlist of primary sources (as identified by a shortlist of secondary sources) that will have enough common ground to develop the article. So I guess I'm asking if Tom and Mmx will allow us (whoever "we" are) to go forward as I have suggested for a few months, or whether we will have to seek mediation to establish that minimum of common ground.--Thomas Basboll 17:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My idea is that it might be more productive for me to withdraw and let you and whoever make of it what you will. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll accept that challenge, and I sincerely hope you'll like the results. I would add that the next step after that might be a detailed peer review (rather than a edit war or an AfD.)--Thomas Basboll 19:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Shyam Sunder

I'm removing the section that implies that he is sympathetic to the demolition hypothesis and that "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"[9] is a standard reference in these discussions. Both use this to back the statements up. The only mention of Shyam Sunder in the article is this:

Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

Clearly he is sympathetic to outbursts (of frustration presumably) and is not talking about the demolition hypothesis. He is quite clear on what the facts are. And how the fact that he read it means that it is a standard reference doesn't compute. Rx StrangeLove 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you missed the lead up to that remark: "The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones ... in front of Dr. Sunder ... 'I hope you read this...', ... the woman said. // 'Actually, I have read it,' Dr. Sunder said with a sigh." I'll grant that he expresses his sympathy with how the woman feels, not with what Jones says. That is, he can see why people might feel compelled by Jones' arguments. But the really interesting thing about that quote is that he has read Jones' paper. I think that fact should go in. The article was clear about his take on the fact.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the fact that he read it has any meaning, he didn't endorse it (or criticize it for that matter), he's probably read most of the 9/11 related material and that fact by itself doesn't mean anything. And as far as the other thing, he's clearly talking about peoples feelings and not the demo thing. I don't see how what he said can be read that he can understand why people are compelled by Jones' arguments, he's pretty clearly talking about emotional reactions to the 9/11 events. Rx StrangeLove 12:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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

NPOV & organizational concerns; proposal for reorganization

As of now, we have one massive evidence section, one very short criticism section, and then a sort of large discussion of the issues at the bottom. In addition, some of the articles read like a back-and-forth debate, such as the Molten Metal section - we read what Jones has to say, a response from NIST, a response from Jones, a response from NIST... I find that inconducive to the article's purpose. The NPOV problems that crop up as well can be dealt with on an individual basis, but are not very easy to find and fix. Some of the smaller subsections either have no criticism, or the criticism is located far away from the claims and in another section entirely. I suggest an overhaul of the organization organization: within every subsection of debate (for example, Molten Metal) we could arrange it a clear CT position and a clear official position, each just to say their respective pieces and positions.

Molten Metal Molten metal reports, official story, analysis and explanation. Critism of official reports, thermite proposal, various experiments and CT reports, counterarguments for forthcoming "offical" propositions.

Criticism Rebuttal of CT arguments, slag, etc, etc.

I believe that this format would be better organized, easier to read, and provide a better comprehensive understanding of the topic than a back-and-forth banter between the sides. In addition, it makes it easier to find diagnose NPOV problems, and make it easy to see which arguments are given no criticism, of which there are many. 75.33.140.40 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this is a mess. The article as it stands advocates and promotes the theory. For example, right near the top it devotes a bunch of space to a comment even the person quoted doesn't stand behind. That doesn't belong. This is based on bad science and even worse reporting, which to be fair isn't a reason for deletion but it sure doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If this is not deleted, which would make sense there needs to be a lot of pruning. There is no reason to go over every little detail, the way it stands now it has a POV tone and blatantly argues for the demo theory. The anon is right..maybe a couple paragraphs outlining the theory, one for the critics and some references. Anyway, the newspaper quote can go for starters. Rx StrangeLove 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Romero quote is legit. It is of historical interest to people who want to understand where this hypothesis came from. Pretty much all the space was used to make it clear that he doesn't stand by his original statement and to note that he does stand by the "look" of the thing. All this is informative. Popular Mechanics, in their treatment of the hypothesis, understood that Romero's statement was an important part of the story. That's why they covered it. And that's why we should.--Thomas Basboll 22:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

His quote shouldn't be used in a way that furthers the demo theory, and besides there's material there already that talks about where hypothesis came from. That's the sort of thing that is making this a mess....the details upon details. The origins are clear from the remaining material. Rx StrangeLove 22:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear. Do you think Popular Mechanics was being unecessarily detailed? There were scattered remarks in the days immediately after the attacks from controlled demolition experts (a couple of Danish examples have recently been circulating again), usually in the spirit of explaining how vast the Al-Qaeda must have been. This was before any official story had taken form. The most credible of these (i.e., not the non-expert opinions of journalists), have been preserved in CT theories. Romero's is a good clear statement, and its notability has been emphasized on both sides of the debate. We can easily source the use of Romero's remark to one or several CT theorists as well to balance the PM debunking. It does not "further" the hypothesis, it explains the basis on which it arose.--Thomas Basboll 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant that the examples are too much, there's an explanation of what some of the first impressions were and an example (Dan Rather)...that's all it needs to make the point. Rx StrangeLove 04:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case I think we should drop Rather and keep Romero. Both Tarpley and Griffin use Romero on the pro side to substantiate the first impression, and Popular Mechanics offers balance on the con side, while reaffirming that "that is what it looked it." Romero is better qualified to have a first impression in this regard than Rather.--Thomas Basboll 06:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagreements on Silverstein statement etc

I'm removing this section:

Disagreements on Silverstein statement

Researcher Jim Hoffman concludes: "The Silverstein comment has the appearance of bait, eliciting the widespread circulation of an interpretation that is easily denied if not refuted. While failing to provide substantial evidence for the controlled demolition of WTC 7, the story has functioned to eclipse the overwhelming case for demolition based on the physical characteristics of the collapse..."

Silverstein, through the spokesman, has stated what he meant in the quote. Any other interpretation is totally subjective and not based on any objective fact. It'd be different if they were talking about say, the amount of energy it took to produce a certain effect or something. Jim Hoffman's thoughts on what went through Silversteins mind are no more valid then yours or mine. Silverstein has never given any indication that he meant anything other than what is presented here. Hoffman can't read Silversteins mind and we shouldn't include his attempts to. Rx StrangeLove 21:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also removed:

A kink or crimp near the center of the building is identical in appearance to many that have occurred when implosion professionals have made buildings collapse inwards to minimize damage of the surrounding structures.

The cite request has been there since this split and none has been provided. Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also removed:

This observation appears to support the demolition idea which suggests that a carefully calculated fall took place.

The reference points to a page that says in total:

Building 7 had a trapezoidal horizontal cross-section so that it could fit between the Post Office Building (on the left) and the Verizon building (on the right). It was separated from these buildings by only narrow streets, yet the collapse of the 47-story skyscraper left the Post Office Building virtually unscathed, and punctured only a few holes in the Verizon Building.

This photograph is apparently a cropped version of one of a set once posted on the website of New York City's Office of Emergency Management. The website indicated the photo was from 9/15/01.

It doesn't mention demolition or that a calculated fall took place at all. Rx StrangeLove 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good way of proceeding. Let's see what remains after these sorts of cuts are made, and if you keep moving things over to the talk pages it will be easy to keep track. I especially agree with cutting the Hoffman "bait" comment. It's a bit like the Chertoff's cousin discussion: it just dumps us into a dispute that doesn't really help us to understand the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 07:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'pull-it' debate is essentially the debate about strong versus weak evidence - the weak evidence being highlighted as hard as "pull-it" is, often serves to confuse and cloud the situation and functions to discredit stronger evidence. But yes, this is a debate that goes for many issues of 9/11. I don't think anything on "pull it" should be included here except a mention of it and that some have beliefs around it as anecdotal evidence. As it is right now the article has a big section on it. IMO, it should be far shorter and mention that some researchers consider it weak as 'evidence.' Locewtus 21:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I'm going to boil it way down. It's really subjective and anecdotal as you say. Rx StrangeLove 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives"

This is a stretch, the whole section that follows this sentence only proves that there was smoldering (maybe) steel in the weeks after the event. Unless there is a neutral, objective finding somewhere that "steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives", this section has to go. Even Jones says "that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done", so there's no basis for this section at all. What this boils down to is that there was material smoldering for a while after 9/11. Rx StrangeLove 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this from the same section:

It took more than eight months to remove all of the debris from Ground Zero.

There's no claim that the amont of time it took to clean up is related to controlled demolition. Rx StrangeLove 04:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proceeding...

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

Discarded Sources

• Removed a reference to Jeff King....cited from his personal web page. [6] --Mmx1 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Tasks following the second AfD

After reading the analysis at AfD Closing Rationales I think the obvious tasks are:

1. To shorten this article dramatically, discarding POV statements but making sure analysis of published POV is retained
2. To remove links to suspect "references" unless those references are highlighted as in some way suspect, or "Pending review" (though those shoudl really be on the talk page and reviewed in or out.

May I suggest that this is treated as a "miniwikiproject" and people "take sections" (stating here which they are working on and flagging that section in the article itself if it is more than a five minute job)and clean them up, doing it quickly to avoid accusations either of delay or indeed of POV pushing?

This article is not small, but a small team of editors who commit to NPOV should be able to tackle it fast now the AfD threat is currently lifted. Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've given myself some jobs above. I would add (as I also did when Tom Harrison gratiously backed off above) that we should try to bring this article into shape to get peer reviewed before someone AfD's it again.--Thomas Basboll 12:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not in any way a template expert, so I have created a draft template that you may find useful at User:Timtrent/sandbox. If it works (and please feel at total liberty to edit it there), please grab it and make it a template, and use it during the edits here. I believe we have to show that work is taking place in addition to letting people inspect the edit history. I won't be offended if either you choose not to use it at all, or if there is a better template available already. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for "RS" here

As some people are so determined that things which in normal context elsewhere would be find under RS apparently are not here, would if those sources ARE mentioned and cited by other RS be OK? MONGO? Others? Specifically, if Steven Jones is disputed as an RS (how, I don't know, as he and his Scholars group are apparently one of the primary sources of the theory), what if we reference/quote them as THEY are quoted by a fine RS? As in, if "the BBC says that Jones says..." is a factual statement, then that bit from Jones, period, is demonstratable as RS. As in, he already qualifies per our policy, but if he also is good enough for a real, historic and reknowned news source like the BBC, he has to be considered a good source above and beyond already qualifying for us.

NOTE: Personal opinions, as in he's not a structural engineer, etc. are not permissiable still per WP policy. Individuals or cabals of editors do not get to put additional conditions on RS if they already meet any one of the established, supported qualifiers. I'm throwing this one out as a compromise to minimize conflict. · XP · 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this list of primary sources (already listed above) have been sufficiently covered by secondary sources to take them a representative of the hypothesis.

• Steven E. Jones. (2006) "Why Indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?" (in the Griffin and Scott volume). (Also printed in volume 3 of the Journal of 9/11 studies, available online here [7]
• Webster Griffin Tarpley. (2006) 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Chapter 6. (available online in PDF format here[8])
• David Ray Griffin. (2006) "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True" in Research in Political Economy Volume 23 ("The Hidden History of 9-11-2001) Pages 79-122. (Also available online here[9])

I'll make this clear in the "major proponents" section. For sake of clarity and simplicity I want to get us into a position to cite any of these sources (but especially where 2 or all of the overlap) in cases where we want to say either "proponents argue..." or "the hypothesis proposes..." There is enough mainstream media coverage of these texts, and they are published by three different off-line publishers, to call them both reliable and notable sources of information about the hypotheses (not the collapses, of course.)--Thomas Basboll 12:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones is a primary source as to the content of his theories, not as to their validity or notability. As the article describes a minority view of a minority view (9/11 conspiracy theories), that has to be made clear. And I'm not sure that all of those qualify as WP:RS; but that is an issue for another day. If we restrict ourselves to those primary sources and criticism thereof, we may have a good article. (And, referring to the first sentence, there's a difference between a WP:RS and a good source, even by our standards.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

As the journal of 9/11 studies has Jones as a Co-editor, and is online only, that would qualify it as an online self-published source, regardless of what veneer Jones and Ryan wish to paint it with. The extensive use of Hoffman's self-published works must also be addressed.--Mmx1 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in WP:RS does it indicate that ALLUSION to by an RS or mention of its author by an RS makes any work reliable. There's a world of difference between an academic work citing another academic work; and a news article quoting individuals. I was quoted by Fox News, can we submit my blog as an RS? Moreover, WP:RS does not establish minimum guidelines for inclusion; publication by a non-vanity press, while now considered non-exclusionary as a notability guideline for books, we should not confuse reliability with notability - notabiliy is insufficient to establish RS. WP:RS instead establishes an ideal: "Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative." Moreover, WP:RS#Beware_false_authority states quite clearly "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing." That would exclude our friends Ryan and Jones. --Mmx1 16:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

May I make a strong suggestion to err in every case on the side of caution, and to discard any source that is even only just on the right side of "borderline", while listing it on the talk page stating that this has been done? Fiddle Faddle 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Jones' paper is reprinted in the Journal of 9/11 Studies but is also published in a book. That's why I've been putting them on the same level. Moreover, Griffin cites Jones in his (academic) paper. I don't think we can exclude Jones' paper from the list of primary sources if we're trying to inform the reader about this hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Griffin cites Jones' paper, published in a compilation edited by Griffin. Anyone else see a problem here? --Mmx1 17:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That sort of thing happens very often in academic anthologies that bring writers on a common theme together. In this case, with such a small field of academics involved, it is not surprising. Griffin and Jones have similar concerns about the WTC collapse, but approach it from different angles (Jones: physics, Griffin: oral histories).--Thomas Basboll 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is not a problem if the authors are independently notable. But as this publication and citation are the prime arguments for its notability reliability, that is quite fishy. --Mmx1 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We are proceding (after the AfD) on the assumption that the hypothesis is notable. This means it has notable proponents (since a hypotheses is not very interesting if no one is pursuing it). What we are doing now is trying to build consensus about who the most notable proponents are. Since there are probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of private citizens who are looking into this in one way or another, and many more who are interested in their results, a list of 3 - 5 public figures who argue for it should be within reach. I.e., we need to identify the most articulate statements that are available. I've suggested three plausible candidates. The best approach in criticizing such a list would be to suggest alternatives, i.e., more notable statements of the theory.--Thomas Basboll 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. All three authors are independently notable in their fields. Tarpley is arguably the most qualified to deal with this sort of thing (in the way he does) but, I'm assuming, this also makes him more "fishy" as you see things.--Thomas Basboll 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with the last comment. A(n) hypothesis can be notable without having a notable proponent. We have a working "hypothesis" that the hypothesis is notable. It follows that one of the expressions of that hypothesis is notable, but it does not follow that the expressor is notable. (And I agree that the three authors are notable in their academic fields, which do not include 9/11 studies.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)Excuse me, I meant reliability. You have offered as evidence of reliablity that Jones' paper is in print, and cited by another work. However, that the publication and citation both come from the same person weakens that case. Yes, Jones is notable in the field of particle physics. How again does that relate to the subject at hand? Despite the hand-waving of his supporters, particles do not collide in a manner resembling that of macroscopic structures, nor can macroscopic behavior be analyzed with the tools of particle physics. Reliable secondary sources indicate these three are the prime proponents of this theory. That's all well and fine. But reliability is not contagious, or transitive, and does not free us up to refer directly to their own various publications.

I'm not clear on why Tarpley is the "most qualified", he is a political commentator and the pdf you link to is merely a compilation of OTHER people's statements and views, tied together by his political analysis. He may be the "most qualified" conspiracy theorist, but this article is not about a conspiracy, is it?

This Hypothesis purports to be scientific. Of the three presented, Jones is the least unqualified; however, he is not an engineer (not a personal opinion, verifiable from his CV), and he has no degrees (postgraduate or otherwise) or published expertise in any area related to structural engineering. --Mmx1 18:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not going write an article explicating a hypothesis that nobody of note pursues it. I'm trying to establish three statements of the hypothesis, so that I can spend some time summarising them for this article.

The idea that Tarpley is most qualified may seem obscure (and I don't want to make a big deal of it), but keep in mind that he approaches this as an act of state-sponsored terrorism. So his evidence has to do in part with the behavior of state agencies (like the mayor's office). Jones is interpreting the physical facts of the collapses; Griffin is engaged in scholarship, interpreting the officially released oral histories of the collapses.--Thomas Basboll 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to incorporate Tarpley's views in a significant manner, then discard the word "hypothesis" from the title. PM and NIST refer strictly to the mechanics of the theory of CD; if this article is to stray into speculation about actors and agents rather than the mechanics of the collapse, the word "hypothesis" lends it a unsubstantiated scientific veneer. In fact, the nomenclature "conspiracy theory" would be more appropriate. Tarpley is "qualified" to speculate on conspiracies (if such a notion exists), not on collapse hypotheses. --Mmx1 16:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that an existance of a hypothesis is often backed up with entirely different facts, different science that is/should be used to prove the hypothesis. So I don't see any problem with including Tarpley if he clearly supports the hypothesis and backs it up with something of his own. SalvNaut 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I can understand wanting to include him, I'm not sure it's best to include Tarpley here and believe it may complicate things. He is a demolition proponent, but his work also includes a number of errors which others have tried to correct him on and which he has not responded to. I'm looking into them more specifically now. Tarpley does not do scientific research himself, hence is prone to embrace the more weak claims and muddy the waters overall by the mixture of weak and strong, attracting those who see an easy debunking of weak points, and ultimately generating conflict over issues which are not central to the issue here. Locewtus 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We do not consider including anyone here while basing it on how correct/wrong the person is. His errors are irrelevant for him being mentioned here. Are those errors pointed out by others CD hypothesis researchers? Are they discussed somewhere? We should mention this in the article. Do you have any references? SalvNaut 20:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned ref tags

The numbers will fluctuate because the cite system is fluid. This is why I suggest we enter a "snapshot" of the text containing these so co-ordination of fix or delete can take place. Where a reference is used several times we must be aware that deleting the first reference link "orphans" any remaining refs.

"Ref 73" (currently)

There are two instances of this ref, but no trace of the reference wording. Thus the first instance must have been deleted.

Current locations:

9/11 researchers have proposed the idea that WTC7 collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition. Support for the demolition theory came from the visual observations of the collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lateral ejection of debris from high up for large distances, and the reports of molten & partly evaporated steel found in the debris. Advocates for this theory point to the speed and the near symmetrical fall of the structure. One source describes the building as coming down in just under seven seconds [73], although the FEMA report describes a collapse timeline of 37 seconds.[74]

and

The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires.[73]

I suspect the ref has value in the first instance. I can't guess the value in the second. Fiddle Faddle 19:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's from Jones's paper - I'll fix it.SalvNaut 20:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You got the second. missed the first. I don't want just to assume, so will you check and look at the remaining instance of "73"? Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Current research (draft)

The controlled demolition hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community and has been explicitly rejected by official investigators. While the National Institute of Standards and Technology has found no evidence of controlled demolition, it is, however, studying the effects of "hypothetical blast events" in attempting to understand the collapse of Building Seven. Likewise, Zdenek P. Bazant, who co-authored the first published analysis of the collapses of the two towers, has proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse mechanism that the official explanation invokes. But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as a serious research hypothesis for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering.

Three statements, in particular, can be identified. Since being made available on the Internet in September of 2005, a paper written by Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, fast became a standard point of reference for people defending the idea of controlled demolition. It has since been published in a book called 9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. Griffin is a retired professor of theology who is currenly best known for his book The New Pearl Harbor. He has published his own version of the hypothesis in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, a book of critical essays on 9/11 edited by Paul Zarembka. Finally, Webster Griffin Tarpley, best known for his investigation into the murder of Aldo Moro and his unauthorized biography of George H.W. Bush, devoted a chapter of his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror to the hypothesis.

While they do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts, all three refer to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center as a hypothesis in need of further investigation before being accepted as true. The three statements of the hypothesis overlap in many ways, but they each offer a distinct perspective. Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition. While Griffin also summarises suggestive physical features of the collapses, he adds a reading of the oral histories that were released by the New York Fire Department in August of 2005 and published by the New York Times. These constitute a substantial body of eye-witness testimony of the collapses and the events that led to them. Finally, Tarpley takes a more historical view, emphasising expert opinions proposing controlled demolition shortly after the attacks, the behavior of government agencies (especially the New York Mayor's Office) in the handling of the WTC site, and public criticism of the official investigation into the collapses.

Comments

This is how I imagine the section on major proponents might look. It gives a good sense of the sort of research that exists (and does not exist) to support the hypothesis. Again, if there are disagreements about the notability of the figures, or you want another proponent added, feel free to make suggestions. I'm posting this mainly to give a sense of how it might look in prose form.--Thomas Basboll 21:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This part seems very good to me. What about Jim Hoffman? There are about 38,400 Google hits for "controlled demolition" Hoffman, (Tarpley has 25,500) but he hasn't receive much mainstream media coverage. Problem with connecting him with hypothesis is that he is just an "ordinary"(well, he had achievments) mathematician and software engineer. Then, maybe it's even more worth mentioning that he made his way up through the Internet. He contributed to hypothesis with gathering evidence on the websites (Jones reffred to his site regarding WTC7) and with his "pulverization energy approach." (this approach has been taken by others, too - Griffin reffers to Hoffman) Another small paragraph? SalvNaut 19:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem strange to me to have Tarpley as a proponent, but not Hoffman. Griffin & Tarpley heavily reference Hoffman on the demolition evidence, which he organized and researched, and Jones was interested in demolitions but said he didn't seriously begin to investigate until he saw Hoffman's websites which had citations and were credible. So each one of them relied on Hoffman's work in some way. Hoffman's only book at this point is Waking Up From Our Nightmare, with Don Paul, which was published by I/R Press, an unknown. He has published in reputable science journals, but not for his 9/11 work. His 9/11 work has primarily been promoted on his websites, which he created for the purpose of researching 9/11. Locewtus 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hoffman is a major "current researcher", but I've been reluctant to include him because he's self-published. The fact that Jones and Griffin make use of his work does count in his favor, though. I'll try to write something; we can decide based on that. I think Tarpley adds the important element of how the clean-up was carried out (and the fact that Controlled Demolition, Inc., of OKC fame was involved.)--Thomas Basboll 06:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving text from 9/11 CT article

This just turned up at the 9/11 CT article. Not sure we can use it here either, but it's too detailed for the WTC summary:

For the impact from a single aircraft hitting the tower at the 90th floor would likely not generate sufficient energy to bring a whole bulding structure made of steel down. More detailed analysis can be found in the article written by Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, entitled Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job.

--Thomas Basboll 07:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Why would "Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body." affect symmetry of falling? I may be about to make a big fool of myself, but is it not more likely to be the second law of motion? It was a few years ago I took physics, but I need persuading that the article is right here, please. Fiddle Faddle 10:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I rephrased it so it makes sense now. This is what Jones paper says:

As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings. SalvNaut 12:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The rephrasing is fine, but help me. Why Thermodynamics? Bear of little brain today. I understand laws of motion and things to do with forces. For example, if it started to tilt it would require some sort of force (including gravity on a different bit I guess) to pull it back to symmetry. But I truly don't understand the thermodynamics part. Now the challenge I foresee is that if I don't spot it as a reasonable intellectual, will a more casual reader just look and scratch head and discount it. I know we do not want OR here, that's not my point. I just don't know how to hyperlink from here to find the rationale behind the 2nd law of TD. To me, unless this is explained, this drives a coach and horses through Jones because it appears to be pseudo-science. I really do not mind Jones having a coach and horses driven through him, but we are not scientific researchers, and our role is to report, not to debunk. Fiddle Faddle 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I just started to think about it a moment ago, and I can't find any good explanation here.SalvNaut 12:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What I think is either we just caught Jones totally (unlikely?) or it is a misprint (hmmmm. Well charity says misprint, but I am sceptical) Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

An uncharitable person would link themodynamics and thermite and consider that the law of TD was used to quais-justify the alleged buckets of thermite. Fiddle Faddle

As you pointed out - the second law of motion would make much more sense. I think I understand what happened: This excerpt I gave is from previous version of Jones's paper (here). This paragraph has been removed and it's not present in the version to which we link now. There is nothing about IIlaw of Therm. in the present version of Jones's paper.SalvNaut 12:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need both refs here, then, with a note explaining the difference and raising the concern? Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that we should get into such details. It's important we link to the latest one and be coherent with it. And there is a disclaimer at the top of previous version: EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a copy of Steven Jones' paper as of 11/22/05. The current version, in PDF form, is published on The Journal of 9/11 Studies [PDF] SalvNaut 13:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

After thought, I agree. I think we can consider this element closed :) Fiddle Faddle 13:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Shear forces

One more thing, just to think about (I think I don't get it): Other researchers note that the shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum of the upper floors by a factor of 10.3, making an unsymmetrical collapse of WTC 1&2 physically impossible.[27]

Ok: shear resistance of lower floors exceeded the force of angular momentum. Then wasn't it the same force of angular momentum that exceeded the resistance of lower floors and made it possible for collapse to proceed? Is the shear resistance so much greater (>20 times?) than vertical resistance?? Maybe, some explanation could be that the collapse initiated assymetrically, gained angular momentum, then everything else supporting upper part failed and it as a whole started going down...maybe SalvNaut 13:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm was going to try to apply logic to this statement. My problem is the start point. In which direction is the angular momentum "going"? I see that it could be:

1. about an approximation of the vertical axis of the building. My brain syas this is also ridiculous, since there appears to have been nothing to initiate that.
2. as a tilt about an approximate horizontal axis, which would tend, if unchecked, to topple the building like a tree

Discounting (1) for no reason other than experience, (2) does not, to me, imply a shear force. It does imply tension on one side of the rotation and compression on the other side as the topple "starts". When I learnt about shear I learnt about it as a horizontal displacement of one part relative to another part. If a shear force were applied to a "perfect building" I would expect the supports at the shear point to experience tension prior to failure in extension, with no obvious compression. However I am arguing this from A level physics and absolutely no background in construction engineering. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman's pulverization argument

It's been moved to the archive so I post it again:

Pulverization

• Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.[26]

  This quote comes from an outdated version of his work. The latest version has the majority of the material removed. If he won't stand behind it, we should not include it. (From his page: This paper is currently under development, taking into consideration critiques by various reviewers) The whole section needs to be removed.

Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think that the latest version of his paper invalidates the previous ones and those are still available. I know nothing about Hoffman changing his mind on this. Should we restore it, then? SalvNaut 20:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It does as a reference when the author doesn't stand behind it anymore. (additional comment) We shouldn't add this back...that was probably clear from my comment but... Rx StrangeLove 14:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On a "phraseology issue" the term "pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust" is probably unsound, though a good "emotional description" of any billowing and fast moving dust cloud. However a pyroclastic cloud contains substantial heat as well. If the man says it then it is not our POV but his, thus valid for inclusion. The question is, "Do we comment on that?" Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, did you remove the original from the archive page when reinstating it here? We need to in order to avoid doubling things up. The first archive attempt was necessarily approximate. Fiddle Faddle 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeff King's "How Strong is the Evidence" (a classic?)

And here's one more. Do you think Jeff King's early work deserves inclusion (include or keep). Hoffman also sites his "How Strong is the Evidence"[10] among the classics [11]. Griffin uses him in his paper.--Thomas Basboll 14:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Note I am not suggesting using "classics" as sources for any information about the hypothesis. I am proposing we mention them in a historical overview. We are not trying to decide on reliability, only whether or not they seem to have had influence.--Thomas Basboll 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

And how is Hoffman a reliable indicator of who's had "influence"? --Mmx1 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman has been singled out for praise by both Jones and Griffin. He has been a major influence. His sense of the classics is at least interesting.--Thomas Basboll 22:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation by Hoffman, Griffin, Tarpley, or Jones is not sufficient inclusion criteria. Neither notability nor reliability are transitive. Tarpley, Griffin, and Jones get a tenuous nod because of their mention in reliable secondary sources. The reliability of their work is still in question. However, that makes no assertion as to the reliability or notability of people they cite. And much worse, Hoffman, whose notability is much more tenuous, is no credible source for what is "classic" or "important". --Mmx1 14:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is. We are talking about single short mention of historical argument by King that inspired others. We are describing this hypothesis - nothing else. You, Mmx1 seem to look at this, like we were presenting facts - nothing of this kind. I think, that when properply phrased, such mention will not give any impression to the reader about the factuality of the argument.SalvNaut 16:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We are not required to present anyone's or everyone's POV, merely what is notable. Reliable secondary sources (e.g. media reports) are our best resource for that. Individuals cited by secondary sources do not carry the same level of reliability - we leave it to the secondary source to sort between the relevance and reliability of primary sources. --18:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" (a classic?)

Hoffman has a list of "classic articles" here [12]. My own impression is that he's right to include "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics" by J. McMichael among these, and it should be presented in the historical section. Please indicate whether you think we should include or drop this one also, with reasons.

• Drop all. Does no one read WP:RS? Self-published essays should not be used as sources. 911review is part of Hoffman's webring. Classic according to who? And who's J. McMichael? This is absurd. Any sort of "history" should be presented from a reliable secondary source, not this self-published nonsense. Hoffman's site is just a blog. It looks more professional and static than a blog, but all it is are self-posted essays by himself and others. --Mmx1 14:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Hoffman's site is much more than a blog, but even if all he had contributed was a single post on his personal blog: in the history of certain topics a seminal post may deserve mention, if it is mentioned and used by the more easily identifiable majors.--Thomas Basboll 14:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: We can include Hoffman not for his own findings, but when his findings are refered to by major proponents (which is often a case), so it is not a case of self-published essay, as then his research is important to the occcurence of the hypothesis. SalvNaut 15:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Show me the part of WP:RS that provides an exception to "self-published sources" because they are "important" --Mmx1 18:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a whole section under WP:RS about Using online and self-published sources, so there are exceptions. First sentence is Evaluate the reliability of online sources and first point is With any source, multiple independent confirmation is one good guideline to reliability, if several sources have independently checked a fact or assertion, then it is more reliable than one which is not checked. So, if we use Hoffman's site to illustrate a point that Jones or Griffin made, (or if they refered explicitly to Hoffman), then we would rely on their reliability, not Hoffmans. SalvNaut 22:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Brief history (draft)

On the day of the attacks, there were reports of secondary devices and explosions; journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planned explosives. A number of experts also suggested this idea. In a notable case, the Albuqurque Journal quoted Van Romero, a controlled demolition expert, said that the collapses looked "too methodical" and that he thought there were "explosives planted inside the building". While he later retracted this opinion, and said that he had been misquoted, his suggestion that "that is what it looked like", became central to the formation of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

One early formulation came with J. McMichaels' "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics", which recalled Romero's remarks and introduced some of the lasting elements of the hypothesis: that the fires could not have sufficiently weakened the steel to initiate the collapses, and that the undamaged structure underneath the impact zones would have resisted a total progressive collapse. These ideas were then developed in greater detail online by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman until being picked up by David Ray Griffin and listed among the reasons to re-investigate the events of 9/11 in his influential book The New Pearl Harbor. In late 2005, Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University made his own pursuit of the hypothesis public. Although he did not publish his ideas in scientific journals, his interest in the hypothesis brough a measure scientific credibilty and increased media exposure to the hypothesis. Jones, however, was placed on paid leave by his university in September of 2006 while his work in this area is reviewed.

Comments on brief history

Again, just to give an idea of what sort of prose I'm thinking of presenting the history in. Let me know if there are important aspects I've missed, or things that I have weighted improperly. I've left the sources out for now, much of the info here has multiple sources; we'll just find the strongest and most efficient way of sourcing the text we finally agree on.--Thomas Basboll 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What journalists reported that the WTC collapses were caused by "intentionally planned explosives"? Be more specific. The footnote in Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#The_hypothesis only mentions Dan Rather. Video footage of Dan Rather reporting on the collapse of the twin towers is available on cbsnews.com. He does not at all say anything about controlled demolition. That's just one issue, but I'll start there. --Aude (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Prison Planet provides an overview here.[13] I'm not suggesting we use them as a source, but unless they doctored these clips it's pretty clear that journalists were considering explosives. Keep in mind, however, that they were just thinking the terrorists has been more thorough than they turned out to have been. That is, they were not suggesting a conspiracy.--Thomas Basboll 20:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Dan Rather clip is regarding WTC7, where he remarks that the collapse (as seen from the less damaged side of the building) resembles demolition. And his remarks pertain to WTC7 only, and not "the World Trade Center collapses". Anyway, if you watch the CBS footage, it's telling just how speculative the news reporting was that day. When the South Tower collapsed, he's thinking that only the top of the building or part of the building collapsed (saying "one portion of one of the towers has collapsed") and doesn't grasp the fact that the entire building collapsed. If you watch more of the footage, you will also hear reports (turned out to be false) of car bombs at the State Department. As is nature of news reports during chaotic situations, many reports are speculative and turn out to be false. We should not give undue weight to such reports. --Aude (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

So of the vast numbers of reporters that day, one report on CNBC of all places constitutes a "report of secondary devices and explosions"? or "journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planned explosives"? I'm sure if there were more, prisonplanet would have found it. --Mmx1 21:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I can find more for you - there were plenty of those reports: secondary explosions reports.SalvNaut 22:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Aude:I don't think they've got very much weight in the history I'm proposing. Romero agreed at the time, but he's still backing up the journalists in the Popular Mechanics debunking piece: it looked like controlled demolition. That visual impression has been important to the sustainability of the hypothesis. The word "speculation", you'll note, is already up there. This is not being offered as evidence here. If the car bombs had entered conspiracy lore then we would mention them also. But they've been completely forgotten (as far as I know).

Mmx1:As you probably know (from reading Griffin's piece or Tarpley's) there's lots of documentation for witnesses talking about secondary explosions.--Thomas Basboll 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the common thread in the various "first impressions" is that there might have been bombs placed in the buildings by whoever carried out the attack. It was conspiracy theorists that ran with it and turned it into controlled demolition. Some of the witnesses commented that it looked like controlled demolition only to the extent that that was the closest visual impression they could paint to convey the image they were trying to get across. Later theorists misrepresented those first impressions and it doesn't explain anything but their own intent to mislead. Unless it's stated in those terms I don't think it belongs. Rx StrangeLove 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It absolutely belongs to the history of the hypothesis. Your post is only your interpretation - the same as with those explosion reports. SalvNaut 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Except that I'm not trying to put my interpretation in a encyclopedia article. Their interpretation misrepresented what people were saying that day. Terrorists planting bombs in buildings they were going to fly planes into does not equal controlled demolition. Commentators were speculating about the former while theorists ran with the latter. Again, they misrepresented what commentators were saying and used that misrepresentation to formulate their theory. So unless it's framed that way, it doesn't belong. Rx StrangeLove 22:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can say "These initial impressions were misrepresented by proponents of controlled demolition". That's POV. We can say something equivalent to "they took these remarks and ran with them", which is what I thought I had done.--Thomas Basboll 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we can say that though. First by demonstrating that the common thread in all the initial first impressions were that the persons responsible for flying the planes into the buildings also may have planted bombs in the buildings as well. I think that's pretty easy to establish. Then it's a simple step to show that theorists used those statements to backup claims the government did plant explosives. It's like, hey, he said it looked like terrorists might have planted bombs in the buildings! See, I told you the government was behind it. There's a total disconnect there, and one that can be talked about objectively. Rx StrangeLove 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the Romero statements (including his retraction and PM's version of the story.) There is no doubt in my mind that his original opinion was that it was controlled demolition (or at least involved additional explosives). The Alb. Journal did not admit to misquoting him. He changed his mind and wanted to say "I never said that". As Tarpley points out, there were other experts who offered the same opinion (he cites some Danish cases.) A Dutch expert has recently confirmed the impression in the case of building 7. It is true that CTists run with it more than others. But I think they are being perfectly sincere, at least most of them. If I didn't think that I don't think any of this would interest me.--Thomas Basboll 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me, and describes the history accurately. The quotes from news reporters on that day were a significant detail. Your history doesn't give the impression you are trying to make the case that they were instumental, but it gets at the documentation of how some people's first reaction was that the destruction looked like a demolition, which is relevant to origin of the theory. bov 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this very much externally (ie a non US viewpoint) it looks ot me to be "flat" (a correct prose approach) and a reasonable representation Fiddle Faddle 22:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Major Revision" tag

This banner:

Is now disputed. It seems we need to reach a consensus over this. I have replaced it on the article with a note on the talk page of the editor who removed it. I believe it serves a hugely valid purpose, and is inclusive. However we may need to make it more inclusive. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this section before I removed it. I don't think it wouldn't have mattered though, we don't need a barrier like this to editing. It smacks of WP:OWN. Rx StrangeLove 15:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose asking you to revert your own edit pending discussion would be ok? It is by no means intended to be anything even close to "owning" the article. It's trying to build order out of chaos instead. Fiddle Faddle

I don't see a demonstrated need for it, has there been trolling, bad faith editing or ongoing editing that's occurred making the page worse? And besides, I think the discussion point would be before the addition of that tag and the removal of the 2 others. Rx StrangeLove 15:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag is a bad idea, though well-intended. It is likely to discourage new editors, and suggests there is some kind of official committee to which proposals are submitted and voted on. Of course, that is not the case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The only "committee" is the entirety of the Wikipedia community and its scrutiny. I know, Tom, you acknowledge that, or I sense it from your words. The sole rationale for the tag, for there has been no trolling (RX StrangeLove's comment) or similar acts, is to let all editors know that the article is undergoing reasonably rapid change to remove any lack of neutrality (etc) that caused genuine concern in the AfDs that have just taken place. The AfD issue raised so much genuine concern and in some cases apparent anger, that "we" (if there is a we), are trying very hard both to reach consensus on any area that remains as obviously controversial such that this article is capable of gaining "Featured Article" status as an exemplary work that covers a difficult and contentious area.

I don't feel strongly either way about this tag, merely seeing it as useful, though I think I do feel somewhat against the Cleanup tag remaining, since spring cleaning is well under way. I certainly don't think anyone needs to get too distracted by any of these tags, though. "We" are certainly not seeking to make a point over t. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked the tag - the last sentence of it sais it all, I think, and it's not discouraging. I restored the tiny version of it. What do you think?SalvNaut 15:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the same thing, and it shouldn't be there for the same reasons mentioned above. The last sentence is the worst of it "...please simply make yourself known on the talk page", when do we ever ask editors to do that? Would you please remove it? There's no obvious need for it, and even if there was that's not how we deal with it. We can revisit it when/if editing becomes a problem. Rx StrangeLove 16:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point is persuasive. I'm going to remove the remainder myself unless it has gone already. Is there a tag we can use which notifies that the article may be undergoing rapid and substantial change? Fiddle Faddle 16:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There are, but I'm not sure this qualifies. There are ongoing edits, but it's not really that rapid. It's a controversial subject for sure, but so far it's being edited fairly civily. I don't think there's anything happening here that isn't happening in a couple hundred places around Wikipedia at the moment. Rx StrangeLove 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As long as we can keep it civil and continue edit objectively I see no issue at all. By this I absolutely do not mean that "everyone has to agree", because this is unlikely. But, so long as everyone wishes to move this forward, the usual community scrutiny will suffice. Nothing on this talk page should ever be taken as a desire to limit a bold editor who complies with WP guidelines (etc) Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple sentences

A couple sentences here that don't have any real basis:

It has also been inspired by eye-witness accounts of sounds and flashes of light that have been occasionally interpreted as "secondary explosions" (which, if they occurred, preceded the collapses and so could not have been caused by them) and reports of what some witnesses describe as molten metal in the basement (which is taken as evidence of temperatures well beyond those that could be explained by fire or the friction of the collapses).

Sounds and flashes of light are pretty vague and ignores that fact that there were raging fires going on in the buildings. There didn't need to be a collapse for there to be sounds and flashes of light in that environment. The second sentence talks about molten metal but doesn't say anything about what kind it was or why fires couldn't have caused it. Both are uncited and as they stand are original research. I'm going to snip them. Rx StrangeLove 04:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Risky sources

Molten Metal Video

I looked at this section. I wanted to see the molten metal on video:

*'''Molten metal:''' A stream of liquid metal was videotaped<ref>{{cite web| last = | first = | year = 2001| url = http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863 | title = Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing| format = Macromedia Flash video | publisher = CameraPlanet 911 Archive/[[Google Video]]}}</ref> flowing out of the corner of 2 WTC moments before collapse, and eyewitnesses say they saw pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles.

The video is perpetually unavailable. Strong suggestion either to remove this reference or to qualify it as "unreliably available". Removing the reference means a need for substantial rewording of any area which cites it or relies on it as an implicit citation. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it with working video from Google Video. Shouldn't we source "eyewitnesses say they saw pools of molten metal in all three rubble piles" somehow? The most known quote I know comes from Mark Loizeaux:

"Yes," Loizeaux said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.

I have it from this article from globalresearch.ca. I couldn't find any other sources as for now but there were some quotations of Loizeaux in mainstream media - I rember reading it. SalvNaut 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

the video. If you fixed it with this, cos this does not work, I fear. It may be that thsi video is in high demand. But I am not sure we can cite it without a caveat in that case. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed with this. There were two references, I fixed the other, too. SalvNaut 21:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"interesting" commentary in text alongside it. I think we need to be clear that the ref is ONLY to the video, not to: The video is pretty revealing. It appears the thermite/explosives in the building that they used caught on fire due to damage near the ... all » building corner, and it really made a storm of sparks. I hope Steven Jones runs with this thing... Ultimately...if I was still a mason, I'd be sending my lodge demit in TODAY...because the secret societies have become so EXTREMELY criminal, that they are unsustainable. After a short stay with the masons in 1992, I managed to get the hell away from the group. They wanted to bring me back in (why? I dunno), but they are so corrupt, that they can't couldn't even corrupt me. As I was saying...if I was a secret society freak, I'd get out while the getting is good. People are going to jail over this...big time. Some people estimate that the numbers will be in the thousands. Take a personal vow of honesty. I did back in 1992. It made a mess of my life, but whatever it did...it got me out of low level illuminsecti activities. Overall, I'm much better off because of it. Money lovers are bug-brains...trying to swindle cash and property like insects carve up other bugs. It's sick! It's sick! Anyway, I have chores to do unless we flag t as an example of the willigness to latch on to a conspiracy argument. Fiddle Faddle 22:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed by a qualification in the ref that it refers only tothe video, not to the written commentary. Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ejected debris

A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.<ref name=Chandler_Girders>{{cite web| last =| first =| year = 2003| url = http://video.google.pl/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270| title = Video about ejected girders by David Chandler of 911SpeakOut.org| format = Macromedia Flash video| publisher = [[Google Video]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last =| first =| year= 2003 | title=Collapse Calculactions (zip)| url =http://911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip}}</ref>

Looking at the final two sources, the video is persuasive until it turns into propaganda, and I suggest needs flagging differently as a video in favour of explosive charges et al.

The zipfile contains "someone's" spreadsheet. Whose, and is the rationale for calculation attributabel to a reputable source, and is it valid? Fiddle Faddle 11:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Spreadsheet is made by the same guy who made the video - D.Chandler. His site is 911speakout.org. Calculations are correct, I've checked it (Google Calc, falling time is sqrt(2h/g), WTC height:417m ).

D.R.Griffin points out: "The debris was ejected horizontally several hundred feet in huge fan shaped plumes stretching in all directions, with telltale "squibs" following the path of the explosives downward."[14] so this is a part of his theory. Calculations come from Chandler - his site is not much reputable, conspiracy site as many others. His video is referenced by many other CT sites. I hope no one will accuse this of being WP:OR or "connecting dots", as the calculations are correct and done by others to illustrate Griffin's point. What do you think? SalvNaut 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Who's to say they're correct?--Mmx1 17:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Velocity calculations are correct - it's basic physics (falling time is t=sqrt(2h/g) and v=s/t). I've checked those velocities which are on the video.(Google Calc in my previous post.) Now I see there different calculations in the .zip file - I know nothing about them. The CollapseCalc.zip should be removed then. SalvNaut 18:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

However, (Mmx1, you are correct about verifiability) this subsection should be removed (whole Evidence section should be trimmed with care), as the calculations might be correct, but the whole reasoning process doesn't have to be. This video could be used as an illustration of points raised by Griffin but it certainly doesn't deserve its own subsection. I think that most of the evidence section should be treated this way - first, we need to write a summary of points raised by Griffin, Jones, Hoffman, Tarpley,... right? SalvNaut 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read the referenced article, it doesn't mention anything about girders (of any size) being blown into the Bankers Trust buiilding. In fact, the first sentence (4 ton girders) and the last (column section) both reference the same document. The document doesn't support 4 ton girders being throw 600 ft. at all. I agree that this should be remomved and will do that. Rx StrangeLove 05:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion already. You can find in the referenced article: "A column section from WTC2 was embedded into north edge of the floor slab of the 29th floor [...] sections of exterior column trees [..]". Column trees weight a lot. Nothing about 4 tons - OK. Anyway, it's to be removed. SalvNaut 07:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I know we had one just like it but I couldn't remember if it was the same doc. Then I saw they both ref'd the same one for opposing cites so I searched it for all the keywords used in the section and came up empty...I think what decided it for me was that there was nothing about 4 ton girders. Anyway, just so you follow my thinking...Rx StrangeLove 09:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

911myths.com misquoting FEMA

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

Implications of controlled demolition of 7 WTC

In order to properly<ref name=Controlled-Demolition>Controlled Demolition, Inc. [http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=2 "Controlled Demolition, Inc.: About us"]</ref> bring down a 47 story building, conventional demolition procedures would require weeks of preparation and planning (e.g. where to place the demolition charges at key structural points so that the building collapses neatly into its own footprint).<ref>{{web cite|url=http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=21&reqItemId=20060123072158 |title=Baptist MBF Patient's Tower Implosion | date=2005, November 6th}}</ref>

I can't spot the relevance of linking the phrase 'controlled demolition procedures' to the 'About us' page of Controlled Demolition Inc. I think they had something relevant to say elsewhere in the article, but this seems like a link for link's sake to a professional demolition company. This is part of thinning out the forest so a route can be found through it to the bare facts, I think Fiddle Faddle 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The person linkining probably reffered to "[...]CDI’s 10-person explosives-handling crew arrived on site one (1) week before the scheduled implosion date to commence loading and wiring operations[...]". The claim in this paragraph seems valid as it speaks about "conventional demolition procedures". On the other hand, CD expert Jovenko puzzled if maybe WTC7 could have been brought down by 20 pople running with torches for a couple of hours, pre-cutting colums, and then wiring a couple of charges only (that would be something!:)) Still, I think it is a known fact that typical controlled demolitions took some time to plan. SalvNaut 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Spoon feed me! That ref goes to the "About Us" page. Can't see the relevance of that ref at this place in the article. Is it hiding in plain sight? Have I just missed it? Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I can't use spoon, neither :) I just followed (copy pasted from your post) the second link at the end of the sentence - not the one near the "properly". The first one seems to serve as an explanation of how "proper" demolition should be understood (by prof. team). The second reference should be enough, don't you think? SalvNaut 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The one to the "About us" page is just a gratuitous and even spammy link. It can go with pleasure. Go for it. I wasn't specific enough when I posted the original. mea culpa Fiddle Faddle 20:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NIST image

It's a trivial little thing, but I added an image of the NIST report at the head of the article. · XP · 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for adding this image when the report doesn't support the topic of the page? I don't see that as a trivial thing. The primary image at the top of the page should not 'debunk' the content of the page. I recommend the third image down on this page, which I have obtained permission to use. bov 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a better image, yes. My intention wasn't to list something that debunked anything, but since alternate views of the NIST docs are the central thrust of the article, I went with that. Upload yours with the sourcing and go for it; maybe add it above the NIST report image? Your call. · XP · 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

At the bottom of the wtc7.net page, it states "These photographs are property of the copyright holder, Aman Zafar, who posted them at http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/ . They are reproduced here to aid in the investigation of the attack." On Aman's site, it says "Please also note all these pictures are taken on 35mm film and are copyright of Aman Zafar (i.e. ME!!!!)." Bov, have you obtained the permission from Aman Zafar to use these pictures? It's important to respect the copyright, in respect to images used on Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:Image use policy. There is a specific protocol to follow for obtaining permission to use images on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Aude (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Aman Zafar has given me permission to use his images on wikipedia as long as his site is referenced. bov 21:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aman's images would be very useful to Wikipedia, however we have a specific protocol to follow. Even use of just the one image would be fine. The copyright holder needs to agree to allow us to use it under the GFDL or a GFDL-compatible license. This means that Wikipedia content (these images included) may be used by anyone, allowing modification, redistribution, and use for any purpose, including commercial purposes and also of modified versions. We can stipulate attribution of the image(s) to Aman and reference to his site as conditions. The procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Aude (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is right to remove this image from this article until the copyright issue is resolved, my thoughts about the additions (below) notwithstanding. Once that copyright issue and the current speedy delete nomination is resolved we will know whether it is legitimate to add it back or not. I am thus about to remove it, even if temporarily. Fiddle Faddle 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's necessary to resolve the copyright issue, which is indeed a separate consideration than Fiddle Faddle's below. If Aman agrees that Wikipedia can use the image, licensed under GFDL, that would be most welcome. It could have a use somewhere on Wikipedia, if not here. But, if Aman doesn't agree to these conditions, we need to respect that. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Research that fails WP:RS

Where there are researchers, whether self styled or not, whose work, research or opinions (henceforth: "stuff") do not qualify under WP:RS but whose stuff either has received popular acclaim (not the same as passing scientific scrutiny - popular acclaim has Elvis on the dark side of the Moon, along with a B52 bomber) or is quoted by other researchers whose work passes WP:RS, my instinct is to acknowledge that stuff along with the author of that stuff, while making it clear that it does not pass the RS litmus test.

So I have two questions:

1. Is this valid under our guidelines?
2. If valid, is this a correct approach for this article?

This may solve (eg) "the Hoffman Inclusion Question" Fiddle Faddle 08:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines say that self-published works should never be used as a secondary sources and "as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial", I think we can do this with Hoffman for sure, and with King perhaps. We've got reliable primary sources that mention them.--Thomas Basboll 18:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I absoultely agree here. What is important to have in mind, I think, is that we edit the article about the hypothesis - not about the collapse/demolition of WTC. I much sympathise with FiddleFaddle's ideas here. I also have an idea how could we "make it clear that source does not pass WP:RS test" - we could develop a notice which we would place between ref tags beside citation, so everyone who would like to follow such source would be immediatly informed what wiki-status this source has. This, together with NPOV style of writing, should allow to better present history and grounds of the hypothesis.SalvNaut 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely nervous of appearing to "validate" stuff that fails WP:RS. I think we all are. I am also nervous of setting any form of precedent with this article. Fiddle Faddle 20:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

However, any discussion of the collapse hypothesis is using the pages as a secondary source. It is very misleading to consider the use of Hoffman's site as a "primary source" because we're "only discussing his POV". They are still theories about a third party and as such would be a secondary source.

The answer to fiddle faddle's question is simple. Hoffman may be discussed on the basis of secondary sources and what they say. No material from his own website is admissible and should neither be cited nor linked to.--Mmx1 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow this argument. There will be statements of the hypothesis (primary sources) and statements about the hypothesis (secondary sources). Hoffman is mainly a primary source in this sense. The question is whether he's a good source (i.e., passes RS). There is no general rule against using primary sources, but we need to let as many secondary sources as possible organize our inclusion of them.--Thomas Basboll 22:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. What you are effectively doing is hiding his statements under the veneer of "oh, but we're only talking about his beliefs so it's ok to consider it a primary source." If that were true every secondary source would be admissible so long as you're "describing his views". Hoffman's site is a secondary source aggregating primary and other source material under his own framework and conclusions. It is not a primary source, regardless of the manner in which is cited. --Mmx1 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Your approach seems absurd to me. The manner in which something is cited always matters. Is primary sourcing so rare in Wikipedia? - absolutely not. WP:RS is a guideline (it can be read in the tag how it should be treated). Hoffman seems to be very important to emergence of this hypothesis (he is mentioned in secondary sources, mentioned by major proponents. i.e. the movie Impropable Collapse should be considered secondary source, as it includes critique from both sides.) and not mentioning about him would seem very strange, the same as mentioning him and not giving a single link to his page (absurd). SalvNaut 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(Time out: Please can we all steer clear of terms that sometimes have the appearance of being directed at individuals. We can do this without words like "abusrd" being used, I think. Let's step back from those and use logic and policies as our guide. We don't have the time to even think about fighting :) ) Fiddle Faddle 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing to reliable sources is one of the foundational aspects of Wikipedia. Otherwise, they'd call it Blogopedia. Morton devonshire 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the major reasons I posed the question. Getting this article right is important. I am sure it will have its critics, but I see a major objective to be to remove areas of criticism that are based legitimately on policies. This means that any researchers and their "stuff" need to be cited correctly or, presumably, not cited at all.

The challenge comes when a vociferous, possibly self styled, researcher, self publishes stuff that other reputable researchers then appear to rely on. Relying in such "stuff" may not invalidate their work because it may simply provide the spur that sends them down a line of research that is reliable. Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not said Hoffman could not be mentioned. As secondary sources have discussed him, they are perfectly acceptable sources for discussing Hoffman. However, that does not open the door to citing his self-published sites as secondary sources. Furthermore; please stop with the "importance" arguments. Importance does not have any bearing on reliability.--Mmx1 23:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Mmx1 and I have different ideas about what a primary source is. This article is about the CD hypothesis. Statements of that hypothesis, made by its proponents, are therefore, as I see it, primary sources. Statements about the hypothesis (though they may be made by proponents, just as a working physicist with active research can write a secondary work summarising both his own work and that of his peers), will be secondary sources. It should not be necessary to cite the sources that people like Griffin and Tarpley take as primary (the oral histories, for example). I think Mmx1 (erroneously) believes that this article is about the WTC collapses (in which case Hoffman's work would arguably be a secondary). But if it were then it would be a POV fork since an article on that topic exists (and Hoffman is not an RS in it). I think it would be pretty bad form, given the AfD, to write this article as a POV fork.--Thomas Basboll 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I second that and cite myself: "What is important to have in mind, I think, is that we edit the article about the hypothesis - not about the collapse/demolition of WTC." SalvNaut 00:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Archival

Since this page is unwieldy I have archived what I THINK is up to the end of the AfD (see archive box at head for link). Please would one of you cross check what I have done and either move MORE to the END of the archive page manually, or RETURN sections to the head of THIS section below the administrative stuff.

After we have that set in stone I am thinking of setting Werdnabot up to archive items here that are over 10 days without discussion to a new archive page. It's easy enough to do that, and even to vary the duration on the fly, but I'd appreciate your thoughts. May I suggest you briefly say Support or Oppose over the next 48 hour period. If you support please say the days that must elapse prior to archival. I'll go for the arithmetic mean as an integer if "Support" is the outcome. No replies and I will just be bold and do it Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Carried "nem con". Werdnabot is now "on". Initial settings are to archive any section that has had no timestamped activity for 10 days. This will thus archive dead or closed discussions while leaving plenty of time for active discussion and less active editors to see on the main talk page.

Werdnabot's activity is logged in the edit history, naturally. It adds to the archive file at the foot of the archive. Fiddle Faddle 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Images in the article

I'm not making a criticism of the addition of two images today. I just want to make sure that we all consider the addition of further images very carefully. An image can give apparent authority to something when juxtaposed with text, or with not, even when there is no intention to give that authority.

The image at the head of the article Image:WTCSouthTower Zafar.jpg currently is interesting. It shows (to me) that a cloud of smoke and/or dust obscured pretty much all the collapse, at least from this angle. I could conclude from it that any measurements of collapse rate, for example, must be flawed because they could not be measured. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a couple of good images of the collapses (and there used to be a little video loop of building 7's collapse) will be useful. One good place to look would be in Jones' paper. Tarpley shows a really good (very explosive) picture in his lectures. They give a good indication of what it is the controlled demolition hypothesists (if you will) focus on. As to the collapse rate: it's not controversial. NIST says 12 seconds (based on seismic data if I recall), and that's good enough (close enough to free fall) for the CD'ers.--Thomas Basboll 22:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you see what I am driving at, though. Using this image as an example, if seismic data is not referred to then the picture itself invalidates measurements. It becomes a similar discussion to moletn metal. "It's orange, it must be iron" is only one conclusion that can be drawn from that video image. It may or may not be correct.

A picture has the effect of migrating the article towards jouranlism unless it is chosen for a cited reason which is directly relevant to the pointg being highlighted (note: not "made") in a section.

I am thus pro-relevant and correctlty cuted and captioned pictures, and wholly against "that makes it look better" pictures. Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh; Basboll, I am growing increasingly wary of your purported neutrality. NIST states clearly that the first exterior panels hit the ground at 9-11 seconds, producing the first seismic reports, but that the collapse is indeterminate due to smoke and lasted at least 25 seconds. It goes further to state

"From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely."

.

I am dissapointed that you would fall for such an obvious misquotation from the Truthers and question your judgement; for someone who claims an extensive knowledge of the source material that was a glaring ommission. --Mmx1 23:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The relevant collapse time is the 12-16 seconds (accordin to CD'ers) that it took for the tops of the buildings to hit the ground. NIST says twelve. There are some interesting details in what you quote, and it would be useful in the "physical features" section of the WTC collapse article. But the CD hypothesis (as its proponents present it) would only be refuted if it took, say, a minute (some say more). Bazant and Verdure complain about the view, but only because it made it hard to see what happened to the structure, not to determine the collapse time. They confirm that the collapses took roughly the same time as free fall and explain why it couldn't have taken even just twice as long (just under 25 seconds). The stuff you are talking about here is not what is at issue, as I understand it.--Thomas Basboll 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand Fiddle Faddle's point. CDers make a great deal out of what the collapses looked like. But the collapse times are not controversial. (The official collapse times match those of the CD hypothesis). There are no pictures in Wikipedia (as far as I can tell) of the actual collapses. Not to show one here would be a bit like not showing a picture of the "face on Mars" is the relevant article. (It may not go in the Mars article, but NASA does not deny that the image is actually in the photograph. They've just got another explanation of it.)--Thomas Basboll 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get hung up on one particular piture. My concerns are that pictures must be relevant and properly captioned, rather than being used as window dressing. When we select a picture we do not always (often?) realise that it may have different significance to diffefent folks. Mhy hope is that we will continue to be very critical of any and every picture, quite simply because it IS worth 1,000 words Fiddle Faddle 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It will be easier to select pictures when the text is finished, I think.--Thomas Basboll 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why Thomas insists that the "collapse times are not controversial" or that "The official collapse times match those of the CD hypothesis". He bases that on the assertion that "NIST says twelve". The original NIST report[15] makes no direct treatment of the collapse time, though in the summary timeline it places the collapse time of WTC 1 at 28 seconds and of WTC 2 in the window of approximately a minute. The CD rebuttal it later issued[16], which I quoted above, explains that the 9-12 second seismic figure often cited is not from the building collapse, but the first exterior panels to hit the ground, and goes further to explain why

• precise "collapse times" are difficult to determine due to obscuring smoke and debris
• Up to 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2 remained standing for 15-25 seconds after collapse initiation, ruling out the lower figures.

I have no patience for gross misrepresentation of sources. You may believe whatever you want, but when you lie about what sources state, you have compromised your integrity. --Mmx1 18:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The FAQ quotes the report on the key issue (which is what I'm calling uncontroversial): "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." NIST is not denying free fall collapse times. Like Bazant and Verdure, NIST is explaining those times. CD hypothesists simply don't believe the "little resistance to the tremendous energy" explanation.
• Next, there is the idea that "significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse". Note that we are talking about portions of the core, meaning that all the perimeter columns, the floors, and portions of the core collapsed to the ground in under 15 seconds. That simply is "good enough" for the controlled demolition hypothesis.
• NIST (and Bazant & Verdure) say that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and that that makes sense without explosives. Controlled demolitionists also say they came down in free fall and that they can't get that to make sense without explosives. The disagreement is not over the collapse times, but whether they make sense. Even the FAQ correctly represents the demolitionists here.
• Finally, I'm not sure how long you intend to invoke your impatience in trying my patience with attacks on my integrity. But if expressing yourself without that sort of invective is possible, please do try to restrain yourself.--Thomas Basboll 19:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Umhmm and where in all this "essentially free fall" OR do you conclude that NIST stated 12 seconds or anything about the "tops of the buildings" hitting the ground? NIST avoids the question of collapse times; they have not stated any definitive numbers.--Mmx1 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is (according the rebuttal you've drawn attention to) documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1; the words "essentially in free fall" appear there and in the portion quoted by NIST in its rebuttal to CD. I also quoted it for you in the first point of my previous post. NCSTAR 1 is the main report that summarises the findings (not the sub-report you're quoting from can't find the collapse times in). You can find the 12 second estimate there, where NIST does not avoid it. AS I've been saying, 15 seconds after the collapses began, all that was left standing was some 40 or 60 stories of portions of the cores. That means the roofs had hit the ground.--Thomas Basboll 19:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, stop those lie accusations - I'm sure that everyone here would like to understand more and has no intention of distorting the truth. The explanation of Up to 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2 remained standing for 15-25 seconds can be seen here, here,here. SalvNaut 19:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well then why don't you point me to the section of NCSTAR 1 or its subreports that gives a time of collapse, as Thomas has continued to assert? I can accept a "I made a mistake" and would have been happy to back off; everyone makes mistakes. But Thomas is keen on defending his claims of assertions made by NIST unsupported by their reports with original research of his own and further unsupported claims. Neither NCSTAR 1, nor its subreports, give a "12 second" figure. I also love the original research that claims because a portion of the core was visible; that the "roofs had hit the ground". Perhaps you can also point to me where the roof is during the collapse video? Oh, wait, it's obscured by dust. --Mmx1 20:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

You can download the main report (NCSTAR 1) here[17]. On page 33, the collapse of WTC 1 is described. The passage concludes with this sentence: "Within 12 s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble." The roof is certainly not resting on top of the remaining core.--Thomas Basboll 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas was quicker - my Acrobat hanged...grrr :). The roof is certainly under the antenna :). SalvNaut 20:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will let other editors decide whether the statement "left nothing but rubble" is a statement of collapse times/rates and/or supports your assertions. As for the roofs, they were somewhere in the dust cloud. No, they were not on top of the core sections, but there is no definitive way to know where exactly they were. --Mmx1 20:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the image I posted on here was deleted? I've always had trouble figuring out which tag to associate with images, but it's seems 'legal' as far as I can tell -the person who took the photo gave me permission to use it on wikipedia as long as I referenced his website and his name. It also would seem to qualify as historical, so I put both on there. Please advise. I think it qualifies to be on here, I just don't understand exactly which tag to use. bov 19:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a try on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

See above section, #NIST_image. --Aude (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll follow those steps and see if he will agree to them. bov 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Collapse times

Mmx1 and I have been discussing whether or not the collapse times are controversial or accepted on both sides (official and CD). My view is that everyone agrees that the buildings collapsed "essentially in free fall", putting the towers at a round 12 seconds and building 7 at just under 7 seconds. Mmx1 has been emphasising that a portion of the cores in each case remaining standing a bit longer (max. 25 seconds after collapse initiation). In the case of building 7 (and this has already been fixed in the article) it is important to distinguish between the proposed sequence of events inside the building and the time from when the penthouse collapses. The official story simply tries to explain these collapses at free fall speed, while demolitions don't accept their explanation. The speed of the collapses, however, are not, as I see it, at issue. Any thoughts?--Thomas Basboll 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes the end of the collapse? When the top floor hit the ground? When there's no significant structural movement? There's no satisfactory answer to that, and no reliable way to determine what was occuring within the dust cloud, which is, in my opinion, why the NIST avoids the question. Hence the more generic statement "left nothing but rubble" with no fixed endpoint. The collapse "time" is a notion floated by the conspiracy theorists, the most sound of which is based on seismic data. I have not seen a convincing estimate based on video footage for the reasons laid out in the NIST rebuttal and challenge you to produce one that is not "controversial". The seismic intervals of 9 and 11 seconds, respectively, for the two towers, are claimed by NIST to refer to "exterior panels", not the main mass. As you can see here, there are exterior pieces of debris (including one large chunk of the exterior panels) next to undamaged floors and truly "free-falling". I mention this only to illustrate the "exterior panels" the NIST referred to; I am not arguing that it was "slower" than free-fall; but one can reasonably conclude that. The official reports describe it as "essentially free-fall" in manner; further concluding that they are in agreement about the duration of the collapse would constitue original research and reading far too much into the statements. "Essentially" leaves a lot of wriggle room especially when NIST never directly addresses the issue of "collapse time". --Mmx1 01:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My question, however, is whether the CD makes any stronger claim (to knowing how long it took) than the 12 seconds (on page 33 of the main volume of NIST report), "essentially in free fall", and the insignificant resistance of the structure underneath the impact zones. CD rejects the idea that it makes sense that the structure offered so little resistance (when NIST says it was essentially free fall, it makes clear that the tops of the building are falling through the bottoms of the building without meeting significant resistance). The hypothesis addresses the primary collapse (not the secondary collapse of "portions of the core") and allows that it might have taken up to 16 seconds. Bazant and Verdure explain why it shouldn't have taken much longer. CD says it should have taken upwards of a minute (if it makes sense at all). I don't think there is basis for framing the collapse times as controversial. Everybody is basially saying "near freefall". Nobody is making any more precise claims here.--Thomas Basboll 07:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman as a Primary or Secondary Source

I see there is some confusion about what constitutes a primary or secondary source. The WP:RS offers the following guideline:

• A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

• A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.

Using the link to UCSC's library provided at the secondary source article (not the article itself), it offers a similar definition and the following guidance towards identifying sources:

“ When evaluating primary or secondary sources, the following questions might be asked to help ascertain the nature and value of material being considered:

• How does the author know these details (names, dates, times)? Was the author present at the event or soon on the scene?
• Where does this information come from—personal experience, eyewitness accounts, or reports written by others?
• Are the author's conclusions based on a single piece of evidence, or have many sources been taken into account (e.g., diary entries, along with third-party eyewitness accounts, impressions of contemporaries, newspaper accounts)?

”

By these standards, as I was taught in every level of education, Hoffman's website is a secondary source. It is an accumulation of primary sources and presents his interpretation of them. Hoffman was not a witness to the collapse and does not base his arguments on what he personally witnessed; he bases them on other primary and secondary sources. Can secondary sources be used as a primary source for the "beliefs" of the person? I would argue not; that would open a backdoor to introducing any secondary source as merely a primary source for the author's beliefs. I refuse to submit to the notion that we can discuss freely "beliefs" irrespective of the nature of these claims; we have here assertions about numerous facets of the Collapse of the World Trade Center; it does not pass muster to allow a lower standard of inclusion because we are merely talking about "beliefs". I am raising these issues on the Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources page, that appears to be a more appropriate place to involve qualified individuals to comment on this. --Mmx1 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since a secondary source is a distillation of primary sources, perhaps distilled to create a particular POV, the only way I can see them being referred to is

• To state that this is precisley what they are
• To state that they are included as the conspiracy therory where that is what they are
• To state that they are not being used in any way as references.

The challenge this article has is that a good proportion of the conspiracy theory per se is the secondary source material for the collapse. Thus an article written about the conspiracy theory has to be written about that material while absolutely not appearing to give any credence to it.

If one takes Hoffman's website and accepts that in the research on the collapse it is a secondary source, Surely it is a primary source for the conspiracy theory about that collapse.

This is nothing to do with Hoffman's beliefs (or evidence thereof), it is simply evidence that Hoffman distilled other people's research on the collapse itself and presented that distillation as "whatever hsi findings then appeared to be".

Let me try to précis that:

Primary sources for the conspiracy theory are the documents et al that state directly or indirectly that the official report is in some way flawed and is covering up the facts. These sources may well be formed from secondary sources regarding the collapse itself.

There, I think I got it. Fiddle Faddle 07:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are we including Hoffman?

What makes Hoffman a notable proponent? He hasn't received much media coverage, and google results are not an indicator of nobility. His references are all self-published, and he has no qualifications ("postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS). In fact, there was evidence of astroturfing of his links on the 9/11 Conspiracy page, where even the proponents were disturbed that his website seemed to be so heavily promoted. --Mmx1 13:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

On that evidence he should be downgraded from notable (if that is asserted anywhere) to "another proponent", possibly "another vociferous proponent", if he is to be included. Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not resolve the issue that the article is still relying heavily on his self-published sources in gross violation of WP:RS. You can at least make an argument for Basboll's three because there are non-self-published versions of their work (though that is not a guarantee of reliability). --Mmx1 13:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer is slow and steady work to fix it. Do feel like taking this on? Do we need a consensus first? Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to establish this clearly on the talk page first. --Mmx1 14:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

He's the perfect example of someone who fails WP:RS, we don't need a poll for this. I don't see anything that would argue for an exception in this case. There are other instances of WP:RS failure here that will have to be dealt with. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

While you may very well be correct, we are trying very hard to be as consensus based as possible over areas which may well be contentious. I hope you will not object that I am copying your comments verbatim to the consensu building process below. The overall objective is to create an entirely NPOV article from the article that was sent twice to AfD. As you'll appreciate, this is hard to do without assessing all evidence carefully. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus - Include Hoffman?

Please let us determine Hoffman's genuine relevance for inclusion in the article. I suggest state Include or Drop, both with reasons. It is probabaly not a matter of a numeric vote, but a decent consensus based on well argued opinions. I suggest we treat it as a very formal discussion below. Is 48 hours sufficient for this? if not please be bold and say so in this heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Include: I'd like to suggest two things in regard to Hoffman. First, he is an important part of the history of the hypothesis. This is clear from the Jones and Griffin papers, and I'm going to mention him the historical section for sure. (He also participated in the Improbable Collapse movie; though I have not seen it, it seems like a serious documentary effort - i.e., a secondary source documenting the hypothesis and balancing it with criticism.) Second, we should not site him for arguments covered by Jones, Griffin, (or Tarpley, if we keep him). The pyroclastic cloud argument, for example, should be left out if no major proponents have done anything with it. We are going to have to reduce the level of detail anyway at some point, I'm thinking.--Thomas Basboll 14:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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

• Drop:Self-published sources should not be used, as per WP:RS. Hoffman is neither "well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist", nor is the material used, about Hoffman. Despite claims that it is only representing "Hoffman's views", it is an end-run around the qualification that use of self-published sources for biographical info "does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject". Moreover, Hoffman has no established notability owing to the lack of media references. --Mmx1 14:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Drop: He's the perfect example of someone who fails WP:RS, we don't need a poll for this. I don't see anything that would argue for an exception in this case. There are other instances of WP:RS failure here that will have to be dealt with. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (note: This is copied from the section above to ensure that consensus building is made simpler - see note by Fiddle Faddle above) Fiddle Faddle 15:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Include: per Thomas Basboll. Isn't it worth mentioning that main proponent of this hypothesis very often refer to "an ordinary researcher" like Hoffman? (it says a lot about nature of this hypothesis, it's interesting from every POV). The movie Improbable Collapse looks like a real documentary effort (biased, but still). It includes Corbett who was on the committee advising the National Institute of Standards and Technology on its investigation of the WTC disaster, and who supports NIST findings and is critical of NIST's methodology. There, Hoffman is introduced:Jim Hoffman pioneered research in the hypothesis that the WTC buildings were demolished, as the creator of three meticulous and sprawling sites, wtc7.net, 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.net.

Mmx1:"postgraduate degree or demonstrable published expertise" per WP:RS -> he has a demonstrable published expertise (in a field of his own), check an article about him.SalvNaut 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification:My proposition is to include Hoffman's findings, arguments, links to his research only as a supplement of similiar arguments raised by major proponents (Jones very often refers directly to Hoffman's page in his paper). He should also be mentioned in the hypothesis' history section. Check discussions below for arguments. SalvNaut 22:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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

• Include Hoffman's work was essential to fleshing out and organizing the arguments for demoliton (symmetry, squibs, etc.) and he was a key person early on in that effort. Whether or not he's with a university, works as a structural engineer, or is published with Random House shouldn't be the deciding factor for some type of mention of him given that the people who did get published and are with universities relied on his work for their research. bov 21:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Comment: If Hoffman fails WP:RS, consensus or no he needs to go. --Durin 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Drop. Hoffman's website does not meet WP:RS. I don't consider him a "professional researcher writing within their field of expertise", and as a self-published source, it has "not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking". He says things like "The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707." which are referenced in the article. But, Hoffman doesn't provide any sources for this. Is Hoffman an expert in aviation, a RS for this? He is a software engineer, and doesn't meet RS. The Hoffman sources have to go. --Aude (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: He should be mentioned in the history section about the hypothesis. The facts about fuel are easily verifiable. Why would you think he is wrong about that? He made a research, you didn't. SalvNaut 08:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think people are looking very carefully at whether the source is reputable. One could argue with some justification that many peple made researches. The question is over whether this person's research is judged sufficienty reputable to be included. There is a thought that, where the research is widely quoted and yet does not qualify formally under WP:RS that WP:IAR might cover it. Please note that I am wholly neutral on Hoffman, and that this comment is not an endorsement nor a criticism of his research as a source. Fiddle Faddle 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Drop: Does not meet WP:RS. If we are looking to maintain WP:NPOV, then amateur sleuths like Hoffman distract from the legitimacy and scientific evidence that this article is attempting to compile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColorOfSuffering (talk • contribs)

• include: In the interest of providing a reasonable, common sense presentation of the actual context surrounding the unrefuted evidence of controlled demolitions, especially that of the WTC 7 collapse, the contributions of both WTC7.net architects, Hoffman and Don Paul, must be included. Praise for the contributions related to the 9/11 Truth Movement resulting directly from the collaboration between Paul and Hoffman makes a long, distinguished list:
• Jeff Adachi (Chief Public Defender of the City of San Francisco)
• Dr. John Aldridge
• Ed Asner
• Peter B. Collins
• Malcom Cowley
• Dr. Kevin Danaher
• Dr. Walter Davis
• Matthew Everett
• Lawrence Ferlinghetti
• Andrew Geller
• Matt Gonzalez (former President of the City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors)
• Dr. Steven E. Jones
• Chuck Kinder
• Yuri Kochiyama
• Dr. John Logan
• Derk Richardson
• Dr. Kevin Ryan
• David Rubien
• Brian Salter
• Dr. John Untrecker
• Barrie Zwicker

According to Paul, "The crimes of 9/11/01 remain the most consequential events of this century. I've done my best to show and suggest what happened on that day and to point out that even more awful crimes are planned for us as 'pretexts' for more war unless we act openly and courageously to prevent them. No amount of attempted 'deletion" will change realities outside the Internet, nor change peoples' needs to seek truth."

More to the point, the evidence for concluding that a controlled demolition continues to mount, and much of the credit belongs to WTC7.net, which Jones has praised repeatedly for lending the scientific credibility that precipitated Jones's initial research paper on the WTC collapses. Because of their central role, in having the foremost website on the topic and for spurring the research that led to the identification of thermate as the specific explosive used to slice the steel structural support of the three buildings, there should be no question whatsoever about including Paul and Hoffman in the article. Ombudsman 22:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

---

We should now close this for inputs. If this were to be simply numeric I would call it a tied vote, pretty much, but a vote it what it is not. Can someone who is not me and ideally who has not been involved in the discussion and who can take a legitimately neutral view summarise what consensus we have reached, please. That way we have a plan to move forward, with or without Hoffman. The main reaosn for seeking a consensus here was to attempt to get the arguments into the open and decide what has value that is congruent with the aim of the article (note, not about the collapse, but about the conspiracy theory) It was never intended to be a vote, always a consensus. I hope we can do this better than a large number of AfDs have been done Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

People important to the hypothesis should be mentioned

If there is consensus about someone (Hoffman, King) to be important for the hypothesis, then he should be included here. Why? Now, there are two cases possible:

1. hypothesis is false: How should this article look then? I think it should mention everyone important for the existence of the hypothesis. If Hoffman is important, he should be mentioned. It would be very interesting for the reader (in this case) to see how had this false hypothesis emerged, what kind of pitfalls in reasoning caused it, who and how fell for it (Jones while basing some of his findings on Hoffman's, etc.).
2. hypothesis is true: no need to explain, then.

imho.SalvNaut 16:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point here. The challenge is doing this without the article appearing to endorse their views where they do not qualify under (eg) WP:RS and thus being legitimately accused of being POV pushing. How do you propose this could be achieved? Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a challenge. My proposition is to include their findings, arguments, links to their research only as a supplement of similiar arguments raised by major proponents. SalvNaut 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Important according to who? The three Basboll mention have been quoted by reliable secondary sources; Hoffman and King haven't. It is not wiki's place to determine the history of false hypotheses and rejections from primary sources; that is the role of secondary sources. --Mmx1 17:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For good order: Hoffman is cited in the New York Magazine piece.[18]--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York piece makes no assertion to relative importance. This is a fundamental flaw of your argument. The New York piece itself can be used as a reliable secondary source; that does not open the door to using anyone cited by it as a primary source. Hoffman's works remain self-published material making allegations about third parties, unrelated to himself. That disqualifies it from use as a source as per WP:RS--Mmx1 18:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still proposing we use only use Griffin, Jones and Tarpley when sourcing elements of the hypothesis. King and Hoffman, however, are mentioned in some of these and in some of the secondary sources we have. It would make for a more informative article to mention them in the history leading up to the three current statements. But I don't propose using their work as sources of further information about the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 19:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What is your opinion about providing Hoffman as a source for Jones's claims? This article is going to have a summary of Jones's claims (there is consensus about this I think). Jones very often provides links to Hoffman's page, as a source for photo, video evidence about WTC collapse. For example, Jones refers 2 times on the 4th page of his paper. Should we then provide Hoffman's page as a link to illustrate Jones's claim, or rather search for data elsewhere? I think that the former would be unneccassary difficulty, as Hoffman seems a very good source for some of 9/11 evidence, and after all Jones based his claims on his data. SalvNaut 22:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Engineering consensus

This seems to be a permanent issue on all these articles (with the exception of the main WTC collapse article, however.) Note the following formulation (status quo in this article):

Some engineers initially very surprised by the collapses[7] have come to accept the official explanation as valid.[8] Apart from structural engineers, however, proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis often appeal not to principles of structural engineering but to elementary laws of physics.

Ref 7 links to a very reliable engineering trade journal that basically says no engineers could imagine that the buildings might collapse before they did. (This idea ran under the headline "Unthinkable!" in the weeks immediately following the attacks). Ref 8 links to Bazant and Verdure that says no engineers predicted that the buildings would collapse and that the NIST report's explanation is now the generally accepted account in the engineering community. It seems to me that the sentence in question completely understates the consensus and makes the point difficult to understand. Here is what it should say:

Engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid.[7][8] The controlled demolition hypothesis, however, is normally not framed by principles of structural engineering but the laws of elementary basic laws of physics.

What do you all think?--Thomas Basboll 08:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When I went to university I was surprised that "Elementary physics" was a subject that was hugely advanced and was about "Elementary particles". That is my first challenge.

My second challenge is that structural engineering is physics. In fact much of the conspiracy theory appears to me to be bending the laws of physics by being selective to suit a predetermined outcome, rather than applying the laws of physics to validate (or invalidate) the observed outcome. Where a law does not fit an explosive charge is added..

To me this makes the second sentence an opinion that "we" are creating, and thus it cannot stand in even your proposed sentence, since the CD people are bending physics. Only Einstein can do that and get away with it. The original paragraph is also incorrectly framed, BTW.

If one said "The controlled demolition hypothesis seeks to explain paradoxical observed results by being selective about the scientific principles it references" one might be closer. However this would need heavy referencing to avoid itself being a POV statement made by us as authors. Fiddle Faddle 09:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point about "elementary". What I mean is just that CD proponents claim that there are underlying "basic" laws that no amount of applied engineering knowledge can do away with. One way of understanding this (which also goes to your point about the selection of principles) is that the WTC collapses are difficult to reconcile with, say, high school physics. Now, this doesn't (and shouldn't) embarrass the official engineers. It amounts to identifying the CD hypothesis with a specific area of ignorance. Since Griffin, Jones and Tarpley all takes this "basic physics" line, however, I think we can be fair in our representation of this tension. This is part of what makes all of this interesting to me: the knowledge needed to understand the collapses may be too esoteric to popularize. This allows CD'ers to appeal to more general intuitions about how things fall down. (On the other hand, a rigorously developed finite element analysis of the collapses all the way down to the ground - where each element obeys basic physical laws and a computer simply keeps track of their collective "structural response" to the initiating event - would do a great deal to settle this matter. NIST did not carry out such an analysis since it was unecessary from a strictly engineering point of view. It's a lesson in the public understanding of science that the WTC collapses are seen as "anomalous" by what is apparently a great many people despite a near total engineering consensus.)--Thomas Basboll 09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is more than "Anomalous". The public perception is that buildings are "for ever" unless demolished in a planned manner or by a natural disaster. Since the rather banal hijackers probably just planned to crash a few planes and kill as many people as possible, and were probably not expecting the buildings to collapse, nor was the global public. After all, the Empire State Building had a plane strike and survived.

So the public need "the impossible" to be explained. "It can't have just fallen down, it was only a plane, so someone must have got in there first and rigged it to go"

Ok, it's possible. But it is improbable, especially with security guards and their walk schedules, etc etc etc. But that is how this comspiracy stuff gets hold. And that, in its way, is what we are documenting. "The crowd wants someone in government to blame because government should have stopped this event" And the event was so simple, so banal, and so ruthless that it leaves us wanting a government scapegoat.

+rant over+ Fiddle Faddle 10:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, my rant apart, where does this leave your paragraph? Fiddle Faddle 10:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the psychology you describe here, which is the orthodox approach to the psychology of conspiracy theories (e.g., "People can't accept that a lone gunman could pull it off"), needs to be developed (or focused) for the sake of this article. I like the "need to explain the impossible" (more precisely: the need to replace an unfamiliar and impossible explanation with a familiar and possible one) hits it on the head. In this case, we can explain it in terms of a lack of knowledge of engineering principles, coupled with a rudimentary understanding of physics. It's not so much "can't accept" as "don't understand" (while at the same time having the ability to understand an alternative.) The hypothesis is in many ways more humble than the theory and therefore the target of somewhat softer criticism. If it false, this implies, quite properly, ignorance not delusion.--Thomas Basboll 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opnion, in any scientific paper about issue which is very complicated and data dependent (not mathematics, astronomy is a good example), it can be observed that scientists very often choose laws which to include in their papers that fit their hypothesis best. A scientific paper can be "good" in two ways: either by giving a broad look on the subject and by providing many arguments "for", or by providing one, very well proven, strong argument. The "where a law does not fit an explosive charge is added" strategy seems quite nautural from conspiracy POV given many other questions regarding 9/11.

In this case, official vs CD theory conflict, there are many arguments from both sides and they rarely overlap. Molten metal, (not)severity of the fires, witnessed explosions - those are not discussed scientifically by official explanations. I agree that from structural engineers community POV free-fall argument is weak. This is because there is Bazhant&Zhou paper about progressive collapse. I found some more papers on Google Scholar about progressive collapse, but it seems that they are not about WTC, but rather mechanism itself, and they often use WTC example as an argument "for" their theories. Well, I think there are a lot of strong assumptions in Bazhant&Zhou and very few people would be able to evaluate their validity properly. Many of other papers point out that experiments are needed to fully understand progressive collapse mechanism (they point to controlled demolitions as a possibility of such experiments). SalvNaut 10:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs proposed by Thomas seem very appropriate.SalvNaut 10:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."

The word implicit in this formulation is "all." In effect, it reads, "All engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid."

If that statement is true, fine. But if even one engineer dissents (and several dissenting engineers are already cited in this article), the statement is verifiably false.

Then we need to say "some engineers" or, if someone has done a reliable and comprehensive worldwide statistical survey, "most engineers." If someone has done a statistical survey of the published literature, we could say something like "Most engineers who have published their findings in professional journals." Otherwise we could publish our impressions--but we're not supposed to do that, are we?

Regarding the "Let's examine their psychology" approach, several observations:

1. If it's meant to tell us something about the validity or non-validity of the CD hypothesis itself, the approach is clasically falacious. (It's argumentum ad hominem: addressing, in this case, the supposed motives for holding an idea, rather than the merits and demerits of the idea itself.)

2. Such arguments can nearly always cut both ways:

Conspiracy theorists need to believe that major and complex events have major and complex causes. Such theories provide an outlet for antinomian tendencies. And so on.

Or, alternatively:

People generally have an overwhelming need to trust in authority. They need to feel anchored to institutions that provide them a sense of psychological stability. They therefore find it difficult to believe that their authorities have betrayed them.

It just depends on which side is using the (fallacious) argument.

3. In the run-up to this year's 9/11 anniversary, the "psychology approach" found a lot of play in the mass media. TIME (for example) used it as the mainstay of their piece on "Why Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away." (And alongside it they ran a "Myth" versus "Fact" column, among the "facts" being what NIST more modestly called their "working hypothesis" of why WTC 7 fell. Oh, and another fact: The reason none of America's F-15's [price tag: $27 to $29 million each] could intercept any of the four wayward planes is that the rogue aircraft were too hard to find. Why? Because they had their transponders turned off. What a gyp: Fighter jets that can locate an enemy only if he's got his transponder on to broadcast his location! Perhaps there's a good explanation--but (forgive me my psychological hangups) I suspect the one Time gave us isn't it. (For the building collapses, US News went Time one better: In the US News version, planes crashed into all three buildings. I kid you not.)

In sum:

(1) The proposed formulation about the engineers has a fatal flaw.

And

(2) I suggest we avoid the psychology approach.

Cheerfully, O Govinda 12:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A) I agree with much of what you say here about psychology. I do think that an article about an research should include something about its psychology, or rather its political psychology. Thus, the conditions under which the NIST report were made has specific characteristics that can easily explain why it "found no evidence" of controlled demolition. Such explanations will by "psychological" in the sense that they will not refer to the (non-)availability of such evidence. Something about the political/psychological conditions of the FEMA & NIST investigations would be useful in the article on the collapse of the WTC. And the same reasoning applies here. We need to know why people who discover things (or fail to) are disposed to discovering them (or failing to): this even in cases where what they have discovered is perfectly true.--Thomas Basboll 13:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

B) I don't agree with your move from "engineers" to "all engineers". Consider what happens if we follow through on this: "Engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but have come to accept the official explanation as valid," becomes, "All engineers were initially very surprised by the collapses but they have all come to accept the official explanation as valid." The first sentence does not imply the last. The first sentence says, "engineers were generally... but have generally accepted ..." The list of surprised engineers need not be identical with the list of accepting ones. (Obvious cases: those that remain surprised; those that were never surprised.) Inserting "all" closes off that interpretative space. This attests to the more openness of the meaning of the original formula. It does of course imply that most engineers are on both lists. But that is quite true, and that is exactly the point we need to make here. This is not a hypothesis that is being pursued by engineering as a discipline, i.e., by engineers.--Thomas Basboll 13:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agreee very much with OGovinda. My personal interest in this hypothesis hasn't come from "It looks like controlled demolition, there are squibs, fires were not so severe, there is molten metal - OH my GOD - it must be CD!!" but rather from "It looks like controlled demolition, there are squibs, fires were not so severe, there is molten metal, OK, what explanation does NIST have for this? - OH my GOD! No good explanation!?!". I agree that psychology approach could be considered as ad hominem. In CT community there is a variety of people - many would be offended if we were to put too much emphasis on psychology approach.SalvNaut 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's what you intend, why not say "engineers generally were...but have generally." Would you need a source(s) for these propositions?--JustFacts 20:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with that simple suggestion. Hmm Sources for a general opinion are hard. One might desire sources but have too many. It would merit a footnote I think, explaining how the conclusion was reached if sources prove elusive. While one might argue one could also see the logic clearly then Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A footnote, if no sources, might be OK. Thom, don't you think the article needs to include more about the alleged "refutation" of the NIST report's analyis of the collapse mechanism. I am thinking, for example, of Kevin Ryan's article here: [[19]] going point by point to "disprove" the NIST report's major findings and assumptions. By the way, this might also "bridge" to some extent the engineering explanation and that of the "common sense" physicists (not that Ryan is either one), to use your terminology. I am not the person to write this.--JustFacts 21:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes are very good idea.SalvNaut 22:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be working on this over the next couple of days, and I'll probably just boldly add the new sections and see what the rest of you do with them. I think we have to be careful with Ryan's critique of NIST. There is a section on the limitations of the NIST report at the collapse of the World Trade Center article, and a section on outright criticisms of that report could also perhaps be added (there's a side-project for you, though it will no doubt demand a lot of consensus-building). This indicates the danger of POV-forking, i.e., including criticisms of the report here that would not be allowed there (Ryan would not qualify, I would think). Jones also addresses NIST's findings directly, and I'll try to make the "conflict" section more informative. Obviously we can (and should) note criticisms of the NIST report that (if they're on target) open more space for controlled demolition (i.e., criticism that are part and parcel of the hypothesis). Like I say, a couple more days and I should have something.--Thomas Basboll 23:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that overall critique of NIST report does not belong here but pointing out that NIST hasn't identified source of molten metal (not identified - that's right, they just pointed out some possibilities like aluminum with organic substance but didn't provide any arguments), or some of the general critique by Griffin seems appropriate. Eagerly looking forward to see the results of your work. SalvNaut 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oral History Support for Demolition

I am parking this paragraph here for the moment. I am not sure whether it fits in or not, especially since the video recordings may simply not have had sound.

"In addition, surviving video footage from near the base of the towers before and during their collapse fails to record any sound of explosions of the magnitude heard during a building demolition."

I think it has a place, but not where it was entered, and potentially not without qualification. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a note on my talk page about the Oral History section. I wont copy it all here, but it mentions this: ...the oral history section is morphing into a pro-con discussion of whether or not there were explosions. That speaks to the need to reorganize the page. Regardless of that, I do think that eyewitness accounts of explosions (which offer no way of measuring the loudness or timing of the sound after the fact), and statements about explosions in the basement that have never been logically connected to a collapse beginning at the top of the building need to be presented alongside objective records such as video footage which can be evaluated by anyone interested enough to actually view the source material.

I think this is a significant comment and shows an area we need to attend to. Two areas:

1. The apparent morphing (should it happen or should it not. Is this the right place etc?
2. The comment about video footage and explosions itself. How do we (in fact should we) reflect this?

Fiddle Faddle 18:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The video tapes are tricky. If I watch it and see a shaking in the camera at a critical time or hear a low roar or high "pop" (or if I don't see or hear this), can I report this and not be guilty of OR. I think we need RS that reports this or its absence unless the shaking and sound are quite obvious. Am I wrong?--JustFacts 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is what worries me, too. Needs to be thrashed out in order that the community can scrutinise the logic either way. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Imo, we can focus on witnesses' accounts about having heard explosions and we don't need to jump to any conclusions about any video. There is multiple of witnesses claiming of having heard explosions - some later stated that they've come to understanding that they've heard the tower collapsing (and such statements should be used to balance). There are also some who have heard explosions in the basement when plane hit. (Rodriquez and some other firefighters - interview on YouTube[20][21][22]). One more report about explosions: I wonder what this was? SalvNaut 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Witness accounts are fine. The video you link to in your last sentence is a good example of what I mean. A significant explosion is heard and the people in the video use the word "explosion" to describe it. What is the time of this explosion? Can it be chronologically aligned with the second tower hitting the ground? Given all the dust, the first tower at least must have fallen and so it cannot be that or the sound of planes hitting the buildings, either. To support CD, the explosion would have to be shown to have occurred before the second tower hit the ground, I think.--JustFacts 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal

...But pointing out that NIST hasn't identified source of molten metal (not identified - that's right, they just pointed out some possibilities like aluminum with organic substance but didn't provide any arguments), or some of the general critique by Griffin seems appropriate. Eagerly looking forward to see the results of your work. SalvNaut 23:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because why, they could just step in their time machine, go in the towers, and go see what the source of the molten metal was before it melted. And they didn't. So they must be covering up something. How do you propose they identify the source of molten metal? --Mmx1 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, we cannot. It is highly unlikely that NIST could either. Even a detailed metallurgical analysis will only show what metal it is (currently, not initially, since it may well have formed a new alloy in the melt) and that it was molten and cooled at a particular rate. If a bit that did not melt fully is sticking out of a cooled pool of melt and is shown under the microscope to be a part of the melt rather than a lucky falling into a puddle then a potential source s clearer, but not proven. All NIST can say is that metal melted (0.9 probability) and what the resulting composition was. But any interpretation they made beyond this would be speculative at best. However it is potentially useful to state "NIST did not report in the source of the molten metal" (or similar) if that is the case. Fiddle Faddle 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that pointing out the absence of a statement must be done so carefully; after all, there is much that NIST doesn't say. They don't say, for example, that Controlled Demolitions brought down the towers. There is nothing significant about the fact that they do not speculate about possible sources of melted metal and remarking about the absence would imply that they should have speculated. --Mmx1 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

True, and similar to my thoughts on photographs in the article. In this case such an absence of comment on sources of molten metal is simply an absence of comment on the imposisble (attack rationale) or a cover up (CT rationale). Equally we cannot have a caveat on every statement in the article: "The absence of such a comment should neither be taken as an endorsement of nor a rubuttal of yadda yadda yadda" is also patently ridiculous. The issue is the absence of common sense (on each "side" often) once a hypothesis "takes hold". What is reasinable to ignore is deemed reasonable because it is reasonable by ine side and evidence of a cover up by the other. How do you suggest we handle this issue? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent way of explaining the sense in which Jones (and the others) take controlled demolition as a "hypothesis". Here's a video that gives a good idea of how he does things.[23] (I'm not suggesting it as a source, just as a way we might understand the issue.) Notice how he frames it. You've got a feature of the WTC collapses: molten metal, whether pouring out of the building or found in the basement, and hardened 'slag' (previously molten metal) of a particular metallurgical composition. You then have two hypotheses: fire-initiated, gravity-driven progressive collapse vs. controlled demolition with thermite. According to Jones (and apparently NIST) the feature is difficult to explain on the first hypothesis; but a thermite reaction, he tells us, would explain it almost down to the last detail (i.e., details revealed under a microscope). That's what hypotheses are for. The thermite hypothesis for the WTC, combined with background knowledge about thermite and steel, leads to a prediction about the result of an analysis of the samples under an electron microscope. The question is, does such an analysis reveal "what we would expect to find if thermite were involved?" The answer, he claims, is "yes". Is molten metal something we would expect to find (and would therefore have an easy time explaining) on the official account? The answer seems to be (but it is true we have to be quite sure about this) no.--Thomas Basboll 08:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Slag is not the same as molten metal. I don't have 35 minutes to wade through the video, I fear, to see of this is a Jones terminlogy misuse or a misunterstanding here. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that I said "previously molten metal". I put the word in quotes to signal my own discomfort with it. I don't know much about it, but I think Jones (and others who talk about these samples as "slag") just mean the byproduct of a very hot reaction involving metal. Looking at the articles on thermite ("A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide") and the article on slag ("a mixture of metal oxides") the mistake seems an honest one--I don't think he's claiming to use the word in very precise sense: just a metal waste product. It could be my misunderstanding. I'm not sure it is essential to the point we're discussing here though.--Thomas Basboll 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

PS. The NIST CD rebuttal FAQ (point 11) also talks about "slag" in this context: "Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." Their meanings may not exactly overlap; but I think they're all clearly talking about the same thing here.--Thomas Basboll 12:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Slag is, in general, a load of impurities that float to the surace, like scum. The slag layer can be solid, over liquid at high enough temperatures, and is generally inorganic, since organics burn of at much lower temperatures (in crucibles at least - in a fire such as this, who knows?). At high temperatures the slag will have a different appearance from the underlying molten metail. When the melt solidifies, generally, the slag forms a surface layer with a distinct boundary. Differential expansion and contraction rates can even break the slag away from the now solid melt.

I tend to the NIST view, since it uses the term in a more accurate sense. I do not think we need be unduly concerned though. Fiddle Faddle 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, it surprises me a bit that you tend this (NIST FAQ) way. Have you seen the video (we link to) zoomed? Here is another video showing the same molten metal from TV camera.[24] First comment under the video could be mine, indeed. Could you watch this video FiddleFaddle and take position? I've also noticed white smoke raising from the grounds(!) of the towers moments before the collapse (camera man seems to notice it too, as he zoooms on it.). I think this video could be used as a source, but then different version should be used not to link to comments under it.SalvNaut 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me which but you are seeing as a surprising tendency, please. I am simply looking at the word "slag", I think, and giving an explanation of it. I fear I was once a metallurgist, but of no repute at all :). Always happy to explain myself when I know what I am to explain. Fiddle Faddle 06:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"How do you propose they identify the source of molten metal?"(Mmx1): Hmmm. How about doing experiments with kerosyne fires and various substances,metals to see how they look if melted? How about measuring black body radiation from the video by making experiments with the same camera from the same distance ?; taking previously molten metal examples from the rubble, putting it in electron microprobe or wave-dispersive X-ray or other expensive lab equipment and trying to explain this data? ; looking very closely at WTC designs and trying to identify the possible source of the molten metal/substance? How about including those results in the final report? Hmmm, and maybe some more scientific tests about squibs? Why they've occured in exactly those places? What do WTC designs tell us about the compression wave? Could it go in such a way to make those squibs possible? Hmmm, wait. Jones researched on some of those issues... Why NIST belittles the fact that scaled WTC models when set on kerosyne fire didn't collapse?

To be more bold (about NIST critique): Why not to put controlled demolition hypothesis on the table (no one would be suprised, engineers and other experts reported it looked like CD) and refute it(?) with strength? Why dismissing the whole hypothesis with one sentence in the final report?? (following is just speculation - I share my thoughts)Wait... I know the answer: doing any of these could point your finger at some that supervise you and are supposed to account you for this report and pay you. Your proposition could be immediately ridiculed by media, goverment people, collegues. You could loose your job in the comission. No one would provide you with money for your proposed experiments. Yes, why to bother to explain everything about one of the most important events of the century? Isn't it better to prepare half-baked farce.... After all, what else can we do? We scientist do our best with funds, access to evidence and reasonable supervision over us we have(not).SalvNaut 18:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thermate vs Thermite

Reading the article, the two words may be used interchangeably. However they are different, the one being a constituent component and the other being an incendiary compound. I'm flagging this for further attention while I think of it. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Having watched part of a rather long video by Jones he explains that he uses thermite and thermate somewhat interchangeably and makes a distinction between them in that explanation. I think we can safely ignore this, though a final note with a comment to that effect might be worthwhile? Fiddle Faddle 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits that may require discussion

Where we see an edit that we believe requires further discussion, even if we simply wish to understand the rationale, it is worth listing it here. For ease of editing, each should have a sub-heading.

Listing an edit here should in no way be taken as a criticism of any editor. This article is to be above reproach and wholly correct within the guidelines. I am seeking simply to work towards seeking to ensure that.

Note that, when the editor is not a regular contributor to this talk page they should be invited politely to visit this section to elaborate on their reasons, simply so we (the entire interested wikipedia community) may understand them. However, lack of their further comments should not cause any judgement to be made about them or their edit.

(section created as a clerical exercise by Fiddle Faddle, but no real need to sign this part)

Evidence (2)

Please see this diff where a section stating Hoffman's arguments has been removed with the edit history "we can't be making arguments on Wikipedia, violates the rules against original research".

I do not see that this is wikipedia making an argument. Instead I see it as reporting arguments made by Hoffman. I believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The editor may have been suggesting that if Hoffman himself had posted this it would be OR. We simply need to list Jones' arguments instead, and source it to his not self-published paper. They are roughly the same.--Thomas Basboll 09:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Implications of controlled demolition of 7 WTC (2)

Please see this diff where the section making reference to the demolition of the Baptist Tower has been removed with the edit history of "deleted unreliable source"

I do not understand why a factual page of a demolition company us unreliable, unless it is itself dismissed as Original Research. Even if that is the rationale it is a simple report on another building demolished by an apparently reputable corporation.

I see every reason for us to discuss whether such a section should be in or out, but I am not sure about the stated reason for deletion, and believe we may need to discuss this. Fiddle Faddle 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We may need a small section with a main article link to demolition. This is a tricky issue. We need to report the analogy to building "implosions" that CD hypothesists are proposing--but not establish that analogy for them. For example, in the demolition article it says, as CD'ers emphasise, that "It takes several weeks to prepare a building for implosion." (This could easily be sourced outside WP). But it continues with what seems to be an explanation of what it is that takes so long, which is irrelevant to the WTC collapses. "All items of value, such as copper wiring, are stripped from a building. Some materials must be removed, such as glass that can form deadly projectiles, and insulation that can scatter over a wide area." This was obviously not done in preparation for 9/11.--Thomas Basboll 09:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Connecting the Dots is Forbidden

Timtrent asked me to come here and explain why I deleted the section on "Implications of Controlled Demolition". Two reasons: (1) that we should not be citing to blogs on Wikipedia, as they violate WP:RS, and (2) the section was "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", which I shall quote in part below:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

See [25] for the complete policy. Morton devonshire 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I needed to ponder on that for a while. What I think you are saying is "Putting an item about a genuine controlled demolition in an article documenting a conspiracy theory that proposes controlled demolition is inappropriate because it appears to validate that proposal." I'd appreciate your commenting on whether I have stated that correctly. If that is a reasonable phrasing of your rationale then I agree with you. If not I know you will correct me, but please spoon feed me if so. Under those circumstances it would not matter how authoritative or bloggy the item cited was, because it woudl be simply inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 20:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have stated it correctly. I think the bottom line of the Synthesis policy is that we are not to prove or disprove an article-subject on Wikipedia, but to plainly describe what other reliable sources have said about it. We can't piece-together things, unless they are ALREADY pieced-together by a reliable secondary source. Morton devonshire 20:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

JonesWhyCollapse, page 31:

The collapse of WTC 7 had a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion… The average debris field radius was approximately 70 feet. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.)

Evidently we agree that this was a beautifully done implosion in the collapse of WTC 7, and yet:

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)

Consider: Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC7 and the Towers, when “toppling-over” falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? These questions suggest the need for further investigation.

Deleted paragraph can't be seen as connect-the-dots as it is Jones's (and Griffin's too, probably but I haven't read his book) hypothesis that this kind of demolition would require time and access to the buildings. It is merely illustration of most important claims by Jones and others. Jones links in his paper to http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm - maybe we could use this site as an illustration or Harris' paper if we can find it. Second, why would controlled demolition company fail WP:RS test for being a source about controlled demolition?

It should be restored with Thomas' remarks in mind.SalvNaut 20:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this actually meant to be in this section? If so, please say why. If not, please can you put it in the right place (right heading, etc). Welcome to delete this note afterwards since it will become irrelevant. The subheading (above the sub subheading, was just for MD's deletion, and we'll get hellish confused if we donp;t do housekeeping right.Fiddle Faddle understood now Fiddle Faddle 13:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded and restored it in the same section, as it is WTC7 issue.SalvNaut 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The other removal by Morton should be restored in a form of a report about 13 points raised by Jones in his paper. I wish I had time now to do that.SalvNaut 21:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence section

I have made several changes to this section. Among those not obvious or discussed in the edit summary:

• I removed "These analyses have not found their way into any academic engineering discussions." The reference given was NISTFAQ. But I found no such statement in that source. (Besides, at least some academics--perhaps they're cited in this article?--have discussed these matters, thus rendering the statement false.)

• I substituted various forms of "says" for other terms of attribution, like "claims" and "notes." ("Claims" carries pejorative implications, and "notes" the favorable implication that what was "noted" was true.)

I realize that in deleting the redundant identification of Dr. Jones I have sacrificed a footnote: A university spokeswoman, Carri P. Jenkins, said the decision was based on the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of statements being made by Dr. Jones regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center". We could restore it, towards the top of the article, where the original identification occurs. If we do, however, I would suggest we also add the statements, from the other sources, that Dr. Jones was put on leave because of BYU's concern over his involvement with the "9/11 truth movement" and that BYU's concern is "not the quality of his research."

It's questionable, however, whether such detail is warranted. But if we go that far, perhaps we should go farther. We could note that other academics, such as Kevin Barrett and William Woodward--have also faced direct threats to their job security because of views they have expressed that question the official story. Adherents of the CD hypothesis have suggested that fear of such repraisals may contribute to a reluctance by academics and engineering professionals to express views contrary to the official theory, and that point is relevant. Anyone for a separate section?

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to work more about the BYU case into the history section, perhaps contextualizing it with the other academics you mention. We can then adjust the weighting of it per consensus.--Thomas Basboll 08:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice. The firing of Kevin Ryan by Underwriters Labs might also be considered relevant. And there's also Judy Woods, let go by her university after she questioned the official account. (Woods believes her views about 9/11 led the university to decline to renew her teaching contract. The university denies that her 9/11 views were at issue.) A controversial remark by Dan Rather here indicates that media professionals may have similar concerns about the security of their jobs. --Cheers. O Govinda 09:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to a comment by Mmx1, I have given more details from FEMA's timeline (and removed a paragraph later that gave pretty much the same information but with less chronological detail).

Respectfully, O Govinda 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are doing great job :) I think that information about other academics who faced direct threats should be included. I proposed to include it in the article about Jones. I'll get some sources from discussion there.SalvNaut 22:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Steven_E._Jones/Archive_2:

• US News&World Report [26]: "In July, he[Jones] said his colleagues at BYU were generally supportive of his push to investigate the collapse of the WTC towers and nearby Building 7." If it's really so, then they have quite a situation there at BYU.
• Anyway, should we add the following fact to the article?: (from US News&World report) "...Jones belongs to a class of academics who have faced possible career damage for controversial statements about the September 11 attacks." (it could be placed at the end of WTC section). US News&World support it with examples: "The group includes Richard Berthold...", "...Kevin Barrett, an associate lecturer at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and William Woodward, a psychology professor at the University of New Hampshire, were criticized by state legislators for discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories in their classes."

SalvNaut 23:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Waves of explosions?

The bullet point "Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions." worries me. To me it states as a fact that there were explosions. As a TV viewer of the collapse I can only say that I saw a building collapse fast. I can imagine great noise and bangs. What I do not think I could state with certainty is that there were explosions.

However the hypothesis that there were explosions is fundamental to this article, since we are dealing with the hypothesis.

So, am I right to be concerned about this bullet point, or am I just looking at it too cyncially and too late in my evening? I can't judge that tonight. Fiddle Faddle 21:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it must just be me then? Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about this. I think the list here should be of uncontroversial facts that could be interpreted in ways leading to more controversial conclusions. You are right that it looks like the explosions are presented as facts.--Thomas Basboll 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we can simply detox it: Demolition waves: As the towers collapsed there was a great similarity to the appearance of synchronized rows of confluent explosions. I'm going to edit that one in the article in that manner as an example. It is imperfect, but it is a start. Fiddle Faddle 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

People and their Qualifications

Lookjng at this diff it struck me very forcibly that we need to be scrupulously accurate when attributing a role or a qualification or a pseudo-qualification to people. I support absolutely User:Weregerbil's edit here. It is, I think, a part of not joining up dots, especially where no dots are present to be joined. Hoffman is a software engineer. That may or may not be relevant to the researches he has made on 9/11, but it is not for the article to make that judgement, just to state facts.

I think the courtesy title of 9/11 Researcher is a slippery slope. Anyone who has looked at a bit of stuff here and there is a 9/11 Researcher. "My name is Legion, for we are many" comes to mind.

I'm noting it here so we do not forget this as we cleanse this article of POV, Bias, claptrap et al. I don't think I am alone in wanting the end result to be "AfD Proof" and to be ready to be a featured article. Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the title of '9/11 Researcher' is a courtesy or a slippery slope - it defines the work that these people are doing (not anyone who asks a question about 9/11). Hoffman is a researcher published in Science magazine and Nature. It's not exactly easy to be published in those! Some researchers spend a lifetime without such recognition. Now he's putting those efforts into a different area which - thanks to the highly politicized nature and an information propaganda war - is such a controversial subject that such reputable journals will be in a tight spot if they decide to take the topic on. Jones has even more credentials. These are real researchers that do lab work and experiments and create their own tools for understanding the world and are recognized by the world's best journals for their work. So to say we can't call what they are doing now research because they are doing 9/11 research, is illogical. Less accurate is to say that Hoffman is only a software engineer and to remain silent on any description of him as a "researcher" in relation to what he's done on 9/11. Take a look at the logs on his page and you'll see how hard some on here work to remove any slight mention of him as anything other than a 'conspiracy nut' because he is now applying his research work to the area of 9/11, which is highly politicized.

• Going to interject here in the middle of bov's message. Hoffman is admirably qualified for the field of his research, and he is published in that field. Were he to be off on a frolic of his own conducting now some research into butter and how it cured HIV and making that widely known, we would at once condemn him as a nut and a charlatan and consider him in the same class as David Icke. It is outside his field. But, at the point of publication his putative HIV and Butter paper becomes significant, and a valid source in any articles on Butter, Hoffman and HIV. But it does not act as a valid source in his main field of work prior to the butter work. In the same way, the fact that he is researching on 9/11 stuff is interesting in an article on Hoffman, currently. It is valid to state, primarily because of his high profile, in this article that he has conducted work and is publicising his findings, and that "these are his findings", but it is not appropriate (yet) to grant him the "popular" title of "9/11 Researcher" because that is not what he is. Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As a career researcher myself, I find it Orwellian that wikipedia apparently uses a standard in which those doing the actual science - the calculations, testing the theories, doing the experiments - are covered-up or deleted from mention in favor of those who published book ABOUT their work. It is bizarre that those who did the actual research must be hidden from view because they are not published with such and such, even though the person whose published work relies on Hoffman's work is included, despite there being little difference in what each of them says. bov 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bov. And the term "Software engineer" is innapropriate because from what I know Hoffman is mainly into mathematical modelling. On the other hand, if we are to name someone a "researcher" on Wikipedia, we should source it somehow. Any ideas? Links to Science, Nature articles? Those should be sufficient to name him a "researcher". Or maybe there is a secondary source that refers to Hoffman as "9/11 researcher"?SalvNaut 22:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Fiddle Faddle. It's not up to Wikipedians to decide whether someone is or isn't a "9/11 Researcher." Let the outside reliable source speak for itself. Morton devonshire 00:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done some minor research into 9/11. So has bov, so has Morton. But we are not 9/11 researchers. The only qualified 9/11 researchers are NIST. Why? Because their job was to research it.

Yet no-one grants NIST the title of 9/11 researcher, because, frankly, that is not a title. It is a media "courtesy title" and wikipedia is not media in the sense of a popular journal that reports and opines. And no-one would grant me, or Morton or bov the title of 9/11 researcher because it is patently ridiculous, and we each see that.

bov's point I find it Orwellian that wikipedia apparently uses a standard in which those doing the actual science - the calculations, testing the theories, doing the experiments - are covered-up or deleted from mention in favor of those who published book ABOUT their work. It is bizarre that those who did the actual research must be hidden from view because they are not published with such and such, even though the person whose published work relies on Hoffman's work is included, despite there being little difference in what each of them says. is well made. But I think the point is made about other articles than this one. To cope with this requires thought. Let me try:

It all comes back to what is a reputable source for the article being written. Read this section carefully and you see details of an article, fortuitously talking about a "Jones" which is covers alleged plagiarism. See how it deals with what is appropriate for the Jones article and see how it speaks of the sources potentially being acceptable instead in an article about plagiarism (my paraphrasing). To think this through can take a few iterations.

It follows that articles about the collapse per se and about this conspiracy theory will have a different selection of reputable sources. A source wholly acceptable in the CD theory article will be unacceptable in the collapse article. The reverse will also be true.

Our role is to be surgical. We must use precision about the way we quote sources, and which sources we quote, because we are to report as an encyclopaedia, not as a journalist. We don't need to sell a story because we are not selling advertising space, so we may not attribute things that in any way legitimise or invalidate. We must simply document it with relevant RS in the context of the article. It is a difficult task to be as surgical as that, but I think we are up to it.

With regard to Hoffman? He appears to have no qualifications directly relevant. I suggest we attribute him no qualifications in the text and simply attribute he formal qualifications in a reference. In that we we neither elevate his status (9/11 researcher) nor reduce it (Software Engineer), but we allow the reader, whom we must assume to be intelligent enough to read, to form a view. Fiddle Faddle 08:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FF here. Hoffman has no relevant title. He's just "Jim Hoffman".--Thomas Basboll 08:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There is perfectly sufficient material on Hoffman in his own article. And this article wikilinks to it. So we can legitimately ignore using other than his name. Note that we need to do that with all others who appear in the article, and thus avoid any form of POV by use of "title" Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to recognize the appearance of "9/11 researchers" as a modern sociological phenomenon and recognize, also, that some of these researchers have made substantial contributions to public and professional understanding of the events surrounding 9/11.

Take Paul Thompson, for example. His biodata offers no professional qualifications. Yet his "9/11 Timeline" is a rich source for detailed, well-organized, and well-documented information.

Suppose an ordinary citizen knew, a year ago, that

• three buildings (not two) had collapsed at the WTC and that FEMA had professed itself unable to come up with a probable scenario for why WTC 7 had collapsed

• the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission was an "insider" in the Bush administration and had co-authored a book with Condi Rice

• the head of Pakistan's security agency, the ISI, was present in Washington, D.C., on 9/11, and had recently wired $100,000 to Mohammad Atta

Where do you suppose he was more likely to have learned this: From the mainstream news media or from "9/11 researchers"? From professional journals or from "9/11 researchers"? From our government or from "9/11 researchers"?

"9/11 researchers" have had an impact on professional scientific investigation (for example, Hoffman, a "researcher," influenced Jones, a scientist). They have influenced public policy (the "Family Steering Committee" that forced the 9/11 Commission into existence drew upon the work of Paul Thompson). Sometimes, almost indisuptably, what "9/11 researchers" have told us (for example, about environmental pollution in post-9/11 NYC) has been true when what we had heard from our governmental organs (in this case, the EPA) had been misleading or outright false.

Of course, sometimes "9/11 research" has been sheer junk. But then again, sometimes the same has been true of what we've gotten from the mainline news media.

The internet has made it possible for ordinary intelligent citizens to do deep, well-documented research, organize it so as to offer new or deeper insights, and raise important, relevant questions that otherwise might go unasked.

When such researchers have offered notable contributions, I think it reasonable for this article to take their work into account and cite those researchers as sources.

When we are citing professionally credentialed sources we should make this clear by mentioning their relevant degrees or academic or professional affiliations. And for other persons who have devoted notable time and effort to doing research and publishing what they've found, I think the term "9/11 researcher" is a clear, useful, and easily understandable designation.

Cordially, O Govinda 13:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing I am against is terming someone a "9/11 Researcher".

I am against it because this is not what they are. Instead they are consulting engineers, physicists, mathematicians. There is simply no class of person called "A 9/11 researcher", nor is it a valid shorthand for one who carries out research "into 9/11". In fact there is nothing called "9/11" for anyone to research into.

It is valid to say "Smith (reference to academic qualifications) has conducted research (reference to the body funding the research) into the collapse of the dovecot on top of the building next door", but it is not valid to say "9/11 researcher Smith has conducted research into the collapse of the dovecot on top of the building next door".

In the former the text is unsensational and flat. In the latter the text validates Smith and does not cite either his qualifications or the funding body. The omissions are important because research is often as unbiased as the source of funds. Imagine if Smith's research were sponsored by "Build a Better Dovecot, Inc."! We would expect the result to be somewhat biased against all other dovecot construction methods.

Moving to your ordinary citizen learning that three buildings collapsed. Joe Public learnt this not from a "9/11 researcher" but from a media item.

You also mention "The internet has made it possible for ordinary intelligent citizens to do deep, well-documented research, organize it so as to offer new or deeper insights, and raise important, relevant questions that otherwise might go unasked." You are right. And one such source is Wikipedia. Those who edit know how flaky some articles can be. Joe Public thinks Wikipedia is godlike. We edit articles so that Joe Public's assumption can be closer to the truth. Fiddle Faddle 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good summary of the issue. The term has no objective meaning, I could be a 9/11 researcher...you could be one, it doesn't mean anything. Academic or professional qualifications do have objective meaning and those are what we should be using. The dovecot stuff illustrates it nicely. Rx StrangeLove 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cockpit Flight and Voice Recorders

I have just tidied the references in this section, but as a clerical exercise only. Frankly I am becoming nervous of this section. So I am putting it up for discussion.

My feeling is that this organ "Counterpunch" may not have sufficient reputability as a source to substantiate the claim that "The FBI has the recorders" for ANY article.

However, the article is not about the recorders, nor the FBI, nor the collapse. It is about the controlled demolition hypothesis. On that basis I feel that a section such as this adds no value to this article and should be removed.

I may simply remove this myself after further thought. I certainly won't object if anyone beats me to it. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Done.--Tbeatty 17:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been restored. I disagree with the restoration. I cannot see what it has to do with this article. Please convince me, SalvNaut, that it is relevant in any way to this article. I see no relevance to the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis at all. It mayhave relevance to an article on all sorts of other things, but not this one, however well sourced. Fiddle Faddle 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had said something before, but I agree with the removal. It really has nothing to do with this article....it may have some general meaning to conspiracy theorys in general but not specific to this. I was wanting to remove that section for a while now and was happy to see someone else did it. Unless there's a really convincing argument I'll take it out again. Rx StrangeLove 22:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken it out for now. If restoration is needed it is in the history so the work is not lost. We should not have a revert war over it one way or the other, we need to build consensus instead Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so may thinking was: this is relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories and when I was looking for a place to put it there I understood that it should go under WTC section. As this article is main article for WTC section, and cockpit recorders case was put forth by Jones in his presentation, which is available on Journal of 9/11 Studies, I decided it is not so bad idea to put it here. And I sourced it quite well, as Jones used widely available quotes from firemen and investigators. Connection with WTC collapse is due to... rubble that supposedly destroyed cockpit recorders... What do you think? SalvNaut 22:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get what it means and how it relates to this article...what do they have to do with controlled demolition? Rx StrangeLove 22:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, it relates very weakly.. by Jones, and the conspiracy theory as a whole. I'll try to put it nicely under 9/11 conspiracy theories.SalvNaut 23:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Were the collapses officially "fire-induced"

There's been some discussion on the 9/11 conspiracy theory article about whether the offical account says that the collapses were "fire-induced".[27] I'd love to hear what people here think about this also. After all, it is central to the CD hypothesis that the official account is implausible. This argument is normally made by saying that official investigators claim that fires brought down the buildings. That's never happened before, the argument continues. Now, as I understand it, as this point nothing controversial has yet been said. The disagreement arises over the proposed mechanism of fire-induced collapse. CDers don't think it would work. NIST and the engineering community thinks it would. A related point is the idea that the collapses "surprised" engineers--mainly because no steel-framed buildings had ever before collapsed "due to fire". This also seems easy to document (Bazant and Verdure, FEMA, some of the NIST sub-reports, NCE.) And yet it has been called into question in the discussion over at 9/11 CTs. The standard objection is that there was obviously structural damage (in all cases) and that this was part of the cause of the collapse. While everyone agrees that this damage would have weakened the buildings, I then counter, the dispute remains over whether fire could have finished them off as completely (and quickly and symmetrically, etc.) as they did. Any thoughts?--Thomas Basboll 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the mechanism as you pointed out but as you say there a couple contributing factors that made the fire more damaging than it would have been otherwise. The impact of the planes shook off fire retardant which exposed the framework in a way that was never intended and the planes themselves sheared through structural supports that weakened the building around the impact area. It was a combination of events that no other bulding had ever suffered, so it's not suprising that there's a lack of precedent IMO. Once the structure was weakened in a way that no other building had ever experienced and that the buildings themselves were never meant to endure it's no shock they failed Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was also my opinion before I began looking into it; I'm guessing most people didn't see the collapses as a distinct shock separate from the shock of the attacks themselves. What (I think) I discovered was that engineers were actually quite shocked and specifically about the collapses even given the damage (NCE called it "unthinkable", Bazant and Verdure said it was "a big surprise", like the Tacoma Bridge disaster in 1940). It's not so much our lay opinions that I'm after here but what it is reasonable to report about expert opinion in this encyclopedia article. The point about fire-protection is of course correct; it looks like it's the key element to making it all more comprehensible for the engineers. (Some CDers actually make that the point of dispute: i.e., whether or not it is reasonable to assume the fireprotection was knocked off.) But what I need consensus on is whether engineers saw the puzzle as being "How did fire bring these buildings down?" (Since we've never seen that happen before.) The sources I've looked at seem clearly to indicate that that's how the problem was framed and ultimately solved by NIST.--Thomas Basboll 20:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We have to be very circumspect about all conjecture, especially if there is any danger of our making some ourselves. We have either to report all of it faithfully where it is relevant to the subject of this article, or report none of it. There is no-one who can say except by examination of debris, that any structural supports were destroyed by the impact, however obvious it seems that they were. This lack of certainty is what feeds a conspiracy theory. Even when there is certainty people still like to put their own theories forward, the more so when the real explanation is banal. I fear the reasons the buildings collapsed is simply that no-one knew what would happen when a large enough incendiary impact arrived. Thus we have a banal and awe inspiring demolition that "has to be explained". Ok, this is starting to be a rant! But I think you see where I'm coming from. Fiddle Faddle 21:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

But keep in mind that I am arguing that there is no disagreement here. There was structural damage in all three cases. It did not cause the collapses. Officially, fire caused them. Conspiracy theoretically, controlled demolition did it. Both sides agree that, before 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed from fire.--Thomas Basboll 22:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the question engineers asked was "what was the cause of the collapse" and not how did the fires bring them down. As the invetigation went on fires were seen as a factor, even the major factor. But they weren't viewed as the single actor in the failure. I also suspect that the engineers that were surprised, were surprised before the investigation. I'm wonder how many are surprised now that the initial shock is long gone and they have a better idea of what went on in the buildings. Do any engineers express surprise now? Fiddle Faddle's last few thoughts above are right on. Rx StrangeLove 22:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - they are not suprised but convinced that fires were the cause of the collapse. If you look on papers on Google Scholar, you will find that new theories emerge (Torero) on how fires caused WTC1&2 to collapse. So, I say that answer to the question posed by Thomas is "Yes" when about towers and "no, because of no data available" when about WTC7. SalvNaut 22:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I know from NIST and FEMA (about WTC7) reports, there is a consensus that fires were the main cause of the collapse. Specifically about WTC7, FEMA stated that there is "low probability of occurence" for their scenario, and NIST is considering "hypothetical blasts" in their present investigation, so there can't be any consensus about WTC7 because no extensive, accepted report has been released. A brief look on some papers on Google Scholar (wtc+collapse+fires)[28] shows that this is widely accepted that WTC1&2 collapsed due to fires.SalvNaut 22:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us where NIST is considering "hypothetical blasts" in their present investigation ...as the main reason for the collapse? Rx StrangeLove 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. NIST FAQ, "hypothetical blast scenarios".SalvNaut 22:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It says:

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements

They found no evidence for a controlled demolition event, they are looking at how large of a blast would have led to a failure. In no way are they saying that controlled demolition is a live option, and we can't use the fact that they are doing an exhaustive study to say that they are leaving the option open. Rx StrangeLove 23:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I've read it. I've never said that they're investigating into controlled demolition. I only used "hypothetical blast" to support a claim that WTC7 collapse scenario is not known and there can be no consensus about it. (your misinterpretation?)SalvNaut 23:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not when you wrote this:

'NIST is considering "hypothetical blasts" in their present investigation, so there can't be any consensus about WTC7 because no extensive, accepted report has been released.

But we agree now right? That's all that matters. Rx StrangeLove 23:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The official question was probably something like "how were the airplane impacts able to bring the buildings down?" or "how do the aircraft impacts alone explain the collapse the of towers?" That is, they were not look for additional sources of damage (secondary devices). But that was quite difficult to do. On Sept 13, 2001, the New Civil Engineer said that even given the airplane impacts it had until then been "unthinkable" that they would collapse. In June of 2005, they explained it as follows: "It is obvious to state that the impact and result of deliberately crashing a fully fuelled airliner into each tower was off the scale of the predictable. But there can have been few structural engineers who were not a little surprised to see two of the world's tallest buildings reduced to rubble less than an hour later.//This is not how structures are supposed to react."[29] So there was an engineering mystery to be solved. The solution was found in the enormous heat of the fires and the removal of the fire-proofing (a secondary effect of the impacts beyond the structural damage.) People like Leslie Robertson would say that they didn't really have a good sense of what kind of fires would result from airplane impacts. But the point is this: the buildings survived the impacts as per their design; the loads were successfully redistributed. Fire then brought them down (from there). What "surprised" engineers were not the effects of the impacts on the structures, but the effects of the subsequent fires. Discovering these effects led to identifying the official cause of the collapses, which, again, were the fires.--Thomas Basboll 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview and History

I have reorganized the opening sections in a more "flat" style (to use FF's adjective above). It still needs a few sources, and I'll work a bit more at the prose as well. I've tried to respect the discussions we have had here over the past few days, and I'm pretty happy with the results. (I especially like the first paragraph on the sense of surprise, the structural damage, and the fires.) Happy editing...--Thomas Basboll 20:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC) There may be come issues about the lack of sources. Keep in mind, however, that there is a detailed section on evidence further down, where many of the claims are substantiated. I've tried to stick to facts that are well established, but a few {{Fact}} tags may be in order.--Thomas Basboll 20:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a minor change or two, turning a "fact" into a suggestion and referencing the book the new pearl harbor fully. Looking good so far. I think over a day or two we can flatten it even further. Great job. Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Referenced a couple more books. Fiddle Faddle 08:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed

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

The attitude of mainstream academia

"Mainstream academia gives no credence to the controlled demolition hypothesis."

I'm sorry, but Jones, Barrett, Woods, Woodward--and there are others--are credentialed members of mainstream academia, and they are on record as giving credence to the CD hypothesis. Therefore the absolute statement--which, to be true, would require that NO member of the academic mainstream give ANY credence to the hypothesis--is demonstrably false. Whoever wants to record what he or she believes to be the attitude of mainstream academia will have to come up with a statement that's verifiably true.

Cordially, O Govinda 10:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tags

{{cleanup|september 2006}}

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

{{npov}}

I am becoming more comfortable with removing this tag. Unlike the {{cleanup}} tag I do not feel comfortable with unilateral action to remove it and feel we need to reach a consensus on neutrality before we take this step. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been through the evidence section yet, which is where the NPOV charge will be most relevant. I'll go through it one section at a time with my handy-dandy flattening tool, and add a brief explanation about the relationship between the CT theories, the CD hypothesis, and the evidence. Once the evidence has been presentend in a neutral way, balance will depend on the criticism section. Just one d---ed thing after another...--Thomas Basboll 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

a comment from Rx S just vanished from here inexpliccably. I'm looking for it to restore it. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(restored comment)::I think we're a ways from being able to remove this. There are still some pretty fundemental issues with sources. I don't want to start quoting policy right now, but it's a question we're going to have to resolve...I know there's already been some discussion about it, but it's not clear that we've worked out issues of questionable and self published sources. WP:SOURCE is a new proposal that folds some policys into a single page, deletes WP:V and so on. It got me thinking more about this. I just don't have the time right now to focus on it, but I think that tag still has some meaning here...Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Molten metal section too long?

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

I tend to agree. Always shorter, always simpler, and always well cited. Fiddle Faddle 13:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Debris

This comment transferred from other section of talk page for discussion Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Statement from Dr W. Gene Corley doesn't logically follow? Non sequitur. Is something missing? --O Govinda 10:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this I see the same lack of sense that you see. This militates towards removal, I think. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Collapse Image

I have gotten permission from Aman Zafar to use the image I tried to post before - I sent him the exact text from the wiki template letter so he knows that it will post to this article specifically and which image and what can happen to his image ultimately. His exact response is:

"Sure go ahead...as long as I am not responsible and it is for non-profit. Please note that I have recently (few weeks back) updated the pics with higher resolutions versions. So there may have been some change in order."

Now my question is what is the correct tag to use for the image. The permission is there, it just needs to be done. I appreciate the couple of responses I've gotten from people already, although no one has been able to say what specific tag I should use with the image. The image is of one tower burning and the other collapsing, taken from across the river. Any help is appreciated. bov 18:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag to use is that it was copyright but that the copyright holder has released all rights. I have uploaded a picture under similar circumstances here: Image:KGVF-plaques.jpg. To do this properly you ned to quote the copyright owner, and the paragraph allowing it into the public domain. You could also put {{helpme}} on your own talk page and ask a handy passing friendly admin for advice. If the source is Mr Zafar's website, I advise you to link to it explicitly in the summary.

Can I suggest that, after uploading, you consider very carefully the caption and location in the article. The picture itself must create no POV, and simply both be factual (cameras can lie, whatever the saying is) and not create a situation where dots can be joined to create POV. Fiddle Faddle 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. bov 02:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission explains what to do once you have permission confirmed, which includes registering the permissions with the Wikimedia Foundation by forwarding the e-mail message to them. --Aude (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What substantive changes I've made (12 Oct 06)

First: The article is really moving along. Hats off to all of you who are making such fine and thoughtful contributions.

I've gone through the article to make changes mostly related to wording, style, flow, and the like. But I've also made some substantive changes. I'll list here whatever I think is major enough to note. I'm submitting the list in good faith. If I've failed to list anything, my apologies. And if I've blown anything, please fix it.

• Under "Overview": "Referring back to the initial surprise among engineers, which was owed largely to the fact that no buildings of this kind had ever before experienced global collapse as a result of local damage, it is argued that the additional energy needed to undermine the structure must have come from secondary devices. . ."

Was the lack of precedent what so surprised the engineers? Did the argument made really have much to do with their surprise? That's why I've added "citation needed."

• Under "Brief History":

• Nixed "the hypothesis is not being pursued by members of the engineering community." Unsourced, and contradicted by the next sentence (NIST is addressing it) and by the actions of non-mainstream engineers.

• Changed the progressive-collapse mechanism "that the official explanation invokes" to the progressive-collapse mechanism "to which he [Bazant] and others have attributed the collapses." As noted in the article, NIST seems to have set aside the theory of simple progressive collapse.

• Deleted "While they [CD people] do not express serious doubts about the relevant facts." Seemed needless. Adds no real info.

• Under "Evidence":

• Added two brief paragraphs about "progressive collapse." The article refers to it in several places, but we hadn't explained what it is. The source, by the way, is the Popular Mechanics article "Debunking the 9/11 Myths," March 2005: for the first paragraph added, page 6 of the article; for the second paragraph, page 8. Would someone pretty please be kind enough to add the references?

• Under "Molten metal" I mostly moved things around. Also merged two paragraphs that said pretty much the same thing twice. Perhaps I somewhere deleted a sentence or two of what was getting to be (as discussed on this page) over-complex argumentation.

I also added a phrase or so to say what "thermite" and "thermate" are.

• Under "Squibs":

I've tried to segregate what was observed from how it was interpreted.

The article talked about "the time between the events" being "much too rapid due to gravitational acceleration." I put this in simpler language and added the rest of Jones's point--that the squibs appear before the floors visibly start falling. I also added Jones to the sentence, since he was the source cited.

• Under "Chemicals" I added "FEMA's finding of sulfur has already been discussed above." Otherwise, "no presence of explosive residue" would contradict what the article has already told the reader, and leave him perplexed.

• Under "Collapse Precedents," that the collapses were "anomalies" is super-obvious. So I changed this to "difficult to attribute to fire."

• Under "Steel temperatures," deleted that the twin towers "were not open-sided car parks." Ducks are not zebras. I think we can count on the reader to notice.

Again, my apologies for any mistakes I may have committed.

Cordially, O Govinda 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Squibs

The terminology is awkward.

• A "Squib" is an explosive.
• A plume of stuff is not a squib

We need to exercise caution when terming a "thing" as a "Squib" or we join up the dots Fiddle Faddle 14:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That's why I separated the observed "plumes" or "puffs" from the believed "squibs." Like this: They "believe these to be the 'squibs' typical of controlled demolitions." --O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We have: "But detailed suggestions of controlled demolition as an explanation for how the buildings actually collapsed can currently be found only outside the field of structural engineering." Odd statement. As noted in the article, some few structural engineers have favored the CD explanation. Does this statement depend on the word "detailed"? That seems a little too nice. The statement, anyway, is unsourced. Can we do without it? --O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Steel temperatures

The statements in this section contradict one another so quickly that amidst the jumble one can hardly understand what arguments are being made.

My guess is that editors with contrasting views were so keen to have their say and lessen the strength of one another’s arguments that the original points have been lost in the process.

Any hope of retrieving them?

--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The debris

Still needs work, I think. My comments are the same as for the section on "Steel temperatures."

--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

The original argument by the debunkers, concerning Ronan Point, has been lost amidst the arguments made against it. We need to go step by step: We know that a corner of Ronan Point collapsed. Now, before we hear from the CD fans, what do the debunkers say this demonstrates?

Also: The Hoffman quote on progressive collapse is out of sequence here. (It could go above, where progressive collapse is discussed.)

--O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Structural and civil engineering research

Small point: Did MIT officially devote their staff members? Or were these simply MIT faculty working on their own initiative or at the behest of others?

Cordially, O Govinda 14:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

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

Collapse Image (2)

I see that Peephole has deleted the image that Bov added on this page. Please do not delete images without discussion. The image improves the understanding of the issue of the page by including a visual of the event. I also agree with Bov's decision to remove the addition of the 9/11 conspiracy template which Tom H has added - it clutters the page and includes people who say that nukes were used in NYC, missiles hit the Pentagon, have a Mossad/Jews focus, etc., which have nothing to do with this page. To me a template which advocates those promoting nonsense, and is controlled by people on here who call anyone who challenges the official version "9/11 deniers," is transparent. Locewtus 15:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• The controlled demolition theory is no less nonsense than missiles hitting the Pentagon, etc. All of these theories are just that; theories. This theory of controlled demolition fits within that set of articles. The template is appropriate. --Durin 15:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although you may feel that the demolition hypothesis is "nonsense," it is very different from the other events of 9/11. Unlike proposals of missiles, there is massive and redundant documented evidence for the manner of the collapses in the form of videos, photographs, witness testimony, seismic recordings, etc. -- none of which exist at all for nearly every other aspect of the attacks. With so much redundant evidence, one can measure and analyze the physical characteristics of the event and make hypotheses based on those. The official reports use many of the same images and videos to make their claims as well. No such evidence exists for the Pentagon attack or for other questionable areas, like the issue of the put options. That is why the demolition hypothesis is different - it involves a scientific analysis of an event with the multiple lines of evidence leading to the proposition of a hypothesis. bov 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be a lot of material written about this, there's not much neutral and reliably sourced evidence. That's what makes it the same as some of the others mentioned above. The 9/11 conspiracy template belongs on this article, no question. Unless someone comes up with a better reason than those above I'm going to add it. Rx StrangeLove 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• It is common that backers of a particular theory as to what happened on 9/11 believe their theory to be based in hard, factual, irrefutable evidence. That you believe this particular theory is in a class by itself because of similar beliefs does not make it so. For example, there are a number of websites out there that insist that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon [30][31][32]. These people certainly seem to be rather convinced that Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon. Please note that I did not indicate your theory is nonsense; simply that it is no less nonsense than the other theories on the basis on which you claim it to be less so. --Durin 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Truth

No suggestions for article content, just more conspiracies. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You can try to hide it, but truth will out. EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF TRAINS IN THE WTC Tom Harrison Talk 12:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie- hatted the above for not suggesting article content, and that's fine, we can leave it for now. But in fact, I do think there's a place in the article for parody and satire of the theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's only a place if reliable sources discuss it and it has sufficient due weight. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

It wouldn't be hard to find reliable references that parody the 9/11 conspiracy theories...I can't see why if such references were provided that a section on these parodies or a similar popular culture section detailing them could be created.MONGO 16:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thermite

A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center.

Should this be included? I doubt we need pseudoscience to debunk conspiracy theories, and claiming that conventional thermite cannot melt through a horizontal (as they used in the video) steel column would certainly fit that category. It implies that either the temperature of burning thermite is less than 1500°C, or that melted iron cannot melt steel. And suggesting that "size matters" in this issue ("a column much smaller") is equally flawed, I was about to write that no square-cube law applies here, but taking into account heat loss to the surroundings, a scaled up version would actually perform better.

I see people commenting on blogs and forums that "they proved thermite cannot melt steel". It's bad enough that so many people know so little science, let's not make it worse. Debunking conspiracy theories should not be done at the expense of scientific facts, with enough thermite any steel column can be melted, there's no need to deny that just because it would support someone's conspiracy theory. Ssscienccce (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

They used a vertical column. The test starts around 45:30. What we have in the article looks like an accurate summary of a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's accurate now: A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that they were unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center with conventional thermite. In the original form it was WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and for that you'd need multiple high-quality sources, peer-reviewed publications confirming it. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to refer all readers to this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q. Although it contains original research, it shows that Ssscineccce's comments about thermite not being able to cut steel are wrong. Furthermore one of the common uses of thermite is in welding railway tracks. Welding steel is not possible unless it is first melted. If steel is melted it is no longer structurally strong, and a building relying on melted structural elements will surely collapse. The challenge for anyone sympathetic to the conspiracy theory is that reliable sources = government sources + big money sources. Yet these are precisely the one the conspiracy theorists aim at. Therefore by definition the conspiracy theory sources are "unreliable". Scientifically the true test of any statement is repeatability. Do the same things get the same result. This is what makes something "reliable". Take the building seven collapse video footage and do a video analysis of the collapse and you will see it falls in freefall for just over 2 seconds. Then you know that it was imploded, and all the denials are just spin. For details of this analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POUSJm--tgw.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.198.171 (talk • contribs) 01:55, December 5, 2012‎

Exactly. Wrong.

First, Popular Science is not a government or "big money" source, or the pay of such sources. Second, in regard "free fall", a logical conclusion from the observations would be (although I don't recall if it's the one reliable sources made) that (1) debris from towers 1 and 2 hit building 7 and damaged and set fires in some of the structural columns, (2) sometime later, (a) column buckled, and then (3) part of the structure was in "free fall" (as the nearly buckled columns offered negligible resistance when the additional load was transfered from the buckled column) for 2 seconds until it hit the floors below. (As an aside, you're both wrong. It is unnecessary to melt the steel columns in order to cause a collapse; softening them is adequate; and if they were melted, they would have given way before the melting was completed, anyway.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened to WTC7 according to the actual science...

WTC 7 : The extended version (now with pictures)

Figure 8–21. Seat connection at Column 79. 1. Erection bolts are not structural connections In a seated connection, the beam or girder was supported by the seat, which was welded to the column. Bolts were installed that fasten the beam or girder to the seat for erection purposes These erection bolts did not carry any gravity load; rather, they were installed to insure that the beam or girder was held in place during erection. NIST found no evidence that the girders or beams in WTC 7 were welded to the seats. In a similar way. an angle or plate was bolted to the top flange to prevent the beam or girder from twisting, but there was little restraint to bending in the plane of the beam. Consider the girder that spanned between Column 79 on the interior of the building and Column 44 on the exterior. Thermal expansion of this girder would have loaded the erection bolts in shear, since (1) there were no shear studs anchoring the girder to the slab (and thereby restraining elongation), and (2) the columns were prevented from lateral movement because they were embedded in the floor slabs which had considerable in-plane stiffness. Additionally, the expansion of floor beams that framed into this girder, because the framing was asymmetrical, tended to add additional shear load to the erection bolts. The combination of these two shear loads could have failed the bolts in shear. If the erection bolts were to fail, then there would be no positive attachment preventing the girder from being pushed off the seat. — (NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2., p. 348 Figure 8–26. Figure 8–27(a). Figure 8–27(b). 2. Thermal expansion will break stuff The first failures observed were of the shear studs, which were produced by axial expansion of the floor beams, and which began to occur at fairly low beam temperature of 103°C. Axial expansion of the girder then led to shear failure of the bolts at the connection to Column 79; and, at a girder temperature of 164°C, all four erection bolts had failed, leaving that end of the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation. Continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally at Column 79, as shown in Figure 8–26, in which failed shear studs and bolts were evident. When the beam temperatures had reached 300°C, all but three shear studs in the model had failed due to axial expansion of the beams, leaving the top flanges of the beams essentially unrestrained laterally. Continued axial expansion of the girder caused it to bear against the face of Column 79, generating large axial forces that led to failure of the bolts connecting the girder to Column 44. When the girder temperature had reached 398°C, all four erection bolts at Column 44 had failed, leaving the girder essentially unrestrained against rotation at both ends. After failure of the erection bolts in the seat at Column 44, continued axial expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder laterally, where it came to bear against the inside of the column flange. Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436°C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27(a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27(b). The collapse process took time to occur in the LS-DYNA analysis, during which the temperatures had ramped up to their maximum values in the simulation. — (NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2., p. 352 2a. How thermal expansion can break stuff (with extra math goodness) For example, if 13.7 m(540 in.) long girder is heated so as to uniformly increase its temperature by 600°C, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is taken to he 1.4x10-5/°C, the elongation would be, δT = (1.4x10-5/°C) × (600°C) × (540 in.) = 4.5 in. Often this free thermal expansion is resisted by the steel structure that the beam or girder frames into, or by attachment to the concrete floor slab that it supports. The force required to resist completely the free thermal expansion (elongation) of a beam or girder, QΔT, is given by QΔT = A E(T) α ΔT where A is the cross sectional area of the beam or girder (in.2) E(T) is the modulus of elasticity at temperature, T (ksi) The temperature-dependent modulus of elasticity can be computed as (see NCSTAR 1-3D), ET = 145 × (206 - 4.3x10-2 - 3.5x10-5 T2 - 6.6x10-8 T3) Assume a steel beam or girder heats up to 600 °C. The modulus of elasticity by the above equation would be approximately 22,000 ksi, or roughly 75 percent of its room temperature value of 30,000 ksi. Consider again a 13.7 m (540 in.) long W33x130 girder that is heated uniformly to 600°C. Substituting A=38.3 in.2, E(T)=22,235 ksi, α=1.4x10-5/°C, ΔT=580°C (600°C - 20°C), one obtains a force of QΔT = (38.3 in.2) × (22,235 ksi) × (1.4x10-5/°C) × (580°C) ≅ 6900 kip. If, for example, this force to resist free thermal expansion could be developed, the axial stress in the member would be 6900 kip / 38.3 in.2 = 180 ksi which greatly exceeds the yield strength of the steel used (approximately 50 ksi). Alternatively, consider the case in which this 6900 kip force is exerted on a bolted connection. Since the single shear capacity of a one bolt is approximately 45 kip (Section 11.2.4), it is clear that the force exerted by the expanding girder far exceeds the capacity of, e.g., four bolts found in a seated connection which together have a shear capacity at room temperature of roughly 180 kip. These two aspects, (1) the magnitude of elongation due to free-thermal expansion, and (2) force required to resist this elongation, will be shown to be of importance in the following discussions. These two aspects are of particular importance for long members and for the heavy sections required for long spans. — (NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2., p. 344 3. Collapse Initiation The simple shear connection between Column 79 and the girder that spanned the distance to the north face (to Column 44) failed on Floor 13. The connection failed due to shearing of erection bolts, caused by lateral thermal expansion of floor beams supporting the northeast floor system and, to a lesser extent, by the thermal expansion of the girder connecting Columns 79 and 44. Further thermal expansion of the floor beams pushed the girder off its seat, which led to the failure of the floor system surrounding Column 79 on Floor 13. The collapse of Floor 13 onto the floors below—some of which were already weakened by fires—triggered a cascade of floor failures in the northeast region. This, in turn, led to loss of lateral support to Column 79 in the east-west direction over nine stories (between Floors 5 and 14). The increase in unsupported length led to the buckling failure of Column 79, which was the collapse initiation event. — (NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2., p. 611 Figure 12–77. Downward velocity time graph of north face roofline as World Trade Center 7 began to collapse. 4. "Free fall" is a cherry-picked truther buzz word To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky. The approach taken by NIST is summarized in NIST NCSTAR Report 1A, Section 3.6, and detailed in NIST NCSTAR Report 1-9, Section 12.5.3. The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:  • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).  • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall).  • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity. This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. — Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, NIST

The too long; didn't read it version:

• Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, about 350 ft. to the south, impacted WTC 7, igniting fires on at least 10 floors.
• Other than starting the fires, the debris impacts were not a contributing factor.
• Fires on six of those floors grew from the time of the debris impact (10:28:22 a.m.) and lasted until the building collapsed (5:20:52 p.m.).
• After several hours, the heat absorption ability of the fire-proofing began to fail. The building's structural steel began to soak up heat from the fires.
• A seated connection was used for some of the girders framed to interior columns. The girder was held by four "erection bolts".(girders span between columns; beams span between girders)
• A 13.7 m(540 in.) long W33x130 beam heated uniformly to 600°C will expand along its length by 4.5 inches.
• In doing so it will produce a lateral force of 6.9 million pounds (30.7 million newtons).
• The four erection bolts resisting this force had a total shear capacity of 0.180 million pounds (i.e., 2.6 percent of the possible force).
• By the time the girders reached 164°C the four bolts had failed (i.e., torn in two, ripped apart, cleaved in twain, etc).
• With the failure of the bolted connection, further thermal expansion of the floor beams pushed a 13^th floor girder, between Columns 79 and 44, off it's seat.
• The flooring system on Floor 13 subsequently failed, collapsing onto the floors below, resulting in the collapse of floors 12 thru 6.
• The floor collapse left more than 150 ft. of Column 79 without lateral support.
• Without structure transferring load laterally, Column 79 buckled and failed.
• The transfer of load, once supported by Column 79, overwhelmed the structural capacity of the other columns. They too failed.
• After burning for 6 hours and 52 minutes, WTC 7 suffered a fire-induced progressive collapse. The building was completely destroyed.

Given what the man with a really sharp knife would say, along with the simple fact that there is no, as in zero, evidence what–so–ever for any of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories, it is obvious that no thermite, super-thermite, or even extra super nano-thermite™ was used (or even in the general area). We should probably have more of this science type stuff in the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Video Evidence WTC7 freefall

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This stuff is highschool physics. Why is it not on this page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Because WP:NOR, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:FRINGE.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not a fair article

.....but a smear and disinformation campaign - as are all wiki articles discussing alternate theories. The article is supposedly about the demolition conspiracy theories, but more space is given to rebuttals rubbishing the theories than the theories themselves. The rebuttals cited are often examples that have long been discredited, so i'm wondering whose hand is at work here? The whole thing stinks of government disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.151.6.240 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just because the truth contradicts your foolish historical revisionism, doesn't mean it's not the truth. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Last Para

the last paragraph seems to be written like somebody's opinion piece or an essay. i'm not contesting the factuality or fallaciy but i cant figure ot if it's a reported speech, a personal opnion or just POV text. could some one fix it? 115.240.81.188 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph has reliable sources, by the notes. It came from a published interview, apparently. And I don't consider it opinion, since it raises a lot of valid logical points (that conspiracy theorists routinely refuse to address) about how impossible it would be to plant explosives there, as the CTs most likely never visited the WTC. (I did in 1994, and the security just to reach the upper floors is extremely tight and a government ID was required just to get to the elevators) TyVulpine (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with the anonymous above. Besides, what is the logic behind giving the last word in this article to a professor of psychology, who dismisses the theory using some exaggerated hyperbolic argument about the amount of explosives needed, while NIST itself (nearly) proved that there is no need for explosives at all to demolish WTC towers in a way we observed it happening. lessismore (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The point to using a statement from a psychologist is that people involved in a conspiracy, especially one of this magnitude, would talk. And none have. In addition, you can't have it both ways. Using a jet and a small amount of explosives to bring down a building is insane. That method leaves way too many factors to chance. Either you believe the ridiculous idea of a controlled demolition, which would require several tons of explosives, or you believe that structural steel weakened to less than 50% of its strength by heat would probably cause a building of that size to collapse. That's why so many people hate these crazy conspiracy theories. The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding. Primium mobile (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that this psychologist shouldn't be a part of a theory regarding the destruction of a building. And Primium mobile, the article itself states that quite a few people spoke in support of this hypothesis and got fired from their positions or changed their minds a week later. I think anyone involved would have known at the time what they were in for. There's not exactly much comfort space for getting cold feet later in an operation if the "truthers" conspiracies are true. And who would believe the odd one or two people who claimed to have been part of the whole thing and involved anyway? And the ridiculous impossibility of it being an inside job (or a government conspiracy or "higher government/illuminati/whatever" conspiracy) seems just as much a ridiculous impossibility as the crazy conspiracy about of a group of middle-eastern ameteur "terrorists" doing it too, if you ask me. The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding. That's why the conspiracy theories even exist, I believe... it seems more logical a high powered government and/or inside help is responsible rather than a bunch of angwy muslims. Believe whichever conspiracy you want, but psychology and your opinion on impossibility are both quite irrelevant factors in this article. 94.197.122.84 (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You calling them "a group of middle-eastern ameteur terrorists" is you trying to minimize what they were. "Oh they were simply some middle eastern people, middle easten people couldn't have pulled something like this off." Why couldn't they? What made them incapable of doing something like this? You say "The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding", well what exactly are you talking about? Because last time I checked, it wasn't that complicated of a plan, especially compared to the inside job/controlled demolition theories a few people believe. The reason their plan worked is because they planned it for years and it was remarkably simple, and most importantly it was doable, especially in 2001. Facts are the facts, you can't argue the facts, and the facts are that 19 d-bags took control of 4 planes and crashed them. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Amateurs? What is an amateur terrorist? You mean the same terrorist groups that managed to hold off the United States Military for the last ten years? Do you think they were stupid? Primium mobile (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Propositions and hypotheses --- Main towers --- sentence is not supported by reference.

This sentence is not supported by the reference:

"A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]"

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

This is a 12 page paper that is devoted to explaining a method of estimating kinetic energy from video footage. It is not an article explaining the fall of the WTC towers. It has no information about the structure. The only WTC data it shows is an estimate of the amount of energy liberated obtained by plotting the displacement of a mass over 18 seconds time. It does not explain how the energy got there. It starts assuming the energy is available.

The relevant conclusion states:

Implications and Conclusions

1. If the total �internal� energy loss during the crushing of one story �representing the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story� exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story, collapse will continue to the next story. This is the criterion of progressive collapse trigger �Eq. �5��. If it is satisfied, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone �regardless of by how much the combined strength of columns of one floor may exceed the weight of the part of the tower above that floor�. What matters is energy, not the strength, nor stiffness.

The article basically says that once you have the energy, the tower will fall to the ground by gravity alone. And that the WTC had to have a lot of energy (one order of magnitude) in order to fall as it did. This is certainly not supportive of the implied POV that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by that collapse alone would bring WTC down. Moreover the article is arguably supportive of explosive demolition. Stapler80 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

how about a reason for this staged collapse?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why was it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.194.48 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC) To start the war on terror and abolish civil liberties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.59.207 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Except for the fact that there has been no abolition of civil liberties. ----DanTD (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC) See PATRIOT act. Some civil liberties were abolished (or, to be precise, there is no way to tell whether they have been abolished, as the violations are classified.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC) This is the complete failure of any of the dumbolition nonsense. After the planes hit the building the government is just as good for whatever it wants as if the buildings come down. I have never seen any of the fantasists even attempt an explanation of why some elements of the government would attempt a project of the greatest possible difficulty, at the gravest personal risk if discovered, for no particular reason. Gnuwhirled (talk)

Red/Grey Chips

I added a picture of the red/grey chips that Harrit et al. found in the dust. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC). I am new to editing so please let me know if my edit followed guidelines. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

John Nevard deleted the red chip photos that Johnson had added. The photos were a significant addition to the article, and I have reversed Nevard's deletion. (I now see that Johnson made the reversal just before me, and I support his action.) Coastwise (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The photos were a significant, probably misleading, addition to the article. The caption was certainly incorrect, but I don't see the benefit of the picture. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the picture and text as you requested. I added the adjective "alleged" before discovered, and deleted the uncited section about the iron microspheres being found the world trade center dust. In the future I will add appropriate citations because iron microspheres were found in the dust as documented by USGS.

Also, I don't understand how the word "discovered" is POV even if the article is not peer reviewed. And furthermore, I contest your argument that Bentham Publishers is not reliable or peer reviewed. There is certainly no consensus in this discussion or other discussions one way or the other.

Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking closely at the image source, it's license is cc-by-nc, which is not allowable either on Commons or Wikipedia. Unless you can find a cc-by-sa release, it's got to go. I've requested deletion from Commons. Please correct the license there or provide an appropriate dispute tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrit never even touched any material from the World Trade Center site. He just saw his then girlfriend watching a rigged 9/11 twoofer cult video on her computer, and fell for that BS himself. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

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

Concerning the quote by Lee Hamiltion, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission

I have reversed Nevard's deletion of the quote and related text in the first section. He has not discussed his reasoning here, and I believe his explanation tagged to the post doesn't make sense. The same paragraph discusses the NIST report and Popular Science article (which relies in part on the report), and the remarks of Lee Hamilton, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission are relevant to the report. Coastwise (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center applies equally here: you are placing your own interpretation on a primary source to interpret Hamilton's words. Again, you must use a reputable secondary source that interprets the statement, rather than placing a contextless quote in the article in a manner that conveys an impression that Hamilton is questioning the report, rather than simply expressing his limited understanding of the report and the fact that the investigation, like any such investigation (such as an NTSB report) is a probable surmise rather than a statement of absolute fact. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

History Channel videos

An IP is adding statements like "saw molten steel" to the article as fact: using the summary provided by the History Channel excerpt, it's more like "looked like molten steel," I also note that the links themselves are copyright violations and can't be linked on Wikipedia, at least not to YouTube. There's a right way to reference and link, hopefully directly to a non-copyvio version of the History Channel bits, but they can';t be taken out of context and used to draw an emphatic conclusion. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, neither of the two recently linked videos amount to reliable sourcing, they are only useful as statements of Truther viewpoints and must be treated as primary sources for everything else. I saw a History Channel link yesterday when I checked the links, and don't have time today to sort this out, or to determine if these links are copyright violations. However, in general please be careful about using primary sources to make a synthesis or draw conclusions of fact. In general linking to YouTube and declaring that a given statement is thereby proven doesn't proive much; it's a bit like linking to a video of the Zapruder film and drawing a definitive conclusion on the Kennedy assassination. Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title?

Why the use of the word conspiracy in the title? Why tag it as a conspiracy theory when there is no evidence to support the official report but instead there is evidence to debunk it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcd6PQAKmj4 94.69.14.54 (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)purple

Because the article is about the conspiracy theories surrounding the incident. It is not about the event itself. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me give you a piece of advice, conspiracy videos on YouTube made by some guy in his basement, no matter how talented he is at making videos, is not a reliable source. They misconstrue facts, twist reality, and pick and choose what evidence fits their version of the truth rather than the actual truth. Using them as the basis of your belief system and the way in which you approach the world is something most normal people could not comprehend. Zdawg1029 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thermite again

Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center's failure to cut a column using conventional thermite is still irrelevant, and there are examples of controlled demolitions doing exactly what they couldn't. Our Sky Ride article mentions that the east tower of the attraction was toppled on August 29, 1935 using 1,500 pounds of thermite charges to melt ten-foot sections near the bottom of two of the legs. Pictures can be found on google books (credits to metabunk.org for finding them). I have said it before, wikipedia shouldn't promote pseudoscience just to discredit a conspiracy theory. Another example was the demolition of the Reichstag in 1954; conspiracy theorists will probably like the images of molten steel pouring down in the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg8xpsrUpPY Ssscienccce (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of your comment? Are you trying to add something? Take something out?Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to mention that. I suggested in the previous thermite section (5 topics back) that it should be removed, because it proves n

othing and may give readers the idea that it is physically impossible, which it obviously isn't. So I suggest again that it be removed. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The reader should get the idea that, in the context of the World Trade Center buildings, it is physically impossible. There should be no doubt that the "thermite theory" has absolutely no support beyond the "truther" community. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, they should get the impression that it is possible, but that all the evidence points to the buildings collapsing from structural damage and fires.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What evidence? Please show it to me, or better yet, put it in the article. Even better still, give it back to the government or, I'm sure they're really missing those much needed pieces of evidence. The reader shouldn't get the impression of your opinion on the matter, just scientific facts. I personally no nothing about thermite, but it sounds like it indeed does have support beyond the "truther" "community". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.122.84 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The WTC was not destroyed because thermite was planted around the buildings. It is such a far-fetched, impossible theory that it makes my cat laugh. If you look at what it would take to do that, you would understand how ridiculous it is. If you look at what happened, you would understand how ridiculous it is. If you look at how the buildings collapsed, you would understand that the controlled demolition theory is impossible. If thermite was used to bring the towers down, where exactly in the buildings was all of it placed? How did they get it all in there? How did no one notice? The truther community for some reason does not understand how controlled demolitions work, how they are rigged and how they are carried out. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Did they actually look?

"NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001"" Did they actually look for evidence for explosives? --41.150.201.159 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to ask questions on. This is a page where we discuss improvements to the article. So if you want to propose a change to the article, and you have a reliable source for it, then state it here. If you just want to spread your beliefs, go elsewhere.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They found none. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this could be rationally used to source a change in the article, unlike the comments by IP 5. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

List of motivations

Could someone please elaborate the article by listing possible motivations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.159.110 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. Not so much what the alleged motivations are for staging an attack, because that's basically the false flag argument. I mean: Have any conspiracy theorists posited a good reason why controlled demolition was necessary for a conspiracy's goals? In the absense of explosives, what effect would (remote-controlled?) jetliners have on the buildings? (There would be some damage and deaths, right?) Why would this effect be politically (or otherwise) insufficient? ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 23:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

FAQ needed:

I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I have started a discussion about this at:

• Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#FAQ_needed:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How are we going to explain that we can't say the word VICSIM, without saying the word VICSIM? 71.127.138.128 (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Q: Why isn't my favorite idea addressed? Why isn't the book by my guru mentioned? A: Any monomanic with a keyboard can make a website, or write a book. Because we don't publish original research, reliable sources must address people and ideas before Wikipedia can write about them. In short, get in the Washington Post first, then get in Wikipedia.