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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja 08:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center → Controlled demolition theory for the collapse of the World Trade Center — All references to this topic refer to it as a theory, nobody would search on "hypothesis" as that isn't the common label for the topic. *Sparkhead 20:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support seems like the right description.--Sloane 20:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: although the justification for the theory is very weak, it is a theory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Húsönd 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, per nomination--NPswimdude500 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose in this particular case the use of the term 'theory' has been perverted with the constant insertion of the related pejorative phrase, "conspiracy theory," so by changing the word in this title it ends up serving primarily to frame a scientific theory as just another "conspiracy theory," i.e., thinking people should move along. Locewtus 04:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - this simply isn't a theory. --Yath 07:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - it seems like "hypothesis" might still be the more technically correct term, and a redirect could take care of the search problem. Though it depends on what the requirements of a "theory" are... I don't really feel strongly on this issue either way though. --Arvedui 09:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose but create a redirect from the proposed new title to the current article to ensure it sweeps up all those who look for "Theory". This is a hypothesis. This is correct use of a redirect, and frankly the move need not even have been proposed. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're correct, it needn't not be proposed. I just did it. I can't believe some people simply do not grasp the meaning of the word 'theory', which this clearly is. It's even linked from the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. Do you want to start calling all those "conspiracy hypotheses"? *Sparkhead

• See my absolute objection to your actions and using my words as justification for this cavalier action under "Discussion" below. Fiddle Faddle 08:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's already been noted. If you want to continue this tangent, feel free to do so on my user page. More on the topic at hand, perhaps you could address my comment about "conspiracy hypotheses" above. Thanks. *Sparkhead 11:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Noted, yes, but not apologised for, it seems. So please understand that I will not move this matter to the relative privacy of your talk page at this stage. Regrettably you are incorrect regarding the order of precedence of "hypothesis" and "theory". It is a pedantic point, but a hypothesis, which this article is, is less proven see dictonary.com than a theory again see dictionary.com. Thus your move and your assertioins are nbot correct. While the different is slight there is still less weight to a hypothesis, which the controlled demolition aspect is, than a theory, which is it not. In fact calling it a theory seems to validate it when it has not been validated - something which the article is at pains to point out. Once accepted as a true theory, then it can be re-titled. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, create a redirect. "This is a hypothesis." SalvNaut 11:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as mentioned below, a hypothesis is an "idea whose merit needs evaluation". The idea has been considered and rejected [1] [2] [3] [4], whereas the "mainstream" version has a vast consensus of support. [5] The word "hypothesis" gives undue weight, as it is a scientific term that lends more credence to the theory than it merits. Controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] --Aude (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• This argument is terrible. How can you give a completely unscientific paper by guys from implosionworld.com as an argument for this hypothesis to be rejected? 911myths?? I've never seen a rejection of this hypothesis there, only a lot of complicated arguments, some undermining strengt of evidence for it. Specifically 911myths never "debunked" molten metal in the rubble. Indeed, the NIST FAQ is the only argument for the cd hypothesis to have been tested - heh, if it really was tested why haven't they included ANYTHING about it in their final report??

Proponents of this hypothesis speaks about it as "hypothesis to be tested" (they lack access to evidence). In no way you can prove that this hypothesis has been scientfically rejected, as it has been omitted by everyone except 9/11 truth movement. SalvNaut 19:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

NIST has extensively studied the collapse of the WTC and states:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory [12]

And the "mainstream" account supported by vast consensus:

the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let’s not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests" [13]

Why should NIST waste tax dollars to do anything further to look into CD? Though apparently they are in regards to WTC7. [14] CD is widely viewed as a conspiracy theory, and the title of the article should properly reflect that. Though, the title is already lengthy, so I'm okay with leaving out the word "conspiracy" and just leave it as "controlled demolition theory..." --Aude (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence: NIST has extensively studied the collapse of the WTC - how would you support extensively? The last paragraph of your post shows that it hasn't been so. If you would have some time and like to hear a critique of 9/11 comission style of investigation I refer you to a lecture by Dr.Griffin (you can find it in External links). And again - let's focus on what C.D really is. If your argument is that "theory" resembles "conspiracy theory" more than "hypothesis" then I reject this argument as invalid here.SalvNaut 20:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Theory" is the word that gives this concept undue credence. As you said, a hypothesis needs evaluation. --Yath 19:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny how popular grasps of those two words clash here with their real meaning and efforts of some to undermine, of others to boost, credibility to c.d. Let's focus on factual scientific position of this hypothesis/theory. SalvNaut 20:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem with some of the oppose votes. Basic word definition. "Theory" doesn't give the concept undue credence. It describes the concept. Like I said, geocentric universe theory, flat earth theory, there are multitudes of obsolete scientific theories that present evidence that is flawed, but that doesn't make them any less a theory - just a weak one. *Sparkhead 21:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• OpposeTbeatty 21:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• oppose: Certainly no need for inappropriate addition of pov bias. Ombudsman 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Its most notable opponents are careful to call it a "hypothesis in need of testing" and its most notable opponent (NIST) not only also uses the term but is open to "hypothetical [not theoretical] blast scenarios". As I understand it, the word theory does not so much imply "claim to be tested" as "framework for inquiry". That's why "conspiracy theory" is accurate, but "controlled demolition theory" is not.--Thomas Basboll 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the entire article...the only good title would be one that has a red-lined link.--MONGO 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from neologising a conspiracy hypothesis, the less that is done to add confusion to this aticle the better. Midgley 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Better to invest our energy in documenting what this hypothesis, or theory, or notion, or conjecture, or possible explanation is, and documenting the facts and issues that pertain to it. O Govinda 09:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• From Hypothesis: In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself.

It seems to me that couple arguments speak for "hypothesis" here: Griffin, Hoffman, Jones (he specificaly sais "hypothesis") provided many arguments for this hypothesis but they couldn't have made full investagtion into it because of no access to evidence. Jones and Scholars for 911 truth are calling for a release of evidence from 9/11. All of them are pushing forward another, deep investigation that would look into "controlled demolition hypothesis" so it could be changed into substinated theory or rejected. What is more, I would expect from a theory to explain how exactly the Towers were demolished (that is. placement, kind of explosives etc.). There is no such thing as of now - only hypothesis exist. (btw: for interested in this topic: this finite element analysis is v. interesting, if correct[15])

On the other hand, Griffin's study into 9/11 Commission omissions is thorough, same as Jones's analysis of WTC metal and dust. It could be phrased as theory then. SalvNaut 22:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• While "theory" and "hypothesis" can be synonymous, if you want to differentiate, a theory attempts to bring forth evidence (weak as it might be). Every reference to this in reliable sources calls it a theory of some sort. The 9/11 conspiracy theories page links here. It's in a category called "Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks". Everything says theory.
  Again, note the word "theory" doesn't grant this any more validity than the word "hypothesis". But it is how it's known and it is a term that can be properly applied to the content. A geocentric model of the universe is a theory too, and they presented evidence. Doesn't make it true. *Sparkhead

I have to say it's awfully bad form to ask for everyone's opinion of a move and then when you see consensus isn't forming, to do the move anyway. I'd ask that you undo the move until this is worked out. Thanks. Rx StrangeLove 14:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it was bad form for someone to move the original article, which was "theory" to "hypothesis" without a vote. After Fiddle's suggestion that a vote not be needed I reviewed the article history. Essentially, I have undone the move. The move that was made to "hypothesis" without a survey. If consensus doesn't form it should remain in its original context, which is "theory". *Sparkhead 15:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I am most assuredly unhappy at having you try to put words into my mouth. Quoting my words about a votye not being necessary and then moving against my strong opposition is tantamount to vandalism. It is clear that my view is that a redirect from your proposed totle to the curretn article is the correct thing. I had expected better behaviour than that. I strive to assume good faith in all things, but find it hard to do so when things like this are done. Asking to build a consensus and then riding roughshod over the consensus that builds when it does not suit your ideas is not what this community is about. We are building a consensus of every part of this article, the name included. Being bold does not extend to such edits as yours. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put words in your mouth, I said after reading your suggestion that a vote not be needed, I reviewed history. Read no more into it. Found the previous move had been done without a vote, so I did the same. I was attempting to avoid this wikiality ridiculousness, but too late for that now... *Sparkhead 00:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My words were absolutely no justification for your cavalier actions, and I object in the strongest possible terms to your usingthem as an excuse for this unilateral action. It was you who proposed the move, you you started the process to rach consensus and you who then drove coach and horses through the process you had initiated. Fiddle Faddle 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There was great deal of discussion around this article at that time, with a significantly larger number of editors participating. It's been stable in this condition now for a while. I ask again that you undo the move until there is further discussion, at this time there does not appear to be consensus for this move. Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly give you a chance to revert your move, but if you won't I'll make the change and let the discussion (that you started) go forward. You just can't propose something, and then ignore the results when it goes against you and make the change anyway. This is a controversial page and major changes on these types of articles need discussion and consensus. Rx StrangeLove 17:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the controlled demolition of the WTC is a hypothesis that is central to one of several 9/11 conspiracy theories. Theories, as I understand them, a bigger and heavier than hypotheses. That is, harder to move, supported by a variety of kinds of evidence. So you have hypotheses about the demise of dinosaurs but a theory of evolution. That sort of thing. In this case, the title should follow the content, however. The three major proponents say "hypothesis", and so does NIST. What is the source we've got for "theory"?--Thomas Basboll 19:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, NIST also refers to it as a theory:

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory [16]

and here are consipracy sites that refer to it as a theory [17] [18], and newspaper reports [19] [20] [21]. A hypothesis is a "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." Sure CD is a central element of 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't describe it as a central "hypothesis", in the scientific sense. It's a conspiracy theory. --Aude (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This will take a lot of discussion, I think. CD is described by the three proponents that this article emphasises as a hypothesis in need of further testing. The NIST FAQ and its report (a much more reliable source) also calls it a hypothesis (referring to the lack of evidence, of course.) NIST correctly phrases the (frequently asked) question in terms of a hypothesis; it talks about "hypothetical" (not theoretical) blast scenarios; and the one instance of "theory" that can be cited puts CD in scare quotes. Lastly, there is nothing essentially conspiratorial about the hypothesis itself: it's one (hypothetical) way the buildings could have come down. If they did come down that way, yes, that would lend support to some conspiracy theories. But, as NIST says, it's just talking about "hypothetical blast scenarios". I would suggest leaving the question of a fitting title til the very end of the editing process. There's still more work to be done in getting the content in order. Once the content has been sorted out, this issue can be discussed on a more solid footing.--Thomas Basboll 20:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There are important differences in the meaning of "hypothesis" versus "hypothetical" (e.g. "hypothetical situation") [22]. Theoretical is considered synonymous for "hypothetical". [23] See also the meaning of "hypothetic" - "Existing only in concept and not in reality" [24]. A "hypothesis" is a "tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation." [25] Controlled demolition theory is more appropriate here, and describing this theory as hypothetical is perfectly acceptable. But describing it as a hypothesis is not. --Aude (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I favour a pretty clear distinction between "hypothesis" and "theory" (although a dictionary must of course note that, in popular usage, the two words are sometimes used without such a distinction). Along with this, I think "hypothetical blasts" would be part of a "blast hypothesis". Most of your argument strikes me as supporting the idea that it doesn't really matter what we call it--i.e., "describing this theory as hypothetical is perfectly acceptable"--while your major point--i.e., "describing it as a hypothesis is not"--strikes me as arbitrary (i.e., unsupported by argument). I you look at Tarpley, Jones, and Griffin, you will find they describe a "tentative explanation" that fits your bill for "hypothesis". All call for "further investigation". A "theory" (using your source of definition) is mainly "a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena" and only at the bottom of the list of possibilities do we find the popular idea that a theory is the same thing as a "conjecture".--Thomas Basboll 22:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to go to the bottom of the list, your first definition fits fine. "Especially" does not mean "only". Check any of the obsolete scientific theories, or better yet list of pseudoscientific theories for a list of items that are not widely accepted, cannot be used to make (accurate) predictions of phenomena, yet are still correctly labelled as theories. *Sparkhead 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "especially" means what it means. I think we all agree that "theory" is often used interchangeably with "hypothesis", especially colloquially :), but why not to follow the main proponents of this theory, that is Griffin, Jones (article is based mainly on their ideas), and opponents, that is NIST. Jones always refers to controlled demolition as a "hypothesis to be tested" (although he is pretty sure it is a fact) - he does it during his lectures, in his paper, in the latest movie "Improbable collapse"[26]. I could agree to call it a "theory" given Jones's molten metal study, dust study (given this, controlled demolition by thermite explosives could be named a theory, because it would explain some of the phenomena observed - to me, this is what theories are for). Well, since Jones himself still calls it "a hypothesis to be tested", I tend to leave it as it is for now. SalvNaut 23:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My distinction between theory and hypothesis is essentially about the 'size' of the claim. It seems to me that opponents and proponents of the hypothesis distinguish in the same way. Hypotheses can be rejected much more easily than theories and with more direct appeal to the evidence. Theories are rejected only when a lot of different criticisms are brought to bear on them, which go beyond 'the evidence' and include criteria such as coherence, simplicity, and parsimony. CD is discussed pretty straightforwardly in terms of evidence.--Thomas Basboll 07:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it agrees with my understanding, too - here, for me, "the size of a claim" would be the level of details theory/hypothesis explains, a number of facts it takes into account, explains, discusses, etc. At this moment, most detailed analysis of controlled demolition (scientific, not popular) is provided by Jones with his paper and explanation of molten metal by thermite reactions. Of course this ammount of data is far from what we would expect from a theory having been fully investigated, and Jones sees it this way, too. (where is scientific data based on which NIST rejected this hypothesis?) Looking "ad fontes" the word "hypo-thesis" clearly means something "under", "less" than "thesis" and it could be understood as not examined sufficently, with not enough data to either accept or reject. This is definately the case, imho.SalvNaut 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back, please discuss before any more action is taken, thanks! Rx StrangeLove 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to show where a consensus was reached before the previous move. You claim there was discussion, but I don't see any in the talk or archives, and nothing showing consensus. From where I'm standing, I'm simply reverting an errornous move that may have persisted for a while, but still needs reversion. *Sparkhead 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point there is no consensus for your move, but please take advantage of this conversation to help find it. No one objected when it was moved in the past (and it was moved during a period of high visibility for the article)...and it's been stable since. With no major objections and active editing occurring in the period after the move I think we can say that there was consensus for the move. In contrast, your move was met with significant objections and moving it would not be consensual. Like I said in my edit summary, I don't know where it will end up, but there is an ongoing discussion that will likely come to some conclusion. Rx StrangeLove 21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What remains to be done?

I think, when we are all content, that we need to look at Peer Review of this article. There is always the danger of standing too close to an article and we may be in danger of that.

But peer review can be a salutary process. We only want to undergo it when the article is ready. hence my question: What remains to be done?

I'm using sub-headings to create the list and then suggest we signifiy the closure of each section. The ") (R)" is to differentiate this subheading from a working subheading elsewhere inthis talk page. I'm envisaging a task list here, bulleted and closed, with discussion taking place elsewhere on the talk page Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• reinstated on main talk page from archive page Fiddle Faddle 23:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro (only section with no heading) (R)

Appears complete to me Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence (R)

• Check for NPOV
• Check for sound evidence from WP:RS sources

The debris (R)

• debris section non sequitur resolution Fiddle Faddle 10:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism (R)

In this section, there is only arguments FOR that the collapse would be possible without explosives. The arguments AGAINST controlled demolition are missing. For example, if they installed the whole towers with explosives for a controlled demolition, something that takes WEEKS why didn't anybody notice? I don't have time right now, but if nobody else does it, I'll try to create something. --Regebro 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just inform you that there is a response to this argument. People working in WTC described strange activities like redecorations, wirings weeks before 9/11, there were powerdowns, etc. Sniffing dogs were removed (this was in some newspaper). (you can watch it here[27], but I haven't seen those facts published, yet). SalvNaut 17:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, you are hopeless. Redecorations and rewirings are NOT strange, and are NOT the same as priming the place with explosives. Priming the place with explosives is not something you can do with "strange activities". It is a completely obvious activity that can NOT go unnoticed. Look for example at the fourth image in this page: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm Do you really think that this kind of activity had been reported as "rewiring and redecoration?" No, there is no response to this argument. --Regebro 10:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I really wanted to inform you... You might deduce from it what you want, of course. A statement about conventional demolitions has it's place in the article and you can find one at the exact end. If you find something more interesting and better sourced, please contribute.SalvNaut 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's nice of you, to inform me. Just FYI: You can probably assume I'm more informed than you already. ;) But you are of course welcome to inform me anyway. --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Deadly correct. SalvNaut 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are answers to everything, and answers to that to, and answer to that to, and so on. But sooner or later, the answers get stupid or evidently wrong, and you have to end it somewhere. For example, if you say "George Bush is behind the 9/11 disaster", one "answer" is "That's impossible, he was in a classroom reading a book at the time". Yes, it's an "answer", but it's a bloody stupid one. Of course we shouldn't include this as a serious argument against the alternatve 9/11 theories. We can't include any "answer", it has to have some sort of reasonability or notability to be included. When somebody points out that preparing a building for demolition is a major undertaking that would not have gone unnoticed by ANYONE in that building, the answer the "there were reports of some redecoration and rewiring done" is NOT a reasonable or notable answer. Really. --Regebro 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we have agreement here. Regebro finds a notable critic of CD who has pointed to the difficulties of planting the explosives without being noticed. We add this to the criticism section. There is no reason at this point to include speculative rebuttals usinf the information SalvNaut provides (the exchanges between critics and proponents are not especially intense on this issue). The comparison to classical controlled demolitions fails in a number of ways, one might add, but this has only led CD proponents to point out that this was no ordinary controlled demolition. That back-and-forth is implicit after the first step is taken.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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

References (R)

• Final checks for correct citations (ie not just a URL) and rationalisation of duplications. Strong suggestion to use the {{Cite (thing) template. Probably this task best done in parts, after each section (above) is flagged as complete.
• Full checks against WP:SOURCE

Validity of Youtube References

Since anyone may upload anything to Youtube, I am inclining towards the thought that references to these uploads are equivalent to references to blogs, forums etc. Does anyone have any thoughts on this, please, in the context of this article, and in the wider context of what Wikipedia's guidelines are here? Fiddle Faddle 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, of course, but if the video shows news footage recorded from TV, then why should this be treated different than news footage itself? Why not to make a distinction and treat every footage in the same manner? SalvNaut 00:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that your concern is to the fact that there are titles, descriptions, comments by users on YouTube, and we wouldn't like to link to them. I think the solution could be the use of different style of linkining to YouTube videos: this instead of that.

Hmm...but.... as it can be seen on that example it will not always work... SalvNaut 00:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Initially I felt that a citation could "instruct" the reader to disregard the commentary on youtube. My thoughts then extended to the fact that, with simple editing software, any story could be put there. I am mindful of several things:

1. Most people are not malicious
2. Youtube is an unlikely place to place a video to "enhance" a contested hypothesis such us this one, since the collapse is so well video recorded
3. Wikipedia deprecates blogs and forums as sources, and Youtube may not necessarily be different from such a source
4. The article is nearing the state when it can be inspected by independent peers to determine how close it is to being truly NPOV and well cited.

Putting these together I feel we must consider this ostensibly important source to determine precisely how suitable it is for citation. Fiddle Faddle 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think YouTube should be treated as a repository of reliable and unreliable sources. The key is to cite the reliable news source and then provide the link to YouTube for the sake of convenience. This means that the editor should (ideally) verify the news footage (and where possible also link to transcripts made by the news source). The important distinction here, to my mind, is between what is being cited and what is being linked to. They don't have to be the same. (We can, for example, also site journal articles with or without citing the digital databases that provide access to them.)--Thomas Basboll 12:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Fiddle Faddle 13:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mechanics of footnotes

At the end of the "Overview" section, I've added a footnote to Jones's "Why Collapse" article. The cited work, however, merely serves as an example. The example doesn't adequately demonstrate what the statement says, that the hypothesis is "normally presented" as being in need of testing. I'd have prefixed the footnote with "For example," but I didn't know how to make the Wiki software do that.

Also: The mention to "Page 44" pertains only to this particular citation, not (as it might seem) to the whole string of citations that all connect to this same reference.

Does someone know how to fix this?

Cordially, O Govinda 10:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is simple and complex at the same time. The FIRST reference on the page to a footnote needs to have the description. The rest simply have the name of the footnote. You need to read the cite.php instructions and see if you can make it do what you need it to do. It may be that you need to cite the section you need separately. See also Template:cite web for adding much else besides a simple reference. this template is embedded inside the <ref.</ref> tags or used standalone, depending upon your need Fiddle Faddle 11:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments not upheld by the citations provided for them

Under "Evidence / Molecular and Chemical Analysis," we had this:

Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[37] and says he found chemicals consistent with the presence of thermate (a mixture of thermite and other oxidizing agents used in incendiary munitions). Other environmental studies have been done on the particulate matter and dust released by the collapse (including a study by the DELTA group at UC Davis), and none have indicated the presence of explosive residue.[38][39]

FEMA’s finding of sulfur has already been discussed above.

Well, notes 38 and 39 do lead to environmental studies that don't indicate the presence of explosive residue.

But I suppose the reader could be forgiven for expecting that the studies, when cited in this context, looked for the presence of explosive residue.

When you read the studies, it's clear they did not.

The first study (from the USGS) limits itself, on the page cited, to listing and briefly discussing the "Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating material." From the discussion it's clear that whether any of this material would be consistent or inconsistent with explosive residue simply wasn't under consideration.

The second study (from a journal called Environmental Health Perspectives) deals, as the study's title tells us, with "the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center." The focus of the study is clearly on the possible threats to health posed by "lead, asbestos, and other hazardous materials."

And, in contrast to not indicating "the presence of explosive residue," that second study speaks of the "pulverized building debris and products of incomplete combustion produced by the explosion that ignited the thousands of liters of jet fuel." (emphasis supplied)

The studies, therefore--and they seem like quite good ones--are generally irrelevant to the argument they're implicitly cited to support. And one of the two articles cited, though surely not envisioning controlled demolition, even assumes that at the root of the environmental mess under study was, yes, an explosion.

Since neither study says anything, pro or con, about possible explosive residue, their use here to suggest that there was none amounts to original research.

Neither study, by the way, mentions UC Davis.

I've therefore deleted the sentence.

If someone has done scientific research directly addressing the question of explosive residue and has come up with findings different from those of Jones, that research might be worthwhile to cite.

I should add that the present citations are the latest of several I've followed in this article, only to find that claim and citation don't match.

Cordially, O Govinda 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this judgment. Most readers of this and related articles will want to know where official sources engage with directly with CD, i.e., where the positions explicitly clash. We need to be very precise when suggesting that "other studies show" something contrary to CD.--Thomas Basboll 18:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible OR in Building 7 section

In the first paragraph on building seven we find the following unsourced observation:

Large fires in such structures are rare, and incidents where those fires are allowed to burn uncontrolled for many hours are so few that statistical inferences have not been drawn about the general ability of these structures to withstand extended fires.

As I understand it, the belief among engineers in "the general ability of these structures to withstand extended fires" was never based on statistics. While it may technically be true that actual buildings have not statistically "proven" themselves against major fires, it is not true that experts didn't have confidence in them, nor that this confidence was unfounded. Materials are designed and fire tested in many ways and no one expected building seven to collapse. I'll remove it unless there are objections (please provide a good source.)--Thomas Basboll 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan

In my opinion, this article would benefit much if Kevin Ryan's critique of NIST report is included. It can be heard and seen in a (1h) presentation by him. I would like to include a summary of points raised by him, like WTC steel certificates by UL controversy. Also points raised connected with topics already in the article, like criticism of fire temperatures' testing by NIST, pancake theory, floors-pulling-columns theory, fireproofing dislodging theory could be described. One sentence summarring his overall opinion about NIST style of investigation could be included, too.

This is what can be found about Kevin Ryan in Google News Archive:[28]. Ryan starred in a documentary movie "Improbable Collapse"[29][30]. From my perspective I've seen him being mentioned quite often by media, by Griffin, or Jones (part of Jones's famous paper is devoted to Ryan's conflict with Underwriter Laboratories about steel testing).

What do you think? To what extent should his voice of criticism be included here? What other sources could be referred to? I've just checked in the talk page archives: this idea was brought up already (by User:O Govinda and User:JustFacts). User:Thomas Basboll preffered to be careful with it, to not be accused of POV-forking a NIST critique from Collapse of the World Trade Center. I think that NIST critique is very important to CD hypothesis (as if NIST report have been well done, there would be nothing to discuss now), and POV-forking accusations are/were illegitimate. --SalvNaut 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would defend Ryan's "Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies About the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories" as a reliable "major statement" of the CD hypothesis. It is included in the Griffin and Scott volume and is cited, as you note, by others. It therefore passes the RS standard that we have set with Jones, Griffin, and Tarpley. (It's available online here.[31])--Thomas Basboll 21:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not to throw fire on the water, but if the "NIST reports have been well done" we'd still be talking here. The presence of lack thereof of considerable, accurate, well documented research has never stopped a conspiracy theory from forming of maintaining momentum.
• As to Ryan himself; what are his qualifications with regards to demolitions? Steel manufacturing? Civil engineering? Fire proofing technologies? I don't know anything about him. But, if he's simply an actor (seems the only assertion being made above about his qualifications) he's just another opinion among millions of opinions of unqualified people. --Durin 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I, and many others I suppose, wouldn't be talking here (this article in particular) if NIST report showed signs of a good investigation (it seems to me it was impossible so, anyway...).

Ryan is a former chief chemist from Underwriters Laboratories. He lost his job after he publicly questioned UL report about WTC steel certificates (along with NIST report). You should read about him and his stance more (Jones paper, articles I provided, presentation, or news articles... google).SalvNaut 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• It has been demonstrated in the past that whether research is fantastic or no, conspiracy theorists will still question the official account of events. Whether the NIST reports are accurate or not is largely irrelevant to this particular article; the conspiracy theory exists regardless of the completeness the NIST reports. And lets remember that completeness in this context is universally defined by the conspiracy theorists; the official investigators can never possibly answer all requirements of the conspiracy theorists. Whether or not he is qualified to comment is most certainly relevant. I am reminded of Cdr. Donaldson tossing a match into a bucket of jet fuel and claiming it couldn't burn. If Ryan is qualified in appropriate fields, let's hear it. It's now been noted he's a chemist. What particular area of chemistry. Steel chemistry or at least construction materials chemistry? If he is not qualified, regardless of how well regarded he is, he's simply a person with an opinion. --Durin 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Thomas explained it below, the question is if Ryan is the right person to be cited for his NIST critique in the context of the controlled demolition hypothesis. To me, the answer is "yes", for the arguments and sources provided showing his notability among CD proponents, for the fact he criticized a company he worked a long time in (so he knew standard procedures there) for giving untrue statements about WTC steel certificates. Also, it seems very clear to me, that the quality of NIST investigation is important issue to CD hypothesis. All of that makes Ryan a reliable source about CD hypothesis, imo. SalvNaut 00:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the question is not whether Ryan is qualified to say anything about the WTC collapses (if he were, he would be RS for the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.) The question is whether he is qualified to represent the CD hypothesis. I think he is. He's not just "one opinion" among (let's say) thousands who actively defend CD. He's in the top ten for sure. He is well-respected among those who pursue the hypothesis, and this respect does not require any original research to uncover. (His inclusion in the Griffin and Scott volume is important here.)--Thomas Basboll 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have more than enough representation of this hypothesis. Considering how narrow his professional expertise is I doubt there would be much material that isn't either repetition or research outside his profession, and that would include any critique he might have about the NIST report. Does he have anything new to add as a chemistry professional? Rx StrangeLove 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, he has a lot of material to add as a man of science. He collected a lot of data regarding NIST comission. I wanted to present a summary of his points for you Rx StrangeLove, but after I begun it turned out I would like to include more than a half of it. So if you don't have time to watch video of his presentation, here is a detailed Powerpoint presentation. Couple of points, I think, deserve including into the article:

• NIST is a government agency, reporting to Bush cabinet member Gutierrez (Commerce). The director of NIST is also a Presidential appointee, NIST’s WTC report is a product of the Bush Administration (i.e. Bush Science).
• The Bush Administration has been “deliberately and systematically distorting scientific fact in the service of policy goals”. Open letter from 60 prominent scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates[32]
• “We found a serious pattern of undermining science by the Bush Administration”Union of Concerned Scientists [33]
• “[We] found numerous instances where the Administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings” House Committee on Government Reform[34]
• 99.7% of steel evidence destroyed despite outraged cries from public and fire experts
• More than a year passed before full investigation began
• The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors, “It cascaded down like an implosion”
• “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building” -- Ronald Hamburger, structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports
• Official investigations never considered demolition
• Steel melts at ~2800 F
• Jet fuel fires burn at maximum of ~1500 F unless in special combustion chamber
• Gas temps are not steel temps
• Thermodynamic calculations (made by Ryan) suggest steel temperatures in impact zones could have reached maximum of 600 F
• Science made other way round - this seems a very good point made by Ryan. In his presentation, he shows that NIST final findings were the same as comments made before the investigation.

• Gene Corley -- knew once the jets hit the building that the WTC would collapse as it did, “I just didn’t know when it was going to happen”, said Corley (reported by St. Petersburg Times), Charles Thornton -- "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." (From Karl Koch’s book Men of Steel) Shankar Nair -- "Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center.” (Chicago Tribune September 19, 2001)
• Official “investigations” into the collapse of the WTC buildings: ASCE, FEMA, BPAT(Turned ASCE investigation into an “assessment”,Report released May 2002), Silverstein/Weidlinger report released October 2002, NIST report released September 2005
• Gene Corley in charge of ASCE investigation, NYC put Thornton-Tomasetti in charge of site, Richard Tomasetti (Thornton’s partner) “cleared” the decision to recycle the steel, later saying had he “known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.”
• Restrictions on ASCE investigation:No access to blueprints, Not allowed to ask for help from public, Team members threatened with dismissal for speaking to press, No access to steel until first week of October, FEMA obstruction
• ASCE expanded and was named FEMA BPAT:John Gross, NIST engineer with oil and gas history, Therese McAllister, Greenhorne and O’Mara (G&O), Other government contractors (Arup, Hughes)
• When FEMA took over, $1 million was allocated, but only $100,000 was spent by December
• April 2002 NOVA video by commentators Corley and Thornton: Fireproofing easily blown off, Floors collapsed, Columns buckled outward, May 2002 final FEMA report: “a pancake-type of collapse of successive floors”
• June 2002 – NIST drafts plan, First meeting included “Public” comments by Gene Corley, Richard Tomasetti, Shankar Nair, other contributors to official reports
• FEMA authors become NIST authors: FEMA Chapter 1 authors: Therese McAllister: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7, John Gross: co-wrote NIST report 1-6 and 1-7, Ronald Hamburger: NIST contributor ;FEMA Chapter 2 authors: Ronald Hamburger: see above, William Baker: NIST contributor, Freedom tower, Harold Nelson: co-wrote NIST report 1-5 and 1-7, FEMA chapter 5 authors (WTC 7), Ramon Gilsanz: co-wrote NIST report 1-6F, Harold Nelson: see above

• ...and many more about NIST investigation. It might be a bit of a mess what I've just posted above, so better take a look at Ryan's presentation by yourselves. SalvNaut 11:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While we may have more than enough in terms of overall length, there is still a lot of work to do in using that length effectively. Salv is right to wonder whether the NIST-critical component of the CDH isn't, perhaps, underrepresented. As we remove other (overrepresented) things we will make room for this. It seems to me that Ryan adds an important dimension, and his paper is a nice, stable source to cite. If it came down to it, I would certainly choose Ryan over Tarpley, now that I think about it. But if you ask me there is a nice division of labour between these (now) four possible statements: Jones deals with physical evidence and physical aspects of the collapses, Griffin with eye witness testimony, Tarpley with circumstantial evidence pertaining to the "crime scene" (destruction of evidence, accessory after the fact, etc.), and Ryan with the failings of the NIST report. The CDH involves all those things, and those four people are plausible proponents of them. The question is just how to weigh them.--Thomas Basboll 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of Kevin Ryan, and thanks to Salv for the idea. I also recommend this page - Review of 'A New Standard For Deception:The NIST WTC Report.' It breaks down the issues and organizes them. bov 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan is a chemist, most his criticism of the NIST report falls outside of his professional expertise. If he’s gathering and synthesing other material, we’d need to go to those sources on a case by case basis. Rx StrangeLove 08:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This puts Ryan in the same class of pundit as Hoffman. He is outside his field of expertise. His opinions may be interesting but they cannto, by definition, be authoritative. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ryan has played a role as a prominent exponent of the hypothesis under discussion. Because of his former status as a middle manager at UL, his voice is worth hearing in regard to UL's certification (or non-certification) of the WTC's steel. And because of his controversial letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of NIST's metallurgy division, for which Ryan lost his job at UL, he has also played a noteworthy part in the history of the hypothesis. That makes him worth quoting, if something he has said offers a specific contribution to the article. I agree, however, that he should not be represented as a scientist with a specific professional expertise outside chemistry.

Cordially, O Govinda 11:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fiddle Faddle and Rx Strangelove argue for treating Ryan on par with Hoffman because "he is outside his field of expertise." But neither Jones, Griffin nor Tarpley are working especially "inside" their primary fields when talking about a building collapse. I don't think the issue is one of qualifications. Like I say, if they were qualified their opinions would be relevant to the collapse of the World Trade Center article. The important question is whether they are notable proponents of controlled demolition. Hoffman's only failing in this regard is that his work seems to be exclusively self-published. This is not the case with Ryan, his publication is (exactly) as good as Jones' and Griffin's.--Thomas Basboll 19:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• If the only qualification for using a person's work on this conspiracy theory was whether or not they are a well known proponent of it, then we could base the article or all sorts of fringe 'research', conjecture, opinion, and reconjured heresay simply because a person happened to appear on a talk show or two. That a person is a known proponent of a theory does not make their work worth more than a grain of sand. If a experienced seismologist with access to seismograph outputs on 9/11 were to say "there are spikes on the graphs clearly indicative of explosions and consistent with known building demolitions in the past. The time frame for these spikes are less than ten seconds before the beginning of the collapse sequence of WTC 7", that would be incredibly powerful evidence. Having John Doe, experienced sales manager for Acme, Inc. go on a talk show and talk about how he thinks there was a controlled demolition is absolutely, unconditionally worthless. We are an encyclopedia. This is not a hosting site for theories from non-experts, putting forth evidence they have no basis to understand. Anybody...anybody...can cobble together evidence that Ryan has. Evidence is data, and that's all. Data is a four letter word; it must be distilled into information. Ryan as the distiller of that information presents a horribly biased, non-expert view. In effect, the suggestion is to use him as a primary resource for which he is completely unqualified. If used as secondary resource, there are considerably better outlets for the same information. Ryan is just not a very good lens to view this information through unless he is discussing chemistry. --Durin 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Two important questions to be answered in this article are "Who proposes controlled demolition?" and "What exactly are they proposing?" There seems to be no question about Jones and Griffin. And we are here talking about Ryan. What Ryan contributes is a detailed critique of NIST's work (which is one of the things that controlled demolitionists propose: that NIST got it wrong and was bound to get it wrong because of their approach). We definitely need to include that critique as part of the second question. I'm not sure there is a better statement of it out there (except maybe Hoffman's). Ryan is not being proposed simply because he is a well-known proponent. His paper is being suggested mainly because it is not self-published and is recognized by uncontroversially major proponents (like Jones and Griffin). That is, he's more than just a guy who's been on a talk show (I'm not even sure he's been on a talk show. Though he has been featured in the documentary Improbable Collapse.) The main purpose of this article is not say whether or not there were seismic spikes of one kind or another, but whether someone of note is claiming that there were such spikes. It may be true that anybody could have written Ryan's paper; but this article will be informative precisely by telling the reader who in fact did write it.--Thomas Basboll 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Who proposes controlled demolition is meaningless by itself. The question is unclear. A better question is "What field related experts propose controlled demolition?" followed by "What, within their field of expertise, are they proposing". I could make a tremendous fuss about fake moon landings, cobbling together a huge number of pieces of evidence to prop up what I am saying. Using me as a resource, even if I appeared on a talk show, is worthless. I'm a know-nothing despite cobbling together the research because I have no experiential (such as degree, long career) basis on which to evaluate the information. Ryan's field of expertise is chemistry. This does not make him qualified to critique the work of, say, structural engineers. Ryan is qualified to discuss whether NIST screwed up in their work on aspects related to chemistry, and that is all. Any other critique aspects he is unqualified for, just as you are I are equally unqualified for. So, include anything he has to say about NIST's work on chemistry. Anything else, he's just one opinion of millions and though notable is not a reliable source in any respect. --Durin 14:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But, again, this article is not making any claims about whether NIST screwed up. Among those pursuing the controlled demolition hypothesis, Ryan's is not one of a million opinions but, rather, an authoritative one. That is an empirical fact about the hypothesis: there's five or six people who have emerged as authorities about it (in the eyes of the millions - arguably - who worry about controlled demolition.) Telling readers of this article who those five or six people are is just good scholarship. It has nothing to do with chemistry or whether NIST did or did not do a good job.--Thomas Basboll 15:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This discusion strikes me as very similar to discussions that happened over at Talk:7 World Trade Center some time ago, where we discussed over and over again the decision to not use wtc7.net as a source. Ryan is authoritative in one field; Chemistry. That's it. Not NIST reports. Not structural engineering. Not demolitions. Not flame retardants. Chemistry. That's it, unless someone provides some evidence showing he has qualifications in other areas. It's not in any respect an empirical fact he is an authoritative source. If you want to note who the notable proponents are, fine. But, to use them as a source to buttress the theory is basing the article on false authority. Have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority. --Durin 17:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, that's exactly the point. That those two discussions are similar (and that you would be right about the WTC7 article) counts against your arguments here. This article is nothing like the articles on the collapse of the World Trade Center or the article on 7 World Trade Center in terms of sources. This article is about a generally disreputable idea, a hypothesis. It is not about a building or about the collapse of a building. It is about what some people believe about how the WTC collapsed. Ryan and Hoffman do not belong in the article about 7WTC. But that does not mean they don't belong here.--Thomas Basboll 17:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• So you want to use Ryan in a meta way then? Ok, fine. What qualifications does he have in the area of conspiracy theories? Has he authored social research on the subject? Has this research been reviewed by professional journals? If he has none of these qualifications then again, he is nothing more than a person with an opinion. If he can be cited, than so can any person who has an opinion and has managed to get themselves in the limelight. I'm sorry, but we disagree. I don't find non-reliable sources as a good basis for any article on an encyclopedia. We are writing an encyclopedia here. We are not a hoster for compilations of unverified speculations from unreliable sources. There's plenty of other sites out there where such can be done. Wikipedia has source acceptability standards for a reason. That reason is because we are an encyclopedia. --Durin 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is what can be found about Kevin Ryan in Google News Archive:[35]. Ryan starred in a documentary movie "Improbable Collapse"[36][37]. From my perspective I've seen him being mentioned quite often by media, by Griffin, or Jones (part of Jones's famous paper is devoted to Ryan's conflict with Underwriter Laboratories about steel testing).. SalvNaut 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• de-indent So he's qualified regarding acting, Underwriter Laboratories, and Chemistry. I don't see a direct basis on which he is qualified to be a source on NIST procedures and methods. --Durin 18:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, nice dodge, except that while "acting" in a documentary, he speaks about NIST report inconsistencies and criticises NIST style of investigation (along with Glenn Corbett, a professor of fire science at John Jay College in New York, who does not support CD but is also a strong criticiser of NIST). SalvNaut 19:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. Durin thinks Ryan is being suggested as source. It would be more accurate to say we are wondering whether he is part of the object of this article, i.e., part of what this article is about. At this point, we've got three major statements of the hypothesis -- Jones, Griffin, Tarpley; they question is whether Ryan should be on that list. Durin's arguments against Ryan apply also to the other three as far as I can tell. If he were right, there would be no article.--Thomas Basboll 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps that's the point. I'm not suggesting delete the article. Not at all. But, if reliable sources can not be found to back up assertions within the controlled demolition theory, those assertions lack truthful basis. How we write about those assertions in an encyclopedia then becomes different. This article references Griffin at a number of points. Yet, Griffin's area of expertise is in Theology which has nothing to do with any field of expertise needed for factual discourse on what happened to the towers. Yet, he's used as a reference. This is wholly improper. Instead, comments by Griffin or any other notable proponent of this theory should be constrained to a single section of the article, rather than used as the very basis of the article. You wouldn't use a reference from Bill Gates to support sections of an article on Chevrolet. Why would we use a theologist to question the accuracy of engineers and related field experts? It's ridiculous at face value. An alternative way of writing this article is to instead write a point/counterpoint assemblage of notable aspects of the theory and not use non-experts to support each point. --Durin 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Ryan is not suggested as a source for the claims outside his field, but rather as a notable person for this hypothesis, who's views deserve to be presented here, who's claims we can look into and present some of them, sourced. That's what I've tried to accomplish below and I think I succeded in finding some sources. Many of Ryan claims are verifiable. And if we present points raised by him, we should then present Ryan's opinions, too, for the sake of good editing. SalvNaut 19:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The sake of good editing here requires us to use reliable sources as lenses for primary source information. Ryan is not such a source for much of the information which he has cobbled together. The sources themselves may be reliable, but using Ryan as the resource through which that information is distilled is what is at issue here. The proponents here of using Kevin Ryan insist he is notable for this theory. Thing is, the article on Kevin Ryan was deleted last September for lack of notability on with a 22 delete/6 keep recommendation. See it for yourself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Ryan. In light of the AfD, this strikes me as a way to get Ryan's view of the information into another article when that article was previously deleted. Of note and related to this discussion; Ryan was fired from UL for professing expertise in an area where he had none; fire protection (at least according to the now deleted Kevin Ryan article. --Durin 21:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ryan has not been officialy fired for that (Ryan said taht the reason given to him was "his bad judgement") He didn't give any expertise on fires or steel, he just saw documents and knew about experiments that had showed that WTC steel was first class certified. He was fired for publicly expressing his concerns about NIST and UL steel certificates.

Tell me, which author, or a scientist is a primary source for everything he claims?? I do not understand your argument. Notabilty: Yes, this is what we have to settle here. I, Thomas Basboll, O Govinda, provided arguments that he is notable for CD hypothesis. Is your only argument against the one that Kevin Ryan wiki article has been deleted?

If you would like to get to the points I would appreciate that if you expressed your criticism for the points below, which I would like to include in the article. SalvNaut 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've tried reading that section and get as far as "Kevin Ryan". As editors of an encyclopedia we must take heed of what sources we use. I'll keep saying this until I'm blue in the face. Kevin Ryan is not an expert in any field related to 9/11 study except chemistry. Using him as a distiller of primary and secondary sources to provide a sourceable reference is bad, bad editing. Where there are verifiable sources used by Ryan, use the verifiable sources instead. There is no reason to use Ryan as the lens by which we view that information. Use the sources instead. There is also no reason to make any presumption that since Ryan has verifiable references for some of his points that therefore all of his points are worth merit. His points are worthless except as they apply to chemistry. I feel an attempt is being made here to jam a source down the throat of this article when that source is unqualified in all respects to comment on the verifiable sources noted. Why not use the verifiable, reliable sources directly? You're not making a very strong case as to why Ryan should be included. --Durin 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I would love to include verifiable sources directly but it would be WP:OR then. This article is about "the hypothesis" - how it emerged, who poroposed it, who fueled it, who said what, etc. This is not article about "(not) demolition of WTC"! :) We need to stick to the proponents and to what they claim. I see it this way: if they claim wrong, we should include a source which shows so, if thet claim correct, we include the source backing it up. In both cases we include the claim. As for Ryan: Look, many, many people listened to Ryan and put him forward, there were articles about him in newspapers, he starred in a documentary (in which only other major proponents starred!). Can we narrow down the discussion to Ryan's notability now? SalvNaut 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Wheather his points are worthless, or not - history will show (or some group of inquiring wikipedia editors :) ). SalvNaut 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Start right off with your point by point on Ryan below. There's no original research in citing Leading Scientists Accuse Bush of Politicizing Science. That source is a secondary source, not a primary source. Citing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Some_definitions, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources". Where's the problem in directly citing that rather than using Ryan as a lens to filter that same information? What does using Ryan bring to the table that the original secondary source does not? Further, deciding whether a claim is correct or not is well beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. --Durin 13:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Durin, could you please come up with some proposition how would you like to introduce "Bush science" idea into the article without introducing Ryan? I cannot come up with anything that couldn't been seen as "weasel words", "making a point" or similiar. My previous post - you could read it again as it partially answers some of your questions. Well, putting Ryan points in the article and not mentioning him at all seems a bit unfair to me... but that's not the point. Please clarify - do you agree that Ryan is notable proponent of this hypothesis, or not? (because as for now you seemed to stress on the fact that he is not a qualified proponent - show me other who is fully qualified.) By the way: I stress on the fact that he is qualified to asses NIST investigation from the "art of making science" point of view. SalvNaut 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Ryan (continued)

It might be useful if you identify an instance of the "wholly improper" use of Griffin. I may have missed something, but as far as I can tell Griffin is only cited for his own claims and interpretations, not to establish matters of facts. Griffin is without question one of the people that needs to be mentioned. He's a central figure in the milieu of the hypothesis. Since he and Jones set the standard (at least for me) of "notable" figures, it might be useful to compare errors in references to them, with what is being proposed about Ryan. (BTW, I'm not sure that SalvNaut and I are suggesting the same thing.)--Thomas Basboll 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point here is being missed. Griffin is cited 4 times in this article. Griffin's field of expertise is Theology. This is from the beginning an absurd way to write an article. You don't use a mathematician as a component of an article on Vincent van Gogh, even if the mathematician wrote a book on him. It's inappropriate material. Including people such as Griffin provides undue weight to their particular viewpoints which are to say the least inexpert. If you wanted to include a section noting authors who have written related works (perhaps noting those who have Wikipedia articles already), fine. But, to scatter them throughout the article is wholly improper. If you need secondary source material to cite to summarize the positions of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory, then use sources such as major newspaper reports. Citing these authors is improper; where do we stop? These authors offer no expertise of use to summarize the theory itself. Why not cite Eric Hufschmid, Ian Henshall, Rowland Morgan, Alex Jones, and every other author out there who wrote anything about the controlled demolition theory? If these authors had some field related expertise they'd be useful to the core of the article. Without that expertise, they deserve nothing more than passing mention as a section such as "authors who have written about this theory" or some such. --Durin 13:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is definitely the point at issue. This article will be much less informative than it (easily) could be if we rely solely on secondary sources, like mainstream news sources. It is an interesting idea, however. I'm going to see how much we can say about the controlled demolition theory without appealing to primary sources (i.e., statements by actual proponents of the theory). That said, I think including Griffin in the article on the CD hypothesis is like including the letters and diaries and Vincent can Gogh in an article on him. It's citing a primary source. It's not like quoting an unqualified secondary source about Van Gogh.--Thomas Basboll 14:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

PS. Here's what I mean: In the Van Gogh article we find the following sentence. "On September 8, upon advice from his friend the station's postal supervisor Joseph Roulin, he bought two beds,[55] and he finally spent the first night in the still sparsely furnished Yellow House on September 17.[56]" References 55 and 56 are both to the letters of Van Gogh, but they report on facts about his life that might more securely be cited from a biography. Nonetheless, it's a nice touch. The primary source is available online, and we can go and read them immediately. It's informative. We hope the editors of that article have made sure that Vincent was not just making things up, or was mistaken, or raving. But we don't need a source to tell us that also. The same goes for this article. If we want to say, "Eye witness reports of explosions are often cited as evidence in favour of controlled demolition," then we can reference that to a secondary source, like a newspaper article, or to Griffin's paper, which cites exactly that sort of evidence for that sort of purpose. Like Van Gogh's letter, using Griffin as a source is more informative.--Thomas Basboll 15:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I can hear my analogy screaming as you torture it :) I was referring to using a mathematician as a basis for something about Van Gogh. I don't think this analogy should be extended to say in essence, "If it's valid in the Vincent van Gogh article, then we can do it here too!". In a bit of a paradox, using other Wikipedia articles as proof positive that X is the best way to go is a path frought with potholes. Even using featured articles for such basis can be dangerous at times because articles are always evolving. Our best standards indicate we should be using reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Griffin, a theologian by trade, has no expertise to be a secondary source for this material. A New York Times article, for example, would be far, far preferable. I'm hard pressed to believe that Griffin is the only source for the information you want to present in this article, if that is indeed your assertion. --Durin 21:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but you might want to listen to some harsh words about NY Times, spoken by a noble man: Gore Vidal, an interview about USA, US media, 9/11. Hmmm, and as I touched a media topic, this book might also be of interest. SalvNaut 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, but I think we can trust a major news outlet that suffers such recalictrant oversight more than we can trust an, in essence, random person who studied Theology to be the lens through with primary source information is filtered. --Durin 21:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I disagree. How can we trust in something that does not exist? (I mean: a media coverage of unanswered questions about 9/11.) Have you seen any of Griffin's lectures? Questions he asks, points he makes are fairly simple and I imagine that decent media would ask the same questions. Being theologian or not has nothing to do here - all you need to ask those questions is a bit of logic and investigation. Ok, Griffin also draws conclusions, but in his lectures he often encourages ppl to look for themselves and make up their minds. Though, I would agree on saying that we could trust NIST more than trust Griffin about the collapse of WTC solely. Well,now this is completely off-topic :) SalvNaut 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• The granularity being expressed here goes into detail on whether Griffin is trustable or not. We don't need to go to that granularity to determine that; WP:RS already covers this. Find a better source to illustrate the main concepts within the theory. Griffin isn't it. Neither is Ryan. Both are obviously authors and interested in the topic. Neither is qualified to be a lens against primary sources, and using them directly as primary sources is wholly improper. --Durin 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look into Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center/Archive_1#Research_that_fails_WP:RS I am citing Thomas Basboll:

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)

Discussion under Hoffman as a Primary or Secondary Source is very relevant, too. SalvNaut 22:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I was simply saying that using Griffin here is nothing like using a mathematician on a Van Gogh article. Using Griffin here is like using Van Gogh's letters in an article on Van Gogh. That is, I think Durin and I agree that Griffin and Ryan are not a good secondary sources for this article. I'm not sure what Durin thinks would count as primary sources, however. Sources providing data on the collapses themselves are not primary sources for this article (that would make it a POV fork). Only statements of the hypothesis itself are primary sources. I definitely think Griffin and Jones are good primary sources. I'm increasingly convinced that Ryan is also a good primary source.--Thomas Basboll 23:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Work on early history

It seems to me that that there are two distinct phases in the history of the CD hypothesis, perhaps three. There's the early days (actually the first three years) of internet-based research; then there is the entry of Griffin (2004) and Jones (2005) when the hypothesis is published on paper and begins to get coverage in the press. Another component of the history needs to be noted: CD proponents have been some of the most detailed critics of the all the official investigations. The CD argument therefore develops alongside the official account and soem of the most pivotal moments in the hypothesis are occasioned by the publication of official reports.--Thomas Basboll 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I know, you are correct about the history. Well, that would show once more how critique of official investigation is important to CD hypothesis. Then, Ryan is an important person in the history of this critique.SalvNaut 19:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)