From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
[show]Article milestones Date Process Result January 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed Current Status: Former good article nominee

This is not a forum for general discussion of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: Keep, AFD #1, 11 September 2006. No consensus, AFD #2, 22 September 2006. Keep, AFD #3, 05 January 2007.

edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories:

Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: From Peer Review One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor. Cleanup: The citations have got out of hand. The various variations of the {{cite}} template need to be used, but there seem to be a great number which are imperfectly cited. Please pick up any that simply show as a url and visit (eg) cite web to determine the most appropriate template to put inside the ref. This is reinforced by the most recent Peer Review comment about consistency. The full set of templates are at Wikipedia:Citation templates The ref for In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."[101] at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm does not lead to the expected story Expand: Fix this reference: Griffin, David Ray in The Hidden History (will fix ref). Other: Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page Examine these references and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion

Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, due to size or style considerations.

Archives
September 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 February 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – August 2008

[edit] NIST only a fraction of the Engineering community

[edit] The response to B7 report

The demolition proponents have responded to NIST in a detailed letter. The letter has now been posted in numerous locations.[1][2][3] It makes no sense to remove the positions of demolition proponents from the page claiming to be about the demolition theory. Please do not remove this letter. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that these sources are now "unreliable" is clearly grasping at straws as a rationale for not allowing the sentence to be added. These sites -- 911blogger.com, 911truth.org, stj911.org -- are all over wikipedia on the 9/11 pages. Since when did they suddenly become unreliable? bov (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not reliable. I think we've been allowing some slack for messages apparently from and claiming to be from a source reliable among truthers. I'm not sure it's in keeping with Wikipedia policies, but I'm willing to let it stay in the CDH article, with some corrections. It should not be in a non-fringe article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that defenders of the official theory on here are trying to hide or bury the challenges to it made by the actual people this article claims to be about, with handwaving about "reliability" and "truthers". The exact same article is posted all over the internet, so the assumption that somehow all these blogs faked this letter, yet none of the 18 authors has noticed or commented, is pretty much as fringe conspiracy theory as it gets. It's like the rightwingers who attack gays and then turn out to be gay themselves . . . Also, tacking the sentence that includes this info onto a long-winded paragraph about the official report, and removing it's date, is another time-honored wikipedia tactic to obfuscate awareness. bov (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fascinating that users Hut and Arthur Rubin continue to delete the DATE from a single sentence about the NIST submission comments by demolition proponents. They have no basis for removing it except the need to hide the relevance of it. See here. bov (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain the relevance of the date. I don't see it, other than the date being after that of the draft report, and recent enough that no one outside the truth movement would have looked at it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering community = Zdeněk Bažant?

I spent some time reading this article and tried to figure out what was meant by the engineering community. I came to the conclusion that this community equals Zdeněk Bažant (with the possible addition of 9/11 Commission). Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No - it refers to engineers as a collective body. Hut 8.5 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be more citations in the introductory chapter, in that case. Imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is there something wrong with the references we have? Bear in mind that the introduction is meant to summarise the rest of the article, and anything sourced in another part of the article doesn't need to be sourced again in the introduction. Hut 8.5 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As a WP reader I was quite confused and had to spend a lot of time finding out what was meant by the engineering community. Basically it just links to Bažant paper (in the first chapter). Could be a good idea to elaborate what is meant by the engineering community (imho, again). Didn't mean anything was wrong with the references, just wanted to see more of those [n] in the first chapter. Ilkkah (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bazant paper is the reference cited for the information, it's not a link to improve the reader's understanding. I suppose we could link to Scientific community or Scientific consensus. Hut 8.5 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, not reader's understanding. Then I missed the point of WP. I thought it was about reader's understanding of things. Ilkkah (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've missed the point. It's so the reader can verify the information in the article, not for the reader's understanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to be both (yes I checked this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference :-) ... OK, my initial question was trollish, sorry about it. I wanted to understand the engineering community comment, and after considerable research I think I can see why it's there. So I'm not complaining because the comment is there (a couple of days ago I wasn't agreeing on it that much, but maybe I have changed my views a bit), I just wished some more backing/explaining/references for it. Ilkkah (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We can all wish for better references. The problem is that, as the mainstream engineering community generally thinks this theory (or theories) has (or have) been discredited, they're not writing about it any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the term to Scientific community. If necessary I can add two more references to that sentence. Hut 8.5 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't link it to the scientific community because they are fence sitting on the subject. I think what Ilkkah is talking about is that using the term engineering community should require more than one cite especially as that one couldn't pass a peer review. I suggest citing at least two peer reviewed papers to prove the term is correctly used. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explantion for Diagonally Cut Steel Girder

I did not see the diagonally cut steel girder mentioned on this page. This image has been floating around the internet for some time and it has not been explained. (http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2006/06/341239.jpg) How did the steel girder get cut at a diagonal angle. The official NIST explanation says the building collapse began with one column. If this girder was not cut by clean up crews then how was it cut, the collapsing building would not have cut it in such a fasion. This potentially crucial piece of evidence needs to be on this page and it needs to be fully explained. 68.229.87.128 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to add information to Wikipedia articles you need to have references for your claims, can you provide some? I can't see anything in the report saying that only one column failed, can you provide a specific reference for that as well? Hut 8.5 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused, 68. The NIST report says that building 7 fell because one vertical failed, followed by others. However, the NIST report also says that the two people who were rescued from building 7 after the initial explosions there were rescued after one of the towers fell. The newscasts of their rescue were broadcast before the towers fell. Also, Bazant claims that "the engineering community" agrees with the OTC. However, the real engineering community, as a whole, appears to be just as unconscious as the rest of the population, so Bazant is just spouting baseless propaganda. Neither Bazant nor NIST should be regarded as a reliable souce. We should change the attribution to something more explicit, such as "Bazant claims that the engineering community rejects everything but the official conspiracy theory." FEMA seems to be slightly more reliable.

You will note, however, the recently melted metal around the edges of the cut. Most of the columns were hastily shipped to China and melted down, but some pieces were retained for various reasons. For the ones for which the recently molten metal was recovered, however, it has been shown to be mostly iron with traces of aluminum, sulfur, potassium and manganese, but no chromium, so it comes from some source other than the column itself. Wowest (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FEMA? Reliable? And NIST report clearly stated that the debris from WTC 7 was made available to researchers. If they weren't actually looked at, it must mean the researchers didn't see the need. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that speculations on the meaning of a contextless photo on the internet are reliable, but a world-renowned engineer writing in a peer reviewed journal or a 10,000 page report produced by hundreds of experts aren't? We have no idea who took this photo, where or when it was taken, or what it is depicting. Including the picture with this information would be pure original research. Hut 8.5 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This crops up on Wikipedia whenever brainwashing is involved. We have something called mind-control cults. These groups claim to be religions. They have some fairly predictable, but strange beliefs. You can expect, right off the bat that the leader of the group has a unique relationship with God. Maybe he IS God. One guy claimed to be "greater than God," and another, "greater than or equal to God." Some of the members -- or casualties -- got to be that way because they participated in the "sacrament" of LSD in the leader's presence. Some learned to "pray" or "meditate" in a certain way that deprived them of their ability to criticize what they were told. The biggest issue, here, is the practice -- the hypnotic drugs or unwitting self-hypnotic "meditation" or "prayer."

So, some of these groups got together and bribed experts in the relatively small community of scholars of sociology of religion. They got to go to special conferences, all expenses paid. They got consulting fees. Nothing was stated explicitly, but there were certain expectations, which were met. Suddenly "New Religious Movements" were good and special, even if they were neither new nor religious. However, when someone gets deprogrammed from the practice (not always possible), then they recognize that they believed something they were told with no real proof. Maybe they had an astonishing "religious" experience, but that does not make the explanation they were given true, and they have no proof that the leader really was the Lord.

So, who are the main suspects here? Al Queda and several domestic and/or foreign organizations. Is NIST funded by one of the principal suspects? Yes. In fact, it's subordinate to the Bush White House. Can we believe what it says? Maybe. We can certainly extend tentative suspension of disbelief to some of what NIST has to say, but when it contradicts known facts, we have to be suspicious.

Bezant? He says things he has no way of knowing. Is he intentionally lying when he talks about the "community of engineers?" We have no way of knowing that, and he is an expert, but when over 500 lesser experts disagree with him, we have to evaluate what he says objectively. In that context, we really should say "according to Bazant, the community of engineers rejects...." It's about HONESTY.Wowest (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing for has no place in Wikipedia. Wild conspiracy theories can't be used to evaluate the credibility of sources, and the sources in question pass WP:RS with flying colours. The federal government isn't considered a "suspect" by anyone except fringe theorists and our article must reflect this per WP:UNDUE. Even if we take the claims of expert support from the CD supporters at face value they don't represent anything more than a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of experts in the fields in question. This is still original synthesis to advance a viewpoint. Hut 8.5 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Yeah, kinda new, where should I add these links: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html They seem relevant, but I'm not sure where they would go. Thanks Soxwon (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You could put them in an external link section or cite them as references somewhere. There is an article on the collapse of the World Trade Center, they might be better off there. Hut 8.5 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add them as references, but it didn't seem right, I think the external link is what I was looking for. Thank you Soxwon (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

JOM only says "The editor or advisor acquires a prospective manuscript, both review it and consider the merit and compatibility of the paper with the proposed technical emphasis topic. Usually, this process takes about a month.", so there may be doubt about whether this is really peer-reviewed. --Cs32en (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics

I don't know if this is a problem with this article specifically, but I posted this on some other articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories and thought it might be helpful here.

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not supposed to represent any sides of an issue. You present facts, and then present citations so those facts can be verified. I dispute the neutrality of this article based on the title. I feel the title of the article is not neutral. The title infers its not true before the reader has a chance to read any data. The word conspiracy should not be in the title. Rtconner (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We do present facts. It is a fact that Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11 and it is a fact that these attacks brought down the WTC, not controlled demoltion. As for the title, you'll need reliable sources to back you up. We already looked it up and the vast majority of reliable sources about controlled demolition on 9/11 refer to it as a conspiracy theory. Regardless, I'd suggest you make future posts in the thread about the title as this one was just a helpful reminder. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, we are supposed to represent view points on an issue. Please read the policy pages I linked to in my original post to this thread. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt think a conspiracy theory page was a reliable source anyway since its not based on factOttawa4ever (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This line is deceptive

"Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[18][19][20] and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation.[21] " I think this line leaves the impression that engineers were surprised by the collapses after the planes struck, when, I believe, the articles themselves expressed surprise at 9/11 generally. Additionally, we should be clear that when we say that engineers considered explosives as an explanation, they considered the explanation and found it to be absurd. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Much agreed, Also source [21] is from 8 days after 9/11. It would seem to be pretty unrealistic that an engineer could accurately assess accuraetly the event in that short of time Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aude compiled a list of engineers' statements about the collapse in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 here, most of them don't indicate surprise that the towers fell. I agree this ought to be removed. Hut 8.5 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read Bazants paper again. Quote:To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise since the collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Wayne (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A very similar sentence was removed from Collapse of the World Trade Center because it did not represent the majority of the sources.[4] To be consistent we should remove it from here. Hut 8.5 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not have to "represent the majority of the sources". The claim is not disputed so as long as it is reliably sourced then it is relevant and should stay. Wayne (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is accurate. Everyone was surprised at 911 but that is not what the engineers are refering to. It is clear that they were surprised by the collapses themselves from an engineering viewpoint as it was believed to be virtually impossible given the state of pre 911 knowledge. If such was not the case then there would have been no need for NIST to investigate as NIST themselves admit. That at least one engineer considered explosives is not disputed and that he changed his mind later does not alter the accuracy of the sentence. Don't give conspiracy theorists ammunition to support their claims of censorship guys. Wayne (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Explosion: What Kind of Bomb Could Have Pulverized Everything?

[edit] Recommend renaming this article

There is no "hypothesis" that controlled demolition brought down the WTC. There are "conspiracy theories" that this occurred, but thats all. I recommend and urge we retitle this article to properly reflect what this article discusses, namely the conspiracy theories. So I think that retitling it to [[Controlled demolition conspiracy theories about the collapse of the World Trade Center]] would be the most accurate title which reflects the information in the article.--MONGO 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mongo. I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or do we use newspaper terminology? A conspiracy theory is who did it and why while a hypothesis is what happened. A conspiracy theory requires a hypothesis as a basis. To use newspaper terminology is inappropriate and could even be POV.
Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. Wayne (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources talk about "controlled demolition" and then go on to describe it as a conspiracy theory. A hypothsis is a scientific proposal that has yet to be proven. Things that are patently false are not called hypotheses. Only Truther literature uses the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". Therefore, in accordance with our general practice on Wikipedia to call things by what they are, I think this article should be named World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. See also Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, October surprise conspiracy theory. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename it. Isn't a hypothesis something that can be falsified? But to the point, calling it the "controlled demolition hypothesis" is substituting what some guys on the internet think best for what the sources say. That's original research. We should describe things as the sources describe them. To the extent they talk about this at all, they do so in the context of the 911 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it that several editors with a known bias suggest a name change using false information in support and six hours later it is a done deal? If it had been a move by conspiracy theorists they ould have been blocked if not topic banned. Since the reasons given for the change are not valid (have you even read the reliable sources?) I request the name be reverted and time given for editors to comment. Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Are you suggesting NIST is not a reliable source? If Nist is not reliable then how about Bazant who uses the term? Manuel Garcia? A physicist and engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses the phrase Controlled demolition hypothesis in his article titled We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 as does Pierre Sprey in his The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition. Even Shermer called it the planned demolition hypothesis. Wayne (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• @Wayne, Conspiracy theorists are definitely not on equal footing at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts. Jehochman ^Talk 11:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• A name change seems perfectly reasonable to me. WP:NAME says that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and when the controlled demolition ideas are discussed in reliable sources they are labelled as conspiracy theories, even in academic journals. Furthermore I should note that the article's title was one of the reasons why it failed a GA review in 2008. NIST reports use phrases like "allegations of controlled demolition" or "hypothetical blast scenarios" to describe parts of the idea. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest to rename the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition allegations", as the term "allegation", according to the Wiki entry, describes "a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove" (without at the same time implying that the claim would be about the existence of a conspiracy). --Cs32en (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• You sound a lot like prior editors who were banned from this page, and I notice that you have a very short edit history, focusing on 9/11 conspiracy theory topics. So, have you ever edited Wikipedia before under a different userid? Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not answer your question earlier, as my account was temporarily blocked. I am also using an account on the German Wikipedia, which you can find here. I have never edited Wikipedia under a different userid.

There seem to exist considerable cultural differences between Wikis of different countries. For example, if you log out from the English Wikipedia, you see the following text:

"You are now logged out. This computer may be used to browse and edit Wikipedia without a username, or for another user to log in."

Logging out from the German Wikipedia, the notice reads:

"You are now logged out. You can continue to use Wikipedia (your edits will be registered with your IP adress), or you can log in again.

(I do not think anyone using Wikipedia for any extended period of time should use an IP adress.) --Cs32en (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There are big differences. By now you are aware that this article is a battlezone, and that this talk page has been engaging in circular discussions with tendentious editors and banned editors using sock puppets. Please forgive us for being suspicious. 9/11 is not some minor event. The media in New York cover evering single detail and angle that has any legitimacy. If you need to look to far distant media to find verification of something, that something is likely to be quite dubious. There is an online community of Truthers who are lobbying quite heavily to promote their conspiracy theories. It is not surprising that they occasionally dupe somebody into publishing something. My concern is that these folks not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform for their propaganda. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that only New York media is reliable and other sources dubious is laughable. U.S. media is widely known as unreliable on some topics. There is no online community of truthers as exists for the opposite viewpoint although I accept that though I have not seen evidence of one I may be wrong. I doubt that there is more than minimal contact between them and lobbying is non existant. My concern is that reliably sourced good faith edits are treated as using Wikipedia as a "platform for their propaganda" if any of a certain group don't like it. Unless an editor has a history of propaganda treat them as you wish your edits to be treated instead of dismissing everything you dont agree with. Wayne (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removals of the new paper

[edit] Removed Information

It seems Mr. Jehochman is either forgetting that wikipedia is 100% transparent and can be followed by anyone anywhere, or else he deliberately wishes to be seen as trying to obscure even discussion of potential criminal evidence to a crime scene. I would not be surprised if more and more lurkers come out of the woodwork with this kind of leak being reported, but it does not mean they are all "sockpuppets" or "single purpose accounts", it just means lots of unconnected people are wondering the same thing. No Time Toulouse (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted user intimidation

[edit] Horizontal Ejections of Steel

[edit] Head of FBI Counterterrorism Division on Controlled Demolition hypothesis

[edit] Disinformation section needed

[edit] A conspiracy theory

Since "conspiracy theory" hasnt been probably defined on the wikipedia page, the terminology shouldt be used in naming other articles, because it destroys the validity of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.82.240 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should reject attempts at wikilawyering by a sock or meat puppet account. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Head of FBI Counterterrorism Division on Controlled Demolition hypothesis

I propose to include the following information in this article:

The FBI does not exclude alternative theories about the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, from its investigation. Michael J. Heimbach, head of the FBI Counterterrorism Division has characterized the hypothesis, brought forward by Richard Gage, that the buildings of the World Trade Center would have collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions,^[1] as "an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis".^[2]

1. ^ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
2. ^ Letter from Michael J. Heimbach, Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, National Security Branch, to Harold Saive (Dec. 22, 2008)

With regard to the relevance and verifiability this information, I would like to add the following:

• The FBI is, of course, a well-known institution, and its views are highly relevant in the context of this article. Michael J. Heimbach, who expresses these views in his capacity as Assistant Director at the FBI, is certainly not a Truther.

• Wikipedia is not about finding out the truth (WP:Verifiability), and this article should not be about finding out the truth, either. This article is about a minority viewpoint, as its title indicates, so the following policy item from WP:SOURCES is relevant: "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them" (emphasis by me).

• With regard to the source of this letter, I am very well aware that it is not a peer-reviewed paper. However, if the letter would have been forged or manipulated, the FBI would have taken effective steps against the publication of the PDF file, and more than three months after its publications, there would be some trace of any such action on the internet. Cirumstantial evidence, therefore, indicates that the source is reliable.

• I have added the information above, with (almost) the same wording (e.g., the FBI is the "US-American federal police" in the german text), in the section on "Conspiracy theories" of the main German article on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on March 8. As of today, no other editor has either modified this paragraph or objected to the inclusion of it. --Cs32en (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't use unreliable fringe theorist sources to back up statements about anything other than the opinions of the group that published the source. This includes statements commenting on the level of the acceptance of the fringe theory, and we have to be especially careful if we are dealing with statements by real people. The fact that the FBI hasn't requested that the material be removed certainly doesn't make it reliable (see WP:RS for things that do), and decisions on the German Wikipedia have no effect on the English Wikipedia (and vice versa). Hut 8.5 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that including this material is not a good idea. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions. We merely assemble what is reported by reliable sources. If it were verifiable and relevant, it would appear in a reliable source, such as the New York Times (which has covered 9/11 in very great detail). We should not look to distant, minor, or exotic sources, nor should be be drawing inferences based on speculation. This article in particular has been the subject of intense speculation, lobbying and attempts at publishing original research. We should very strictly apply Wikipedia's verifiability, neutral point of view and biography of living persons policies here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a big difference between saying it's "interesting" and "backed by thorough research" and saying it's true. There are all sorts of mad theories which are interesting and it is a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to be obsessive and thus produce reams of research - of course, such research tends to quietly ignore anything inconvenient to its pre-existing conclusions, which is why it does not generally get published in reliable independent peer-reviewed sources. The controlled demolition theory is a classic conspiracy theory, and this is just one more example of supporting conspiracy theories by demanding proof of a negative. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Heimbach or the FBI would think that the hypothesis is true. But they say they do not exclude it from their investigation, which at least means that the do not think there is sufficient evidence to declare with certainty that it is false. --Cs32en (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was in 5th grade, I was taught that a "hypothesis" was an "educated guess." Not just a guess, but an *educated* guess. It is unfortunate that some editors on Wikipedia choose to act as gatekeepers by insisting that the New York Times is an unquestioningly reputable source when all one has to do is look at the Jayson Blair scandal. It is likewise unfortunate that these same editors have gotten to the point where they can not see the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific study and a conspiracy theory. Clearly the only "agenda" is not by "truthers" but by those folks who wish to marginalize the controlled demolition hypothesis using the term "conspiracy theory," which has become a byword for "wacky nutcase idea." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameelyun (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! You are starting to get the point. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing wacky, nutcase ideas. There are plenty of websites for that. This isn't one of them. Go elsewhere if that's your agenda. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So why are there any number of articles on Wikipedia about Flat Earth etc., and there is even an explicit policy on fringe theories, both in articles about the subject of such theories and in articles about such theories themselves? --Cs32en (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're following NPOV and RS, we're not promoting wacky, nutcase ideas, we're debunking them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither about promoting nor about debunking ideas. It is about presenting ideas in rough proportion to their notability. --Cs32en (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Popular Mechanics and NIST's report regarding the controlled demolition conspiracy theories? They debunk. So should we. It would be against WP:NPOV not to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Jehochman: Thank you for acknowledging that you DO have an agenda to marginalize the hypothesis is a "nutcase wacko conspiracy theory." Wikipedia is for finding information. The controlled demolition hypothesis exists, and it is backed explicitly (in writing, if just by petition signature) by hundreds of relevant professionals with appropriate credentials, and likely by thousands more. Not only that, the FBI has acknowledged that the hypothesis is "backed by thorough research and analysis." These facts alone should make anyone's head turn. As such, sir, it is merely YOUR OPINION that it is a "wacky nutcase idea" and you are using your editorial power to attempt to marginalize the idea with the negative term "conspiracy theory" which puts it in the category of Elvis sitings, UFO's etc. I am very disappointed. EDIT: Do you remember the Jayson Blair scandal? Do you remember the "60 Minutes" accuracy scandals? I'm disappointed that you unquestioningly seem to believe that the New York Times is a de facto reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameelyun (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that your username sounds like Chameleon. Do you change appearances to blend in? Are you avoiding scrutiny by using multiple accounts? Yes, it is my agenda to prevent people from using this website for wikiality. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please address personal issues at the talk pages of the respective editors, or at the Administrators' noticeboard, if necessary, Jehochman. Bringing these things up here merely disrupts the discussion. --Cs32en (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first account on Wikipedia because I was angered enough by the censorship on your part to register and give my $0.02. Thank you for admitting you are indeed biased. -- Preceeding comment added by Kameelyun (diff) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Bart Simpson: 'conspiracy theory' is like 'bitch' (female dog)

The first sentence as written says that "theories claim."

The problem is the evidence which might be dealt with as such, which is dealt with as evidence in many countries around the world, and it will be interesting to see the US writers slowly catch up with many countries.

This term used (c.t.) is a perfect one for one who wishes to claim that he "means in a good way" a vague phrase that has cold meanings, like the fun way rascal children like to use the word "bitch" and say they mean "female dog" (think Bart Simpson).

As the families and firefighters note, to criticize evidence (calling it theory) makes sense if we are playing in the land of Simpsons whose double meanings are indeed a joke.

wiki quote:

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be (*) a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, (*) a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and (*) a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some (*) for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is (*) that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

Here come the dogs ..

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The 2008 article "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" in The Environmentalist

I propose also adding, as a significant event, the following peer-reviewed article published in Springer's science journal to the History section: "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ Perscurator (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still a fringe theory. Per WP:NPOV, "each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." One or two articles do not outweigh the thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC by crashing two jets into them. Come back when you have a few hundred more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article, of course, is named "Controlled Demolition conspriracy theory", not "Refutations of Controlled Demolition conspiracy theory", so the article is relevant, even if it would not be relevant in an article on "9/11 theories". Significant means significant in the context of the article, as defined by its title. You start gaming the policies here. --Cs32en (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to fairly represent all sides to an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint. There are few, if any, reliable sources that say that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition. Even if there were any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of reliable sources backing of that perspective. As I already pointed out, there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC by crashing two jets into them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for presenting the non-mainstream sources in the same way as the mainstream sources. Your reasoning would be correct if the article would be about the subject itself (in this case, the title would be "Destruction of the World Trade Center"). In the context of this article, however, it is not a question of relative weight, but a question of the wording which we use when we present the sources and their content. This is an article about a non-mainstream hypothesis, so I think it's obvious that the relevant statements and arguments of its proponents should be included. Objections to these statements and arguments should be included as well, according to their relevance. --Cs32en (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on removing reference to the "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" article?

The article can be found here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I returned a reference to it as it is significant - obviously for the 9/11 truth movement, but also because the international group of scientists have identified material that in their tests turned out to be even more energetic than traditional thermite. After that, I received this kind of notification:

Some users of Wikipedia have been restoring text about 'active thermitic material' to a variety of 9/11-related articles, without getting consensus on any Talk page that the material belongs. A variety of regular editors keep removing this change. You may take this as one of the signs that 'active thermitic material' does not have consensus on Wikipedia. We believe that you are capable of realizing this, and of knowing that you should not restore contentious material to an article under Arbcom sanctions without getting wide support. If you continue, you make be blocked for edit warring.

I don't think there is consensus on either removing or keeping the reference to the article. It does sound strange that the Wikipedia article, which evidently for years had included the word "hypothesis", was hastily renamed using the biased and ahistorical "conspiracy theory" label after the publication of the active thermitic material article. How can the editors defending the official conspiracy theory(1) just decide that the name of the article has to be changed and then change it hours later although there was no consensus for the change? And then proceed to block anyone who challenges their view of what should be presented in a Wikipedia article? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Perscurator (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) A theory that is crumbling by the day, see an upcoming book by John Farmer, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2009/041409_government_agreed.htm

"Make no mistake, Farmer is not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, however, Farmer's testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities' version of events today, is a lie - according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny."

The reasons for the name change were given in that thread. BTW, there's no such thing as the "official conspiracy theory". That's a term used predominently by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Farmer is not saying it was an inside job, so what does this have to do with controlled demolition? RxS (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That should be on the 911 page and not here as it is not really part of conspiracy theories (apart from a "conspiracy" to hide failings by the military). Farmers views are documented in reliable sources and are not in dispute. Wayne (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The arogance boggles the mind. The reasons for the name change were given in that thread. There were only six reasons given for the name change. All but number five are crap if not outright lies and even that one is dubious. Either the editors are morons, biased or they have not read the sources. If the later they should not be editing here. That's not to say there are no legitimate reasons for a name change as I can think of a couple without even trying. Lets have a look at the "reasons" given.

• 1. "There is no "hypothesis" that controlled demolition brought down the WTC". Refuted by NIST.
• 2. No reliable sources use hypothesis: Refuted. NIST, Bazant and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory all use the term and do not use the term conspiracy theory.
• 3. "Only Truther literature uses the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". See above.
• 4. Using hypothesis is original research: See above.
• 5. "When the controlled demolition ideas are discussed in reliable sources they are labelled as conspiracy theories": See above.
• 6. Only American media is legitimate and they use conspiracy theory: WTH!!! Wayne (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, those are some great straw man arguments. Since you have offered nothing of substance, there is no reason to revisit the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that some sources don't refer to the idea as a conspiracy theory or that some refer to it as a hypothesis isn't the deciding factor. We are supposed to use whichever label is most recognisable to an English speaker, and the most common label is "conspiracy theory". For some examples, look at the academic paper cited in reference 1: "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development", and it didn't take me long to find that the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times and Time have all described the idea as a conspiracy theory. In addition calling it a "hypothesis" does imply some degree of respectability, and ideas that are rejected aren't generally called hypotheses. Hut 8.5 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see strawman arguments, I see someone expressing real concerns that are being met with derision and attack. I find it absurd that the thermite article is being censored from this page, of all pages. The funny thing is that the censorship itself is now becoming news. Just think how this will look when the next paper is published, with the same findings, in another journal, and again and again. The more this gets out there, the more that this incident on wikipedia will be able to be used to show what really goes on here. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I was the first editor to agree with Mongo's suggestion and I gave my reason as this: " I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, controlled demolition is often described as a hypothesis brought forward in the context of conspiracy theories. Irrespective of the disagreements about verifiability and relevance, a controlled demolition is not a conspiracy, so a claim to that effect cannot be a conspiracy theory. This is a question of language, not a question of Wikipedia policy. The article may of course refer to conspiracy theories in the introduction. --Cs32en (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, when I looked it up, the vast majority referred to it as a conspiracy theory, not a hypothesis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

ScholarTruthJustice: Please do not insert 9/11 "truth" spam into other Wikipedia articles just because you can't get it in here.[6] Fortunately, one of the other editors on the Thermite article reverted your changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking a user after one edit and a few comments on the Talk page?

As I noted above, after I returned a reference to the Bentham article supporting the controlled demolition "conspiracy theory", I was immediately warned that I could be blocked from Wikipedia. After that sigle edit, I only wrote two comments on this Talk page. After that, I found the following on my own talk page:

I've filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. See

WP:AE. Jehochman ^[[User

^{talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? I appeal to all fair-minded editors: do not allow Wikipedia to go down this route. Perscurator (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perscurator, this is being discussed on some other pages: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Problem_with_recurring_sock_puppetry., Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Perscurator. --Cs32en (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I checked it out.

[edit] Respectful and serious coverage of the nanothermite residue article in reliable sources in Danmark

Now, this is what I do not understand: there has been a reference to an earlier Bentham article in the History section, evidently for some time. What would be the problem with referring to the new article, which Steven E. Jones, for example, is likely to regard as considerably more important than the earlier article - which he, in fact, is likely to regard as the most important of the numerous peer-reviewed articles that he has authored or coauthored in his lifetime?

Perhaps it is worth noting that the results of the article have received extensive mainstream coverage in Danmark - and, unlike by some editors here, have been treated with seriousness and respect. For a list of mainstream references to it in Danmark, see "9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark": http://www.911blogger.com/node/19805

At the top of that page there is, for example, a link to a detailed interview of Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen (the lead author of the article) in TV2, perhaps the most respected TV channel in Danmark. The interview is conducted in a very serious and civil manner. The main thing that seems to surprise the interviewer is why this hasn't been discovered earlier. Note that the interview has been subtitled in English.

Danmark's TV2 and the other mainstream media listed on the above-mentioned page certainly qualify for "reliable sources" by all Wikipedia criteria. If they take the nanothermite article seriously, so should Wikipedia.

But, as I have pointed out above, there is no logic in preventing a reference to a more significant article in a journal already referred to in the section under discussion.

And where is the name change being discussed at the moment? There is clearly no consensus to change it at all, so it is absolutely unacceptable that some consider it their prerogative to change it and then regard all future changes as a break of consensus. Perscurator (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that - in general - our coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories has been following NPOV particularly well. Although this particular article is one of the better ones, there are others that are are very much in need of attention.

Judging from the cites used, the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and especially the 9/11 Truth Movement articles are based disproportionately on fringe sources. I've been going through the cites listed on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article and I have not yet completed my analysis, but there are at least 70 cites to 9/11 conspiracy Web sites. By contrast, there are only 17 cites to bona-fide reliable sources that are actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is not acceptable and are most certainly violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. There are an additional 60 cites to reliable sources that aren't actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories and many are being used as a back door way of promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have to research the policy but these may be in violation of WP:SYN. But again, I haven't gone through each one yet; I'm currently about 2/3rds done. I haven't even begun analyzing the 9/11 Truth Movement, but at a quick glance, 12 out of the first 15 cites are to fringe sources. That's absurdly ridiculous and needs to changed.

My point is that past mistakes don't justify new mistakes. There are more than enough reliable sources in English on this topic. From a technical perspective, I don't think there is anything of significance that NIST or Popular Mechanics hasn't already covered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)