Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

The Peer Review is over

The review itself is archived (see the top of the main talk page), but by no means all the ideas form the "to do" list have been worked on.

We do want to attempt Featured Article Status with this, so please look at the actions and grab one and work steadily through it. Fiddle Faddle 12:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a very encouraging review, I'd day. Once we get the references done properly, I want to go through the text and get it all, so to speak, to come from the same (neutral) place. Just a tone issue.--Thomas Basboll 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There are still very significant problems with this article. As an example, I'll cite Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Thermite_hypothesis where it quotes "molten metal" and has two cites to supposedly support this assertion. In the first cite, the PDF referred to does not even have the word "molten" anywhere in the document. In the second cite, the term "molten MATERIAL" is used (emphasis mine). I corrected this some time ago, but it has since been made wrong again. It is important to the conspiracy theory for this material to be metal or some kind. NIST acknowledges that this might be aluminum but they do not know and as such refer to it as material; this is the NPOV stance, barring any revelations as to the content of the material. Since we can't get samples of it, we'll never know. Any assertions that the NIST is saying "molten METAL" are false. This entire article needs to be reviewed with this sort of problem in mind. The cited sources must support what is being said. It is my opinion that this article will never achieve even good article status because of problems like this that are constantly, unendingly introduced into the article. --Durin 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
While the sources should obviously support the relevant claims, I think we need to distinguish two issues. First, the CDH is clearly based in part on the claim that there was molten metal, or at least evidence of molten metal. Molten metal is one of the features of the collapses that the hypothesis is offered to explain. That part is not hard to document (any of our four major proponents could be cited here.) The next question is how good the reports of molten metal are: this isn't really a serious issue for this article. While we can offer some mainstream sources to give the reader an indication of what the CDers are referring to, we can't (and shouldn't) try to settle this issue. We can help the reader by confirming that there is footage of something flowing out of the tower, and that NIST has offered its own interpretation of it (thus confirming its existence). We can also cite newspaper reports and oral histories that mention molten metal (even molten steel) -- there is already some of this in the article. But, again, I agree with Durin that putting the right sources in there is important.--Thomas Basboll 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been fixed in the now current version. But, I expect it will change again at some point. The more global issue is what people have raised at the AfDs, and which has been decried on IRC and other forums about this and other conspiracy related articles that have high traffic; there is a very vocal, insistent, and persistent group of believers in these theories that will continue to attempt to push their pet theory in their direction. This article has suffered horribly from this effect, and I don't expect this to stop any time soon. This is a serious, ongoing problem with this article ever reaching featured status.
WP:AGF please. People on both sides push articles in their directions. Hopefuly, good editing wins over personal issues. SalvNaut 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary". When you've faced this over and over and over and over again, assuming good faith isn't an option. --Durin 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There are other examples of this in the article, still extant now. For example, at Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#World_Trade_Center_Seven it says "No steel-frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire". This is irrelevant. WTC 7 had considerable damage to the building that compromised the south face to a depth of ~25%. The vast majority of disasters do not have a single causal event. Yet, this article tries to paint WTC 7 as, according to official reports anyway, collapsing solely due to fire. This is important to the conspiracy theory aspects because there being no other steel framed building collapsing solely from fire appears to be a point in their favor. It's irrelevant. Yet, it still appears in the article. I also have concerns regarding the sources used in this article, in particular sites that violated WP:RS. There's a number of links to such sites.
Please notice that you try to push your own POV here. And WP:OR. The article is about the hypothesis, so obviously it will tend to present reality more on the proponents side. And you agree that it WTC7 is described according to official reports - that is very good because CD hypothesis contests against those reports exactly, against official account, not against debunkers, yet (maybe a little against media). I'm not sure what would you like to put in this part of the article instead. I have a feeling that it would be something that would present "debunkers POV". There is still no official report about WTC7, and while information about the damage to WTC7 should be presented we cannot judge if its extent undermines CD hypothesis or not. Remind the danish demolition expert Jovenko. SalvNaut 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether I'm pushing a POV here is irrelavant. This is not an article. It's a talk page. NPOV does not apply to talk pages. You argue that we should expect reality to be bent in this article to favor the proponents side. Why? Why should we violate NPOV just because this happens to be a non-mainstream theory? I have no desire to push my own POV into this article and make it a debunker's article. You're missing my point entirely. Constant, repeated efforts have been made to make this article NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNPOV and it never fails to be undone. That's the point. Not my POV. Not yours. Not John Doe Conspiracy Theorist or John Doe Government man. --Durin 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This has all been fought over umpteen times. It will continue to be so, as long as there is no effective means of countering a vocal, highly motivated population of POV pushers. --Durin 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Durin...for example the dust cloud section says that the pancake theory has been abandoned and has a ref to a article that as far as I can see doesn't say anything about it being abandoned. A few months ago I started going through the references (in the talk page archive somewhere) and fixing/removing them but they slowly (or not so) returned. When I look, I find the same issues Durin speaks of. A real overhaul is needed but it'd just turn into a fight, don't really know what to do. RxS 21:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither do I. As noted, we lack an ability to counteract a vocal, insistent POV population in an effective manner. --Durin 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If we roll over and play dead instead of correcting the references and removing any remaining POV then "we" (if there is a we) might as well submit the article for deletion ourselves and all give reasons for deletion, together with pressing for protection against recreaton in any guise. The POV pushers either pro or anti the hypothesis need to understand that the real world does not accept either view. That an article is contested does not of itself prevent FAC status. I also have concernes about citation to sites that fail WP:RS if they are used to illustrate the article. If they are used as examples of "non reliable sources" that are relied on by the hypothesis then they are a documentable and verifiable part of the hypothesis. Fiddle Faddle 21:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't a matter of trying to push the POV of this article one way or another. It's about trying diligently to maintain Npov and various good intentioned editors failing to achieve this because of POV pushers. That's the problem. It seems no matter how hard we try, the article drifts (or speeds, depending on the day of the week) into bad POV. There's problem after problem with this article as it now stands. These have been corrected before, and it creeps back in. How many times should we keep on correcting it and fighting the ongoing battles against it? --Durin 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I said anything about a desire to push a POV. NPOV is essential. Now I have got to the point when I wish I had never got involved with this article at all, simply because of the insane partisan attitudes that it provokes, but I am damned if I will let the pros or the antis beat me. You see I don't care a fig whether there was a conspiracy or not. I care about documenting the social phenomenon that proposes that there was one. There are far more pleasant articles to edit, and I may take a break from it, but NPOV will win the day, as will RS and all the other things that are required. Fiddle Faddle 23:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe it will. On this article, it has yet to do so and efforts to make it so have failed. --Durin 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please join in completely and get to work. Fiddle Faddle 11:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks but no thanks. I already did my turn on this and closely related articles. --Durin 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since being spun out of the 9/11CT article, this article has improved steadily. This goes especially for the sources, though a few non-RS's may remain. There are some factual questions as well that need to be looked at. One of them may be the official "fire-induced" collapse of WTC 7. My view on that is that the article follows the official sources very closely and gets the issue right. But we can talk about that. It's not about POV any longer, it's about getting the details of the controversy right.--Thomas Basboll 06:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Was WTC 7 officially brought down by fire?

As Durin notes above, we've been over this before. In any case, on page 4 of the FEMA report (which the section cites), we are told that among the buildings surrounding the towers "two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse". These are named as WTC 5 and 7. The report then says that "the collapse of these structures is particularly significant in that, prior to these events, no protected steel-frame structure, the most common form of large commercial construction in the United States, had ever experienced a fire-induced collapse. Thus, these events may highlight new building vulnerabilities, not previously believed to exist." As I see it, FEMA and the CDers simply agree on the "particular significance" of the collapse of Building 7. They disagree about the most likely explanation. And that is all the article says. Now, I know that various debunkers have emphasized the damage to WTC 7, but I have not yet found any official support for the idea that whatever debris damage there may have been turns the collapses into something other than "fire-induced" (even building 5, which was very badly damaged as far as I recall, is described in this way). If there is a source that can correct my impression of this then this just means we have to note that the CDH emerged as an attempt to solve an (officially recognized) puzzle about WTC 7 that was eventually (officially) solved by the discovery of sufficient structural damage. Like I say, my sense of the status of the investigations, however, is that its still a fire theory.--Thomas Basboll 09:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably correct that the only published reliable material on the collapse of WTC does currently state fire was the culprit...but NIST is not done yet on this issue. There is also this report though it is not published, it has plenty of images showing obvious damage prior to the collapse.--MONGO 10:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and the article does note that the investigations are not done. Most of the damage that that page identifies is also part of the official record. (BTW it seems to be a pro-CDH page. Is that right? I agree it is definitely not RS.) The official story does not say there wasn't any damage (nor do CDers claim that the official story says that). The damage simply wasn't significant when compared with the end result.--Thomas Basboll 10:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

911ct

Subject(s) of 911ct are mutually exclusive and name violets wp:npov, wp:wta… and so on… I would (yet again) kindly ask that this template is removed until we reach some sort of neutral ground. As you may have noticed, this already resulted in edit warring between quite a # of editors; as a result, template and some of related pages were/are locked in very unfortunate state and with extremely poor wording. Lovelight 15:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using conspiracy theory in article titles. Neutrality is not half way between you and me, it's the result of presenting the sources. The reliable sources say the conspiracy theories around 9/11, including controlled demolition, are conspiracy theories. That's why the main article is called 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the navigation template is Template:911ct. The ct is for conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
If you would kindly point to few of those reliable sources? I'd like to see the illustration of what are you talking about. For example I'd like to see the reliable source that would directly link cd hypothesis with the term conspiracy. Lovelight 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We've discussed this already. Lovelight 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
We've discussed this already. Lovelight 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So we have. I guess you do not find repetition convincing either. Cheers, Tom Harrison Talk 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me reformulate, I've already invited you to the discussion, you haven’t really responded to any of the arguments, you did use your spade though. Cheers. Lovelight 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't think the template issue is very pressing, let me offer three sources. Bazant and Verdure say that there are outsiders trying to prove a conspiracy with explosives. Then there is the "Professors of Paranoia" Chronicle of Higher Education piece. And, finally, there is David Ray Griffin, who pretty openly -- if somewhat ironically -- calls his view (which includes CD) a conspiracy theory. That means we've got the label on both sides (though in non-neutral terms) and down the middle (journalism).--Thomas Basboll 16:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, and to expend it a bit further, if we are recognizing there are these non-neutral terms', then let's recognize them, as encyclopedia we are not defined by different sides of the same coin, or journalism. You've just pointed to the same pov we are trying to illustrate (and to call it spade???). Lovelight 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, I'd also agree that it isn’t very pressing issue (however, it does have broad implication, as well as circulation), that's way I'm puzzled by this urge to stick it everywhere. Lovelight 17:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point. For the purposes of this article, which is about a controversial hypothesis, arguments "for" and "against" it must be seen as non-neutral, wheras reporting and academic study can, in some cases, be described as neutral (in the middle). Non-netural argument must simply be identified as such ("proponents say", "critics argue") while neutral statements ("WTC 7 collapses at 5:20pm") must sourced to less involved parties. (I'd say that NIST and FEMA can in many cases be counted as neutral, even though NIST does have a position on CD. Longer argument there.) What we are dealing with here is a series of accounts of 9/11 that have been marginalized as "conspiracy theories". That's all I take that label to mean, which is why I have become increasingly accepting of it. There is, as it were, always a set of invisible scare quotes around it. I do understand those who are more deeply offended by it, however.--Thomas Basboll 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


"A phone call could have cleared up these misconceptions," Fetzer said, "but Alfonso probably knew how he wanted to spin this. We have proven that the official account cannot possibly be true and are trying to figure out how it was done." He smiled and said, "It is ironic that more accurate information about Scholars for 9/11 Truth can be found in HUSTLER than on CBS NEWS," adding, "and they say that the standards of journalism in this country are slipping!" [1] Lovelight 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of these links? They add nothing tothe article, and cannot, often, be used. These fail WP:RS and are thus imteresting but irrelevant. The talk page is to discuss the article, not one's own political or other opinion. Even on talk pages wikipedia is not a soapbox Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why are you picking on me:)? Tom offered far more interesting shotcut's than I did. Well since you insist, I've used these to clearly show there are alternative perspectives to all this & that our insisting on term conspiracy in relationship to the control demolition hypothesis is pushing of unnecessary pov. imho, of course. Lovelight 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not picking on you. Please do not attempt to personalise this, it will not be useful or effective. Please stop using Wikipedia as a soap box. Fiddle Faddle 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Just relax a bit will you? I've put a smile there, didn’t I? Lovelight 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In extraordinary turn of events you could simply give all this a little more thought, who knows, you might end-up with change of opinion? Lovelight 00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that the various pages surrounding the 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists document a social phenomenon. That is the thing that is documented, no more and no less. Some of those articles are poor articles and require POV to be stripped away, but they still document or seek to document that phenomenon. Whether there was such a conspiracy or not is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is the documentation of the social phenomenon of belief in and support for the theory and theorists. Much time is wasted by dealing with the ideas ofpeople who simply do not understand what a Wikipedia article really is. Fiddle Faddle 09:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No time is wasted in teaching people what a Wikipedia article is. Over the past half a year of so, I have been learning (1) how the WTC collapsed, (2) what people out there believe about the collapse of the WTC, and (3) how Wikipedia works. One of the important aspects in re (3) is that boldly editing an encyclopedia article about a topic in an attempt to make it conform with your sense of the facts gives you an indication of how well grounded your sense of those facts is. Edits that initially seem disruptive sometimes indicate a need for better sourcing, clearer language, and even fact-checking. Both the initial edit and the article at the time may have been in error. (Cf. the first sentence, which took while to, as you put it Fiddle, "crack".) Like I say, I have only seen this article improving, no matter how hopeless and thankless other people may think the task is.--Thomas Basboll 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, teaching is never wasted. Excllent distinction. I am simply looking at "dealing" with people who know better (0.9 probability), and who are treading the fine line and tiptoeing around WP:POINT. Fiddle Faddle 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another triumph of hope over experience

Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting symposium… what is it? Some sort of omnibus which further illustrates poor connotations and pov perspectives related to the term conspiracy? Lovelight 18:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Why would you rename your original sophism? I've seen this sort of action before… and I deeply, deeply hope that you are not inviting any religious connotation into all this? Lovelight 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it is nothing religious; It is a quote from Samuel Johnson about second marriages. I thought it better described the links, and how I expected you to dismiss them. You ask for links, and I provide them, in spite of past experience, knowing it will not do any good. I could have instead used that quote about insanity being doing the same thing and expecting something different to happen.
I did not understand your comment about people whipping their necks, but I took it to mean you disagree.
Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for misunderstanding, I was referring to the testimony of Norman Mineta. Lovelight 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Johnson's biographer wrote, "A gentleman who had been very unhappy in marriage, married immediately after his wife died: Johnson said, it was the triumph of hope over experience." q:Samuel Johnson Tom Harrison Talk 20:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I see no point, unless you are trying to illustrate that this is lengthy discussion with only two different views? That is to say, I could have expected those same old pictures, as well as the same ol' way in which you've presented them… its very nice quote to say the least. Lovelight 21:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


TfD nomination of Template:911cd

Template:911cd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Tom Harrison Talk 17:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


"Give due notice. Please consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} --~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page." - Wikipedia:Templates for deletion Tom Harrison Talk 18:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Plumes

Re [2], what are the reliable sources for the plumes being anything other than "material ejected due to the evacuation of air as the floors collapsed?" And I see you restored the phrase 'official theory.' Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a reliable source to support the idea that plumes were anything other than what NIST says. What we need is a reliable source to confirm that these plumes are cited by proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis as evidence. (That's easily done.) Without the words "the official theory attributes" this sentence becomes a non-sequitor.--Thomas Basboll 21:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rense

Why is Tom Harrison posting articles from "Rense" as representative of the 9/11 truth movement researchers? Rense is never linked to from the main 9/11 websites, never appears at conferences, never has done a book on 9/11 and promotes hoaxes that 99% of the 9/11 researchers have openly exposed, like the 'Jews Did It' claim that Tom keeps trying to smear everyone with - Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement, Holocaust Denial Versus 9/11 Truth, etc. Find one significant 9/11 site - not a UFO hoax site like Rense, which is obviously not a 9/11 site - that promotes the idea that Silverstein being Jewish had anything to do with his being focused on. Go ahead and show me. No significant site would ever promote this because we are not anti-semites, as much as it is Tom's goal to smear this group of activists with UFO and anti-semitic writings. He's posted Rense around before but it does not represent the movement. bov 01:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Without researching it — what is a "significant" 9/11 site? (And the anti-semitic theory is notable. I remember reading about the theory shortly after 9/11. If Rense is a notable member of that group, he should be mentioned, although not necessarily in this article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

They even stated the reasons for it's collapse (I.E. the official lie) 20 minutes before the event occurred. **BUSTED!!!** Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip. An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/bbc_reported_wtc_7_collapsed_20_min_before_it_fell.htm [unreliable fringe source?]

Another page covering this (and updated on a single page) is here. bov 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a whole lot of misrepresentation of the facts. The BBC has stated that if they did claim the building was collapsing, it was an error in their reporting. But that won't stop the conpsiracy theory nonsense peddlers since they can make more money by pushing their idiocy down our throats.--Beguiled 11:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html--Beguiled 11:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Maybe it just didn't fall at free-fall speeds and took 20 minutes to finish falling down. --Tbeatty 07:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Basboll Has Quit

I was saddened to see that Thomas Basboll has quit editing from wikipedia - he created this page and he did a fantastic job of keeping it one of the very few neutral pages on the issue of the alternatives to the official version of 9/11 in existance. I hope he will consider returning. bov 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Debris removal section

I have largely expanded on this section since it seems to be the crux of arguments made by both proponents and detractors of the demolition hypothesis. I have added in additional information from NIST as well as the comments of NCST members about the adequacy of recovered steel at the WTC.

(RationalRich 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

I was dismayed to see that someone (not necessarily Rich) has reinserted the unsourced criminal accusation regarding the debris removal. Again, if someone has made this accusation, cite it. If not, it doesn't exist for Wikipedia's purposes. Gazpacho 07:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholars file challenges to NIST reports on 911

FY 2007 Information Quality Request for Corrections… just stumbled on this one, think it's interesting, and relevant… check it out. - Lovelight 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Letters that some conspiracy cranks sent to a federal department? Sure, we'll get right on that. I did get a laugh out of this interview with Judy Wood, though. Gazpacho 21:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My God, this woman is a human wreck... SalvNaut 14:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OMG! "Pennies on a windowsill". A whole new level of GIGO in Scholarly Truth Research. Weregerbil 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
There is another report that the NIST will explore demolition possibilities. The revealing part is that their starting point is explosives with strength too small to break glass since glass breakage wasn't reported. Another CT nail in the coffin is coming. --Tbeatty 02:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and yet another Doctor Zoidberg enters the scene, so how are you folks doing? Should we engage is edit war! No, better not, we'll wait a bit more, it will all be over, soon enough. :P Lovelight 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the source [3] --Tbeatty 03:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
It is extremely interesting (almost amusing) to see how you are pointing to the very same source which so desperately needs some quality improvements. I'd like to discuss implementation of the reference above, imo it is relevant and interesting… however, how can we discuss it, if you haven’t looked at it (you are aware that you've pointed to disputed report there? Are you?)… talking about the nails in the coffin and all that... Where's Aude? Tom, others? Lovelight 03:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually I wasn't aware of the relevance of this source to the request. I came across it quite independantly. Wow. Scary. I don't follow the CD stuff very closely. Rather, I read the report and it appears to be the first time the NIST will actually simulate explosive devices rather than dismiss them out of hand due to lack of evidence of explosives. Has any proponents of the CD theories addressed the overpressure problem raised by the NIST? The inference is that limiting the overpressure to less than the amount required to break glass will result in a conclusion that even if there were explosives, they would have been too weak to impact the structure. Once the definitive physics is established, the next question would be why someone who wants to destroy a building during a chaotic event such as 9/11 would limit the strenght of the overpressure wave. But to your point, Edward Haas doesn't appear to be particularly notable so his opinion is probably not notable or reliable enough to include. The NIST is though. --Tbeatty 04:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I do agree somewhat with the correction requestor that the NIST has apparently changed tactics. Rather than say there is no evidence of controlled demolitions so we won't investigate it, they are now saying that we will simply prove that controlled demolitions were a physical impossibility. The conclusion is the same but it's more of a big picture rebuttal. So when the Conspiracy Theorists show a video with a hotspot and say "How do you explain that?" the NIST can simply say "we don't know about that particular video but we do know it wasn't caused by demolitions because demolitions were a physical impossiblity." --Tbeatty 05:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
nist, and all of us, will have to deal with those 6.6 seconds… and there is nothing we can do about that. Anyway, I've jumped in from a wikibreak, sry if I've stirred things up… imo the history is unfolding as we type and I'd guess that we can wait a bit more… Lovelight 05:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so. free fall speeds on complete structural failure is not unreasonable. Depends on the mass and the resistance to the falling object. The initial pancake theory of the WTC1 (which was discounted by NIST) would have been at near free fall speeds. The mass of the falling strucure exceeds the mass of each progressive floor that there is virtually no resistance when it it collapses. Drop a bowling ball on a house cards and you will get near free fall speeds. Critical structural failure is even more likely to cause free speeds as each section begins to fall at the same time. But to get back on point, if the NIST doesn't address free fall vs. non-free fall, the answer will still be it wasn't caused by demolitions because demolitions sizes would be too small to affect the structure. What I can guarantee though, is no matter what the NIST comes up with, there will be a group of people that will claim their theory is more plausible than the NISTs (e.g. the new energy weapons theory). Two things drive those theories 1) money that the proponents make with their seminars, books and other commercial ventures and 2) the underlining desire to undermine the current administration. --Tbeatty 06:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The paper by Dr Bazant that was used to support the "progressive collapse at free-fall speeds" hypothesis in the NIST report has been rather convincingly rebutted by this paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf ; I don't know what happened on 9/11, but elastic collisions definitely absorb energy. 72.70.108.32 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is very ignorant of Bazant not to include losses of energy due to elastic collisions and stresses. How could the roof of WTC tower or upper floors provide energy to crushing if not through steel mesh of trusses? Then, a lot of energy must've been dispersed thorugh stresses of that mesh and elastic collision at the crush front. Without including this Bazant equations are meaningless. He gives upper bound estimate on energy at the crush front and uses it as a lower bound. Cherepanov rebuts Bazant in similar way[4], and pushes his own theory of fracture waves, which agrees more with observed collapse scenario, and which I could possibly believe, if ever collapses are fairly investigated and non-cd theory backed up with solid analysis (which is highly unlikely anyway). SalvNaut 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, have to disagree on those counts. Money is not an issue here, well certainly not for millions of decent folks out there, as for administration; we are talking about individuals in the government, some petty criminals, nothing more, nothing less. Lovelight 07:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Money is not an issue to the consumer of these theories. But it is very obviously a large issue for the peddlers. Try to sign up for one of these conferences. They are not free. Neither are the books. And exactly who "in the government" is a petty criminal? According to these theories, they are responisble for 3000 American deaths. That doesn't sound petty to me. It's my understanding that "is" has been redfined. Did they redefing "petty" too? --Tbeatty 07:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of my disappointment with wikipedia when it comes to 911 and other seriously disturbing articles? Let me remind you that i don’t recognize conspiracy theories; neither do i accept connotations of that expression. Honest and decent people puzzled by unanswered questions are not conspiracy theorists… It would be far easier if we would just accept the obvious mechanism of collapse, but no, we have to talk about structure and ponder upon impossible… such waste of time, imo, of course… as for petty criminals, you are absolutely right on that one, those responsible are worst mass murderers in human history.., cold, calculated, ruthless and all that follows… however, there is a whole lot of editors here, and there is a whole lot of "scientists and engineers" at nist and elsewhere who are ignoring these facts… these folks, who are blessed with fine reasoning, have willingly choose to censor, obstruct and/or blatantly lie… some may call them debunkers of the truth (lol), I'll call them petty criminals. And if you are interested in money making, why don't you look that way instead? …whatever, from my perspective State Sponsored Terrorism is not acceptable, mass murder for self gain is not acceptable. And to hear how some folks still carry that delusion of freedom agenda… well, that is sad to say the least, since we are living in times when freedom is scarce, in times when information is censored and/or suppressed… Lovelight 07:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Asking questions about unanswered minutae is perfectly acceptable. Answering those questions with a conpsiracy theory makes them conspiracy theorists. They are unequipped to answer it scientifically so they answer it in terms that make them comfortable. Tahe nakes them conspiracy theorists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) 07:25, April 2, 2007 (UTC)
I would be more impressed if the 9/11 conspiracy theorists didn't lie. The claim of "free fall speeds" seems to be just that, at least in regards tower 2. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
How about we wait until Leaphardt actually gets his injunction. Gazpacho 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
ok, on hold it is…, regards. Lovelight 04:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OIC

Gazpacho, sorry, I was looking at the wrong ref. But the next question is, what is nistreview.org, and are they a reliable source? Tom Harrison Talk 01:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Quintiere's own reliability is what matters, and NCSTAC thought it appropriate to mention his objections in its report to Congress. Gazpacho 02:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the perennial question of original reserch by synthesis, have they accurately reproduced his letter? And again, what is nistreview.org? Tom Harrison Talk 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You can e-mail him to confirm that he wrote it. I don't know what nistreview.org is and don't think it matters. Gazpacho 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really meets our standards of verifiabliity. I don't think the sourcing is adequate to include this. Maybe others have a different view. Tom Harrison Talk 02:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nistreview.org is the publsiher and as such they are the ones that need to be the RS. Unless this is a verfiable self-published source it doesn't meet the requirements. --Tbeatty 03:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom, I see what you mean about original research. If someone can't come up with a CDH advocate who has criticized the debris removal in print, then whole section has problems. This article is solely about the CDH and the controversy surrounding the CDH. Gazpacho 03:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Either we belive he wrote the letter (I have no idea why not to belive this) and then we read what he wrote. Proponents of CD always bring up the debris removal and lack of proper access to steel evidence, and this is indicated in the section with proper citations. Now, the role of editors is to put this claim in context, adding both dissonant and compliant voices from reliable people. Whether Quintiere supports CDH or not does not matter in this case. What matters is if he is a reliable person to voice opinion on debris removal. He was in National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee and he reviewed NIST work. The NCSTAC report, or this, prove that. This makes him the relevant person to include a statement of. It is him who is a RS in this case, not nistreview.org. An email to a webmaster is needed to confirm the genuineness of the letter? SalvNaut 13:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The Tarpley URL is broken, so I can't find out what he said. But the Quintiere remark is relevant only if he or some other CDH advocate has verifiably referred to it. If the article started to accumulate facts trying to shore up the CDH or critique of the CDH, that would be exactly what the "original synthesis" policy warns against. That's why I took out the Stacy Loizeaux reference, because she wasn't talking about CDH at all, while Blanchard was. Maybe there's a need for an "Investigation of the September 11, 2001 attacks" article if there isn't one already. Gazpacho 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Quintiere's remarks do not belong in this article unless we can say (and I haven't checked this out), "Tarpley cites Quintiere's critique of..." But he does seem to belong in the collapse of the World Trade Center article. See this story in the New Scientist [5]. There is a debris removal section in the collapse article, as well as a history section for developments of the theory. It may fit in there somewhere. Note the date of this article (2003). The collapse mechanism has in fact been officially revised since then. He may have been an influence, but this is also not something I've looked at yet. I think the risk of leaving it in here is definitely OR by synthesis. Q.'s criticism are not intended to imply CD.--Thomas Basboll 13:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Iron droplets in WTC dust according to Jones

Is this Youtube Video enough to source information about Jones describing iron-rich droplets found in the dust from WTC and him using this as a proof for very high temperatures during WTC collapse? Or should we wait until something is published? SalvNaut 01:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Why does Tom Harrison keep adding Wood and Reynolds to the top of the page?

Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds are openly rejected by almost everyone in the movement and are described as "agents" regularly and openly. Numerous scientists and engineers have refuted their ridiculous claims in papers in the Journal of 9/11 Studies (at least 8 letters are dedicated to that here). Physicist Greg Jenkins did the video interview with Wood to help the people to understand her thinking process (I guess some people on here don't realize that he supports the controlled demolition theory). To get a sense of what people think of these 'researchers' WITHIN the movement, read the average opinions of these people on the popular comment site, 911Blogger here,here, here, here, etc. They should not be on the top of this page without a significant qualification regarding the viewpoint that most people have of them -- "they don't speak for us." bov 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is based on nonscientific views of what happened, then I can't see why any view that can be referenced should be removed. It would be wrong to cherry pick which unsubstantiated piece of misinformation over another that should be in here, and besides, all this info here doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny anyway. Otherwise, what we end up with on this article is a POV fork of Collapse of the World Trade Center.--MONGO 09:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It is mildly interesting that one group of conspiracists is afraid the other conspiracists may be disinformation agents. We might want to note that in the article, to the extent that any of it is cited to a reliable source. The psychological implications are probably better left to the reader. 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The more I read this article, the more it seems to have become a stage for a what some might construe as a real alternative theory...it isn't. This article should document the different hypothesises that might contradict the known evidence of the case. Cherry picking what are and what aren't "accurate" alternative theories makes this article a POV fork.--MONGO 17:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's been a POV fork since inception. Despite the efforts of many, it remains a sewer hole. It should have been deleted a long time ago. I gave up on it a long time ago. --Durin 17:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes their disinformation any different from the rest of the disinformation? It sees that if we subject these two people to 'significant qualification' we would need to do it for the lot of them. --Tbeatty 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. However, I concur with Durin, though won't make the effort myself, and even if someone were to try and get this featured, I wouldn't make any effort to keep that from happening.--MONGO 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If bov is correct and these folks are indeed considered "agents" of some kind, then these doubts need to be reflected in the article as well. Mongo, the more you read the official take on events (as presented here on wikipedia), the more you're entitled to think we are talking about real theory, while its crispy clear that we are actually talking about "unsubstantiated piece of misinformation". Lovelight 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment In my opinion neither 911blogger nor the Journal of 9/11 Studies should be taken as a reliable primary source of what the hypothesis says. I think they are being used in that way in the disputed passage. This article will get out of hand if everything that is posted and published in those sources can be taken as representative of the hypothesis. We have generally stuck to books printed by publishers who also print books about other things, and only in one case (which we could discuss the wisdom of) cited the J of 9/11 S. The only other link to J of 9/11 S is Jones's paper, which is of course available there, but it was first published elsewhere. It's appearence in J of 9/11 S is with the permission of a reputable publisher. Griffin and Tarpley also have publishers behind them. I think including the space beams idea sets a precedent that lowers the standard of citation. I am still involved in dispute resolution related to this page, so I'll leave my comments at that.--Thomas Basboll 11:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is, using selective references here to support an argument for which there is no proof of anyway, is the wrong way to take this article. I find all conspiracy theories related to the collapse of the WTC to be implausible, so trying to decide which ones are ridiculous from which ones that "appear" to be more factual is cherry-picking of the evidence. I believe all conspiracy theories regarding the collapse should be presented or none of them should.--MONGO 03:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification Sources are reliable or not based on who publishes them, not what they say. Interlink is a reputable publisher of books on all sorts of topics. J of 9/11 Studies does not have the backing of a reputable publisher, and clearly has an agenda in relation to this topic. We must carefully select our sources based on the criteria for RS. To indiscriminately report all claims that the WTC was demolished would not result in a good article.--Thomas Basboll 11:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wood and Reynolds (space beams)

There are two problems with the sentence about Reynolds and Wood in the lead. First, the sources (J 9/11 S and 911blogger) are pretty weak. I don't think they can justify including the information. Second, the idea isn't mentioned again anywhere in the article. So it introduces a topic that is not developed further, which is a bit confusing. I think the best way forward is to find some more weighty sources, then decide how the idea should be presented in the main text, and only then summarize the idea in the lead. A better way to do the last part might be to remove "explosives", simply leaving the questin of what exactly brought the buildings down open. We could then have a section on "devices" (where the thermite info would also go.) But it depends on how important we decide the idea is and whether it is even serious enough to mention.--Thomas Basboll 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem. Perhaps a modification of your suggestion is the best one. Move all the individuals out of the lead (as all references presently in the lead are to those same questionable sources), and sort out the diferences under "devices" (or "methods"). Speaking of which, has any of the 9/11 CD people discussed the theory that the steel could have been heated by radio-frequency induction, thereby inducing the chain of events which the mainstream theory specifies. (If it hasn't been done, but appears shortly, I sincerely apologize for adding to the plausibility of the CD theory.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
That place is strong with the dark side of the Force. A domain of evil it is. In you should not go. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this (except the induction idea, which I know nothing about, and haven't seen anybody propose). I still think we have to wait until we have better sources. The reason the individuals are mentioned in the lead, is that it was suggested during the peer review, so we may need to look at that decision again before reversing it. Keep in mind that all the other individuals are sourced quite solidly by comparison to Wood and Reynolds.--Thomas Basboll 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I regard this whole article as original research, and will until scholars start writing about such a thing as a controlled-demolition conspiracy theory as a social phenomenon. That makes it hard for me to say we should expand upon one lame conspiracy theory, but dismiss another as kooky. There is an old joke that some things are like relative virtue among whores. Tom Harrison Talk 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As I see it, we've got a fair set of mainstream sources that vouch for the existence of the theory and identify key proponents, whose non-self-published work we have then taken the time to read. We have nothing like that yet for Wood and Reynolds. But if, for the sake of argument, you are right, what would the argument for including Wood and Reynolds be? Given your explanation here, it seems only to make the WP:POINT that this article was written by "whores"?--Thomas Basboll 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
No, those who have written this article are not the whores. I would say that reasonable-ness among conspiracy theories is like virtue among whores. Since they are all so conspicuously lacking in rationality, it's a bit hard to say that beam weapons are kookier than tons of magical thermite, secret explosives hidden in the walls, or mini-nukes in the basement. Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is a soapbox for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are proponents of this information is not the same as being able to say that their information is scientific mainly because none of it has been published in respectable peer reviewed journals or been properly vetted. The wording of the article needs major adjustments to make it NPOV.--MONGO 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to assess the relative kookiness of these theories. The question is where to draw the line for including stuff. As MONGO points out, this article can't be allowed to become a platform to promote any old idea about how the WTC was brought down, posted on any old website. My question: are the sources for the Wood and Reynold's claim up the standard of WP:RS? In my opinion, they are not.--Thomas Basboll 19:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the goal of the official version defenders on here is only try to discredit this article by inserting the hoax promoters in the first paragraphs - despite their never being mentioned again in any other part of the article. What other article on wikipedia links to people who are never referred to in the article at the very top? So obvious here . . . .
Nor is any context allowed by the defenders in order to protect their discrediting effort. Wood & Reynolds have been rejected openly by the vast majority of the movement yet the defenders have to pretend they have not been and instead call them "prominent." Those few who can be found who support them generally have no idea they advocate space weapons or no planes and believe them to be sincere researchers because websites like patriotsquestion911.com promote them while hiding their research. Once average people see what they advocate they dump them, so sites like patriotsquestion hide their theories, even though they provide links. Patriotsquestion911 is the only prominent website which continues to promote them and the webmaster has had to ignore many public and private requests to remove the hoax promoters (missiles, holograms, space weapons). Other than that site, no other legitimate site mentions them so it is ridiculous for them to be on here with the LIE that they are prominent members of the movement. They are rejected -- look at the links that are attached to the claim! It's absurd to have a paragraph describing them as "prominent" with links that trash them. This is the absurdity of the effort to discredit anyone who disagrees with the official version of events on wikipedia - senseless paragraphs to promote an agenda. bov 04:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you did not actually read the original comment by Thomas, which was to remove those two from the lead paragraph. -- Kesh 05:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To the contrary, I've been attempting to remove that entire paragraph but to no avail as the official version defenders keep reinserting it. Those who are reinserting it and removing the accurate context are clearly not interested in content, only in asserting their control of the page no matter what false claims the paragraph says, in order to add something to discredit the page. Since the content of the paragraph is ignored, this unfortunately transparent goal is obvious. bov 23:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I've moved old discussions from December through the end of January to a new archive page. If you wish to continue any of the discussions that have been archived, please do not edit the Archive page. Instead, create a new comment section here, and link to the Archive page for others to read. -- Kesh 05:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

California bridge fire

Who is connecting this with the WTC? Gazpacho 22:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The connection is obvious. Since concrete has a melting point of 2000 C, no fuel truck could have caused a fire hot enough to cause the overpass to collapse. There are two theories about What Really Happened: Internal controlled demolition and External controlled demolition. According to the Internal theory, pre-planted thremite was used to soften up the roadbed. The External theory is that a space-based directed-energy weapon was used for the same purpose. In either case, the driver of the truck was just a patsy. The whole thing was a disinformation operation to make it look like a fuel fire could cause that kind of structural collapse, thereby discrediting the 9/11 Truth movement. Tom Harrison Talk 23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:) By the way Tom. Since I praise your sense of humor, I really do, I thought I'd share this humorist piece with you. Personally, during a lecture I shed a tear, or two, of laughter... then, those tears have dried out already, and I'm not quite sure for what real reason they had appeared in the first place. SalvNaut 15:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Let them have it. It shows nonsense approach on the side of debunkers. SalvNaut 10:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

uh actually I just exposed that nonsense approach as the article doesn't say the bridge collapsed from fire, but an exploding tanker truck, cheers Aqwiz 07:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says, "The tanker exploded, which sent flames hundreds of feet into the air, witnesses said. The fire quickly buckled a three-lane section of Interstate 580 and caused it to collapse onto some lanes of Interstate 880 about 30 feet below." and further along the article, "At a noontime press conference held at a toll plaza near the collapse, Mr. Kempton said the heat from the fireball had most likely melted the steel girders and bolts that supported the concrete roadway. If you have that kind of heat, he said, you're going to have this kind of reaction. We're not surprised by this result." Tom Harrison Talk 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record: gasoline burns at around 2000C or even higher (unleaded gasoline), while jet fuel burns at maximum 980C. SalvNaut 22:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That does not appear to be accurate[6]. The link you give for gasoline does not include gasoline in its temperature chart. From the sources I've found, gasoline burns at a lower temperature (by about half) compared to jet fuel. A better on-wiki example seems to be Flash point#Examples of fuel flash points. Adiabatic temperatures are for air-borne gasses, which only applies to gasoline inside a combustion engine. -- Kesh 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The link you provide discusses ignition temperature not burning flame temp. What we are interested here is the temperature of already ignited flaming gasoline, or jet fuel. Pleaser refer to this gasoline-FAQ. There you can read that unleaded gasoline burns at 2030C. Here is another source and another. I stand by this fact, which is important here.
Responding to Weregerbil's edit: basically the claim by experts (NIST) is that there were high enough temperatures to weaken the steel. However, it is nowhere proved, except that the most severe case (why this one was chosen?) of the fire comp. simulation done by NIST, which indicates temperatures of air reaching up to 1100C for some short time periods. However, no physical evidence (like NIST paint study) confirms that this simulation has something to do with reality. It is really far from 1100 temp of air to even as low as 600C of steel. 1100C! those would have to be raging office fires fed with oxygen and fuel. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that, extrapolating from other fires seen before (also from the video of this recent tanker explosion), the towers didn't look like raging infernos. SalvNaut 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction re: gasoline temperatures. I did apparently misread that. Your second point, though ("didn't look like raging infernos") really doesn't apply here, and ventures into WP:OR territory. -- Kesh 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's only a discussion page. I hope I shaped the edit in a neutral, reportive style. SalvNaut 01:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks a lot better now. Sorry for reverting again, but I felt it best for you to choose which cites to incorporate, rather than picking them myself. -- Kesh 01:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking two sources that use different metrics for measuring fire temperatures is very dangerous and in the latest case, wrong. Jet fuel and diesel are practically identical (see this and "comparison of fuel properties" diesel is the same as jet fuel). By the source provided, Jet Fuel (diesel) max flame temperature (again, this is different than open air fire temperature) is 2054 C while gasoline is 1977 C. I have deleted all comparisons as they are both wrong and original research. --Tbeatty 06:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's] more data that correlates that Diesel and Jet-A are almost identical and that diesel burns hotter as from the source User:SalvNaut provided.

  • Gasoline = 125,000 Btu/gal(gross) = 115,400 Btu/gal(net)
  • Diesel = 138,700 Btu/gal (gross) = 128,700 Btu/gal (net)
  • Jet-A Fuel = 135,000 Btu/gal (gross) = 128,100 Btu/gal (net)

--Tbeatty 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, what is your source for diesel fuel being the same as jet fuel?? The spreadsheet you gave compares only heat content, that is amount of energy contained in one gallon. What we are discussing here is that gasoline (and diesel too) will burn with flames reaching almost 2000C, while jet fuel will never exceed 980C, and rarely will exceed 300C in open air. Here is a source explaining that jet fuel is kerosene and naphthalene. Diesel might me similar in the sense that it's also a mixture of hydrocarbons, but some of it's properties (e.g. flame temp) are different. Here is a source discussing jet fuel temp. that might convince you. You may want to read jet fuel article and discuss your uncertainty there. SalvNaut 11:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read the Jet Fuel article, you would see the sentence that says they are very similiar to diesel. Also, if you read your own source, it talks about hydrocrabon fuel of which Diesel/Jet Fuel and Gasoline are the same (their temperatures are similiar). Also, I am a pilot and knowing that jet Fuel and Diesel are the same is pretty obvious if you've ever seen the airport Diesel trucks that operate with Jet fuel and the aiplane engines that run on both Jet A and Diesel (see [Thielert] engine ). Jet fuel burns hotter than gasoline in open air and the sources are numerous including the intuitive heat content. --Tbeatty 14:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've read the Jet Fuel and have seen that sentence (unsourced), that's why I asked what are your sources on this topic. Heat(i.e. energy) content (mass, or per volume) might have nothing to do with temperature at which something burns (some things burn quicker&hotter, some slower&less hot). History of jet fuel shows that diesel and jet fuel are not the same. Anyway, we're not discussing general similarities between jet fuel and diesel or gasoline, but open flame temperature. Please clarify: do you claim that gasoline burns also under 1000C? or do you claim that jet fuel burns hotter than 980C (that would contradict the Jet fuel article?). The problem might be that conditions for which temperatures are given are not uniform. The sources I've found indicate high (around 2000C) flame temperatures for gasoline and diesel. Do you claim that Jet Fuel has those temperatures in the same conditions similarly high? (shouldn't then someone edit the table from the Jet Fuel article?). SalvNaut 18:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this getting pretty deep in WP:OR country here??? Weregerbil 19:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
It's passed OR. That's why I deleted it. To answer SalvNaut, temperature is a function of pressure, volume and oxygen. It is incorrect to compare adiabatic flame temperature with open flame temperature. In open air, I don't think there is a significant difference between gasoline and diesel/jet fuel. I didn't say they were the same, but they are nearly identical. Kerosene and Diesel differ by only one or two carbon atoms in a chain of 12. It is simply ridiculous for you to claim that gasoline and diesel would burn very hot, but jet fuel wouldn't. Diesel and Jet fuel are extremely similiar (i.e. can even burn in the same engine). You can check all the references you like and they will essentially say that diesel is similiar to kerosine is similiar to Jet A but very distinct from gasoline. And your own source shows that diesel and gasoline have similiar fire temperatures and that implies that they all do. Therefore, your statement that gasoline and Jet A have different open air fire temperatures is incorrect. --Tbeatty 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not (knowingly) pushing my OR, only trying to establish some facts. C'mon, those two carbon atoms in a chain of 12, do make the difference the same as one proton can make a difference. Eventually this is what research for jet fuel was about, wasn't it? "It is simply ridiculous for you to claim that gasoline and diesel would burn very hot, but jet fuel wouldn't." No, it's simply reasonable from what I've read, but I might have overlooked the conditions.
Pity you haven't answered my question with a source. Finally I've got one that states: Adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene = 1727C[7](that's an interesting CD debunking source). Well, it looks like those two carbon atoms do make a difference: 2054-1727=327C comparing to diesel, similarly to unleaded gasoline (according to gasoline-FAQ). It is significant and not negligible when analyzing the discussed explosion of the tanker (which contained unleaded gasoline, afaik). Then, I did made a mistake and overemphasized the difference in temperatures by comparing two incomparable values. Sorry for that.
Let's start over then: Who is connecting this with the WTC? SalvNaut 21:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your comparing different conditions again. You can get different temperatures depending on the initial conditions. Kerosene has more carbon than gasoline and less than diesel. It's in between. It would be unlikely to find a common condition where the temperature between gasoline and diesel was not monotonically increasing. The reference debunks the claim that no steel structure has collapsed from fire. --Tbeatty 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Not the number of carbons but proportions of types of bondings matter (and other factors like admixtures). Methane has one carbon and burns almost as hot as gasoline. The reference only presents simplified arguments. SalvNaut 10:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I made some searches on the web, but could not find a study that would directly compare burning kerosene to burning gasoline, or diesel, at the same conditions. I thought that adiabatic flame temp. was some unified constant under some unified conditions. I'm no longer sure of that so I do not know, it might be that you're correct. In future, I will pay more attention to distinguish known facts from my own OR. SalvNaut 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Controlled Demolition article

I made small but critical edits (which have been removed) to the controlled demolition article in the interest of preserving neutrality. But I do have a POV on this difficult subject and it is inevitable that my POV would influence any changes that I made. The controlled demolition article on the events of September 11, 2001 and all articles relating to reasonable, scientific and well-documented alternative theories to the highly dubious stories offered by US government agencies to explain what really happened that day seem to be the subject of routine censorship and blatant bias by some wiki participants. For example, Dr. Wood, who is plainly a "notable" person by any reasonable standard, has no entry in wikipedia whatsoever. This is oppressive and constitutes censorship. Others may not agree with alternative theories or the individuals, like Dr. Wood and Dr. Stephen Jones who espouse them, but that does justify eliminating or marginalizing information concerning them.

I really think that POV is unavoidable. Perhaps there is a better way.

Different POVs? Different Articles.

wikipedia obviously has a problem with subjects that become highly political and controversial. While the practice of locking or deleting articles may be intended to preserve neutrality and objectivity, it is rightly or wrongly perceived as censorship and suppression of information. I don't think that it is reasonable or even possible to try and achieve perfect neutrality on intensely disputed issues. On those subjects where there are irreconcilable POVs Why not have two or more articles which are satisfactory to differing POVs?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thurn X (talk • contribs) 12:50, June 16, 2007

We discourage the use of horizontal lines as separators, even though the software allows it. And we suggest you sign your messages on talk pages using ~~~~, rather than "manually" signing, as you did. I fixed that formatting for you to meet Wikipedia guidelines.
We strongly discourage what you suggest, which we call Wikipedia:POV forks. Please discussion your suggestions in the talk page to that article, although I doubt the consensus will change.
As for the "facts" of the issue, it's clear that this article, and all 9/11 Conspiracy Theory articles, represent a minority viewpoint. We may need to be careful in the main 9/11 article not to present the mainstream theory as "fact", but we need to be even more careful not to present non-mainstream theories as fact. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


A futile idealism guides the wiki policy of neutrality. In pursuing this idea of neutrality wiki is creating articles with a two dimensional objectivity. And depending on the motives of those influencing the articles, a charade of objectivity masking prejudiced and biased perspectives. Thurn X 15:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

While you may disagree, WP:NPOV is policy on Wikipedia. If you want to change that policy, you should begin with a discussion at WP:Village pump. Editing articles with your own POV will not change the policy and may result in censure by admins. A better solution is to discuss what, exactly, you want to change about the article here on the Talk page and see if we can come to a consensus about it that supports Wikipedia's policies. -- Kesh 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Arthur Rubins comment "represent a minority viewpoint" got me thinking as to how many this minority is. A search of polls show 16% support CD and 36%, while not actually supporting it say CD is still possible. Tellingly 77% say they support some elements of the conspiracy theories. This makes conspiracy theories technically the mainstream view lol. Wayne 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And on and on it goes

This article will ever fail at being neutral and encyclopedic. Take a look at some content on it now. For example, "Several journalists reporting on the events speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives" Excuse me? Since when did journalists become demolitions experts? I could just as well say "some inmates at a local insane asylum speculated that peregrine falcons were seen pecking at the sides of the buildings immediately before collapse". So WHAT if journalists speculated? Who gives a flying leap what journalists think? --Durin 12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Several journalists at the WTC witnessed and described explosions, and others reported that witnesses they spoke with at the scence saw and heard explosions. If you would like to look at some of the sources being cited, this is quite clear.--JustFacts 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you miss the point. What qualifications do random journalists have with regards to explosion? None. Same goes for witnesses; eye witness testimony in court is notoriously inaccurate, much less news reports. To use this as the basis for part of the article is patently absurd. --Durin 17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Several of the conspiracy theories are based on those reports, claiming they support the demolition hypothesis. The section may need reworded, but the initial journalist/witness comments led to that conspiracy theory. -- Kesh 19:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Which of course shows the flimsy nature of the conspiracy theories. That aside, that the theory is based on this doesn't mean we should be using these as sources. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thank you, --Durin 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS states we report what the sources say, furthermore journalists for reputable papers and magazines are reliable sources. --74.73.16.230 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The collapse simulated

"While, strictly speaking, superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".[13] To date, however, no such detailed model has been put forward."

I think it's done, now : Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings (And there is a fancy video on Youtube : [8]) Kromsson 15:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this study shines no light on the collapse itself or the collapse cause. To this day, I could only find one scientific paper on this study (and it was about animation software not the impact itself) - it seems that the study has not been peer reviewed (yet?). If any, the only addition would be confirmation of fireproofing having been (allegedly) widely dislodged. However, except from few statements we have no other indication of this finding. Personally, I see no way how this study could prove that, as it can be seen in the video, the WTC model uses very simplified interior - it's basically steel wireframe only - no cement, walls, furniture. I don't think that it would be possible to derive information from this model about what happened to fireproofing that was on the steel columns which were covered by walls and other things.

While involved scientists claim that this study supports NIST findings, it in fact barely touches the NIST conclusion that fire caused columns to buckle and collapse. Purdue's study does nothing except for modeling the crash, there is no explosion or fire modeling included, of course no collapse is modeled. Fuel from the plane never ignites, so it's kinetic energy is contained instead of being transfered to explosion energy. And they try to claim that: "a flash flood of flaming liquid" knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing. I would like to read how in the world they draw that conclusion, anybody can point me somewhere?

Another point is that this study cannot be in any way named "independent". The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation, a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…". The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Conveniently, last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion. This could explain why involved scientists so eagerly claim that this study supports another government funded study, i.e. NIST report.

The structural engineer involved in this study, Mr. Sozen, is heavily involved in government funded science. Please refer to this article and text-search for Sozen. He has for many years worked for the US Department of Defense (DOD) through the Blast Mitigation for Structures Program... interesting enough, isn't it? SalvNaut 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Convincing enought, yeah.Kromsson 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Trying to frame this as unreliable because it's not "independent" is rather shaky. By that logic, any organization that has any government funding is not "independent." And I'm not surprised the tired canard of "scientists agree with what they're paid to believe" has cropped up again. -- Kesh 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC) ter
I agree. That's why I included this as the last, side, argument. However, a look at the link about Mr. Sozen, at his and his DOD colleague involvement in OKC study and in WTC study from the beginning makes me feel a strong need for a bit more independent research. Anyway, don't forget that CD proponents main arguments are not based on who did the research but on how was it done and physical evidence. SalvNaut 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Illinois bridge fire

  • "Pantagraph.com - News - Two-way traffic on burned I-74 bridge 4-6 weeks away". Retrieved 2007-07-10. Tom Harrison Talk 00:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the gallery pictures in the Pantograph story, the tanker truck crashed before it reached the bridge and the fuel drained into the ditch below the two bridges compromising the integrity of the structural steel on the westbound bridge. The tanker contained 8,000 gallons of fuel and burned for about 30 minutes. Interesting. --Dual Freq 03:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Squibs

I changed the reference to squibs back to 'possibly' from 'supposedly' for two reasons. First, the context of the paragraph it is contained in is from the viewpoint of the 'proponents', thus a skeptical qualifier is not warranted, and is incorrect. Secondly, in this context, 'supposedly' violates WP:WTA. Dreadstar † 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough ... the subsequent change to "which they attribute to" seems like an improvement. Peterhoneyman 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree! Tom's attributed statement is a big improvement. And thanks for the nudge of support! Dreadstar † 18:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Having learned that the towers bent inwards by their floors before they collapsed, and thinking of that they should have bent into the direction where the planes hit them (which seems to be the first edge to smash the lower sections in the Videos), wouldn't then the upper towers outer shape be smaller than the lower towers inner one? So that the outer walls of the upper section would "fall" into the lower part of the tower causing four effects:

(1)once the part of the falling upper tower with full shape reaches these sections wouldn't it cause the lower towers skin to burst apart with much energy -> parts of the skin getting thrown far away.

(2) will more of the upper part of the towers shape become smaller, as bursting off the under skin compresses the shape of the falling tower part, making the falling, non skin-blasting part longer?

(3)As the outer walls are rather solid compared to the floors that connect them to the inner columns, wouldn't these walls cut through the floors they fall through like a knife that falls into a wet paper and thus accelerate the fall?

(4) Could this cause the effect that you can see "squibs" ahead of the demolition, where the outer skin is still intact, but the inner floors yet have been cut through, and windows are blown out by the pressure of the building combusting?

Dothebart

We can't include your original research in the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Garcia's fax

is not actually supported by the reference. The relevant clause from the letter is:

. This doesn't actually say he does find it "interesting and worthy of further consideration. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


You are playing word games. Why don't you do the same for the references that dismiss Dr Wood's hypothesis Complete Truth 01:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not playing word games. I'm just reading the reference. You should try it some time. The key word, as I see it, is may. He doesn't say whether he finds it interesting. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
So, what you're telling me, is that common sense doesn't tell you that he does find it interesting? Complete Truth 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Common sense tells me that whether he finds it interesting depends on classified information, so he can't comment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As unrelated comment: just fyi, I noticed that "Complete Truth" mentions that his blog is "911researchers.com". This is a site which functions as a gossip column to primarily attack other researchers and attempt to create disruptions amongst activists, filing lawsuits, saying that activists are terrorists, even attacking a victim's widow which was the purpose of this articlein the New York Post on the "lunatic fringe" elements, Rick Siegel and Nico Haupt.

"Ellen is the subject of a blistering battering on the Web site of an outfit that calls itself "9/11 Researchers." While conspiracy theories are nothing new - Rosie O'Donnell gave voice on "The View" to the belief the government was involved - these bozos blast fellow conspiracy groups for not going far enough."bov 21:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories/Archive_4&oldid=1137331676"