Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 2

Ongoing debate among engineers
Articles published in New Civil Engineer:

All this work is just the start Publication date: 01 November 2005: Do engineers really know how tall steel framed buildings will behave in an intense fire? To judge from the views expressed ...

WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation Publication date: 01 November 2005: WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls ...

Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected Publication date: 27 October 2005: SENIOR CONSTRUCTION professionals this week urged the government to reopen the Cardington large scale fire testing facility for vital post...

Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed Publication date: 22 September 2005: A ROW over the causes of the World Trade Center twin tower collapses on 11 September 2001 broke out between ...

Engineers fear overreaction to WTC report Publication date: 01 August 2005: LEADING US structural engineers warned against an overreaction to the final official report on the 2001 World Trade Center collapses ...

To make a search on http://www.nceplus.co.uk/ all you need to do is create an free account. To get to the articles though one will have to pay. Or look in the archive. --EyesAllMine 11:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The people who disagree with NIST say this:
 * "We don't believe that NIST has satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of fire proofing was the deciding factor in the collapse," said Arup associate director Dr Barbara Lane.


 * We have carried out computer simulations which show that the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June).


 * NIST is now recommending that all structural elements of tall buildings have the same degree of fire protection.


 * Firms like Arup have developed international reputations for producing designs which avoid the need for such extensive fire protection.


 * To the extent that we can mention this without exaggerating a minority viewpoint, we should be sure to accurately characterise the nature of the disagreement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes ... I agree - but why not quote the article that states some info regarding the debate amongst engineers? :


 * WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation by Dave Parker


 * "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned.


 * Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators.


 * The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings."


 * --EyesAllMine 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why would we pay money to read nonsense? If their evidence is so compelling, why isn't it all over the news. If the government was involved in a coverup, the media would be all over this...but they're not because it is a nonsense and falls into the realm of psuedoscience. I keep seeing arguments about the need for heat to melt steel and people keep forgetting that the buildings were hit by wide body jets flying close to maximum speed. WTC 7 was beset by fires and damage from having 30 foot steel beams thrown into it. Numerous other buildings also endured huge fires and major structural damage and for them, it's a shock actually that they remained standing. My job is to revert speculation and violations of NPOV, original research and unsubstantiated opinion and I guess I'll just continue to do so.--MONGO 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy its mentioned, because before the article kind off had an effect on you as if the whole collapse scenario has been explained fully. This is not the case, and the article of cause should reflect that. There are still unanswered qestions, which are being debated, and information and facts which are apparently hard to get hold of and check in a peer-review like fashion. --EyesAllMine 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

YOU and the government and the New York Times say it's nonsense and unsubstantiated pseudoscience so we should just forget about it? I don't think so MONGO. That is some pretty wild speculation. Go ahead and keep original research and violations of NPOV out of the article, thats fine. I will find some relevant and quite possibly compelling NPOV information to add to the article and you can speculate about that. SkeenaR 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Both of you are long overdue for a reading of the "undue weight" clause of WP:NPOV. Rhobite 20:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no "undue weight" here. The view you are referring to is not represented in the article as truth, and it is not overrepresented here because it is definitely not a tiny minority of people who think that the collapse of the WTC did not transpire the way it is explained in the official story. As a matter of fact I could write a whole article about the phenomenon. Why do you guys sound so desperate? If there can be information in this article that me or EyesAllMine or anyone else at all can add to this article that is relevant, not POV, is not speculation, is not original research, is not repetetive, is not overrepresentive then what exactly is the problem? Is it simply that you don't like it? SkeenaR 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Man, if the NY Times says it's nonsense, that's the first time I would probably be found in agreement with them on anything...I think the passage should read..."A distinct minority has challenged the findings of mainstream engineers, the U.S. Government and independent researchers, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred. For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories" and that is all the article should mention here. Whenever there is a fringe group that is of such a small minority that they are within the realm of psuedoscience, it is policy to make a brief mention and then redirect to a page that discusses the details under a correct page and or article title. All arguments of controlled demolition are indeed conspiracy theories.--MONGO 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep insisting it is a small minority? Are you asking me to prove that it is not? Also, I'll point out again that the official explanation is also a conspiracy theory. And you can learn what pseudoscience is here. SkeenaR 21:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Skeena...if any of this stuff had any weight, the media would chew it up...but they don't because it doesn't....nothing would make the media happier than to be able to report either bad news or something that would be earthshaking such as this controlled demolition bunk...that is, if it had any real proof and not just a few opinions. Don't buy into it...or UFO's or Bigfoot either.--MONGO 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Gee..I guess you are right. There is that media we can depend on again. And just to make it clear that anyone who doesn't take Bill O'Reilly's word for it is retarded, a nice association with lizard people from outer space. I'm glad you could so succinctly clear things up again. SkeenaR 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem...I'm glad I could be of assistance!--MONGO 02:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

>>"Skeena...if any of this stuff had any weight, the media would chew it up . . ." Just like the media 'chewed up' the fake claims of wmds in Iraq exposed by British press? Or just like the media 'chewed up' the NSA wiretapping which the NYT knew about a year ago? The US media is not the savior you imagine it to be. Lately the US media is busy with mining disasters. . . &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.4.180.197 (talk • contribs).

Melting steel, kerosene is not enough, however aluminium will do
Its a fact, a burn of kerosene would not provide enough heat to melt steel. Some people therfore have claimed that it might have been controled demolition.

There is however another way to get enough heat. The reaction is more complex however all materials have been in place at the time.

Aluminium normaly does not burn, and we think of it as a harmless material. Aluminium is however highly reactive, altough it's natural oxydation closes itself from more oxydation. Unlike the corosion of iron Aluminium corosion forms a closed surface. That's the reason why it doesn't keep on going oxidyzing, like iron does.

But Aluminium still is potentialy highly reactive. A thermite reaction is a reaction when aluminium oxydizes in a fire. Perhaps you have heard that a modern car burn in which its aluminium burns at 2500°C (4500°K) This temperature is enough to melt steel which is done at about 1500°C. To get a thermite reation all that is required is a good starting temperature. Apparently some car accidents provide enough starting heat for such reactions. Now imagine an airplane. It goes a bit faster and it is mostly build of aluminium and feuled with kersonene.

The problem with the thermite reaction of aluminium is that it's a special burn. A water sprinkler system will not stop the burn, as aluminium is a highly reactive material. At these temperatures it will use the oxygen of the water to burn. (thermite reactions burn also under water). More information about thermite reactions [thermite]
 * This is insanity. This talk page is not the place to come up with our own pet theories about what happened. Besides, the NIST report does not claim the steel melted (i.e. changed its physical state). The steel bent due to the high temperatures, causing buckling and the eventual collapses. Nobody has claimed that melting occurred, or needed to occur in order for the buildings to collapse. Rhobite 20:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen!--MONGO 21:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's difficult enough to have relevant information discussed here without becoming even more complicated. SkeenaR 21:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this place is for the small minded...probably best to put controlled demolition information in this article.--MONGO 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That must be why you are here. :) SkeenaR 03:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right...expand your horizons and ensure all controlled demolition info is put into the linked article...stop wasting your time on morons like me.--MONGO 03:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You must really want to argue awfully bad. It's obvious that some of the information is relevant to the article. Go ahead and tell me it's not. But don't worry, I won't waste anymore time on you until you start reverting some perfectly acceptable edits to the article - or unnecesarily start harrasing people again. SkeenaR 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In the News
9/11 Attacks: Avoiding the Hard Questions 1 Feb 2006, Miami Herald 20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11 Jan 31, 2006 DailyKos

Possible Detroit "Super Bowl" Terrorist Attack? 30 Jan 2006, Email message

Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax 30 Jan 2006, Yahoo News story Daily Kos (with a rolling forum)

Deseret Morning News reports on Scholars for 9/11 Truth: 28 Jan 2006, Deseret Morning News

Scholars Repudiate Official Version of 9/11 27 January 2006, Daily Kos (with a poll)

The US military's plans for an information war: 27 Jan 2006, BBC news report The PDF file of the plan

An email from Ian Henshall: 26 Jan 2006 report on Oxford Union 911 meeting

Top Russian General Says International Terrorism is a Ruse: 24 Jan 2006

Deseret Morning News reports on upcoming paper by Professor Jones: 10 Nov 2005, Deseret Morning News

SkeenaR 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide these in external links as the manner in which you present them makes it impossible or at least very difficult for us to cross reference the info.--MONGO 20:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need. You can find linked references to every above example in the Criticism section. Please discuss before you thrash the hell out of the article again. I am going to put the controversial tag up. SkeenaR 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
There is the undue weight clause in Wikipedia's neutral point of view which clearly states that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."...this is a policy that Wikipedia must honor. --MONGO 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with an extremely small or vastly limited minority and you know it. The clause is clearly not applicable here. SkeenaR 21:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see vandalism and 3R rules. SkeenaR 21:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My edits are not vandalism, but yours may be due to your violation of the undue weight clause and using private websites which are not peer reviewed...you should see 3RR as well.--MONGO 21:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

With four or five long paragraphs, this is too much to include here. It more properly belongs in 9/11 conspiracy theories. This page should present information about the collapse. A one-paragraph mention of alternative speculations with a link to their main coverage elsewhere is appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 21:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am willing to make a slight expansion on my version, with a mention of a few notables, but that should be sufficient...fringe information does properly belong in the article mentioned by Tom or in the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article.--MONGO 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One day will not help your case as you have presented it. I am interested in a resolution that fits with proper implementation of Wikipedia policy. Feel free to elaborate in the meantime. SkeenaR 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Tom's and my statements here make the issue clear...the link above to WP:NPOV clearly demostrate that the extreme minority viewpoint does not have to hold the overwhelming concensus hostage. When there is one piece of evidence that supports any findings of contolled demolition, aside from opinions and selective reasoning, then I want to be the first to see it. Until then, this misinformation you keep pushing is going to be in subarticles under proper titles.--MONGO 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed "including 7 WTC" from the buildings destroyed or damaged by debris. Not true, no support.

69.231.8.216 03:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it
I'm new here at wikipedia. And I have been quite happy up til now. Now I find the behaviour here amazing. Maybe it is because I am new to this but I just don't get it:

Why should the official explanation, that has not yet been peer-reviewed, not be properly citated, so we and other can verify it, while other viewpoints should be both peer-reviewed and citated proper? Shouldn't we keep all viewpoints to the same verifying standards?

Why are MONGO saying "find the citations yourself...stop cluttering the page with this" (how is "stop cluttering" a constructive remark?) when removing the citation needed tags? It is a clear and obvious policy that:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it. WP:V

Is it okay just to delete citation needed tags, without coming up with proper citation? As far as I can read in WP:V I can actually delete every part of this article that hasn't been properly citated, and then anybody who will reinsert that will have to come up with the sources and citation. Why then has MONGO reinserted every part of the article that prior has been deleted because of lack of sources, without aplying a source of citation?

How can SkeenaR be reported for 3RRs when both Tom and MONGO, (who both are personally engaged in this article) has done four reverts together? Is it okay to do that just because you are two admins?

Can anybody explain how all this is ok???? --EyesAllMine 09:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We did four reverts combined while the other editor did 4 on his/her own. That's the difference...see WP:3RR. The article doesn't need 2 dozen citation requests scattered all over the place...it's ridiculous.--MONGO 10:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So if you are a group of Three, you could make three reverts each, making nine reverts? Isn't that called gaming? I think it's bad style. And how is this OK?? Is it ok to delete from talk pages because it is critic of yourself? The part you deleted had a lot of relevant information. If I find your actions as an admin is offensive, where do I go with that? --EyesAllMine 10:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The deletion of that was due to my username being tossed around like so much cheese...no one has to tolerate accusations like that...the list was a copy and paste directly off the website and was a copyviolation to do so...that is an immediate deletion, period.--MONGO 11:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There's is absolutely no copyright violation. It was the list of people behind, that was shown. Please answer my questions. Oh - and if somebody writes something about me I don't like I just delete it???? I'm getting quite angry now, so I will take a break --EyesAllMine 11:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone starts throwing your username around like mine was, let me know and I'll delete it. It was a copy and paste and that makes it a copyvio...a blockable offense. You can report my actions to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and make sure you include this link.--MONGO 11:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eyesallmine, please note the quote you made above where it says "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources". Much of the material on the article comes from FEMA and NIST sources. These are reputable sources. While inline citations certainly would be useful and go towards a complete article such as those frequently found at WP:FAC, please keep in mind the article is evolving. Rather than sprinkle the article with "citation needed", work towards developing the citations and putting them inline. That helps us move forward towards a well constructed article. Without the inline citations, it's pretty safe to bet that a given claim comes from the FEMA and NIST reports. That doesn't mean we should accept the article in its current form of course, but that also does not mean we should liberally sprinkle the article with "citation needed". --Durin 14:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No ... thats why I started with puting one "lacking sources" tag at the top of the article, as it is done on a lot of articles on Wiki. But it was quickly removed. And I have tried to discuss it here on the talk page, but it is getting ignored. Why shouldnt we make this article great and verifiable? --EyesAllMine 14:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no reason we shouldn't. Thus, start with the first uncited assertion you find, locate a cite from a reputable source for it, and add it using Citing sources and Cite sources/example style for guidance. Sprinkling the article with "citation needed" doesn't improve the article. --Durin 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For clarification: it wasn't me that put it everywhere, in each sentence. I am refering to the "citation needed"tags that I put in, that has now been removed. Not the sprinkling --EyesAllMine 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, I am not the one who should add citations. The one who has put it in the article is the one who should properly source it. I could remove every unsubstantiated part of this article according to WP:V. But I'm being polite and will just put the "article lakcking sources" - or whatever tag back on. We need all the help we can get here, so making a notice will hopefully attract it. --EyesAllMine 14:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you were to remove large sections of the text of the article as it as now based on WP:V, you would be operating in a combative as opposed to collaborative manner. We are building an encyclopedia here; let's keep our focus on that. If you find a section of the text that you feel needs a citation to back it up, then by all means go and find the material to back it up. It doesn't matter whether you personally agree or disagree with the assertion. This and every other article on Wikipedia isn't about what we personally believe. It's about what we can verify, whether we happen to like it or not. If you can't find a source, then come here to the talk page and see if maybe someone else can. See the discussion above at "Explanation of removal of 'Aircraft Considerations' rewrite" for an example of a collaborative, as opposed to combative, effort to improve the article. --Durin 15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are dictating that I should research and find sources for claims which might not even exist? And then I could not put in the "verify tag" or "citaion needed"? May I remind you that this project is based on volunteering. and then you accuse me of being combatitive! -- this is very amusing. For your information WP:V states "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but do not remove large tracts of Wikipedia without first giving people a chance to provide references to support their inclusion." "If you doubt the accuracy or origin of an unsourced statement that has been in an article for a long time, delete it or move it to the talk page." "Alternatively, you may tag the article by adding the fact, not verified or unsourced templates.".If you check the history of this article, who has then deleted combatively all kind of efforts of improving the article? --EyesAllMine 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to be de-railing. I did not say you are being combative. I said: "IF you were to remove large sections of the text of the article as it as now based on WP:V, you would be operating in a combative as opposed to collaborative manner". I accused you of nothing. Also note your own citation of WP:V, "removing large tracts...". That's what I was talking about. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm interested in improving the article, and working collaboratively with you to accomplish that. --Durin 16:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy about that - cause thats what I've wanted all along. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I started asking for citation for a part of the article, which I put higher up on this talk page. No body has responded. --EyesAllMine 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It was I who added many "citation needed" comments. I added them only to assertions that (a) are factual claims that could and should have such citations and (b) are claims for which I have been unable to find citations, despite my effort to do so. I agree with EyesAllMine, it is the resposibility of the one adding the assertion to back it up. In my view, the undocumented assertions should be deleted from the article until such time as they are documented. 69.231.8.216 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It would have been easier to take citation needed as a legitimate request for information if one had not been for The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire. I think these were added to make a point. Tom Harrison Talk 16:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the most blatant problems. Those fires were diffuse flames (as opposed to a jet burner flame or a pre mixed flame). The strength of structural steel absolutely does NOT drop markedly when exposed to a diffuse flame, which is why no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire (outside 9-11 allegedly).

"The strength of steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire is false, and certainly requires a citation if someone wants to pass it off as true. 69.228.47.62 05:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a constructive debate
This is the policy MONGO is referring to when he deletes and substitutes a big chunk of the article:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight
 * And the viewpoint you support obviously fits the third criteria.--MONGO 12:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the part that has been deleted:


 * Criticism of FEMA/NIST reports
 * A group of distinguished experts and scholars that include Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow conclude that FEMA and NIST reports regarding the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings are false and that crucial facts pertaining to the terrorist attacks of Sept 11 have been covered up by senior government officials. This group calls themselves Scholars For 9/11 Truth
 * Their conclusion is based on the results of extensive scientific and political research. These experts contend that the official version of events on Sept 11, 2001 are one of the greatest hoaxes in history which has led to war and unconstitutional policy and decision making. They also point out that the 9/11 Commission Report is permeated with omissions, distortions, and factual errors including absolutely no mention of Building 7 which was hit by no airplanes and completely collapsed hours after the twin towers were struck.
 * Here are some of the circumstances involved that these experts and scholars find profoundly disturbing:
 * In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. It has been established by physics research that only controlled demolitions have ever been consistent with the near vacuum speed of fall and almost completely symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. All three buildings fell straight-down into their own footprints while pulverizing the concrete into fine dust.


 * Recent scientific study of collapse by BYU Professor In September 2005, Professor Steven E. Jones from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University published a paper on a page on the University web site titled Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?; on this site Jones presents a hypothesis for the controlled-demolition of WTC towers 1, 2, and 7, and calls for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. A version of the website information was presented to an audience from BYU and Utah Valley State College on September 22, 2005. The paper will be published in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001" by Elsevier, in spring 2006. Although Professor Jones is not a trained structural engineer, nor does he have training in controlled demolition, he calls for an independent and international investigation by experts in these areas outside of the bodies of NIST and FEMA. He especially focuses on the evidence of the molten metal found at the base of WTC1, 2 and 7.

I don’t see how this fringe? The people behind are indeed well-known professors and politicians etc. There has been reports in the media, and Jones paper is peer-reviewed. Elsevier is a respected academic publisher. And Griffins books has sold in the millions.


 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents WP:V

Yep - and that we can and have done.

Stating that it has Zero mentioning in the media is not correct: http://www.st911.org/ the organiation it self - here you can see who the people behind it are, and there is a list of peer-reviewed papers as well. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/opinion/13760721.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm a dutch Television Documentary: Two former Government Ministers have grave doubts about what Americans call "the war on terrorism", Michael Meacher - MP - Former UK Government Minister. "The war on terror is bogus" and Andreas Von Bulow, Former German Secretary Of Defense "The official story is so inadequate and far fetched that there must be a different one". http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Steven%20Jones%20Shows%20WTC%20Demolition%20Evidence.wmv Professor Jones in MSNBC http://www.question911.com/linkout.php?filename=Professor%20Steven%20Jones%20on%20Utah%20TV%20News.wmv Prof. Jones in UTAH news TV --EyesAllMine 09:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Every link you provided is either from the private websites I mentioned that we don't allow, opinion pieces or, just an report about Jones in the Deseret News...nothing earth shattering about any of them...let me known when it appears as bold headlines "Controlled demolition, not planes brought down the WTC" on the front page of the Washington Post...heck, get ahold of Carl Bernstein or anyone and tell them you now have the proof...--MONGO 11:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Were going ring'round a rosy here. Everybody can check the links for themselves and see that you are ... incorrect. We should mention the critique. Daily herald: http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/163875/3/ --EyesAllMine 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * where was Steven E. Jones meeting at?--MONGO 11:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was in Utah...so I looked up the Salt Lake Tribune for today's headlines and, well, there's no mention of it......they must be part of the government coverup too.--MONGO 12:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at what Daily Herald and Miami Herald has to say about this group of people:


 * A group of experts and academicians 'devoted to applying the principles of scientific reasoning to the available evidence, "letting the chips fall where they may," last week accused the government of covering up evidence that the three destroyed New York City buildings were brought down that day by controlled demolition rather than structural failure. The group, called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, has a website, www.st911.org.


 * [...]


 * The reflexive first reaction is incredulity -- how, one asks, could anyone even contemplate, never mind actually do such a barbaric thing? But before you shut your mind, check the resumés -- these aren't Generation X geeks subsisting on potato chips and PlayStation. Then look at the case they present.  --EyesAllMine 14:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Two webbased links do not a "BIG STORY" make...it isn't news, it's fantasy. How many of these others that were listed as supportors of this nonsense were keynote speakers, or even in attendance at this big meeting of experts?--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What meeting are you refering to MONGO? And what has a meeting to do with this? --EyesAllMine 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was this seminar you refered to? --EyesAllMine 12:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one...wish I coulda been there...it would have been a gas. "lucy...you have sum esplainin tu do"...nice blog spot...has me convinced...should help him sell his impending book too.--MONGO 12:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Durbin has admonished me for requesting a citaton proving that the jet crashes caused internal structural failure, stating that internal structural failure was obvious. Not so. There is no proof whatsoever that the jet crashes caused any of the 47 steel box columns (the internal support structure) to fail. After the crashes, there is no observable sagging, bending, or misalignment of vertical structural lines at all. 69.231.8.216 16:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Using just your IP is not helping your case anymore than your constant insertion of cititation all over the place...no one has yet proven that there has been controlled demolition or a government coverup...let's see you prove that.--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a small minority,. www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855  Less than two in five (36%) of New Yorkers polled believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) of New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions." Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International.
 * They are discussing whether the U.S. Government knew beforehand of the attacks and whether the government could have done more to prevent them, not about if there was a coverup about controlled demolition or a government conspiracy...get your facts straight.--MONGO 20:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only inserted "citation needed" where citations are needed. Adding citations would improve the credibility of the article. It's not my fault that the article is riddled with assertions. In my view, there are two choices, support the statements with documentation, or lose them.

69.231.8.216 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No Mongo, it's around half of New Yorkers who hold something close to the "government knew in advance and let it happen" view. That's what "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act," means. That does not mean that many believe the government made it happen, but if half believe something close to "let it happen on purpose", then the "made it happen" view is just a difference in degree (the difference between a policeman shooting a person and the policeman not saying anything while he sees someone else sneaking up to kill the person--both require an intention to have injury occur on the part of the policeman) and it cannot be an extremely small minority of New Yorkers who hold the let it happen view. The point is, this view is not like the flat earth society. Wikipedia should present the facts as they become available not try to chose a winning view. There is a significant minority of the population, several researchers and experts, and some credible evidence for these views. Abe
 * Okay Abe, with the vast majority of New Yorkers being strongly Democrat, it isn't surprising that their "opinion" (emphasis on opinion, by the way) is biased against an incident that happened during the tenure of a Republican President. What's that go to do with proving contolled demolition happened? Also, timestamp your posts, Abe, with ~, it's the button second to last at the top of the edit window "Your signature with timestamp".--MONGO 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The deleted sections will probably have to be reinstated in the article as the undue weight clause is clearly not applicable here. As well, proper citation is needed in the rest of the article, a lot of which is non-compliant with Wikipedia Policy and should be removed. SkeenaR 04:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO: "two webbased links" as you call it are two articles in mainstream newspapers namely Miami Herald and Daily Herald, and is just two out many as listed above which also includes two television interviews. These people are not fringe. --EyesAllMine 23:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The undue weight clause is not applicable. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth is apparently down at the moment, so the list is of people is here:


 * Victoria Ashley (AM) Architecture and physiological psychology, 911research.wtc7.net
 * Robert M. Bowman (FM) Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
 * Len Bracken (AM) Credentialed Journalist Graduate of GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs Author of "Shadow Government: 9/11 and State Terror"
 * Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
 * Jordan Brewster (AM) Conspiracies
 * Fred Burks (AM) Served for many years as a language interpreter for presidents and other dignitaries. www.wanttoknow.info/911information
 * Frank Carmen (AM) Physics Ph.D., BYU
 * Danielle Celeste (SA) Psychchology, History and Politics, Propaganda and its dissemination
 * Erik Champenois (SA) Student, BYU
 * Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT
 * Muhammad Columbo (AM) Graduate Engineer electronics wide industrial experience
 * Lloyd DeMause (FM) Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
 * Eric Douglas (AM) New York City architect Chair of the Independent Peer Review Committe for the NIST WTC Reports at nistreview.org
 * Jeffrey Farrer (FM) Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
 * James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T
 * Alex Floum (AM) Attorney
 * Marcus Ford (FM) Humanities, NAU
 * Robert Fritzius (AM) Electrical Engineering, Radar and telecommunications
 * David Gabbard (FM) Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University
 * Daniele Ganser (FM) Historian, Basel University, Switzerland
 * Michael Gass (AM) Air Force Explosive Ordnance, Disposal Specialist, Bomb disposal technician
 * Daniel D. German (SM) Student scholar, UNC
 * Kenyon Gibson (AM) Former US Naval Intelligence, author of "Common Sense: A Study of the Bushes, the CIA and the Suspicions Regarding 9/11" (2003, in Arabic) and of "Hemp for Victory" (2006)
 * Gordon Ginn (AM) Motives behind attack
 * Rich Hellner (AM) Air Traffic Controller, Air Route Traffic Control Center
 * Jesse Hemingway (AM) Author of "Friendly Fire on Holy Grounds"
 * Eric Hermanson (AM) Engineering Physics, Nuclear Engineering, Software Architect
 * Eric Hufschmid (AM) Author of "Painful Questions" and "Painful Deceptions"
 * Greg Lemon (AM) Animation, Simulation, Special Effects
 * Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM) Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
 * Andrew Johnson (FM) Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
 * Steven Jones (FM) Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
 * Nathan Jones (SA) Student, Snow College, UT
 * Peter Kirsh (AM) Forensic pathologist
 * Greg Lopreato (AM) Senior Research Scientist
 * Wayne Madsen (AM) Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist, a former communications security analyst with NSA and a former intelligence officer in the USMC and a Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
 * David Masdon (AM) Electrical Engineering
 * Richard McGinn (FM) Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
 * Scott Meredith (AM) Theoretical Linguistics, High technology 21 years
 * Aidan Monaghan (AM) Electronics engineering, www.explosive911analysis.com
 * Peter Meyer (AM) Computational physics, computer programmer, software developer, creator of the Serendipity web site (www.serendipity.li) and of the Hermetic Systems web site (www.hermetic.ch)
 * John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM) Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues
 * Nicholas Newton (AM) Astrophysics, Simulation Models
 * Ralph Omholt (AM) Technical writer
 * Matthew Orr (FM) Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
 * Don Paul (AM) Author of "9/11:Facing Our Fascist State" (2002) and co-author with Jim Hoffman of "9/11: Great Crimes, a Greater Cover-up" (2003) and "Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City" (2004)
 * Benjamin Pritchard (AM) Software Engineer 911TruthEmergence.com
 * Diana Ralph (FM) Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
 * Rick Rajter (SA) Materials Science and Engineering Emerging and Fundamental Science
 * Joseph Raso (FM) Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism
 * Daniel Rees (SA)
 * Morgan Reynolds (FM) Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis
 * Karen Rice (FM) Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
 * Annie Robbins (SA) Artist
 * Kevin Ryan (AM) Former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories
 * Nila Sagedevan (AM) Airline pilot
 * Jimmy Smith (AM) Communications Engineering
 * Leonard Spencer (AM) Twin Towers Attack, The Pentagon Attack, www.serendipity.li
 * Morgan Stack (FM) Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
 * Glenn Stanish (AM) Airline Pilot, Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Allied Pilots Association (APA)
 * Harry Stottle (AM) Philosopher, Author, Computer Consultant, Inventor. IT Director of the Codel Project. Specialist in authentication and related issues.
 * Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM) President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror
 * Andreas Von Buelow (FM) Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
 * Lon Waters (FM) High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
 * Edgar Williams (AM) Statistics, Computer Science, Database Management
 * Carl Weis (FM) Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
 * Jack White (AM) Photoanalyst
 * Jonathan Wilson (SM) Criminology, University of Winnipeg
 * Judy Wood (FM) Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
 * Ian Woods (FM) Publisher and Editor of Global Outlook (the Magazine of 9/11 Truth); president of S.I.F.T. - Skeptics Inquiry For Truth (aka 911inquiry.org)
 * Brad (AM) RF Engineering, 911review.org

As I stated futher down, I've gotten permision by e-mail to quote from the website. --EyesAllMine 11:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And this group is not the only scholars criticizing the NIST report. Dr. Frank Geening states in his conlusion "Clearly, if NIST’s computer model is essentially correct, the Twin Towers collapsed (or fell over!) at ridiculously small downward displacements and tilt angles, and were inherently unstable as soon as they were struck by aircraft. This raises serious questions about the design and construction of the Twin Towers. However, a more reasonable assessment would be that NIST’s computer model is highly inaccurate, and therefore of no value in explaining the demise of the Twin Towers."
 * So what? You're still linking from the 9/11 article you continuously cite...it isn't mainstream and isn't in the mainstream press...the website you promote is not an authoritative source of unbiased information, and argues other items that deal with the anti war on terror, especially an anti iraq war basis...trying to link a government coverup with a Republican war effort. As I said, when it appears in bold headlines on the front page "Controlled demolition, not planes were the cause of the collapse of the WTC" in the mainstream press then it may be citable. What part of veracity of information do you miss? You have the other articles in which you can put this nonsense...it won't be in here until they prove controlled demolition and that is altogether different than stating that it COULD have happened...UFO's are also not impossible, nor is Bigfoot...this is not the National Enquirer.--MONGO 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO try to follow the links. Frank Greening has posted his paper on 911myth, a site dedicated to debunk the critique of the official explanations. --EyesAllMine 12:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Miami Herald is not mainstream? Griffin, Buelov, Bovman and Jones are not a significant minority?? Listen MONGO - it seems to me you are pushing your own POV agenda here. And you seem to be stern on your opinions. What do we do now? --EyesAllMine 21:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno...submit them all for psych evaluations...that would be a good start.--MONGO 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is Bovman? Tom Harrison Talk 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a joke Tom? It is Robert M. Bowman, former head of Advanced Space Programs for DOD. Oh yeah and , as well as numerous other awards. He is one of the country's foremost authorities on national security. SkeenaR 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
 * Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
 * recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
 * the George F. Kennan Peace Prize
 * the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace
 * The Society of American Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice)
 * the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters
 * the Republic Aviation Airpower Award
 * There you go again...always ready to whip out that website...I looked him up...he was head under Ford and Carter of the early "Star wars" stuff...and a decorated verteran...but not a structural engineer...seems to be heavily involved in the United Catholic Church...what exactly is that I wonder...does he have the proof of controlled demolition...as I said, get ahold of the Washington Post and especially the chief of investigative journalism Carl Bernstein...this is breaking news.--MONGO 10:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you I guess, an example from the Washington Post or the esteemed Carl Bernstein is hardly imperative in this debate. And the particular website that the information came from is irrelevant as long as it is accurate, unless of course you implement POV in your argument. Perhaps I will give people the example from the Washington Times(wow! high profile mainstream news!) about the first term Bush team member(wow! former Bush team member!) who is expressing "serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on Sept 11". SkeenaR 10:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for you I guess, I am still waiting for someone to prove to me that controlled demolition was the cause of the WTC collapse...I guess it's going to be a long wait...as I said, when it appears in the mainstream media or a reliable scientific journal that controlled demolition and not planes brought down the WTC, then we can all assume that the government lied to us...until then, I guess I better be patient.--MONGO 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've found it's important to watch your step around here with all the bizarre allegations flying around. The next thing you know, someone will accuse you of religious bigotry. SkeenaR 10:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Man you're not kidding...there sure are a lot of Bizarre allegations flying around...wonder where they came from...it must be straight from the Bush administration...yeah, that's right...it's a coverup for sure...I'm calling the psychic hotline to confirm.--MONGO 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, this is supposed to be a constructive debate. SkeenaR 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you been paying attention? Nothings proven. SkeenaR 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh...whattaya mean...I thought you had proven the contolled demolition stuff...I even gave you the links to Carl Bernstein and the post...better call them and I mean fast before someone else gets credit for breaking the news.--MONGO 11:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, this is supposed to be constructive. Sarcasm and pointlesness isn't. SkeenaR 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay...do you have any proof of controlled demolition?--MONGO 11:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whats your proof? And of what? We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 11:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No you haven't...do they have proof that there was controlled demolition? How many of these people listed are experts in controlled demolition? How many of them winessed explosives being planted? Saw documents discussing or orders issuing the controlled demolition? Does even a singel person from this list have anything that would prove controlled demolition? Let me when you find the smoking gun...I'd be most interested in being the first person on earth to know...--MONGO 11:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the clause. You know where it is. By the wording of that clause, that is the single most undisputed thing about this article. I invite everyone else to read it too. We have all heard enough about Carl Bernstein for one night. Thanks. SkeenaR 11:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no reason to get the news out that you're hiding from the world...just go ahead and keep the proof of controlled demolition to yourself and cheat the world of the truth. We have all heard enough about a list of names that appear mostly just in blogs...I checked a number of them out...can't seem to find hardly a one that has a background in controlled demolition and not a singel one of them has any proof of it...so stop wasting everybodys time.--MONGO 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of wasting anybody's time Mongo. When people read the clause everybody is going to know who that was. SkeenaR 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At last...proof is at hand...yes, folks, that's right...this list of names from blogs with no proof that controlled demolition happened are here to refute the investigations of thousands of investigators, academics, scholars and the common sense of the people of the world with their proof of controlled demolition...let freedom reign! I feel so, ah, enlightened.--MONGO 12:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't seem you have been paying attention. There is no proof for the official theory. But you are happy to paste the hell out of the website with your links and delete anything you find offensive. Please, just read, READ the clause. SkeenaR 12:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you know what,,,this is a distinguished list...and none of them have uterior political motivations...I thinkj I know who has the most proof of controlled demolition...it must be "Erik Champenois (SA) Student, BYU" I mean, with those credentials...he must have the answers we all seek....yeah, I know, there's a couple of people of note...but not really becuause hardly a one of them has published a singel shred of evidence that proves controlled demolition...the list is meaningless and most of these people only show up on blogs in conspiracy theory websites...I can't even find out many of their credentials...the list is a waste of our time, as is the arguement of controlled demolition.--MONGO 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ulterior political motivations? That belongs in the conspiracy theory page. You only specifically mention one person from the extensive list of scholars and experts. Please don't pick and choose like that. Again, there is no proof...and the list is a piece of the evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 12:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I mention one...and none of them are controlled demolition experts...not one...I can pick apart every single one of these people as not have an ounce of proof that controlled demolition happened...not a one of them can prove it and that is the point. There are tens of thousands of investigators, researchers, academics and scholars that would stand in line to support the U.S. Government's investigations and findings. Compared to the list of non notables you mention, they have no weight and your complete lack of proof has no weight here. Even the structural engineers at BYU, Jones' own university don't back up his jargon...either you sadly believe this nonsese or you're here purely for disruption, but I can see that there is no real reason to continue this argument with you any longer. Nothing you have to sell will be a part of this article.--MONGO 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have a clue what we are talking about. Not a clue. The government reports are being criticized. It is claimed that they may be completely bogus actually. This is by a significant minority. A significant minority of scholars and experts. The undue weight clause is not applicable. Repeat if necessary. SkeenaR 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry; Actually I just misread it as "Bovman" rather than "Bowman," couldn't find Bovman, and thought maybe it was someone new. Tom Harrison Talk 17:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Copywrite violations
Do not copy and paste html from websites...they are easily spotted...Spotting possible copyright violations and I refer to this edit: and it is a copy and paste from: ...this is a blocakble offense and in egregious circumstances, bannable. If this is performed one more time I will block that person on sight.--MONGO 13:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand this copy-violation you are talking about. Do you say that I or anybody could be blocked for listing the people behind Sholars for 9/11 truth? Even here on a talk page? I can see it is a problem in the article itselves if it is big chunks of material without references, but this? --EyesAllMine 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Read about our copywrite situation...if someone copies and pastes from a private website without permission, Wikipedia can be found liable if it isn't removed promptly. Spotting possible copyright violations provides some helpful tips on spotting html text copywrite violations. Besides, there is no need to list them here, a link is more than suffcient.--MONGO 01:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a legitimate concern and definitely one worth paying attention to, but just because something is copy and paste doesn't automatically classify it as a violation, a sentence consisting of four or five words for example. Like I said, I am going to be rock solid on this by coming to understand the policy, holding off on lists and such for now and watching for other possible violations. That list was only a small piece of the article, not even a sentence and not even reproduced in an article. You might say that it doesn't matter if it's in an article or discussion, it's still a violation, but I don't believe that reproducing a mere list of names qualifies. But I'll find out. SkeenaR 01:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed Scolars for 9/11 Thruth, and have permission for Wikipedia to qoute from the site, e.g. the whole list of "who we are". --EyesAllMine 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You must post the email...without it it is a copywrite problem...see the links I have provided for further information. Regardless, they offer only pseudoscience and opinion, not hard facts that relate to an actual coverup. Misinformation and misquoting evidence, failure to provide a fully factual accord. They talk about what may have happened, not what did happen. Vitually all the folks you cite need to be contacted for comment. Explain why the entire structural engineering staff at BYU has refuted Jones's theory...the same college Jones teaches at...the man is just trying to push his politics and bias and to peddle his book....that is all.--MONGO 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

MONGO ... take it easy. Even if I posted the e-mail you'd state it was fake. Here it is:


 * Dear Prof. Jones.


 * I am living in Denmark, and I am a contributor to the English Wikipedia, under the name of EyesAllMine. I would like to quote from the S911T website, and would be happy to know if some of the information (e.g. the "who we are" list) could be distributed without violation of copyrights.


 * Best regards


 * Xxxxxx.


 * Hi, Xxxxxx,


 * I see no problem quoting from the information there. Note that the site is frequently updated…


 * Best wishes, and thanks for your support,


 * Steven J

But you (and everybody else) can easily write yourself to Scholars for 9/11 truth and get the same answer from them.

We should simply include the facts, and facts are that NIST is being criticized. We dont need to prove anything. We can go on and on, but Buelov, Bovmann, Jones, Griffin and others are notable people. --EyesAllMine 20:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice. SkeenaR 22:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is permission to CITE, not permission to COPY...besides, Wikipedia wants people to write articles, not just copy them from another source for the most part...you can cite anything you want so long as it can be cross referenced with other factual sources. You don't need permission to cite another source of course, so long as it is attributed...and we already said that these websies you want to cite from are not reliable witness...they are based on hypothesis and that is why they belong in other articles, not here.--MONGO 11:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

And i CITED it ... I've never claimed to have written the list myself --EyesAllMine 11:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, we are not writing an article right here. This (or was) supposed to be a debate. Why don't you focus on trying to win the debate which is what I assume you desire, instead of running circular arguments about copyvio. You should cause it doesn't look good for you with this undue weight clause. SkeenaR 11:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a Boilerplate request for permission and a Confirmation of permission, if that's useful. Tom Harrison Talk 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about a list of participants here, I cannot see ANY copyright violations in quoting it. And I will not dicuss it further, as it seems to be empty bullying on MONGOs part. --EyesAllMine 11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read Wikipedias copywrite information, we do not allow cut and paste from websites unless they are within the public domain...the cut and paste was even in the same html format as it appeared on the website page...what do you think...that I just started editing here? You can write the names, as if that is necessary since a link does fine, but you CANNOT copy and paste them...it is a blockable offense.--MONGO 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll check it out. SkeenaR 11:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide not a page with no relevant information on it other than the word "copyright" but the fact that we cannot use material with permission on a talk page? We will be happy to comply. SkeenaR 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Without seeming rude, I don't understand what you're asking...article pages and discussion pages are the same, we can't copy and paste html text, images and what not from websites without them being within the public domain...all images must have permission to use and the permission must be posted as mentioned by Tom Harrison, above. If you don't think I'm telling you the truth, then read the copywrite policies and all associated pages with them.--MONGO 11:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

A list of participant is not an original piece of art, and I have gotten permission. So go ahead and block me ... or maybe it is just "empty bullying" ? --EyesAllMine 11:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to protect wikipedia from copywrite infringement and I actually am nice to NOT BLOCK on sight when I see it...instead you fail to understand the copywrite laws, even when you are directed to them and encouraged to read them...yet I'm the bully...okay.--MONGO 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Empty bullying ... I've read them and found that this was not a copyright violation. To be sure I wrote to Steven Jones and got permission, and cited the list ... I'm actually beginning to like you MONGO :) --EyesAllMine 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Grrrr...of course you like me...everybody likes MONGO!--MONGO 12:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

EyesAllMine: Okay, not wanting to start something again, but is it "Bovmann" or "Bowman" or are they two different people? Tom Harrison Talk 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Something to do with European spelling? Notice that in the same post that Buelow is Buelov. I'm guessing this is something like how Vienna is spelled Wien in Austria. SkeenaR 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted
This was deleted without a proper explanation and discussion. I am reinserting it here, I find all it need is a reference. What do you think?

It should be noted, however, that some feel that the design critisms are misdirected or without basis.

''The first criticism above omits, the second criticism minimizes, and the sixth criticism contradicts the massive core structures of the towers, which in fact contained 47 steel box columns arranged in a footprint measuring 87 by 133 feet. Many of the box columns had outside dimensions of 54 by 22 inches.''

''The second criticism suggests that the towers employed an unusual design, atypical of skyscrapers, with no actual survey to support this claim. In fact, most modern skyscrapers do employ this "tube-within-a-tube" design, which groups load-bearing columns in the core and around the periphery in order to create unobstructed office space.''

''The fourth criticism is factually contradicted by NIST's report, which states that the web trusses were both bolted and welded to the external columns, and that the truss-to-column connections probably did not fail. The failure of these connections would invalidate NIST's theory, which depends on the floor trusses pulling in the external columns.''


 * Whatever else happens here or anywhere, the phrase, "It should be noted, however, that some feel that..." should be shot on sight. Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is a COPY-VIOLATION...it is a copy and paste from . Reinserting it into article space is a blocakble offense. Please read: Spotting possible copyright violations.--MONGO 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shot on sight? How about "lock and load" such as in the edit summary It is time this policy is reviewed SkeenaR 20:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Skeena...you're not blocked for the copy and paste only because I gave you latitude due to the newness of your account. Now that you know better, I trust you won't do this again.--MONGO 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think It's being a dick to point out bad writing. It's a common enough phrase, but it says nothing at all. Still, maybe I was more critical than I meant to be; I intended no offense, and regret any given. Tom Harrison Talk 20:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not yet sure what I inserted was copyvio, but I will refrain from any potential copyright violations. I am going to understand the copyright policies completely and I will watch for them myself as well as watch for vandalism. SkeenaR 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good to hear...don't confuse vandalism with content disputes.--MONGO 20:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about me Mongo. I understand this well. This article needs a makeover and there is quite a lot of consensus for that. It just takes a little work but I'm patient. SkeenaR 20:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am most sorry if the NPOV badly needed section was somehow misconstrued. I have deleted it and will not reinsert it. I'll state the case for the need of improvement of the NPOV of this article in a way that will most clear and agreeable. SkeenaR 21:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO, isn't it the other way around? It is 911review who has copied wikipedia: "The following debunking of the above 'design criticisms' was added to the Wikipedia article on 10/22/05, and was deleted without comment on 10/25/05." --EyesAllMine 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope we have not been using a circular reference, where the external site draws on Wikipedia and we cite them. Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Has 911review stated it in another context also? If so - may I get the link? As far as I can see, 911review this is the only page on 911review where the frasing is the same. --EyesAllMine 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious discussion has been reduced to frivolous nitpicking. Progress will resume shortly. SkeenaR 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If one reads what it says on the page it is obvious that 911review is citing wikipedia and there is absolutely no other page on the web with the same frases. So we can rule out circular reference.


 * Now, deleting it on the basis of the "no original research" is a bit farfetched. All we need is a reference on the design "... which in fact contained 47 steel box columns arranged in a footprint measuring 87 by 133 feet. Many of the box columns had outside dimensions of 54 by 22 inches." and "...In fact, most modern skyscrapers do employ this "tube-within-a-tube" design,". The first I has alredy found a references for here and here.


 * The last paragraph "The fourth criticism is factually contradicted by NIST's report, ..." is easy as the sources are the NIST report and the FEMA report. --EyesAllMine 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can find no case of copyvio either, but like I said I'll leave it for now. SkeenaR 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom I made a change in the article and it is visible but no record in history. Whats up with that anyway? SkeenaR 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed "It may be that bin Laden" to "It is a common belief that bin Laden" SkeenaR 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything unusual in the edit history. We've been editing pretty close together, maybe there was some kind of edit conflict. I don't know if it's likely in this case, but reverting to a previous version that's identical with the current doesn't show up as an edit; I suppose because no edit actually occurs. Tom Harrison Talk 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, something happened there because the change is visible but no edit visible in the summary. It was a couple of minutes after your last edit though, so it is kind of funny. I thought it might be worthwhile to point out. SkeenaR 02:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite requested
It took me about thirty seconds with Google to find a reference for bin Laden having studied engineering. Am I misunderstanding the purpose of the citation request tags? Tom Harrison Talk 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an exercise in redundacy.--MONGO 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you were better that me then - super :) - it is strange then that he is stating that he expected the fire to melt the steel. --EyesAllMine 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Maybe you the can find as quickly references for the part MONGO deleted? --EyesAllMine 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison issues threats, incites violence
Tom Harrison, in an apparent effort to intimidate authors with physical threats, has opined that a particular author should be "shot on sight". Besides being a criminal offense, (incitement to violence), it is a clear indication of his mindset. For the record, I personally would never advocate murder, or attempted murder of those with whom I disagree. Tom Harrison apparently feels otherwise. 69.231.8.216 17:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anon IP 69.231.8.216 removes entire sections of text from the dicussion pages here : for no apparent reason...it wasn't due to it being a copy violation. Anon IP also fills the article up with hideous citation requests, even after being asked not to :. Don't you think Tom was being cheeky...it's hardly likely that he was being literal...this has nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC...do you have any real proof that this happened? I'd like to see the proof, not continuous jargon from fringe elements that continuously try to make people think that just because there is less than zero chance that controlled demolition occurred, that that in itself doesn't make it impossible.--MONGO 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I invite anyone who cares to read what I wrote above and draw his own conclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted entire paragraphs from this article because there were entire paragraphs with unsubstantiated assertions. They were reverted. Concerned about the accuracy of the article, I then tagged all the individual assertions with "citation needed". The sheer number of them caused a stir, but, as EyesAllMine has pointed out, the burden of proof is on those who wish them included. I too invite anyone to research the history of this article. Clearly, TomHarrison, MONGO, and others are way outside the bounds of WP rules, and are simply trying to bully their personal agenda into what ought to be a scientific article. 69.228.47.62 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The federal reports are accurate, the websites you and others promote are based on conspiracy theories...they are the ones that have to provide proof that controlled demoltion happened and have yet to do so. I wish you luck in providing proof of controlled demolition.--MONGO 06:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The federal reports are unproven. Websites presented here are based on investigation by experts and scholars. The only thing proven about this article is that the undue weight clause is not applicable. SkeenaR 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

University of Sydney
How come this article on a web page of a small university in Australia has been used as a reference, and not the NIST investigations recent findings? Isn't it best to go to the source for reference? --EyesAllMine 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Australian page is a good user-friendly summary with minimal jargon, and is from outside the US, which some have thought was important in the past. The NIST findings are cited as well. Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what the australian page has to say of its own article:


 * "(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"

It is stating that this is one possible reason for failure. Shouldn't the wikipedia article reflect this? --EyesAllMine 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't deal with politically based conspiracy theories in this article...you're more than welcome to put these speculations in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 11:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You deal with politically based conspiracy theories with your insistance on the official story and your speculation about "ulterior political motives". SkeenaR 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, some historical context might be useful. The Warren Commission, perhaps partly out of a perceived need to provide closure for the nation, concluded that JFK was shot by a lone assassin. Independent researchers across the country raised doubts, and eventually years later, the U.S. Senate's Church Committee conducted an investigation of its own and concluded that a conspiracy to assassinate was the more likely reality. (See JFK assasination article). Do you want additional examples? Pearl Harbor was said to be a big surprise at the time, and was the reason for the US's entry into WWII. Years later, US gov't records revealed that we may have known well in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor and even the date of the attack becasue we had cracked the Japanese code, but FDR needed the attack to enter the war. The point? We should not dismiss facts that happen not to support or even happen to contradict the official theory of the collapses. Wikipedia should present facts and evidence as they are available regardless of where the chips fall, see Wikipedia rules, I don't have to cite them at you. Also, uncited assertions should not be presented, except perhaps if clearly identified as speculation.--216.57.0.210 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 216.57.0.210, (aka anon editor), That's interesting...I was taught that we didn't break the Japanese code unitl after Pearl Harbor, , . Besides, the controlled demolition nonsense is mentioned, and properly linked to the article in which this misinformation is supposed to be located. What was that about uncited assertions?--MONGO 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, Much of the article about the mechanics of the actual collapse is cited to an Australian university source. The source states: "This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice." It is not peer-reviewed. By its own admission it is a hypothesis based largely on the information available on the day of the attack, about what might have happened. You chide others here for citing non-peer reviewed websites. But because this one supports the conclusions you/Tom have reached, you cite it generously. With respect to the Pearl Harbor debate, some Com 16 intercepts and Baker code were available before Pearl Harbor (See Debate 1 of Pearl Harbor debate on Wikipedia). My larger point was just because it is the official theory for the moment, doesn't mean we should accept it as gospel. It will take decades before a lot of material withheld by the 9-11 Commission (like some internal reports and transcripts of witness testimony) will be available to the public. The 9-11 commission did not even address the collapse of WTC 7. --216.57.0.210 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 216.57.0.216, the is no official "theory" at the moment. There is a finding of evidence based on an overwhelming preponderance of information...and none of that information indicates there was controlled demolition or a government coverup. WTC7 is being finalized.--MONGO 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Controlled demolition"
Part of the problem with the 'controlled-demolition theory' is that there does not actually seem to be such a thing. That is, there seems to be no theory that attempts to explain how any of the buildings might have been destroyed by controlled demolition. Giving any weight to it at all seems undue. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * >>"That is, there seems to be no theory that attempts to explain how any of the buildings might have been destroyed by controlled demolition."
 * That would amount to a real conspiracy theory then wouldn't it! Actually there's a good one :here.
 * There it is...I'm convinced...it's true...controlled demolition is true! I'm calling the all the major newspapers and it should be on the front page in 12 hours...but I think I already saw most of this in another publication.--MONGO 05:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, what are you talking about here? There is a well developed theory of controlled demolition, and you know it. Steven Jones has published a peer-reviewed paper that "acutally seems to be such a thing". It does a far better job of explaining the observations than the "official" theory. Many steel buildings have been brought down by explosives, whereas fire has never done it.

That is why the "official" reports simply ignore so many curious questions.

Having security or maintainence workers place explosives during the power blackout of 9/8 - 9/9 is at least as plausible as believing that 19 arabs boarded 4 commercial aircraft without tickets and without being on any passenger list. 69.239.243.234 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, looking more closely, there are several scenarios. None seem to explain controlled demolition: Projectiles "timed to begin radiating intense energy just as they started to fall;" Energy beams; "numerous explosive charges hidden in locations from the top to the bottom of the towers." The website says, "One can imagine a scenario in which a thermobaric device was installed at each floor in the service core..." In other words, FAE bombs hidden in the elevators. An imagined scenario is not a theory, of controlled demolition or anything else. Tom Harrison Talk 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Theories are supported by evidence and tested according to the scientific method. Theories are not "it was a missile... no wait it was a pod on the bottom of the plane... no wait it was controlled demolition..." The day there's a peer-reviewed paper supporting controlled demolition is the day we should think about taking it seriously.

Please learn what this discussion about
How come it is going to take you guys so long before you finally understand what this debate is even about. That the government reports are being criticized. By a significant minority. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Read the undue weight clause. Please. Please everyone else read it too. Tom and Mongo are not the end all be all. They still have yet to understand what we have been discussing. SkeenaR 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In comparison to the thousands of researchers, investigators, law enforcement personal, medical personal, fire fighting personal, academics and scholars that were involved in the analysis of the facts of what really happened, and not to mention that none of the people on the list provided have proven that controlled demolition happened...point 3 of the undue weight clause applies to their misinformation. A few dozen nonexperts simply on some kind of list is not anything more than just that. This story is over.--MONGO 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because you say so and what you say goes. Don't go anywhere. SkeenaR 20:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing. Everybody look what Mongo pulled with the copyright situation and judge for yourself as to his credibility. I'm not saying anything, just have a look. SkeenaR 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes everyone, have a look at how SkeenaR here made this edit to the talk page: and it is a copy and paste from: . Also note that he/she removed my information to his talk page  when I informed him/her of the copywrite violation, in an effort to cover something up I suppose and also that I didn't block him for this because he/she is a newer editor that may have been unaware. It seems that there is more education to come. Does anything about your opinion about my credibility have anything to do with controlled demolition. Do you have any proof to offer of controlled demolition?....I didn't think so.--MONGO 20:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please everybody check this stuff out. Please. SkeenaR 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What makes this a ludicrous conspiracy theory as opposed to a credible alternate theory is the utter implausibility that all of the conspirators before and after the fact could and would conceal any evidence of a conspiracy to take down the towers by a controlled demolition. patsw 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If your statement has any meaning as far as WP is concerned could you please enlighten us? SkeenaR 21:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what patsw is saying is that this controlled demolition bunk is "ludicrous"...and that word seems quite appropriate. What is "WP"?--MONGO 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

An administrator would know that means Wikipedia Policy. To try and help you, I'll point out this section is titled "Please learn what this discussion about". Not whether you or your buddies think something is ludicrous. Please see here SkeenaR 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * really...oh you mean what policy...I've not once seen anyone post it as WP...maybe since there is no one policy. I think we have clearly shown that a few dozen non notables with no training in controlled demolition are clearly in the realm of extremely non notable. If even ONE can prove controlled demolition, then that would be a different story. You have nothing of scientific value to add aside from the far fetched stuff you've picked up from these websites. Happy editing!--MONGO 02:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing you source from your precious FEMA/NIST or Carl Bernstein is proven, we have established that. The scholars, scientists and websites we have cited are notable, we have established that. Please see here. SkeenaR 04:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Skeena...most of these people are simply not notable...some have no credentials that can be googled to even prove they exist...I think a few may even be delusional.--MONGO 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fruitcake? Mongo, I must admit, you actually are pretty funny sometimes. It won't help you though. SkeenaR 04:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The article states 'most representatives from these professions' in the second paragraph. Is that the design and construction professions? It is unclear as design and construction is stated after 'these professions'.

Merge with Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Merge what with what? This is a vote without a specific question. patsw 22:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the merge notice was just taken off the article, so this discussion is harder to follow. As per changed section title, this was a discussion of merging this article with Scholars for 9/11 Truth.  I closed the tag since it had 6 oppose votes and zero support votes.  Consensus would required 75-80% support; and I just don't see 20+ support votes suddenly coming in with no more opposes. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea...--MONGO 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The collapse is a fact. Scholars for truth is speculation. We should and will have an article on the collapse. Having the collapse article merged into the scholars page and become a redirect does not make sense. --Durin 13:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If this list of 'scholars' belongs anywhere, it belongs in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. It certainly does not belong here. Tom Harrison Talk 15:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I oppose the merger to any specific group including: FEMA, 9/11 investigators, NIST or " Scholars for truth" Also they "Scholars for truth" do not just deal with aspects of the collapse and encompass a wide range of speculation among the 9/11 investigation. It would be far more just, to merge "Scholars for truth" with "9/11 Truth movement" ScottS
 * Oppose. Agree with Tom. -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose: On reflection, and reading it again, I agree that it would be innapropriate to merge that article, but I honestly feel that the Collapse page is missing information that prevents it from being an NPOV entry. It wasn't a bad faith attempt and I'm sorry if anyone has misunderstood this. Please discuss. SkeenaR 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments
This is basically what we have been discussing the whole time. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth article is the previously deleted material that is a large portion of the entire dispute on this page. There is support for this material to be merged. This matter is in no way resolved and thus the tag should go up.SkeenaR 05:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No --MONGO 05:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No? SkeenaR 05:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The opposite of yes.--MONGO 05:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is support for this, this is established. According to Wikipedia Policy, proposals such as this must not be deleted until a reasonable amount of time has transpired for people to come to a consensus. Yes. The opposite of No. SkeenaR 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your behavior is borderline trolling and is disruptive to this project at this point and I am soliciting outside views on this matter.--MONGO 09:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Give up your futile "cause" Mongo. Your position is absolutely indefensible. And lay off with the personal attacks. SkeenaR 09:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * you created the page since you failed to reach concensus here to include this heresay. You then tried to merge them together right after the creation, a bad faith effort to push a POV into this article. I also just got through speedy deleting two images you uploaded that were copyvios...the ice you are on is getting thinner, Skeena.--MONGO 10:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are those veiled phony threats? Is that an attempt at intimidation? Is it another bonafide personal attack such as in the edit summary? It's possible that they are all of the above and I invite everyone to observe this gongshow. SkeenaR 10:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess my kindness has gone unnoticed. Since you have been made well aware of the copywrite policies by now, you can assume the consequences should you violate them again. I'm hoping that you won't post text and or images that do not conform with our policies again.--MONGO 16:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image use
We only own copyright on pictures we produce (graphic mock ups). Anything else is free reign. Best regards, Paul Joseph Watson http://www.propagandamatrix.com

Original Message From: xxx To: prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: image use request/wikipedia user

Hi Paul, I go by the username Skeenar as a contributor on Wikipedia and I would like to know if it is possible to contribute pictures from the PrisonPlanet website without violating copyright regulations. Sincerely, Skeenar

As well as www.prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Prisonplanet] and Propaganda Matrix the same rule applies to the following.


 * www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars]
 * www.prisonplanet.tv prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used PrisonPlanet TV]
 * www.infowars.net infowars.net is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars.Net]
 * Arnold Exposed

There was a dispute over this matter. SkeenaR 07:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't valid logic, but Alex Jones suggests three of those sites. I'm afraid that if you're getting information from a few concurring voices that you'll just end up convincing yourself of the New World Order. He's got passion, and an the reasons to be passionate... but somoetimes he goes overboard. I'm not saying that all his points are bogus, he does make some interesting points, but he's more interested in convincing and entertaining his audience using attack journalism and propaganda techniques. Not that other sources actually inform their readers. C. Nelson 06:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You are being presumptuous about my sources and my thoughts and you are also incorrect. And all I did here was ask for copyright info. What invalid logic? SkeenaR 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
Regardless of people's opinions on this matter, engaging in a revert war is not the way to go about resolving it. MONGO, SkeenaR, EyesAllMine...all of you need to stop revert warring over the tags. If the revert warring does not stop, temporary blocks will be applied. --Durin 13:35, 7 February 2006


 * Maybe we should ask for this srticle to be peer-revieved? What do you think? This article need more eyes - don't you think? --EyesAllMine 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is only performed when the article is near featured article status, and even if all the facts here were to your liking, it's doubtful it would qualify due to the articles instability...which seems to be a relative recent situation due to some people's attempts to add nonsense. You can of course file a request for comment if what you seek is more opinions.--MONGO 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What explains how this secret has been kept?
'''The point below about cell phone tower ranges is not applicable. At least one phone used is known to have been a GTE airfone, not a cell phone, based on which operator handled the call.''' The airfones do work at any altitude and speed.

On the other hand, the comment about the time and number of persons to rig a building with explosives needs to be evaluated more closely. Most of the time and personnel required for properly controlled demolition are needed only for doing it safely, without loss of life or damage to other buildings. If you are willing to risk those things, as those responsible in both the conspiracy theories and the official accounts were, then it could be done with less time and personnel.

Also, remember that many persons who seemed to be fire fighters entered the towers without first reporting to the command post, as was required so that the commanders could keep track of how many fire fighters were inside, and make sure that there were enough fire fighters outside to respond to any other fires that day. It is generally assumed that they were really fire fighters who disobeyed orders to wait outside, but they could have really been terrorists, using the chaos and confusion as a cover to enter the towers without passing through the security normally there. In this theory, the airplane crashes were a diversion.

207.47.102.146 03:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ok thanks for being reasonable, I was just trying to answer some questions these guys threw out there. I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean about the cellphone comment. I meant that it seems likely claims of cellphone calls are probably bogus while satphones could have been used. Isn't a GTE Airfone a satellite phone built into the seat or something? SkeenaR 04:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes the collapse of the World Trade Center from a deliberate controlled demolition even less plausible than the moon landings were faked or that an alien was autopsied in Roswell, is that a secret has been kept which would require a hundreds, if not thousands of people to be inside the conspiracy.

Unlike the fake moon landings and the alien autopsy, many people had access to the physical evidence of the so-called controlled demolition and videotapes of the collapse who would have no reason to lie about their findings and a professional obligation to report the truth. patsw 22:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true. One prominent researcher has created a plauible scenario involving LESS than the 19 people fingered in the official conspiracy. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/scenario404.html

69.228.47.62 01:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So they used knockout gas to incapacitate the passengers, then crashed the planes using autopilot? Yeah OK. Doesn't explain how passengers made phone calls and described the hijacking. And how air traffic controllers heard the hijackers on the radio. I suppose in the world of 9/11 fanfic, the phone calls were faked and the Middle-Eastern voices on the radio were broadcast by secret spy satellites. And of course, it only takes a couple guys to plant and detonate "numerous explosive charges" in the elevator shafts of the WTC buildings. And nobody is going to notice the blast damage, or find any residue from explosives, when they sift through the rubble. Rhobite 03:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

speculation-You asked, so you must be interested. There are unconfirmed reports of onboard phone calls about mace or some other gas subduing passengers and crew. It is assumed that this is unlikely, being too much of a problem for the hijackers because unless the terrorists were wearing gas masks or something, it should affect them too. What would airport security think when four men go through checks with gas masks? You would think Halloween would be a more appropriate time to try something like that.

At low altitude and high speed, the normal telephone links would be made completely unusable. It is impossible for any celltower to interrogate, authenticate, and connect a cellphone before it was out of range of the tower. This would seem to indicate that stories regarding cellphone calls are possibly fabricated. I'm no expert, but I guess you could use satellite phones right?

Also Rhobite, the 'hijackers on the radio' tape, while not necessarily fraudulent, would probably be the easiest thing to fake about an operation like the one you were referring to.

The 9-11 Commission has no identification whatsoever of the voices on the air traffic tapes, or even that the voices on the tapes came from the assumed jets. The tapes exist exist and they have voices on them, but the voices of no known crew members appear anywhere on the tapes presented in the 9/11 commission. Have you heard them? From the point of take off to the hijacking there is complete radio silence broken only by indistinguisable mumbling. All that is really known about the tapes of Flight 11 and 175 is that they were broadcast on the same frequency that the flight controllers were using. Of course it would be logical for controllers to assume that the voices came from the planes in question. The transponders were shut off. While an aircraft can be positively identified by it's 'identity friend or foe'(unique secondary radar)it is not possible to positively identify which aircraft a voice radio message is coming from. It could just as easily been coming from a van or apartment.

It seems unlikely to many that these alleged muslim fanatics who could barely fly would have been at a strip club drinking and snorting the night before they pulled of their incredible covert operation and managed to perfectly target the two buildings, including one in a sharp turn, while doing 500 or 600 mph. Wow! See? Can't you just hear them? "Booze and dope and chicks don't affect my abilities as a religious terrorist pilot." So it doesn't matter how you look at it, there aren't any stories that don't challenge your sense of rationale.

We've all heard the reports of emergency drills and power outages...consult experts about the length of time needed for rigging the buildings. Also, I remember reading about how those towers were supposed to be dismantled at some point but they were balking at the mammoth cost of such an operation. Maybe thats just a conspiracy theory but I don't think so. If anyone is interested, let me know, I'll try and verify it.

Remote control jets are nothing new. In the mid-seventies when US aircraft were being hijacked the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began a project designed to facilitate the remote recovery of hijacked aircraft. This allowed ground controllers to listen in to cockpit conversations on jet and then take control of the computerized flight systems remotely. While not necessarily accepting the implication here, it is worth considering when you bear in mind that in 2006 the mid 70's were 31 years ago-if you get my drift.

Not to mention that flying remotely is routine..

Lufthansa completely stripped American flight control systems from its fleet of aircraft in the early nineties and replaced them with homegrown versions. This was a big job. This was under Andreas von Bülow's tenure as Minister of Science and Technology. He presumably would have known about DARPA's project when you consider his position.

There were large pools of molten metal all through the rubble at the bottom.

I'm not saying I believe any particular theory. I'm just saying that all of these theories challenge the rationale ,including the official story. It's not just the alternative theories that are hard to believe. Possibly some theories are worth considering and some are not. Possibly some are more far-fetched than others.

Not that this has anything to do with article I guess. Why were Patsw and Rhobite asking about secrets and theories and stuff like that anyway??? Oh yeah, alien autopsies, fake moon landings, and it's tough to keep a secret. Sorry, thats just wrong. Unlike these things, you're right Patsw, there is physical evidence. And many credible people are questioning the official version. The analogy that correlates the speculation that was deleted from the article with aliens & what-not is... a fantasy. It doesn't work.

Another question. Seven of the 19 'suicide' hijackers are still alive. Sorry, actually it's six 'cause Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crashsometime after the events 9/11(was it a suspicious crash? at this point, who cares?!). Why are they still alive? And why doesn't Carl Bernstein ever talk about it? That should be big news! Mongo, you should call him and get the big scoop.

''I don't think a big conspiracy theory story should be included in the article either people. Again, my point is that the official story of the collapse isn't solid, even if none of the other ones are either, and that it is being challenged(it is) by credible people(they are) for a variety of good(they are) reasons. There is no real reason that this shouldn't be mentioned in the article. It belongs there. It's a fact.''

And I apologize for revert war.

SkeenaR 10:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The question about how a secret can be kept among hundreds is a good one. But does this not happen all the time? Governments and commercial industries has secrets, in warfare secrets are kept, secret-services keep secrets, not to mention organisations like the mafia. Isn't it just a question of fragmenting the information? --EyesAllMine 07:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's easier to keep secrets when there is a command structure that enables compartmentalization of knowledge and activity. SkeenaR 07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most secrets are maintained about what is true and not a matter of dispute. They are not maintained by threat and fear but simply for two reasons: harm would come from the disclosure of the truth, or professional ethics or legal obligations require that the truth not be disclosed.  When a crime or a manifest falsehood is the object of the secret, the above doesn't apply.  This happens on a daily, ongoing basis by anonymous source news stories, "leaks", etc.  This alleged conspiracy is not exclusive to one cohesive organization but to people dispersed across many professions and many locations and organization.  It is implausible, and no plausible explanation has been given, how the secret that the World Trade Center collapse was caused by a deliberate controlled demolition has been maintained by hundreds, if not thousands of people for four years.  It's an incredible leap to conclude: some secrets are kept, therefore this secret is kept. patsw 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Until a secret is exposed it may be a matter of dispute. Many secrets have been exposed that had previously been kept under wraps by threats and fear. Actually, this is ubiquitous. There have been numerous whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds that have come forward with facts pertaining to these matters. I could make a big long list of government officials, military personaal and journalists, all who seem credible. Implausibility is a matter of opinion. There have been many examples of crimes that were committed that were not exclusive to one cohesive organization, including the conspiracy involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. As shocking as it is, this is a primitive example. For the sake of parsimony, here is only one other example of a crazy sounding, but nevertheless real conspiracy.

From Operation Mockingbird ""Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a twenty five year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA:

Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad."

"According to researchers such as Steve Kangas, Angus Mackenzie and Alex Constantine, Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world."

"On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19 March 1999) Andrew Leonard asked:

"Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?"

"On 27 June 2005, the World Tribunal on Iraq published their preliminary declaration of the Jury of Conscience World Tribunal on Iraq. Finding and Charges Against the Major Corporate Media:

"Disseminating the deliberate falsehoods spread by the governments of the US and the UK and failing to adequately investigate this misinformation. This even in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary. Among the corporate media houses that bear special responsibility for promoting the lies about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, we name the New York Times, in particular their reporter Judith Miller, whose main source was on the payroll of the CIA. We also name Fox News, CNN and the BBC.[33]. Please note that the source to which the article refers is Ahmed Chalabi who provided paid informant for Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence as well as a source for the New York Times.

SkeenaR 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This insanely long response is a good example of why it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist. The theories are not falsifiable. If someone points out problems with a CT, the theorist will just explain the problem away. I'm done talking with Skeenar. Someone who thinks knockout gas / fake phone calls to relatives / elevator shaft explosives are a more plausible explanation than lucky hijackers does not have anything useful to contribute here. Still no explanation of how Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick, and other voices were faked (their loved ones spoke with them or identified their voices). Maybe robots? No wait, the government put them on other secret planes, which they pretended to hijack, so they would make phone calls to their relatives. Uh huh. Rhobite 00:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood my response, I figured that might happen. I said terrorists using knockout gas sounds bizarre, fake phone calls sound bizarre, and the official story sounds just as friggin nuts as most of the alternative theories. As well, nothing I wrote here has anything to do really with the article, it was you guys who were asking the questions. This response of mine was just trying address most of the points and questions you posted in your first smartass post in this section. You asked a whole pile of stupid questions trying to ridicule me and others. Don't ask anymore questions if you are just going to try and insult. And insanely long? Not enough room up there Rhobite? If you are done talking with me thats fine. Jerk. SkeenaR 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See also 9/11: a 7-Man Job

Image:WTC-remnant.jpg
Photochopped?: When you blow this image up to full resolution you get some very odd distortions in the lower left hand corner, that look like airbrushing, not to mention, the debris seems to be perfectly vertical, the smoke cloud seems to not exist anymore, and the lighting in the foreground is different than in the back? Not to mention for some reason there aren't any buildings visible behind it in the background--152.163.100.134 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that this photo hasn't been touched up?--152.163.100.134 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of the inconsistencies you point out. There is nothing wrong with the lower left hand corner. The smoke is plainly visible in the background. I don't see anything wrong with the lighting. And I can't understand why the debris shouldn't be roughly vertical - after all, the building was vertical, wasn't it? I'm not even going to speculate about what you might be implying by suggesting this picture is doctored. Rhobite 00:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm implying that the photo looks like it's been chopped, which tends to happen with ditigal photos, and that it might not be fairuse, ie a magazine cover, or some other such thing that's had the logo removed. What are you trying to imply?--64.12.116.134 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's obviously been cropped, but I don't see how that is a problem. The buildings on the left and right are irrelevant to the picture. Since the photo was taken by a U.S. Navy employee it is automatically part of the public domain. I still don't understand your complaints. Rhobite 01:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Today we could never be sure that any digital photo has not been touched up. --EyesAllMine 07:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Lacking of primary sources
Rhobite has recently removed the lacking primary sources tag. I put this tag on, because several sources are not primary sources, and should be fixed to meet the wiki-standard of wp:cite. As I noted under University of Sydney above the article on Sydney University is actually outdated and is not the primary source of information regarding the collapse of WTC. Rather theese parts of the article should be based on the latest reports, facts and findings by NIST. As long as this isn't done it would be helpfull to have primary sources tag on, also to attract attention so this article can get all the help it can get in being precise and factual. --EyesAllMine 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there may be some misunderstanding here (and maybe it's my own), partly because of how the tag is worded.


 * This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources, such as websites and publications affiliated with the subject of the article. (emphasis is mine)


 * Historians and journalists use Primary sources. We do not; Wikipedia should cite secondary sources. We may use primary sources, if they have already appeared in a credible publication. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly...that is why we don't allow the use of misinformation from non peer reviewed sources.--MONGO 21:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the merge tag on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article. After reflecting on this, I agree that this article would be innapropriate to merge here, and even if it was, the material in that article needs to be reworked. SkeenaR 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, I tink there is a misunderstanding here. This is what Citing sources says:

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research", it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --EyesAllMine 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No original research says, "In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library."
 * Maybe we're trying to work at too high a level of generality. What source exactly is it that we're talking about? Tom Harrison Talk 18:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I am talking about souces like the latest NIST report. Do I understand you and MONGO correctly: You are saying we can not quote NIST, 'cause it hasn't been peer-reviewed and has not been published by a reputable third-party publication? And what about the webpage from Sydney University which has been used as a source? --EyesAllMine 18:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think both of those are appropriate and useful. Do you think they are not? Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think (as I noted under University of Sydney above( the article on Sydney University is actually outdated and is not the primary source of information regarding the collapse of WTC.

This is what the australian page has to say of its own article: "(This is an initial suggestion, originally written on Sept 11 2001 (with some minor subsequent changes) on one possible reason for failure, and should not be regarded as official advice.)"

I would rather use NISTs report as a source. That is why I put the "primary sources needed tag" on top of this article. The tag Rhobite has removed. But now I am in doubt. Because NISTs report does not meet the requirement from No original research of being peer-reviewed or being published by a reputable third-party publication. --EyesAllMine 21:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what you are proposing. The tag does not request that primary sources be added. The tag says, "This article does not cite sources or references that appear in a credible publication and are not primary sources..." (The emphasis is mine.) It looks to me like that tag is not appropriate for this article. Are you suggesting that the tag be added, or that some source be added, or that a source be removed? Tom Harrison Talk 23:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're misunderstanding No original research. We can't create primary sources, but we can of course refer to them in articles. Rhobite 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you, Tom and Rhobite, think of Sydney University's webpage as a source for any encylopedia? I think it is outdated, unfounded and is as it says "a suggestion" only. That is why I put on the tag. A webpages stating it is a suggestion, is not a proper source for any encyclopedia.--EyesAllMine 07:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's appropriate and useful. The disclaimer you mention is clearly meant as 'This is not to be taken as my advice as a Professional Engineer,' or whatever the Australian equivalent is; As a lawyer would say, 'this is not my professional legal opinion, but it seems to me...' His lack of self-promotion actually gives me more confidence in his impartiality and judgement. Tom Harrison Talk 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine then. It should just be clear in the article, that this is a suggestion, made a couple of days after the attack -- not an investigated fact. --EyesAllMine 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, is it your view that material for our article can be cited without qualification to a website, not peer reviewed, that is written by an academic at a university? Just want to make sure I understand? --216.57.0.210 16:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can articulate many grand general principles beyond what's already Wikipedia policy. On another page I watch, about Pope Pius XII, someone cited the work of an academic at a university in the context of the rise of the Nazis before the war. Unfortunately, the academic was a paleontologist. He knew no more about Pope Pius than I did, and his only qualification seemed to be his strong opinion and an article he had written for a website. By a suitably broad definition, you could even cite me. I have a degree in engineering; I teach at a college; I have actually blown up buildings (small ones), which puts me ahead of some 9/11 researchers. Is my opinion about 9/11 any more authoritative than anyone else's? Of course not. I think whether a particular reference is suitable and consistent with Wikipedia policy has to be determined by the consensus of editors who work on the page. Tom Harrison Talk 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate among engineers
Tom, the discussion between you and EyesAllmine (first and second post) in Ongoing debate among engineers sounds reasonable. SkeenaR 09:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'm not sure that I have much more to add right now though. Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing debate among engineers
The FEMA and NIST reports have not resolved all disagreements among engineers. New Civil Engineer published an article titled Row erupts over why twin towers collapsed, in which one party claims "the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact." and "WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCEI has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the towers has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings." (WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation). Other articles have been titled All this work is just the start, Calls to reopen Cardington for post 9/11 fire tests rejected and Huge investigation but questions remain.

In 2005 fire engineers B Lane and S Lamont stated: "This lower reliance on passive fire protection is in contrast to the NIST work where the amount of fire protection on the truss elements is believed to be a significant factor in defining the time to collapse. However there is no evidence in NIST’s preliminary report that this is backed up by structural modelling in response to fire. It appears that only heat transfer modelling considering different levels of fire protection have been carried out and the failure of the individual elements has been related to loss in strength and stiffness only. Thermal expansion and the response of the whole frame to this effect has not been described as yet."

Another distinct minority has challenged the findings of NIST and FEMA, arguing that controlled demolition may have occurred and asking for a new, indepedent investigation. For more information, please see: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.

The above was deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=39060900&oldid=39059702 by MONGO together with other small edits. I made a comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACollapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=39070661&oldid=39068464 which also was deleted here. My intention is to bring balance and help getting this article better, by using apprved sources etc. Claiming that an debate among engineers is a "conspiracy theory" seems to me to be a paranoid assumption.

It is not much fun when every single edit I make gets deleted. Without any discussion or explanation on the talk page. I will not participate in an edit war. So now I really dont know what to do. --EyesAllMine 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

EyesAllMIne is right, there is a debate among engineers. In fact, if you will look closely, you will discover that the "official theory" has changed significantly three times. The Bazant and Zhou paper, published just 2 days after the attacks, theorized that the core heated up to at least 800 degrees C, causing it to buckle and fail. The FEMA report, released in 2002, endorsed by Eagar and NOVA, switched to the "truss failure" theory, claiming that the floor trusses heated, sagged, and pulled the perimeter columns, eventually the trusses broke free and fell down on to the floor below, somehow triggering a pancake effect, and somehow making the core disintegrate. Then, NIST changed the story again in 2005, going back to a modified core meltdown theory.

The edit war taking place here is a microcosm of the coverup - Bullies overpowering the truth with force of will and a strong agenda.

69.239.243.234 15:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The nut theory has changed just as much.. need I mention the pod theory again? Rhobite 15:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that the "pod" theory is unfounded, as is the "core meltdown" theory, and the "truss failure" theory. One does not need ANY alternative theory to demonstrate that the "official" theory is false and has no place in an encyclopedia. I was merely pointing out that defenders of the "official" theory are actually defending an ill-defined, shifting and incomplete explanation, at best.

69.239.243.234 15:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory?
Quote:

Recent allegations overwhelmingl points out that the attacks were actually conceived by George W. Bush as a pretext for imperializing Iraq, against the will of the poor people there who have been victims of American cruelty. See also, 2003 Invasion of Iraq. (See alternative theories, 9/11 truth movement).

Other than being badly written, I don't know of any evidence that the CIA or any other government agency planned the September 11th attacks. Needs to be removed, or rephrased.

Yes, this article is not the appropriate place for detailed allegations. But Tom, why the revert in the speculations section? It might not have been perfect, but don't you think that if it couldn't have even been modified, the reason for deletion could have been discussed or stated? Or do you think the previous "discussion" has been adequate? I'm not trying to start something up, I'm just asking. SkeenaR 00:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This part?


 * Professional engineers, forensic investigators, and physics academics argue that controlled demolition may have occurred. The reason for this is both the rapid, unimpeded fall of the towers, and the research showing the gap between the highest temperature jet fuel will burn (near same temperature as kerosene) and the lowest temeperature that can threated the integrity of steel. For more information, please see: 9/11 conspiracy theories.


 * While we could probably find at least one of each occupation that has said so, I think the first sentence is intended to make the idea of a controlled demolition seem more widely accepted, and by more highly-qualified people, than is the case. I'm not really sure either that they "argue" for controlled demolition so much as they "speculate" or "assert." The second sentence does not make clear that "the reason" is only the reason according to the small minority that holds that view. In any case, the second sentence goes into too much detail. After I took that out and made the other changes, the result would have been about the same as reverting, so I just reverted it.


 * Still, you have a point. It would have been nicer to leave a comment on the talk page. I'll try to do that in the future.


 * Incidently, "professional engineer" in the US has a particular legal meaning; it might be better to use other terms, unless we know someone is a registered professional engineer. That's a general observation, not limited to this subject. Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to see if there really are any PEs who think that a controlled demolition theory is the most plausible. According to my state's regulations, PEs may "Not express an opinion on any subject concerning engineering unless the opinion is founded on adequate knowledge and honest conviction."  It would be a big no-no to use your title while discussing a controvertial subject like this unless you really knew what you were talking about.  Toiyabe 22:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. SkeenaR 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)