Talk:NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

Meta information about this draft

 * The subject is notable and meets Notability
 * The subject is verifiable and meets Verifiability
 * The article should be free of conspiracy speculation.
 * However, criticism and professional opinions contrary to the official explanation should not be hastily dismissed.
 * Historical context and background should be included.
 * Article should explain the NIST report & investigation. Period.

About me and why I'm writing this:
 * Technical writer, published author, admittedly poor at spelling and grammar (though for the life of me I try my hardest)
 * Not a conspiracy theorist/enthusiast (IMO this shouldn't need be be said, but given the sensitive subject it may help). I believe that Al-Qaeda is responsible for 9/11.
 * I'm writing this because I have an interest in the collapse of the World Trade Center, and I believe that there is a great deal of notable, verifiable information that is not currently anywhere in Wikipedia.

The terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 is a sensitive topic. It is a target of conspiracy enthusiasts, who erroneously view Wikipedia as a place to promote their views. This is a problem for Wikipedia. However, that should not stop us from pursuing the Wikimedia Foundation's mission statement: "To empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally."

In the interest of Neutral_point_of_view and Collaboration_first, I will be reaching out to known Wikipedia editors with an interest in 9/11 to productively collaborate on this draft. My hope is that we can work together and not let it turn into a mess of negativity and resentment. Please understand that I will be putting great effort and time into this draft, and I really do not want it to be rejected - or worse. I have already been warned that I may be banned from 9/11 topics without due process. I do not wish that!

I hope that everybody can be treated with respect, and that we can productively collaborate together!

--Mannydantyla (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Reflections on "criticism and professional opinions contrary to the official explanation should not be hastily dismissed"
Millions of people around the world have questions about the tragic events of that day and the consequences for our county and the world, and they deserve answers. Many folks just don't want to "go there" - i.e. the truth may be too painful for them - and refuse to consider any notable facts that are contrary to the official record. This Wikipedia article can serve to answer some of these questions. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge, not a tool for public outreach. Readers expect straightforward information, not speculation. The article should be an encyclopedic explanation of the NIST investigation and report. Period.

Mannydantyla (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It's fair to say that I am (or, I was) skeptical of the official explanation of the collapse - or least my understanding of it. But the more research I do on the technical explanation for the collapse, the more I understand, the less skeptical I am. This is normal. This is how people learn. This also illustrates why this article is not just notable, but also important to Wikipedia's collection of 9/11 articles.

As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs. Quantitative reasoning can help sort fact from fiction, and can help us learn from this unfortunate disaster.

Mannydantyla (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

'Criticism' section lacks specifics
There are no solid arguments or criticisms of specific parts of the report listed in the criticism section; it's just "some people say NIST reached their conclusion using a bad method" restated. Even the alleged NIST whistleblower goes unnamed in the article. Specific details are needed if this section is going to stay in the article. If there are not individual named experts or relevant accredited organizations making claims about specific parts of the investigation or its final report, then there is no notability. Saying "they did it wrong" and leaving it there is just hand-waving. 66.161.207.235 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)