Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 10

Relying on Bazant
"Allegations of controlled demolition have been found to be devoid of scientific merit by mainstream engineering scholarship." The only sources for this claim are the same papers by Bazant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You demand extensive proof of a negative, where the only people who take your thesis seriously are proponents of a conspiracy theory.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Funding
As far as I know, Wikipedia is not government funded, and therefore should have no incentive to cover up the truth about the WTC collapse.

If we were do divide all the engineers into 3 categories: 1) those who support the CD theory 2) those who support the fire-induced collapse theory 3) those who don't voice an opinion - then most engineers would fall in category 3. Several thousand would fall in category 1. In category 2 we have the NIST engineers and a few others. In the controversy over whether the government is lying about 9 11, NIST's testimony is not worth anything because they are hired by the government. So it comes down to Bazant and Eagar, and maybe a few others in category 2. There are very few examples of non-government engineers defending the fire induced collapse theory. There are many examples of engineers defending the CD theory. Wikipedia distorts the situation, making it look like the CD theory is a fringe theory in the engineering community.

Anyone with two eyes can see that this was a controlled demolition. It is easy to see why the NYT and Washington Post would be afraid to report on this. But Wikipedia is based on user donations. What is holding them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Vast majority of scientists don't offer their opinion on fringe theories. --Harizotoh9 (talk)
 * Sixteen years on the only people who are interested in the subject are Truthers.   Acroterion   (talk)   12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 08:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors on Wikipedia have scant tolerance for proponents of fringe theories who see WIkipedia as a mutable platform for confirming their ideas that can't get traction anywhere else. You equate "don't voice an opinion" with "don't have an opinion" or with uncertainty. Sixteen years on the only people who spend time on this are committed conspiracy enthusiasts. "Anyone with two eyes can see this is a demolition" is simply an expression of confirmation bias and invalid on Wikipedia. It is unequivocally a fringe theory, and as I point out up this page, the narrow focus on engineering opinions by Truthers is a smokescreen for the fundamental reason: why was this postulated demolition done?  Acroterion   (talk)   12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And I see that you've been blocked for beating this particular horse to death on ANI, proving my point concerning scant tolerance.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The late Danny Jowenko's expert conclusions should be quoted in the WTC7 section
http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/550-jowenko.html He wasn't wishy-washy at all what his training and extensive experience led him to conclude from watching videos of the collapse, and the videos made of the interviews with him are available online. 98.118.22.14 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

AE911 Truth is not a WP:RS (and we've gone over this a million times), but rather a WP:FRINGE source that tries to inflate the credentials of people to make it sound like their position is mainstream. If Danny Jowenko wants to be taken seriously he should publish his work in a proper scientific journal. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He's dead, Jim.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * More specifically, if the late Mr. Jowenko's comments have received substantial coverage in major mainstream journalism and scholarship, they might be appropriate for inclusion as a prominent conspiracy theory proponent. However, such coverage should only be in proportion to coverage in mainstream discussions, and cannot be a platform for promotion of conspiracy theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If all sources have to be "mainstream", then maybe you should define and list mainstream sources. 2601:181:8301:4510:7959:9701:7D39:F2B7 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:RS.  Acroterion   (talk)   09:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an oxymoron (please see the definition of that word in the event you attempt to claim it's an attack or insult). Just how can a 9/11 conspiracy theory ever be classed as 'mainstream' as if that ever happened, they would no longer be written off as 'conspiracy theories'. They simply cannot be two things Apeholder (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is how Wikipedia works. We rely on reliable sources, not one-off hypotheses that fail scrutiny.
 * No one takes AE911 seriously, because their conjectures have been soundly rebutted in mainstream scientific publications. We are not asking for "mainstream" conspiracy theories because, by their very nature, they are not mainstream opinions. We want what reliable sources say about the conspiracy theories.
 * Also, you're replying to a thread that's been dead since May. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Add missing seismic analyses to LEAD
The information in the lead stops at 2009. The missing seismic information in the page's body has been submitted and accepted. The lead now also needs the seismic analyses information, in a condensed form. Here it is: The seismic wave data recorded on 11 September 2001 at Columbia University's Palisades station became a descrepancy within the 9/11 Commission Report, after the seismic data timestamps were replaced with FAA ground radar timestamps. The decision separated recorded seismic signal times from later occuring plane impacts and building collapses, by 15 seconds for the first impact, and the seismic data received before the plane's impact signifies another source of the seismic waves than the plane's impact. The timing differences between seismic signals and the plane impacts and collapses continue to be a major descrepancy within the 9/11 Commission report. Several authors, professional engineers and scientists reexamned the seismic data during 2006 to 2009. Columbia University's seismic wave data, incorporated in FEMA and NIST reports, and in the 9/11 Commission Report, was then specifically analysied by 2010 and again by 2012 by French geophysicist Dr André Rousseau, a respected and published specialist in acoustic wave signals with CNRS in Paris. Rousseau conclusively found the seismic wave events to be sourced from controlled explosions, and not plane impacts and building collapses, which confirms eyewitness accounts of explosive noises, flashes, and specific instances of seismic ground waves compiled by the New York Fire Department and by other witnesses. 93.23.196.5 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC) And again 93.23.196.5 (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)