Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 5

firefighter testimony
Some users have suggested to move the info here, so I am providing a link: Hope it is of use to anybody. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As the top of the page says: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11, 2001 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
 * Thanks! RxS 01:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies, as you deleted my information I conclude I should have been more verbose. My intention was to provide some Reliable Primary Source (this firefighter) for as yet unexplained events which might merit inclusion in the article. I hope my intention is clear now, and I hope you take a look at either the video or the article on the wearechange website. I am re-inserting my comment. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

please take a look
A Sit Down With An 9/11 Fire Fighter
 * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761
 * All time views: 4,711
 * 49 min 2 sec - 7 Aug 2007
 * www.wearechange.org www.loosechange911.com www.infowars.com

&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are we supposed to be looking at? What interesting for the article is in here? --Golbez 03:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The firefighter describes low level explosions which he claims cannot be explained by fuel dripping down the elevator shafts. Also a dead body in a closet (!). I quote from wearechange.org:
 * ''His story directly contradicts many aspect of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks though corroborates many other eyewitness testimony. [...]
 * ''It looked like a bomb went off [...]
 * ''As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
 * ''“We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building.
 * ''were not able to find an exit. “The lobby was like a war zone.
 * ''Willie Rodriguez&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is this of any interest here? This page is not a forum for discussion.  Bring up whatever changes you want to make based on this testimony from an unreliable source on Controlled demolition hypothesis.  --Haemo 04:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed....make a point or I'll archive (or remove) this section. RxS 05:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with Haemo: Controlled demolition hypothesis is the better place, and made a link from there to here. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't do that; move the discussion there, don't link to it. It's totally unrelated to this page, which is why people keep removing it.  --Haemo 05:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

j. mcmichael citation
in removing the paragraph referring to the j. mcmichael citation An early version of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, explicitly stated in opposition to the mainstream explanation, was formulated by J. McMichael. His ironic essay "Muslims Suspend the Laws of Physics" recalled Romero's initial remarks and introduced some of the lasting elements of the hypothesis: that the fires could not have sufficiently weakened the steel to initiate the collapses, and that the undamaged structure underneath the impact zones would have resisted a total progressive collapse. These ideas were then developed in greater detail by Jeff King and Jim Hoffman on their websites, with little attention from the mainstream media. my comment said WP:OR. i should have said WP:RS&mdash;j. mcmichael's identity and credentials are a mystery.

nonetheless, i remain vaguely unsettled, as the mcmichael articles and the role they play in the early development of the controlled demolition hypothesis are in their own way informative.

i sent an email to the address he gave, asking for some information. i will restore the paragraph if i get sufficient background to overcome WP:RS concerns. Peterhoneyman 13:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i did not receive a reply to the email that i sent to j. mcmichael, using the address in his article. so i am prepared to stand by my sense that the citation is not a reliable source. Peterhoneyman 14:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The original reason for including it was that Jim Hoffman cited it as a "classic" here. I was sure there were other references to it by prominent proponents of the CDH. All I was able to find was this pretty good early history (though by no means an RS).--Thomas Basboll 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein's Quote Regarding The Collapse Of WTC7
Changed Larry Silversteins quote to Itallic 14 August 2007

Eric Hufschmid
Here is a bio of Eric Hufschmid. Presumably, Huschmid is the source of this bio.

Eric Hufschmid lost interest in school and the media during high school. He felt that the world was designed for people with the mind of a 12 year old. He decided that when he left home at age 19, he would never get a television or subscribe to any publications. He never bothered going to college. After a few years of working ordinary jobs he took a short course in computer programming, and eventually ended up in business for himself developing CAD/CAM software. After he noticed suspicious aspects of the September 11th attack, he sent email to professors, scientists, engineers, and other people to look into the attack. Nobody showed any interest, so he decided to publish his analysis of the September 11th Attack. His book is referenced by people around the world to support the accusation that the conspiracy is much larger than 19 Arabs. Today Eric thinks that the reason schools and the media are so idiotic is because there is a deliberate attempt to deceive people about the crimes that are occurring.

Hufschmid's web page features denials of global warming, the Warren report, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon walk; labels 9/11, the Columbine massacre, and the election of the Pope as Zionist conspiracies; accuses Albert Einstein of engaging in "odd sexual practices"; and equates Linux with Marxism.

I question Eric Hufschmid's qualifications as a reliable source. Peterhoneyman 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Second that. bov 01:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For what information is he used as a source? The only mention I can find of his name in this article is that he appears to have written a book; is the existence of the book contested? Weregerbil 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * the section now emphasizes the book, not its author. Peterhoneyman 13:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleting "content"
on WP:RS, jimmy wales is quoted I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. if you can back up the claim The controlled demolition hypothesis has been pursued mainly by experts in fields other than structural engineering and by a network of amateur investigators. with a reliable source, then go ahead and put it back. otherwise, it is not "content" and merits deletion. Peterhoneyman 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bažant citation
it's a small point, but i think the quoted material in the bažant citation (referenced in the last sentence of the lede) As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was [followed by a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure]. subtly injects POV into the article. (also, the lede sentence is kind of clumsy. get me rewrite!) Peterhoneyman 02:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * i really think the final sentence of the lede


 * Many structural and mechanical engineers have dismissed the possibility of controlled demolition of the WTC buildings, considering them, as in the NIST report, an example of the "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse."


 * is inappropriate for the lede -- really, it adds nothing. and it's obvious -- if many engineers ("many"?) did not reject the controlled demolition hypothesis, then ... well, this page wouldn't be here, would it?  (instead, we would have a page on the progressive collapse hypothesis.  no?)


 * so i don't want to rewrite the sentence, i want to delete it. Peterhoneyman 22:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * as described here, i got rid of the quote in the bažant citation and reorgainzed the lede. it's been a few days and no one has reverted, so i guess my vandalism editorial improvement has legs. heh. Peterhoneyman 16:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ae911truth.org
I don't see any independent credentials for the founders/owners. There's no evidence they aren't lying about their membership. It's possible they should be noted further down as self-claimed proponents, but they don't belong in the lead as being actual proponents. 15:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you show a reliable source that indicates they are lying? Usually when an organization publishes its lists of members we assume its valid unless there was some sort of public investigation or report that discredits this list. Now you might consider the members crack pots, but they are still members unless shown to be otherwise. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm sure they are members but there's no way to tell of they are really engineers or architects which is the whole point. They just verify the info with the applicant, and the degree field on the sign up sheet isn't even a required field. The supposed expertise of the members is what is being cited, and there's no way to tell if they are legit. RxS 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * perhaps we should refer to them as "members, architects, and engineers". Since they accept non-engineers without a gripe. I don't think we have any right to contest the people who claim to be engineers (unless there is reason to do so). But if the site is willing to accept non-engineers we shouldn't refer to all members as engineers. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 00:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But if you're going to claim that a group of engineers or architects have a professional opinion about something and use that opinion as a basis to change content, then you'd better be sure that they really are engineers or architects. And since ae911truth isn't a neutral third party source, we have no idea if they are who they claim to be. RxS 01:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim they are not real engineers when they are willing to have their names, pictures and qualifications published on the website as supporting it? Looking at just a few of them such as Frank DeMartini - WTC Construction Manager, Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University, Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus Department of Structural Engineering and Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction Dynamics Federal Institute of Technology and David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE – University of Sydney....these look genuine to me. Wayne 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I gotta side with wayne again, but for the reason i stated earlier. If these people claim to be architects (even if the organization itself doesnt do a background check) we need to consider they are telling the truth unless a reliable source tells us otherwise. We dont usually go around disbelieving credentials claim to have until we are given reason to do so. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 07:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This brings up the problem of Tom harrison repeatedly reverting this content based on WP:RS. As I pointed out before, the particular edits are not the websites own editorial or content. The website is quoting people who are reliable sources themselves and it is this that is the focus of the edits. What these people are saying is factual and appropriate for the website they are on regardless of that websites own reliability. This is attested by these peoples authority to publish their pictures and qualifications with what they have said. I point out the following from WP's own guidelines: '''1. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. 2. Self-published and questionable sources: material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.''' There is no doubt these peole are experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-parties and in the case of one edit the source was a video of one expert actually saying what the edit claimed he said and you can't get more reliable than that. I assume Tom harrison reverted that one as unreliable because he suspects manipulation of the video by the website that carried it? These people are signing a petition for an enquiry into the collapse which is why you wont find this petition (or views) in normal RS's as these refuse to support other than the official theory. Having said that I point out that I tried to make the edits as nuetral and non confronting as possible. Because these edits were reverted I'm forced to find RS's which, from the few I've found so far, are far more confronting than my original ones which i wanted to avoid to keep the articles tone as nuetral as possible (despite the fact that the article as it is is already biased against CT's anyway). I repeat my earlier assertion: Until such time as an enquiry establishes the cause of the collapse the official theory and the controlled demolition theory must be treated equally. Wayne 16:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did a check on some of the people who claim to be architects and engineers and not only are they genuine but several have their own pages on WP.

Preparation time for controlled demolition
WLRoss' disclaimer that the weeks or months of preparations "assumes standard industry safety precautions" is inaccurate. Interior abatement is not merely a safety precaution, it is essential to ensuring that controlled demolition will succeed in collapsing the building. Here's what Stacy Loiseaux says about the pre-demolition preparation: We are usually an implosion subcontractor, meaning that there is a main demolition contractor on site, who's been contracted by the property owner or the developer, and they then subcontract the implosion to us. We will then ask them to perform preparatory operations, including non-load bearing partition removal—meaning, the dry wall that separates the rooms. It's not carrying the weight of the building. It's just there as a divider. But what happens—you know, if you have a case of beer—all the little cardboard reinforcements inside? If you have all those little cardboard reinforcements, then you can jump up and down on the case. But if you take them out, the case will crush under your weight. Those little partitions actually add up and act as stiffeners. So that's one of the first things we strip out. Peterhoneyman 16:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The word essential seem to be your word. From that quote the subcontractor seems to be talking about what they do in a typical situation. It doesnt seem clear to me that the quote is talking about a rush job - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The disputed phrase in the article states "... although this assumes standard industry safety precautions to protect the public were followed." Loiseaux makes clear that interior abatement is unrelated to safety. The disputed phrase is inaccurate. Peterhoneyman 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this before adding that qualifier (in fact the entire claim should not even be in the article as it is false). I used the records of Controlled Demolition Inc. They claim their most difficult controlled demolition job - equivalent to 12 high rise buildings and containing 70 elevator shafts which, due to structural problems, required rigging every column on every floor (normally only 3 - 5 floors need rigging in a high rise) - took 3 months planning, 4 months for the safety precautions and a 12 man team 192 hours to drill and set the more than 4,000 charges. Getting out the calculator finds that if you do not take any safety precautions (completely consistent with the CT's) a 2 man team could rig the WTC with explosives in 6 hours per floor. Assume 5 floors in each building and dont forget that the WTC towers were completely empty for long periods prior to 9/11 so it cant be discounted. I'm not saying I support controlled demolition theories but until there is an investigation both theories are POV as there is evidence for both the CD (possible) and government account (probable) so both theories must be treated as valid. I'll make up my mind once an investigation proves or disproves what happened. Wayne 04:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are overlooking that in fact the WTC did collapse at near free fall speed which proves removal of interior walls is not required. It just facilitates the collapse.
 * You are not addressing my objection: interior abatement is unrelated to "standard industry safety precautions." Furthermore, Loiseaux plainly states that interior abatement ("preparatory operations") is not performed by CDI, which invalidates your calculations. Peterhoneyman 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read again. The change i made never mentioned interior abatement. My calculations are based on setting the explosives only. Work it out yourself....If whoever ignored public safety and any other procedures not related to actually blowing stuff up then it's possible to set up a controlled demolition in a day if you have enough people (6?). Wayne 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid arguement i have left that edit out. Instead I have added edits quoting reliable sources with the alternate view. After all this article is not for "Debunking CD" but "CD hypothesis" so views for and against are legitimate. The links for the quoted parties may not be the usual sites accepted as RS's as Tom harrison has pointed out but, as the edits are not the websites own editorial or comment but actual quotes/views by prominent and reliable people talking in their fields of expertise this makes these people RS's in their own right. Wayne 06:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For the most part i agree with wayne. I dont see the link between internal abatement and general lack of safety. Maybe im just missing somewhere here. However by the same token, the fact that you ran the numbers yourself doesnt mean much because thats original research. We need a quote that indicates that the numbers assume no safety precautions (otherwise the numbers look like they assume normal procedures the way i read it). - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Admissible evidence
A statement by a lawyer for a couple of censored Truthers about admissible evidence is not admissable by Wikipedia standards. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * …huh? What are you trying to say here? -- Kesh 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement I removed from the article, which states that Judy Woods' lawyer believes there is more "admissible evidence" for the particle beam theory than for any other theory for the destruction does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * absolutely. it is unvarnished unsubstantiated rhetoric by a mouthpiece-for-hire.  Peterhoneyman 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

rofltrain
lolocopter! nice theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelun88 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

basement explosions?
Where does the credibility of these basement explosions theories come from? An engineer that was inside the sixth floor of a building, using only his sense of hearing and touch was able to discern that the explosives were in the lower levels and basement? If they were, he would have been directly above them, and would have died. In all video evidence, the building collapses from top down, the lower floors remaining completely intact while the upper floors are collapsing. This would obviously not occur if explosives were centered in the lower levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exander (talk • contribs) 09:51, September 11, 2007
 * Yeah, but try explaining that to a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy believer. It's a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to evidence, but it's a frequently claimed one. -- Kesh 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Here I am, right on schedule! William Rodriguez, a long-time janitor at the WTC has stated, in numerous public forums, that he heard a large explosion from somewhere below sublevel B a few seconds before he heard the impact of the aircraft far up in the building. He then encountered a co-worker who had been injured by the subterranean explosion. Just because there were early subterranean explosions does not mean that there were no later explosions. In fact, if you look at the collapse videos, some sort of explosions hurl "dust" -- apparently newly pulverized concrete -- up into the air above the towers just before they begin to collapse.

Wowest 03:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A construction worker was in the 4th sub basement of the north building and he said that seconds after the first explosion (the plane hitting) there was a second explosion that blew the walls out on his level. He eventually escaped through the south building. It is undeniable there were basement explosions but the cause is anyones guess. Wayne 11:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The engineer was actually in the 6th sub basement of the north building not the 6th floor. He was not alone but had another engineer with him. They stated that just before 9am there was a power surge and the floor shook so they called the chief engineer who told them there was an explosion and to stay where they were. The sub basement was filling with smoke so they went up the stairs to the C level workshop but it was nothing but rubble (they noted a piece of equipment weighing 50 tons was no longer there) so they both went up to the parking garage and that was gone as well. They said they though a bomb had gone off in the garage. They then went up to B level and that too was destroyed, next was the lobby and they left the building.

Should the 911tm template be on this article?
I tried adding the 9/11 Truth Movement template to this article but it was reverted with a reason that "9/11 Truth is not the focus of the article". I don't understand this as all the proponents of the hypothesis are very much a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the issue is the one of the most prominent parts of "9/11 Truth". I would have thought this justifies the presence of the template. Please can the reverter (or somebody who agrees with them) explain their reasoning to me? Corleonebrother 14:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 9/11 Truth is a specific group of people, and your statement that "all the proponents of the hypothesis are very much a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement" is incorrect. Applying that label to everyone who disagrees with the official report is far too broad. While the 9/11 Truth group is concerned with the controlled demolition hypothesis, this article is not about their views specifically, but all the varied demolition hypotheses regarding the Twin Towers, right down to the "space lasers" which the Truthers distance themselves from. Adding the template lends undue weight to their group in this article. -- Kesh 18:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the 9/11 Truth Movement is anyone that believes the government were complicit in the attacks. Therefore anyone who supports this hypothesis is, by definition, in the movement.  The 'distancing' you're referring to is not the Truthers distancing themselves from some other group, but rather a split within the movement itself - the "space laser" theorists are still Truthers.
 * By the way, I agree that "everyone who disagrees with the official report" contains more than just Truthers, but only where the disagreements are relatively minor, not when you're talking about controlled demolition.  Corleonebrother 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 911tm clearly should should be in this article. Any supporters of this theory are clealy members of the Movement. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that template fits. The article (rightly) mentions the movement.--Thomas Basboll 22:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" is a specific group. This nebulous "movement" is as broad as saying "UFO believers" is a movement. It's being used here as an umbrella term to apply to anything involved with the September 11 attacks, which is so broad as to be useless. -- Kesh 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Kesh's concern is with the template itself, not with whether it applies here. I think the 9/11 Truth Movement is more specific than "anything involved with the 9/11 attacks". It is the grassroots effort to expose a coverup surrounding the events of 9/11.--Thomas Basboll 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I still disagree that the template is applicable to this article, as it's only tangentially related. However, consensus appears to be against me for the moment, and it's not really worth fighting over, so I concede the point. -- Kesh 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
I'd like try a few things with this article. (1) Merge the first three sections into one (organized historically). (2) Trim the WTC7 and Main Towers sections to their essentials. (3) Reduce "popularizations" to a list of links to other articles (describing notable episodes in (1) above). (4) Dissolve the information in "reactions from engineers" into the work under (1) and (2). Right now, this article simply contains too much information to be useful as an encyclopedia article.--Thomas Basboll 20:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my additions of 9/18/2007
Arthur Rubin reverted my additions on 9/18/2007, with the comment, "Revert WP:OR or WP:SYN suggesting that firefighters support the theory, and that floors 'disappeared'."

Here were my additions:

In the paragraph comparing the two tower collapses:

Well before the failure reached ground-level, the falling top-piece disappeared. After the top-piece had disappeared, catastrophic failure continued from the top of the remaining floors down.

And in the same paragraph, I added the emphasized text below:

As the cloud *of debris and dust* reached the level of other buildings, it expanded through the streets of surrounding blocks *; however, in each case the tower continued to fail from the top down*.

Later in the article, after this:

Some firefighters who had reported explosions later came to a different view of what they had perceived. For example, one said, "We realized later after talking and finding out" that the ten or so "explosions" he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually "the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

I added this:

The firefighters did not explain how the rest of each building would have begun to collapse after the noises were over, if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand. Their explanation also does not account for the numerous explosions audible on videos taken before the collapse, in which the noises are clearly heard well before any collapse had begun. Several of the firefighters who initially reported explosions described the incident they witnessed as a "pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" or "ba, ba, ba, ba, ba" sound, indicating vertical progression with their hands, without mentioning that this was the sound of the buildings falling.

I have several questions for Arthur Rubin.

1) Did you do any Original Research to reach your conclusion that the top-pieces did NOT disappear?

2) If, as you suggest, you actually believe that the top-pieces did not disappear, please, by all means, tell all of us where they went?  I think we've all seen the videos.  Where did the top-pieces go, if they didn't disappear, sir?  I'm dying to hear your explanation.  Or perhaps you have some pictures showing us one or both top-pieces lying around somewhere near ground-zero after the collapse.

3) If, as you suggest, you disbelieve that "catastrophic failure [of the towers] continued from the top of the remaining floors down", then I suppose you believe the remainder of each tower failed from the bottom up? Hmmmm.  Are you SURE you're not a truther of some kind?  Because I have to tell you, that's not the 9/11 I witnessed on my television screen.

4) Saying which, if a head of state were assassinated on live television, and someone put up an article describing what they and the rest of TV-viewing humanity had seen on their screen, would you delete it on the grounds that viewing the footage -- which was nearly everyone's sole indication that something of note had occurred -- is Original Research? Witnessing a noteworthy event, either in person or on your TV screen, is not "research".  It is observation.  The de facto rule of this wiki is that things observed, if politically acceptable, get pre-blessed by one or more administrators, and then they not only can, but MUST, be "exempted" from the absurd original research rule and displayed proudly and prominently, even featured.  But if an obvservation by an editor is not deemed politically acceptable, it is immediately CRUSHED and defamed as "original research."  Any further attempt to display the information without pre-approval apparently runs the risk of serious consequences. It didn't use to be this way on WP, folks!

5) You reverted "of debris and dust". Now I must say, I've taken a lot of abuse on this half-baked excuse for a reference work.  But I really think this takes the cake.  You are claiming that my statement that the "cloud" consisted of "debris and dust" is some kind of original research.  My god, man, what in the ever-loving name of -- ahem.  What are we SUPPOSED to think it's made of?

6) You object to the suggestion that some firefighters who heard loud noises originally supported the CD theory. I call your attention to the previous two sentences, the ones before the ones I added in that paragraph: "Some firefighters ... later came to a DIFFERENT VIEW [my emphasis] of what they had perceived.... 'We realized later after talking and finding out' that the ten or so 'explosions' he and others had heard coming from the south tower were actually 'the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.'"  I note with interest that YOU DID NOT REMOVE THESE SENTENCES FROM THE ARTICLE.  By this you allow your personal opinions to take precedence over the principle of NPOV.

6) As for the statement "if in fact all the floors above had disappeared beforehand," the relevant point that needs to be made in this paragraph is that the firefighters, in their attempt to explain the sounds they heard, specifically say that the sounds were caused by collapsing floors. We know that more than just those floors collapsed (UH OH MAYBE I'M DOING O.R., MAYBE I SHOULD BE BANNED), yet the firefighters never make any attempt to claim that this sound was heard for the entire duration of whichever collapse they witnessed.  In other words, their own explanation, on its face, makes no sense.  They're saying the floors above the damage made this sound as they collapsed, but the floors below the damage made no such sound.  If the sound was just the natural sound of a collapsing floor, then BY DEFINITION it should have been made by each floor, not just the ones above the damage.  We needn't even get into the question of what they believed and when they believed it, because their explanation, whether intentionally or not, is nonsense. Even if it had been their first impression of the sounds, we would still have to conclude that it's nonsense.

7) As for the final sentence that was deleted, about firefighters' descriptions of what they heard ... again, does it suggest they thought it was CD? Perhaps.  It certainly suggests that they had considered it possible, especially when considered in combination with their subsequent statement, "We realized later after talking and finding out...."  But again, I did not concoct this idea.  I was not trying to say, "They believed X."  I was letting their words and gestures speak for themselves, and stand or fall on their own merit.  So the question again is, are you going to stand by your reversion of simple statements and gestures that you apparently agree are factually correct, simply on the grounds that there is no secondary source cited?  I suggest that if you concur that the statements are accurate, put in a "citation needed", and give me some time to find one.  Otherwise you're just using a procedural fig leaf to try to crush any facts that might be inconvenient for your preferred beliefs. The real questions should be "Is it commonly accepted to be true?" and "Is it relevant to the article?" If the answer to both questions is yes, and if we're not talking about bona fide research but just simple observation of a video (or even reading a reliable source that happens to be first-hand), then we should keep it in the article pending the search for an appropriate citation. 65.32.173.99 05:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It may help to keep in mind that this article is not about the collapses themselves but about a particular hypothesis about how they collapsed. Many proponents of the hypothesis do cite the firefighters, so saying "Proponents emphasize the testimony of firefighters..." etc. is not OR. The same would go for the disappearing sections of building. The best thing to do here, in my opinion, is to draw on what DR Griffin, WG Tarpley and SE Jones say on these topics and then report their arguments.--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I'm open to suggestions about what might be added from their work with respect to the points that were reverted. 65.32.173.99 12:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think much of it is covered. (In fact, in my opinion too much.) My point was that if information about the collapses is missing then that may not be a problem for this article. It is only if information about the controlled demolition hypothesis is missing that we should be concerned.--Thomas Basboll 12:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by that logic we would have to go and remove any sentence or clause which does not mention demolition in some way. Should I get started?  Goodness knows, we can't have people actually understanding the hypothesis.
 * For example, the fourth paragraph in the History section (the one which begins "Engineers were...", after the requisite redaction, would read:


 * "Engineers [REDACTED] originally believed that explosives had been involved. [REDACTED] It is in the absence of a "credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began" that the controlled demolition hypothesis has gathered supporters. [22]


 * Can we all agree that, aside from making the paragraph sound much-less encyclopedic, it omits information that really should be here, in order to give CONTEXT (wow, what a thought) and FOUNDATION to those who lack a thorough background in the subject?
 * Your argument is like saying that we cannot put a sentence or clause in the article on "light" that talks about energy in general, unless "light" is specifically mentioned in the sentence or clause. "If people want to know about energy, let them click over to the 'energy' article!"  Isn't this a bit draconian?
 * This is not a normalized database, where each datum is stored in exactly one place. It's an encyclopedia.  Repetition is allowed.  Our users are people, not computers.
 * I think the real issue is, are the things I tried to add already in the article somewhere, and are they relevant to understanding the CD hypothesis? Now, without my edits, the paragraph that describes, and draws comparisons between, the two tower collapses, reads as follows, in relevant part:


 * The collapses ... showed several similarities. While fires were still burning, the top sank into the damage area.  A cloud developed around the failure as it progressed downward, and large pieces of debris fell away from the sides of the building. As the cloud reached the level of other buildings, it expanded through the streets of surrounding blocks.


 * I would say that everything here is relevant to understanding the hypothesis. But there is more that's relevant.
 * For example, what percentage of readers who have no prior exposure to the hypothesis will, after reading the article, grasp the concept that the top-pieces disappeared in large part because most of their mass was ejected off to the side? If we do not point out that this is a core premise of the hypothesis, I submit that most newcomers to the hypothesis will completely miss that point.  And in order to point it out, it helps to have an introductory statement which mentions that the pieces disappeared.  That statement prepares people for the ensuing debate/knock-down-drag-out-fight over whether the premise is true, or how likely it is.
 * See, the point of an article like this is not just to document someone's hypothesis. It is to try to get in their brain, and say "Forget about whether I agree with this viewpoint. I just want to DESCRIBE it in terms which work to communicate the author's train of thought to others." We do this because we all know that truth can be hard to come by, and sometimes the "mainstream" (whatever that means) turns out to be wrong. 65.32.173.99 13:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're oversimplifying what I'm saying. If you can show that the idea that "the top-pieces disappeared in large part because most of their mass was ejected off to the side" is a "core premise" by citing some of the major proponents, then it can no doubt go in the article. Since the official story says that this mass pass through the towers all the way to ground, it would nicely capture the (essential) conflict between the CDH and the official account, which you a right to say is the point of this article to clarify. One of the problems with the material you added was that it made it seem like the disappearance of the tops is an uncontroversial, shared, background assumption.
 * My understanding of the hypothesis puts the idea that a lot of mass was ejected on the periphery of the hypothesis, not at the core. The core is: whatever happened to the upper floors (out or down), the structure below it must have been destroyed by some additional force that got it out of the way.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not getting back to you. No, the top piece did not "disappear".  Only in the "death ray" scenarios could it "disappear".  "Mainstream" CDH people may think it was separately demolished.  And you put words into the "mouths" of the firefighters saying that they don't know why it disappeared, when there are no references that say it did disappear.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical blast scenarios
The question in the FAQ reads "Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?" And the answer includes this sentence: "While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." To me, this clearly support the claim that NIST is pursuing blast scenarios and that these are relevant to the question of controlled demolition.--Thomas Basboll 05:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing the speculation NIST has lately developed "hypothetical blast scenarios" that could be of interest to proponents of controlled demolition. An encyclopedia is not a place to speculate what might perhaps possibly be of interest to some conspiracy theorists somewhere. Weregerbil 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How about: "While NIST is not pursuing the controlled demolition hypothesis as such, it is considering 'hypothetical blast scenarios' in its investigation of the collaspe of WTC7."--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg
Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert on this, but the fair use rationale seems to have been added to this image by mistake. According to the image page, the owner of the copyright has given permission to use it. There is no need to invoke fair use and the solution seems to be just to remove the rationale.--Thomas Basboll 15:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Quintiere's remarks
Quintiere is not a proponent of controlled demolition. I have therefore moved his criticisms of the the NIST investigation to the collapse of the World Trade Center article, where they belong (it seems to me). Here's the text I've removed:


 * James Quintiere, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, when criticizing NIST report, called the spoliation of the steel "a gross error". Quintere criticized the NIST report as lacking physical evidence to support its conclusions.

Putting it back in will demand finding a CDH proponent to make use of his comments (in a non-selfpublished source). The model here is the way Manning appears in the article.--Thomas Basboll 08:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Leading" architects and engineers
I have repeatedly replaced the propagandistic POV adjective "leading," which suggests, without evidence, that the handful of engineers and architects who overtly support the OCT are somehow superior to the hundreds who reject the OCT or the thousands who haven't thought about it at all. I've tried "several" and "certain," which are accurate, in the past. The word "leading" does not appear in either of the sources in the footnote. The articles, which are now obsolete, allege, without evidence, that the OCT is "generally" accepted by the community of architects and engineers. Given the rapidly growing professional membership of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, this type of ignorant claim is no longer excusable. Someone keeps putting "leading" back in without justification. The footnote identifies two engineers, so for now, I have replaced "leading" with "two." If you change it back with NPOV language, rather than "leading," I will leave it alone.

Wowest 03:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Arthur. That's even better. ... Wowest 09:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence we are talking about has a source, namely, Bazant and Verdure. Their paper includes the following sentence: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows:" (and they go on to present the familiar "official" account). That such a statement can pass peer-review in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is an indication of the status of the controlled demolition hypothesis. The word "leading" provides the important piece of information that the CDH has no currency in the engineering community.--Thomas Basboll 09:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i agree with thomas. it is hardly "propagandist" to characterize bažant &mdash; a member of the national academy of science and the national academy of engineering (an extremely rare honor), recipient of six honorary doctorates, and one of the 250 most-often cited engineers in the world &mdash; as a leading structural/mechanical engineer: it is fully justified and the opposite of "ignorant." the same holds for eagar, who holds the thomas lord chair in materials engineering and engineering systems at mit.  their work is representative of leading structural and mechanical engineers.  moreover, they have no peer among the "rapidly growing membership" of ae911t. eliding an accurate term to mollify a CDH proponent violates NPOV. Peterhoneyman 16:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While "leading" can be justified in refering to specific people it is propaganda when it is used to imply that those rejecting the official theory are not leaders in their fields which is provably false. I point out that a prominent member of 911 truth is a member of the World Academy of Art and Science, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board and is listed in "The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders". I suspect that outranks Bazant when talking about "leading". Wayne 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seeing as you mention "the national academy of engineering (an extremely rare honor)" as somehow giving superiority for the official theory, another 911 truth member is also a member of National Academy of Engineering, plus an elected fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers and selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology. Also it seems just about every member of the Institute of Structural Engineering is a truther. To imply these people are ignorant is rediculous. Wayne 04:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks for the info -- what are their names? Peterhoneyman 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, the rare honor is to be in both NAS and NAE. i don't have numbers on it, but it is very unusual. Peterhoneyman 22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Skeptic is "mainstream"
A magazine from a non-profit organization that talks about bad-science and the people who do it as is mainstream? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.74.67 (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources and synthesis
I'm going to make what might seem to be some drastic cuts to this article and would like to explain my reasons first. This article is not an argument for controlled demolition but an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. That means that the sources should provide either reliable statements of the hypothesis (in non-self-published sources) or reliable statements about the hypothesis (in news coverage and analysis for example). Those are the acceptable primary and secondary sources given the real topic of the article (which is not the collapse of the WTC but a hypothesis about the collapse). Primary sources of evidence, including official reports and news reports that do not address controlled demolition directly, are likely to constitute WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. They can be included only along with the sources of statements of or about the CDH that cites them. I may not have put that as clearly as one could, and I'm willing to discuss it. Please let's avoid making this a discussion about POV-pushing and stick to the task of making this a better article.--Thomas Basboll 19:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've completed the major cuts. The next thing I want to do is to copy-edit the sections, hopefully focusing and tightening them.--Thomas Basboll 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Integrate "reactions" section?
What does everyone think about integrated the reactions of engineers in the history section?--Thomas Basboll 13:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoa, that's a lot of changes Thomas. I see you're shifting the article to being a report of discussion between sources. It is the way to go, then I think that an article is more interesting if it has points (made by discussing parties) illustrated by more relevant sources. Specifically, I am speaking about things like USGS thermal study, which was removed and I'd like to include it at least as a reference (I think Griffin referred to it in one of his books, Jones possibly too. I won't add this now because I'm connecting through a mobile).
 * When comes to the question you ask: I wouldn't integrate, reactions of engineers surely are of great interest to the reader. What do you think about remarking there about outsiders (Greening, Cherepanov, existence of ae911truth.org who have few structural engineers as members) but indicating that they have not published anything? (Cherepanov did actually, if i recall) SalvNaut 13:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The basic principle behind the changes was to make sure that this article is not primarily about the collapses but about the controlled demolition hypothesis. So, yes, including the USGS study would demand finding it in the work of people like Griffin and Jones. But we have keep weight in mind here. I think it is sufficient to say that the evidence of heat in excess of what the fires could produce is cited in support of CDH (that would also include molten metal). That does a play a major role in Jones' argument, I think. But the USGS imagery is, I think, peripheral.--Thomas Basboll 18:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be away for about a week. Just a couple of points: Cherepanov is not a proponent of controlled demolition. He does have one paper (in what looks like a peripheral Russian engineering journal--but I don't know for sure) where he offers his "fracture waves" as an explicit alternative to controlled demolition (mentioning Griffin specifically, as I recall). But I don't think he really belongs here, at least not yet. I think we should stick to solid sources and including some of the people you mention (like Greening, and, I'd say, Gordon Ross) would lower the bar. At least as far as I can tell. It's best to take this on source-by-source basis. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i am ashamed to admit that i still have not gone over these two cherepanov papers
 * in detail, but from my skimming of them, the first paper is consistent with other papers in the engineering literature, and the second paper attempts to explain a mechanism for a collapse at near free-fall speed, when seismic data indicate otherwise. Peterhoneyman 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * in detail, but from my skimming of them, the first paper is consistent with other papers in the engineering literature, and the second paper attempts to explain a mechanism for a collapse at near free-fall speed, when seismic data indicate otherwise. Peterhoneyman 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * in detail, but from my skimming of them, the first paper is consistent with other papers in the engineering literature, and the second paper attempts to explain a mechanism for a collapse at near free-fall speed, when seismic data indicate otherwise. Peterhoneyman 22:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pull" in controlled demo lingo
I made an edit to this article, where I provided evidence (which I cited) that the term "pull" it is not used to refer to a controlled demolition using explosives. It was subsequently removed because it was "propaganda". What I wrote, however, is a fact, and I cited a web site belonging to a group that does professional controlled demolitions. I don't see how this is propaganda in any way. In fact, I would like to see a reputable source that can show that "pull" is used by controlled demolition engineers to refer to demolishing a building with explosives. -Bonus Onus 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is only one company and post 911. I read a 1996 interview with one of the owners of Controlled Demolition Inc (I believe it's the oldest and largest company in the US) and they mentioned bringing a building down five times, they used the term "pull" three times, "melt the building" once and "bring down" once. In that interview "pull" was the most common term used. Incidentally this is the same company that was contracted to remove the WTC debris. Wayne 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to see the link to that, or a source on where it is published. Second, are you sure they were talking about a demolition using explosives and not one involving attaching cables from the building to heavy equipment and physically pulling the building over? -Bonus Onus 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * imho, it's a moot point. the only bearing it has on CDH is the silverstein comment in his interview on PBS.  since he is not in the demolition business, the use of the term in that industry is irrelevant.  what counts is what silverstein meant, which he explained through a spokesman.  that should be the end of it. Peterhoneyman 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have agreed with you except that Silverstein used the term later for another of the Trade Centre buildings (I think it was WTC6) that really was brought down by CD. Wayne 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Peter is right. It shouldn't even matter anyway, except for that CTs only trust evidence from a mainstream source such as Silverstein when it supports their theories. Again, Wayne, you make a claim but do not support it. CTs have been asserting the pull is controlled demo lingo for an explosive demo even though there is absolutely no evidence of the fact. Please provide some evidence for why you removed my edit or I will put it back in. Thanks. -Bonus Onus 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wayne, I just did your research for you and found the 1996 interview you mentioned. I assume it is this one. I read through the whole thing and although the word "pull" does occur in the interview a number of times, it is never used in reference to an explosive demolition of a building. Here are a few of the quotes with context:

"sometime[s], we need to bring down buildings that are actually touching other buildings....Well, you just pull it away, you peel it off. If you have room in the opposite direction, you just let the building sort of melt down in that direction and it will pull itself completely away from the building. It can be done." (notice, this is "pulling away from another building," simply a directional description, of the way a building has to move. not talking about a conventional demolition. When talking about actually carrying out the implosion, Loiseaux says "bring down" )

"The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself." (again, this describes direction, explains the difference between an implosion and an explosion. no refrence to "when we pull a building..." or anything like that)

"you understand how the structure is coming down and you're watching for certain things—counting the delays or waiting for a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward. So it does change, but it's always a rush." (Again, pull forward, not down. and no use of the term pull as part of the actual demolition. Instead, Loizeaux says "when the structure is coming down" )

Some examples of what terms Loizeaux acually uses to refer to the implosion of a building:

"you can make the building come down that way"

"We just took down a building in Vegas—the Sands Hotel."

"We've had jobs where we've already got the contract to bring a building down and Warner Brothers or whoever comes on site and says, "Hey, can we film that?""

"Our biggest problem, when we come right down to the wire with shooting buildings, is ground control."

"But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies [from the Oklahoma City Federal Building] right up until days before we actually brought down the building"

-Bonus Onus 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Implosion World is not a very good source and has not changed the status of the issue. The discussion has not continued beyond the PBS documentary and the CDHers interpretations. The issue has been covered and the last sentence (which I've reverted again) makes it seem like it is, or ought to be, moot. It isn't, and, like I say, a self-published on-line rejection of the interpretation by a demolition expert doesn't settle anything in an encyclopedia.--Thomas Basboll 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have continuously been unable to provide any credible evidence that "pull" *is* controlled demo lingo for an explosive controlled demolition of a building. I, on the other hand, have provided a number of pieces of evidence which show that it *is not* acceptable industry terminology. Your assertion that Implosion World is "not a very good source" also lacks proof. To me, it seems to be a very good, informative source for information about the controlled demolition industry. Simply read the site's About page and you will see that not only does it have a long history of accurate reporting about the CD industry, it has also been independently recommended by a number of websites and print media including USA today, Yahoo , and Discover magazine . Next time please don't discredit a source just because it presents evidence that contradicts your opinion. Either show that the source has continuously provided incorrect or faulty information, or otherwise show vetted third-party sources that discredit the source directly. Regardless, you removed an edit I made that provided a factual assertion, backed up by evidence. It certainly is a relevant piece of information to the discussion that the readers of the article deserve to know. Either that, or you should remove the whole reference to "pull it" in this article. -Bonus Onus 03:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pull is used in military. It deals with the lever. In the past you used to pull then push the lever down of the blaster box. Military all you do is pull the lever to the blaster box. . {subst:unsigned2|04:12, December 15, 2007|72.189.135.113}}


 * So? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of edit
In "An investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) rejected the hypothesis, as have many structural and mechanical engineers," a previous editor had changed "many" to "most," and I reverted it. No evidence was provided for this assertion. As far as I am aware, there have been no surveys. There is a group of approximately 200 engineering and architectural professional who officially reject the "Official (U.S. Government) Conspiracy Theory" (OCT): http://www.ae911truth.org/ I am not aware of any professional group which was organized specifially to SUPPORT that theory. Wowest 06:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to marginalize reality. There is a link to a source immediately after the sentence. I am not aware of any professional group organized to support the theory that water is wet. Weregerbil 06:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If enough morons claimed that water was NOT wet, I'm sure that there would be a professional organization to support the theory that it is wet.
 * The truth is that most people, including most professional ANYTHINGS have been so hypnotized by the horrific things they saw on television and the propaganda that they heard at the same time that they have never realized it was propaganda. Wowest 15:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're claiming to know better than all these professional organization or to know better how they feel about this. In any case, we include what they say and not what you think they should be saying. RxS 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In regard Wowest's last comment, is it time to remind people of DHMO? &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll see your approximately 200 engineering and architectural professionals and raise you 133,000 members of ASCE, which publishes scholarly papers that directly contradict CDH. Peterhoneyman 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That arguement is flawed as ASCE have admitted that only a handful of members have investigated the collapse and even then a minority of those do not support the official theory. If we only count engineering and architectural professionals who have investigated for themselves then those 200 would outnumber Bazant and his supporters. I will point out that I do not support the CD theory but I do believe the collapse should be investigated before it can be discounted. I recall that it was once widely discounted that the Earth revolved around the Sun until it was investigated. After all it made sense that the Earth was the centre of the Universe (and the leading expert of the day, God, supported that theory) but it that a good enough reason? Wayne 06:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Free fall
I've reverted Harold's edits related to free fall, which present the issue as moot. Though I can see how it might have happened, he has misunderstood both the controlled demolition hypothesis and Bazant's position. The Bazant & Verdure paper makes it clear that "the collapse duration could not have been much longer (say, twice as long or more) than the duration of a free fall from the tower top." That is all that is being debated: everyone agrees that the collapses did not take "much longer" than free fall. Some think that's suspicious and some do not. But there is no significant disagreement about the speed. It also looks like Harold has interpreted Bazant ca. 50% figures to mean that if free fall were 10 seconds, the actual collapses took about 20. That's not what was meant, as far as I can tell.--Thomas Basboll 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC) PS (That is: if the actual duration exceeded free fall by about 50% they did not fall half as fast.)--Thomas Basboll 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * thomas, please read bažant's tech report
 * especially the section "Comparison of Collapse Duration with Seismic Record" which starts at the bottom of p. 12.
 * here's the money shot: "Now note that these durations are, on the average, 57.7% and 42.0% longer than those of a free fall of the upper part of each tower. "
 * this should (but, sadly, won't) dispel the myth that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed.
 * note as well section 2 of cherepanov's paper
 * in which he models the collapse with a system of differential equations and solves for the time of collapse, coming up with a sqrt(3) multiplier when mass is assumed to be uniformly distributed, i.e., 1.7 times free-fall, which is in the neighborhood of the actual collapse time (based on seismic records from columbia's lamont-doherty earth observatory). (unfortunately, cherepanov repeats the free-fall myth "The comprehensive data of the collapses collected in many reports of NIST evidence the free fall regime of all collapses on September 11, 2001." without reference, and then goes on to explain it with a theory built on "fracture waves.")
 * while harold's wording may not have been the best, he is trying to introduce some solid scientific content. i suggests rewording &mdash; not reverting &mdash; his contribution.
 * contact me if you have trouble retrieving cherepanov's papers. Peterhoneyman 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * note as well section 2 of cherepanov's paper
 * in which he models the collapse with a system of differential equations and solves for the time of collapse, coming up with a sqrt(3) multiplier when mass is assumed to be uniformly distributed, i.e., 1.7 times free-fall, which is in the neighborhood of the actual collapse time (based on seismic records from columbia's lamont-doherty earth observatory). (unfortunately, cherepanov repeats the free-fall myth "The comprehensive data of the collapses collected in many reports of NIST evidence the free fall regime of all collapses on September 11, 2001." without reference, and then goes on to explain it with a theory built on "fracture waves.")
 * while harold's wording may not have been the best, he is trying to introduce some solid scientific content. i suggests rewording &mdash; not reverting &mdash; his contribution.
 * contact me if you have trouble retrieving cherepanov's papers. Peterhoneyman 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * while harold's wording may not have been the best, he is trying to introduce some solid scientific content. i suggests rewording &mdash; not reverting &mdash; his contribution.
 * contact me if you have trouble retrieving cherepanov's papers. Peterhoneyman 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * contact me if you have trouble retrieving cherepanov's papers. Peterhoneyman 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter and Harold. I have Cherepanov's papers and both of Bazant's and, like you, I think this is an important issue. As Harold has rightly noted, without an actual and uncontroversial "near free fall collapse", the controlled demolition hypothesis is not a hypothesis but (as Bazant Peter rightly notes) a myth; if it is, I would suggest reworking this article much more radically. But I think everyone cited in this article agrees that free fall would be about 10 seconds, and they also agree on a figure of around 15 seconds for both collapses. So that's in the neighbourhood of 42-57% longer than free fall. Cherepanov was being imprecise: his premise would not be refuted even if the collapses took 100% longer than free fall (about 20 seconds). That doesn't mean he's right about the calculation, it just means they all agree on what is (for the sake of argument) "near free fall" (as Bazant and Verdure made clear). That's the issue as I see it. The article should say that everyone is offering explanations (progressive collase vs. controlled demolition) of the same collapse durations. The popular myth of free fall is not the subject of this article (though it could suitably be mentioned also.)--Thomas Basboll 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. A standard reference on this issue (in discussions of controlled demolition) is the NIST report page 196: "the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in the videos." Screw Loose Change (though not RS) rehearses the issue here. I think it is possible to work the issue into the first paragraph of the main towers section. It will then also pick up nicely from the end of 7 WTC section.--Thomas Basboll 20:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see what relevance free fall speed has to the CD theory. Although an indicator, a free fall speed would indicate only that at least 3 to 5 upper floors and 2 basement floors were rigged with explosives. Rigging less would still bring the buildings down but leave larger pieces of debris and possibly slow down the fall. Exact free fall is impossible anyway as the buildings still had internal partitions. Only a maximum of 2 floors actually need to be rigged to bring a building down in it's footprint and we still have the evidence of basement explosions. The sole reason for more than 2 floors is to fragment the debris. What should be investigated is how long should the towers have taken to fall and what average debris size should be and then compare that with how long it did take and actual debris size. Even then neither the official theory nor the CD theory would be unambiguously provable without examination of the steel and that is long gone. Wayne 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * wayne, the relevance of free fall speed to CDH is the claim by proponents that free fall speed proves the hypothesis. here's a quote i picked at random after a little googling
 * There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
 * here's another page making the case (also picked more-or-less at random), and another.
 * in his book, david ray griffin says
 * For a 1,300-foot building, however, ten seconds is almost free-fall speed. But if each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took half a second, the collapse of all those floors—80 or 95 of them—would have taken 40 to 47 seconds. Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower part?
 * enough. the rate of collapse is an important part of the theology.
 * regarding debris size, i suggest you read
 * paying close attention to the section titled "Energy Required to Produce All of Pulverized Concrete" which starts at the bottom of p. 9. here's the money shot, from the bottom of p. 10:
 * Nevertheless, it is interesting to check the amount of explosives that would be required to produce all of the pulverized concrete dust found on the ground. Explosives are notoriously inefficient as a comminution tool. At most 10% of their explosive energy gets converted into the fracture energy of comminution, and only if the explosive charges are installed in small holes drilled into the solid to be comminuted. Noting that 1 kg of TNT releases about 4 MJ of chemical energy, the total mass of TNT required to pulverize 14.6 × 107 kg concrete material into dust size found on the ground would be 316 tons. (So, about 1.36 tons of TNT would have to be installed into small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each floor and then wired to explode in a precise time sequence to simulate free fall).
 * bažant addresses the issues you think should be investigated, i.e., "how long should the towers have taken to fall and what average debris size should be and then compare that with how long it did take and actual debris size." check it out. Peterhoneyman 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * bažant addresses the issues you think should be investigated, i.e., "how long should the towers have taken to fall and what average debris size should be and then compare that with how long it did take and actual debris size." check it out. Peterhoneyman 13:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be inserted into "small holes drilled into the concrete slab of each floor". The explosives could be put inside the box columns much more easily with the added benefit that no one would notice as the core columns are all in areas where office workers have no access. Bazant has made an overestimate of how much TNT is required as he is assuming the TNT pulverised all the concrete. The collapse itself is more than capable of doing it. Experts estimated 30% of gravitational energy went into pulverising the concrete. This increases the free fall speed by 1.75 seconds. Add that to the 10 seconds that is free fall speed for the towers (9.2 in a vacuum) and you get 11.75 seconds as the absolute minimum. Any less and you need to find an additional source of energy input. The experts all agree fall time was around 10 seconds. The problem is that the CD theorists tend to synth different CD scenarios together. This makes it easy to debunk them because readers assume everything they claim should happen. For example there is no need to pulverise the concrete and cut the columns at the same time. CD experts have stated that to bring the towers down would require only 762 kg of Thermite in each of the core columns in a single basement level. That is 36 tons. Remember that the columns are hollow…. each one has a 0.6 cubic meters capacity internally. 762 kg of Thermite is around 0.22 cubic meters. Thermite is a powder so it can be poured into the columns easily. This amount assumes optimum efficiency and the minimum amount that could still bring the towers down is around 12 ton of Thermite. Wayne 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

STJ911truth request for correction to NIST and NIST's response
Maybe the article could contain a short summary of the discussion between these entities? Petition to NIST, NIST's response. I think there is a problem with secondary sources, I've found only this, not too reliable. Btw, I'd expect 911 Scholars to respond to NIST again, but they have only 8 days left... SalvNaut 14:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a secondary source would be nice. Not least because I (we?) don't have time to read these items closely enough to summarize them accurately right now. But if you want to give it a shot, maybe post a draft here first.--Thomas Basboll 07:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They did renew their request here:AppealLetterToNISTGourleyEtAl.pdf. No secondary sources I know of... but since NIST've taken time to engage in discussion it's worth being noted in the article. Salv. 83.31.35.109 19:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CD theory is inextricably linked with conspiracy theory, it seems Balzat's work and conclusions (which agree with and cite NIST findings) if cited then logically should include the following directly from the work: Acknowledgment. Partial financial support for the energetic theory of progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation through grant 0740-357-A210 of the Infrastructure Technology Institute of Northwestern University. Richard M. Lueptow, professor at Northwestern University, and Pierre-Normand Houle of Montreal, are thanked for useful comments. Also, the report is extremely technical and has not been analyzed for accuracy.Atruthseeker2 (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It will be easier to understand what you are saying if you present it as suggested edit. I.e., what exactly do you want to add to the article?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

NIST modeling
thomas, you removed the sentences ''Detailed modeling and simulation by NIST reached the same conclusion. However, NIST found it impossible to construct usable mathematical models of the subsequent structural response of the building. because they seem to suggest that NIST modelled (and confirmed) Bazant and Zhou's analysis.'' in fact, that is the case. see chapter 6 of the NIST final report. Peterhoneyman 13:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * NIST did not model and confirm Bazant's analysis because their computor models could not make the buildings collapse at all, which they admitted was the reason they did not investigate past the point just prior to when the buildings did collapse. Wayne 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific, Peter? I could be wrong about this (and I just had a quick look through Chapter 6) but, again, my impression is that everyone (including Bazant and NIST) agree that NIST did not do any modeling of the progressive collapse. The report only addresses the response of the building up to the start of collapse. It is true that Bazant and Zhou made some preliminary suggestions about the initiating mechanism and that NIST did more or less confirm it (rejecting Eagar's and FEMA's proposal). So perhaps the best way forward here is to separate the CDH's criticism of the collapse-initiating mechanism and its criticism of the mechanics of progressive collapse. As it stood, it seemed to me that the article said that NIST confirmed Bazant and Zhou's "order of magnitude calculation" with detailed modeling. As far as I can tell, their paper is not even mentioned.--Thomas Basboll 18:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ok, i see that i didn't express myself clearly (... argh). simply put, since one of the arguments for the CDH is NIST's inability to completely model the collapse, the article should discuss that and place it in context of what was modeled, by whom, and the outcome of the modeling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhoneyman (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a shot within the next few days. I think I'll start with the "near free fall" observation, move on to the progressive collapse (where no detailed modeling exists), and then the initiating mechanism (impact damage plus fire, where there is lots of modeling). In all three cases, I will integrate the mainstream rebuttal as we go in order to make the point of dispute clear. How does that sound?--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of Interest
Some interesting stuff I wasn't aware of that has possible relevance to the article. To date there has been no independent report done by experts not reliant on government funding in their employment. The Silverstein-Weidlinger report was the study of why the towers collapsed done in support of the Silverstein insurance claim and used largely the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA study. Bazants study contradicted it's findings in almost every aspect yet the same experts and contractors who did the FEMA/Weidlinger studies also did Bazants. These experts not only simultaneously support the pancake theory and the column collapse theory but reject the pancake theory and the column collapse theory depending on which report they are writing in. The primary authors of the FEMA study were also the primary authors of the NIST report (John Gross and Therese McAllister) and these contradict each other as well. It seems the experts cannot stick with the same story which in fact is consistent with NISTS latest release which stated they could not explain why the towers collapsed. Wayne 13:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * wayne, i'm not sure what you find interesting about the absence of a multi-million dollar investigation not funded with government money. also, you lost me in your recitation of the various studies ... can you give references?  i'd like to check them out.  as for NIST's "admission," you are playing fast and loose with the facts: NIST was able to model the initiation of collapse in a way that agreed with visual and physical evidence.  but after that point, "because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution" which is why "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." this is quite different from your misleading oversimplification that NIST "could not explain why the towers collapsed." Peterhoneyman 13:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't what he said! He said "report done by experts not reliant on government funding in their employment." That's different from an "investigation not funded with government money." Experts reliant on government funding have a conflict of interest. Wowest 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * you are splitting hairs. also, you seem to view public service as inherently corrupt, hardly a NPoV.  Peterhoneyman 16:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Not all "public service' is corrupt. However, when I lived in Pennsylvania, the local office of the Highway Department had two sets of staff. When the Republicans were in power, they employed Republican engineers, clerks and truck drivers. When the Democrats were in power, the Republicans went on welfare and the Democrats came off welfare and went back to work. This is a similar situation. Wowest 20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * similar in that ... that ... ?  i don't follow you.  you and wayne suggest that any scientist or engineer investigating the collapse who received government funding should be ignored.  that's ridiculous, and amounts to an ad hominem.  your parable about the pennsylvania highway department amounts to a hill of beans.  this whole section is ridiculous. Peterhoneyman 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i don't think the authors of
 * from the department of civil engineering at tsinghua university (tsinghua is the mit of china, if you aren't familiar with it) are reliant on government funding ... at least, not the government you imagine to be such a corrupting influence. Peterhoneyman 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * from the department of civil engineering at tsinghua university (tsinghua is the mit of china, if you aren't familiar with it) are reliant on government funding ... at least, not the government you imagine to be such a corrupting influence. Peterhoneyman 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Kevin Ryan is the most detailed critic of the investigations among CDH proponents and has pointed out the same issues Wayne mentions. I've been reluctant to make his critique prominent because, unlike Jones and Griffin, he publishes mainly in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. As always, there is little point (in this article) in presenting details about the investigations unless prominent CDHers do. So the most important sources here are not the NIST and FEMA reports (etc.) but the CDHers. That said, there is a section devoted to the history of the investigations over at the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Verifiable, properly sourced and interesting facts about the investigations belong there. There is also a section on criticisms of the report that can be expanded (but not from a CDH perspective according to current consensus).--Thomas Basboll 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

citiation madness
i don't know what to do with all these citations ... and this is only a fraction of them. i don't think it's appropriate, but some people are apparently library-challenged, and seem to think that the only literature on the subject is that which is cited here. (they should get out more often.) so if someone with taste sees fit to revert, i won't object. (on the contrary, i will applaud.) but  wonder if there is an appropriate place for all these citations. i am not planning to write a critical review of the engineering literature on the WTC collapses ... Peterhoneyman 16:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These citations probably belong in the main collapse of the World Trade Center article. They state the commonly accepted view, but do not explicitly engage with CDH. I think even a non-critical survey of the engineering literature on the WTC collapses would useful. But you could also just add it to the bibliography of the main article. (NOTE: I removed them from the CDH section of the main article for the same reason. Used as sources of "rebuttals", they actually misrepresented the claims of the authors cited: they really express no opinion about CDH.)--Thomas Basboll 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

it's probably obvious that i was irritated by the claim that bažant stands alone in the peer-reviewed literature, so i did a quick-and-dirty search and came up with this handful (or two) of papers (and relevant quotes), all of which clearly embrace (and, in some instances, explain) the progressive collapse model. in that sense, they just as clearly reject CDH.




















 * My problem is with the POV twisting used to discredit CD. As far as I'm aware Bazant IS the only peer-reviewed paper that considered CD. You can't include papers on the collapse that didn't in with those that reject CD. Then there is the continuation of the sentence which attributes a statement by Bazant to multiple sources. Compounding this is the frequent replacement of neutral words actually used by the source with stronger ones because they are more in line with the editors views. I'm all for debunking (or proving) CD but lets do it from a neutral viewpoint not from a preconceived belief. Wayne 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * i understand, but very few scientists/engineers consider CDH worth the time of day. bažant is senior enough that he can publish on anything he wants, but for most academics, it would not be considered a great career move to devote time or energy on (what is seen as) wild-eyed nonsense.  this is not to say that the literature does not have papers that attempt to extract new knowledge out of the WTC collapses -- it does; see above.  i maintain that these papers also rebut the CDH by developing models and theories that are consistent with progressive collapse (and inconsistent with CDH). Peterhoneyman 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see where you are coming from but most experts are supporting progressive, pancake and column failure and seem undecided which is more likely and many have supported all three depending on the beliefs of the originator of the paper they worked on. CD can't be discounted no matter how unlikely until it is investigated. That most experts wont even consider it a stumbling block against proving it wasn't CD. This article doesn't help as it gives the impression that supporters of CD are idiots instead of people who want to know what the truth is and most would likely accept the evidence if proved once and for all that CD did not happen. You will always get the extremists from both ends of the spectrum who are convinced they are right but it is wrong to slant the article to either of those ends. Wayne 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CDH has been investigated. and refuted.  furthermore, every paper that produces a feasible model for the WTC collapses without relying on CDH adds weight to the refutation by showing that what occurred is consistent with and a consequence of our understanding of mathematics, physics, and engineering.  the authors of those papers don't say "we considered the possibility that the collapses were caused by controlled demolition, but our results indicate otherwise" because it would subject them to professional ridicule, but in fact they do just that: if their models did not predict what was actually observed, scientists and engineers would be forced to broaden the scope of their hypotheses. that turns out to be unnecessary.  this &mdash; occam's razor &mdash; is why the science and engineering community rejects CDH. the trouble with the research produced by CDH proponents is that they start with CDH and work backwards toward its explanation, instead of starting with a mathematical model, as the papers in the engineering literature do, and deriving the consequences.  i have never seen a feasible engineering model for CD.  if you know of one, please share it.  Peterhoneyman 04:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter that these are interesting studies and that they improve our understanding of progressive collapse. But they are not about controlled demolition. Using them to support the claim that engineers have "rebutted" CD is a violation of Wikipedias official policy on synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. It would be much better to use this research to support the claim that controlled demolition is largely ignored by the engineering community, which is satisfied with progressive collapse as an explanation.--Thomas Basboll 07:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thermite theory
Steven Jones' thermite theory is the one most often endorsed I think, and yet it currently only gets a brief mention here in the 'Main towers' section, as an explanation for the streaming molten material. But as I understand it, one of his biggest pieces of evidence is the high temperatures in the ground under all three buildings in the days/months after the attack - evidence for slow-cooling once-molten steel/iron. This is not mentioned in the article at all. Also, the placement in the 'Main towers' section suggests it does not apply to Building 7, but in fact it does.

There is a longer paragraph in the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article about the thermite theory. Perhaps some of that paragraph could be brought into this one - but where to put it? Corleonebrother 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The question of temperatures is important, and difficult to present clearly. Jones argument is that, while there is no evidence of extremely hot fires (i.e., hot enough to weaken steel), there is evidence of heat beyond anything a fire could produce (i.e., hot enough to produce molten metal in great quantities). These extreme temperatures are in fact mentioned in the WTC7 section. The 9/11CT article has problem with its sources: it does not cite proponents of the theory but official primary evidence for the theory. This means it violates WP:SYNTH and looks (in that paragraph) like a POV-fork. I hope we can avoid that here. In fact, it is quite easy to avoid: just cite Jones' paper ("Why Indeed?") for the claim that there was molten metal and for his explanation of it. (NIST, as I recall, has not directly granted that there was any molten metal, let alone suggested it would be difficult to explain.)--Thomas Basboll 07:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the thermite theory paragraph from the main article now, as you rightly say it is SYNTH, and goes into far too much detail. The changes you made here this morning have encompassed the main points from it, and addressed my concern about this article barely mentioning the high temperatures in the rubble.  I still think it could be made clearer that the theory applies to WTC7 as well as the main towers.  Corleonebrother 11:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is where USGS study comes in. Jones referred to it in his talks (and papers?) and I'm quite sure Griffin cited this study. I liked this version describing Thermite Hypothesis a lot. It might seem to have suffered from synthesis, but it was based mainly on talks (and books?) given by Jones and Griffin. SalvNaut 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is cited in "Why Indeed?" or "Why the Official Theory" I don't think it will be a problem.--Thomas Basboll 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lasting lessons of WTC" citation
i can't find an authoritative source for this



and the link given is broked. :-(

new civil engineer is a UK magazine, but (as far as i can tell) my library doesn't get it, and (as far as i can tell) lexis doesn't index it. the best i can do is this blog



i'll keep trying ... Peterhoneyman 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The exact reference is Oliver, Antony. "Lasting lessons of WTC", New Civil Engineer June 30, 2005. It was in the article in this version. I'm guessing it was lost when someone converted it to a ref template.--Thomas Basboll 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

citation hacking
apologies for leaving that reflist in -- it's hard to preview citations so ... well, anyway ... thanks for your patience \(^_^)/ Peterhoneyman 21:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Official "air quotes"
I'm in favour of removing the scarequotes around "official" myself, but I think they have been demanded by consensus in the 9/11CT area. After all, it is the account the proponents of CH call "official". Support of the official view like to refer to it as "mainstream", which I think is too vague. I'dlike to hear other people's thoughts on it. But, like I say, I like the way it looks after Peter's changes.--Thomas Basboll 13:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * the Origins and history section claims It has come to be known as "the official account" among proponents of controlled demolition (which, btw, i just marked as needing a citation), so i think it is fair to leave the air quotes off in subsequent use. Peterhoneyman 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Official" versus "mainstream"

 * Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (change one "official" to "mainstream", where the latter is correct, whether or not intended.)


 * I'm not quite sure how you mean that, Arthur. "correct," even? "Your opinion is incorrect, comrade?" It is the official account, and, therefore, quoted without question by mainstream corporate media, at least if they want to have embedded journalists in the field. I don't think it's actually a beneficial change....Wowest 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not referring to an "official" account (9/11 Commission, NIST, etc.); it's referring to the generally accepted "mainstream" account. "Official" is wrong in this context.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To me, these issues are too specialized to involve a "mainstream" version. (Mainstream/alternative works better when it comes to 9/11 as a whole.) I suggest something like "the received view" or "the engineering consensus".--Thomas Basboll 19:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

seffen
it's not unusual for a scholarly journal to have long lag times. i suspect seffen's paper exists, is complete, has been accepted, and is in the queue for publication. i also suspect that because of the rude and vile requests for preprints (many of which i have seen copied on various blogs), all preprint requests (even my oh so correct and polite ones) are being ignored. be that as it may, i don't think the article should cite seffen's paper at all until an editor has seen what the paper says. Peterhoneyman 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Properly speaking, the article doesn't cite Seffen. It uses information in the press release (and the BBC's story) to describe the state of knowledge about the collapses and how a specific area of ignorance has provided conditions for the CDH to develop. The engineering reactions section also only cites the press release. This is what we have seen. (To my mind, nothing would change if one editor had read the article. The source has to be publicly available, as the press release is.)--Thomas Basboll 19:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * imho the paragraph mentioning seffen is vacuous as it stands because bažant published "a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began" some time ago. of course, i am eager to see what seffen's flaks are making such a big deal out of.  (parenthetically, i agree with your parenthetical comment.) Peterhoneyman 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We could perhaps make it more precise, I.e., "Although Bazant and Zhou explained the collapse soon after it happened, a detailed account of the residual capacity of the building," etc. ... The puzzle (for me) is given Bazant and Zhou, and Bazant and Verdure, what does Seffen mean when he says there was a need for a "credible explanation of the totality ..."? My guess is: Bazant doesn't go through it step by step, but just makes a rough calculation. YOu may be right that only reading the paper will solve this puzzle.--Thomas Basboll 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the NIST Report
The opening paragraph states:

I take this to mean criticism of the report itself, i.e. its methods, representations, omissions, etc, rather than criticism of the theory it advocates. And yet the only sentence I can find in the rest of the article that follows up on this is this one:

I think we need to explain somewhere about the criticism of the report itself, as it is usually a central theme in talks by CDH proponents. There is a tiny section at Collapse of the World Trade Center, but it is limited to only one sentence and from a relatively mainstream source. I am not sure whether we need to expand that section to include criticisms from CDH proponents, or make an explicit section in this article about it. Corleonebrother 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A section on criticism on of the NIST report by CDHers would be useful. Last I checked, however, most of the critiques were presented in lectures and self-published pieces. I think that's the reason it's underdeveloped here. Kevin Ryan's work would be a good source if it were published by a reputable publisher. (I don't think that's happened yet). Another place to look might be in the formal objections that have been made (the data quality act submission)--but we will need to arrive at a consensus about the use of those documents.--Thomas Basboll 07:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of Kevin Ryan's work, and also Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones and others at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most are self-published, so we should be able to come up with a short list of the ones that are published by a reputable publisher. Steven Jones' "Why Indeed?" was published in David Ray Griffin's "9/11 and the American Empire" so does this qualify? Are there any other examples that you know of? And what about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Request for Correction that they sent to the NIST earlier this year - could we use this? Also, please can you provide a link for "the data quality act submission" - I am not sure what you mean. Cheers, Corleonebrother 18:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Jones's paper (which definitely qualifies) is all there is if we rule out self-published sources. The Request of Correction invoked the Data Quality Act (we are talking about the same document). I'm not sure it is an RS for CDH's critique of NIST. News coverage is, of course, not exactly overwhelming.--Thomas Basboll 08:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added the section, based only on Steven Jones' paper. Corleonebrother 19:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the deleted section from Corleonebrother submition. The part about the aluminum very relevant since it is part of NIST's FAQ http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. I think also believe that Steve Jones comment about "tweeking" is relevant. Garbage In Garbage Out. Have you got US$2,534.33 so you can test it out http://www.csiberkeley.com/index.html (They used SAP2000 apparently. Tony0937 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Plausibility of the hypothesis
This article may be fairly long already, but I think it's missing a section on what I'd say is the strongest argument against this hypothesis: the sheer implausibility of it. This hypothesis rests on the assumption that somehow, large quantities of explosives could be brought into multiple, actively-used office buildings, without anybody inside noticing them; and subsequently secretly detonated, sometime after the planes hit the towers; and that no one involved in what would have to be a fairly vast conspiracy has admitted it. Surely someone must realise what a highly implausible suggestion that is? (If you think it isn't - try sneaking large quantities of explosives into, say, the Empire State building, and see how far you get.)

The other big unmentioned problem here, which I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to, is the lack of a motive for the 'controlled demolition' of the towers. Given that they were presumably going to be hit by planes as part of the plot anyway, what possible reason could whoever was behind it have to do it? I just can't imagine why anyone would go to such unnecessary lengths - to fill the towers with explosives, and hit them with planes as well. It just doesn't add up to a plausible hypothesis.

I realise I might be violating WP:FORUM a bit here, but I think these are genuine serious problems with this hypothesis, and would like to see them included in the article. Terraxos (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about WP:FORUM, so I have answered your questions on your user talk page. Wowest (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to avoid turning this into a forum is to deal with this issue in terms of reliably sourced criticisms of the hypothesis. The argument you make here is not new and does indeed seem to be missing from the article (I'm afraid it may have gone out with some the bath water I let out recently). I'll try to reconstruct it and put it back in. The difficulty of planting the explosive is not only recognized by proponents of CDH, it is what makes the hypothesis interesting to them: if there were such explosives, whoever was behind 9/11 would have had extraordinary access to the WTC. It is precisely because you and I can't do it that the CDH implies that 9/11 was an "inside job". As for necessity, most argue the other way round: after the decision was made to bring down the towers, the planes became a necessary diversion. (The idea being that if the towers had stood there would be insufficient ground to go to war with Afghansistan, etc.). All this belongs somewhere in the article and can be sourced to Griffin and Tarpley, and their critics, like Popular Mechanics and NIST.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Engineering community
The CDH is not pursued within the engineering community. It is a marginalized view. It is true that some architects and engineers are proposing it, but they have not yet succeeded in raising it within their disciplines. The point of the section is to make it clear to the reader where the CDH stands in the larger professional community. Making it appear accepted in that community is misleading, as even proponents will agree. They are meeting all kinds of resistance, and this section must identify it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that it is a marginalized view. It may or may not be a minority at this time but by citing two examples of support of the CT and ignoring that there is support within the community is not NPOV. The present wording of the misleading IMO. "unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers" is very strong language from a semantic perspective and not representative of the true situation. I am just trying to balance the article. Tony0937 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. But the hypothesis must be considered marginal and unambigously rejected (in the engineering community) until it appears in an academic engineering journal. So far, it has been mentioned in that context only to be summarily dismissed. NIST dismissed it without testing any of its claims. AS far as I can tell, member of A&E are at odds with their community (of engineers). I haven't even found a trade journal or magazine that takes CDH seriously yet. The best thing for us to do would be to look at your best source of the engineering community's reaction.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverts over engineering reactions
I think it is important to have a section in this article that makes it clear that the CDH is a marginalized position in the engineering ocmmunity. That is, it is very difficult for engineers to say anything in support of CDH, and very little is generally said about it. It is simply dismissed.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If that were true this website http://www.ae911truth.org would simply not exist. Tony0937 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Context is everything Thomas. If you count only those engineers who have done at least minimal research then those who believe CD can't be excluded until investigated greatly outnumbers those engineers who dismiss it completely. That it is difficult for most engineers to say anything in support of CDH is expected if they have not investigated it themselves. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets look at some sets. Taking have a community as a whole (all engineers) as the complete set we have the following possible subsets.
 * Some have looked at the CDH and think there is grounds for investigation and have registered at AE911truth. Known number.
 * Some have looked at the CDH and think there is grounds for investigation and have not registered at AE911truth. Unknown number
 * Some have looked at the CDH and do not think there is grounds for investigation and have made it known that they support the CH. Known number.
 * Some have looked at the CDH and do not think there is grounds for investigation. Unknown number.
 * Some have not looked at the CDH and do not think there is grounds for investigation. Unknown number.
 * Some have not looked at the CDH and have no opinion. Unknown number.

Of the various subsets we have Known numbers for only two of them. Any assumptions about Unknown numbers is purely speculative. Unless someone have made a poll that I am not aware of those are the facts that we have to work with. Tony0937 (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not about numbers but about formation. In science, the dominance of an idea does not depend on the amount of people who support it, but the viability of the idea in the community. Today, CDH is a non-starter. That is all "context" can mean. ae911t is mentioned in the article and we might even be able to find some press coverage (of Gage, I think, in particular). But it doesn't belong in the section on the engineering community. If CDH is every seriously considered, even in a place like the New Civil Engineer (not an academic journal but a professional magazine), then we'd have reason to temper the "unambiguously reject by the eng. community". At this point, this section needs to make it clear how hard it is propose/defend CDH. If reader's get the sense that CDH is being considered by engineers (i.e., that engineers are pursuing it professionally, not just in their spare time) then those readers have been misled.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a totaly false argument. When a lawyer takes on a case pro bono he is still a lawyer. Saying that unless a person is paid for his work, it is not to be seriously considered, is an insult to anyone has ever done volunteer work. The rest of your argument seems to be based on that, so far, mainstream publications have published little or no articles supporting the CDH. It would be more acceptable to me if that is what is said, but I cannnot support the previous "unambiguously rejected" statement. Tony0937 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether or not they get paid, but whether their interest in the WTC is under peer review (by engineers in the established disciplinary publications). As it turns out, CDH is mentioned occasionally and summarily dismissed. This is then supported by science journalism. When a lawyer offers free advice in the pub he is not responsible to the bar (that can't be an original joke!); lawyers may also oppose legislation without thereby expressing a qualified legal opinion. The analogy isn't perfect, but it's something along those lines. The question would be what legal scholarship has to say on an issue, not what lawyers acting as public intellectuals are saying.--Thomas Basboll 13:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "unambiguously" is grammatically incorrect as there are not only no studies that support the OCT as being more than "plausable" but also no studies that support that CDH is impossible. Making it clear how hard it is propose/defend the CDH should not include the exclusion of material that may support CDH as the article currently is guilty of. How are readers misled by CDH being considered by engineers in their own time when so few are doing it professionally while in every case having a financial conflict of interest? Wayne 01:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "under peer review (by engineers in the established disciplinary publications)" Seems To me you are employing a double standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center&diff=158491260&oldid=158375189 Seffen's work had not even been reviewed let alone published and here you were putting it into this very section. Bah! Regardless if it really comes down to your final part "The question would be what legal scholarship has to say on an issue, not what lawyers acting as public intellectuals are saying" ae911truth is not a couple of people I just happened to overhear at a church social (I don't go to bars). They are stating their professional opinions in a very public manner and therefore have the weight of your "legal scholarship". They are professionals and should be dealt with accordingly. Tony0937 07:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I respect your concerns here, and I hope I haven't given a different impression. On the basis of a (credible) press release (from, say, the University of Cambridge) I would gladly add information about a forthcoming paper in support of CD. (The press release says that Seffen's work has been peer-reviewed and will be published. But do note that I have at this point accepted that we wait to include it until it has been published.)
 * I'm sorry you've taken my position on this as ("bah!") humbug. The question we are dealing with is whether this is more like taking a pro bono case (which I agree would be a professional activity) or like saying something in an informal, social setting. But maybe both analogies are too far off the mark. This is really more like an organization of lawyers opposing, say, the Patriot Act as, for example, unconstitutional. We are trying to decide whether an article on the criticism of the PA should include a sentence like "The PA has been largely accepted by the legal profession." Now, if there is a lot of debate among law scholars about the constitutionality of the PA and these debates are echoed in the courts, then we would not be able to write such a sentence.
 * In this case we have an organization that has been formed for the purpose of criticing the official account (i.e., not an established professional association), and which has found no expression in any of the established forums for engineering debate. (Wayne, readers are being told about AE911T in this article. We may even be able to say more. We are talking precisely about how the profession is tackling the hypothesis. "At the knees," you might say. But professional opinion is (unsuprisingly) the result of balancing whatever conflicts of interest there (necessarily) are.) I really am only trying to keep this section true to the sources we've got.--Thomas Basboll 15:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Do note the current version of the sentence: "The controlled demolition hypothesis is not being pursued in the structural engineering community."--Thomas Basboll 15:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely we an come to a consensus then. May I suggest it should read.
 * There are no published works in peer reviewed engineering journals that support the controlled demolition hypothesis Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition hypothesis assumes).
 * There are no published works in peer reviewed engineering journals that support the controlled demolition hypothesis Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer an published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses, mentions the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2007 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the view as presented in the NIST report, they note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive-collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled demolition hypothesis assumes).


 * Other engineers, such as Thomas Eagar, have also dismissed the controlled demolition hypothesis. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."


 * Leslie Robertson, who helped design the Twin Towers, debated Steven Jones on a radio program in December 2006.


 * When Steven Jones made his hypothesis public, Brigham Young University professor D. Allan Firmage responded that he had "studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers, and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft." Having read Jones' paper, and based on his "understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel", Firmage found "Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable."


 * Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis with some noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation.


 * Despite this there are a number of architects and engineers that have think that the controlled demolition hypothesis has enough merit to warrant a new investigation.
 * Please take a serious look at it. I have tried very hard to make it acceptable to both of us. Tony0937 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please take a serious look at it. I have tried very hard to make it acceptable to both of us. Tony0937 20:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to find a reliable source to include A&E911T. Some mainstream press coverage would do the trick. Once we find it, it belongs in the history section. E.g., "On XX, 2007, an association of architects and engineers led by Richard Gage was formed in..." etc. It doesn't belong in the eng. community section for the reasons I've already noted. It is not just that there are no published papers in support of it: the engineering literature says explicitly that the CDH is not being taken seriously.--Thomas Basboll 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense to me at all.
 * 1. The web site exists.
 * 2. There are engineers listed on the expressing their opinion about the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis
 * 3. This is the section is called "Reaction of the engineering community"
 * Seems pretty clear to me that a note about them belongs in this section.Tony0937 (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I contacted Wikipedia about using sources that are not accepted as reliable sources (I specifically mentioned A&E911T). They told me to take it to the talk page. The main criteria is that it can't be a single source claim (or a copy from a single source). Of course the reply from WP says it is not an official statement so they want to stay out of it lol. Wayne (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So I think that we have at least one person that qualifies in William Rice. http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_#998591 I will look for more. Tony0937 (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What we need is an indepedent source of information of AE911T. That is, we need to establish that this is not just one or half a dozen guys who have started a website. But that the association exists and that its members (or at least leaders) are what they say they are. So far, no independent journalism or scholarship on them seems to exist, so we are only in a position to take their word for it. One problem even about the web site: it is unclear when the association was founded and what sort of organization it is. We simply don't really know very much about this organization.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This site may help. It's a list of 270 Engineers and architects who have made public statements supporting CD or have discounted the OCT. Wayne (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That list is taken verbatim from AE911T. That makes it a "copy from a single source".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Wayne was pointing out that it was a place for reasearch. It is not simply a copy of a single source, for instance in http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments-on-Some-of-NISTs-FAQs.html Charles Pegelow is critical of NISTS FAQS, or Dave Heller, in http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm. who says:
 * There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition
 * Tony0937 (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The site is handy for finding other sources for statements. That each floor needs to be rigged is a common misconception. Just a few days ago i was reading an account of the CD of a 30 story building by the company who did it. They rigged only 3 floors and used 267 lb of thermite. Perfect drop into it's own footprint. Wayne (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I finally get time to proofread the article and it gets protected lol. I'm requesting an edit. The line “Such an explanation is now about to be published.” Needs to be deleted. The paper is rather inadequate. All it does is confirm that the official theory is "plausable" without in any way ruling out the CD theory. A glaring error is that the paper assumes the core columns were the same size for the entire height of the buildings which (to my mind) invalidates it entirely. If the paper survives peer review once published then it can be included but it is POV to mention it until then. Wayne (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

inclusion of Danny Jowenko line
There were a couple reverts recently over the following line (italics mine): Building demolition experts have also weighed in on the hypothesis with some noting that demolishing buildings by implosion typically requires weeks of active and easily detectable preparation. ''Other demolition experts dismiss these objections and support the possibility of controlled demolition. ''

First, this information is terribly cited, as it doesn't say where the alleged interview was published. I actually thought it meant a personal interview conducted by a Wikipedia editor (the only case in which it would be appropriate to cite information that way, except that personal interviews fail WP:V).

Second, Danny Jowenko is one demolition expert, not "other demolition experts".

Third, Danny Jowenko is on record specifically discounting the controlled demo hypothesis for WTC 1 and 2. He calls it "bizarre...Don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. It would take a year." (video clip)

Jowenko's supposed belief that WTC7 was imploded actually stems from this ambush interview where he was shown one angle of WTC Seven collapsing, not being told it was on 9/11, and he made an ass of himself. That's the only verifiable information. There is also this alleged telephone interview by a 9/11 Truther, where Jowenko apparently re-confirms his belief in the face of internet rumors that he'd retracted it. That's the evidence - a tape of someone with a Dutch accent on a phone line released by a conspiracy theorist.

Finally, Jowenko never discussed the difficulty of stealthily preparing an active office building for demolition. He is being cited here as original research by synthesis. To my knowledge he has simply not commented on that objection to the CD theory.

In summary, this information is mis-attributed, original research, misleading because it doesn't make clear we're talking only of WTC7, and comes from a non-reliable source. As usual, the 9/11 Truth brigade are seeing what they want to and ignoring what's right in front of them. The information needs to go. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying to dismiss Jowenko's position on Building 7 with "he made an ass of himself" is pretty weak. The video is clear where he tells what he thinks of it. When told it was on 9/11/01 he does not then say "Oh, then that couldn't have been a demolition." But even if he did, that, in and of itself, would be meaningful, if nothing else, as an explanation for why so many people are easily "fooled" by the way that Building 7 came down. It seems strange that you would not want to include key information like this. bov (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, on WP:BLP grounds, in that it puts possibly defamatory words into Danny Jowenko's mouth without a WP:RS. (I don't think http://www.pumpitout.com is a reliable source, but it never actually appeared in the article, only in a comment.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course you have. bov (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The line Arthur removed was very poorly sourced. Jowenko's statement was made in a Dutch TV-documentary, right? Let's start there; provide that reference. Next, has D R Griffin done anything with it in any of his books? Has Jowenko been mentioned in news coverage, even if only to be debunked? My sense is that very little has been done with this among proponents. (I did hear that it has been included in Loose Change: Final Cut. That suggests he can be quoted at least without a BLP violation--I understand that Louder Than Words has been very thorough about getting permissions.) In any case, if we can source this properly, then Jowenko's contribution to the WTC 7 issue belongs in that section. It is at least as relevant as the Romero controversy, which was covered by PM.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As usual, the OT brigade are seeing what they want to and ignoring what's right in front of them. Why should he discuss the difficulty of stealthily preparing an active office building for demolition? There was more than enough time to do it in the week prior to 9/11 when the buildings were EMPTY. Where did you get 200 floors from? A CD would require 1 to maybe 5 floors and could be rigged in less than a day. The same interview also makes mention that another major demolition company said the OT "is possible" and while not mentioning CD, it does imply CD is also and additionally it was mentioned that US companies would not dare give credence to a CDT for fear of losing work. In fact the article is extremely biased in excluding eyewitness testimony to the basement explosions that have never been disproved or explained while inferring all testimonies of explosions have been. If you dont want an opposing view then I suggest removing all references to demolition experts as it is undeniable that they do not all dismiss CD. I also pointed out a sentence that is undisputably POV requiring deletion earlier but it gets ignored while a controversial claim is reverted immediately. You official conspiracy theorists need to allow a NPOV treatment for the article. Wayne (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (It's OCT, OT would mean "Off Topic" in this context, yet another brigade on this article.) If someone would propose a RS for Jowenko's statement, I'll put it back, even though the article is protected.  I was objecting to putting words in his mouth, which another source states he says were misinterpreted, without a RS.  And credible demolition experts leave no more than one or two floors without explosives, so your figure of "1 to maybe 5 floors" is not credible.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a common misconception of OCT supporters who can't be bothered to factcheck a claim made to make it look like too much work was needed to make CD plausable. A direct quote from a demolition company on how to demolish a skyscraper: “The explosives are really just the catalyst. Largely what we use is gravity. We only really need to work on the first two floors, because you can make the building come down that way. But we (also) work on several upper floors to help fragment debris...Usually anywhere from two to six.” Wayne (talk) 22:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you watch the video, he's reacting specifically to the claims in a pro-CD video (I think it was Loose Change) that as the tower came down, plumes or jets caused by explosions were visible floor-by-floor. He immediately pointed out that A) this would involve a huge effort to wire all those floors and B) the buildings collapsed starting at the point of impact, not from the bottom as with a controlled demolition. He may or may not believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, or at least gave the superficial appearance of a CD, but he's clearly on record as calling the CD hypothesis for WTC1 and WTC2 "bizarre" and untenable. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you claiming that WTC7 is not part of the WTC? I also point out that it is indisputable that there were basement explosions so that leaves only how many upper floors needed to be done if in fact CD was responsible. I dont actually support CD but if it is at all possible it has to be treated as a valid theory and not dismissed as a claim made by "nuts" or "kooks" as many editors here keep calling people who want the article to be nuetral instead of concentrating on debunking the theory. Wayne (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The removed image of the collapse events
The image of the towers' destruction which I originally posted (by Aman Zafar) has been removed from here repeatedly, and now is gone. Those on here who are in discussions trying to get Tom Basboll to include more information would probably do better to simply get this image back on the page -- an image is better than 1000 words. ..

Tom Basboll created this page and has done a fantastic job of it -- best not to focus efforts on him.

The third image down from here is what I used --

Zafar has given his explicit permission to use the image on the demolition hypothesis page, which I've posted to my user page so I have it, here. It was deleted on October 12th, 2007 by a user who has frequently tried to delete parts off of Jim Hoffman's page. It was deleted exactly one year to the day before that. The deletion log is. The discussion on that page is here.

Similarly, the hoax B7 image with the smoke should be taken off or qualified in some way -- it is now the only image on the page and this is wrong.

bov (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to only have non-commercial permission, which is not considered adequate, as much as I'd like it to be for some other pictures I have. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When I looked at this (including Zafar's website) just before it was deleted my sense was the same as Arthur's. Zafar had given WP permission to use it, but had not put the picture into the public domain.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The picture is on this page of his site, almost half-way down the page. Is that not what you mean by public domain?  How is wikipedia considered "commercial" permission?  I used the exact wording suggested by wikipedia for the permission.  I still don't understand what the issue is when he has explicitly given permission for it to be used on wikipedia in this article.  If it's an issue of the right tag, than can someone please explain to me which one it should be?  bov 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The legal question, as I understand it, is wether a reader of Wikipedia will be able to use the image in any way he/she chooses in the future. I think Zafar retains copyright to any future commercial (and political) uses of the image. The photographer, in that sense, still owns the image. Therefore it can't be used in Wikipedia. But I'm not an expert on this, I'm only explaining what I thought at the time.--Thomas Basboll 07:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to find anyone who is able to tell me what the real issue is. People delete it but they don't really explain what the problem was.  It seems it would be easier for me to just keep reposting it as it appears to take quite some time before anyone notices and removes it, and then never really says what the problem was. bov 07:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, what should Zafar do to enable an image to be used here? Would he have to not have a copyright notice?  Maybe this would be the right tag? bov 07:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That tag PD-self is certainly adequate, but GFDL-self is the minimum allowable. What you seemed to be quoting on your talk page is the inadequate (former) Noncommercial or the really inadequate Withpermission.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Collase vs. Controlled Demolition
Above, Wayne has pointed out what he calls a "common misconception" about the possible demolition of the WTC: that every floor would need to be rigged and that it would take a lot of explosives. I think Wayne is right about this. It is already mentioned briefly in the engineering community section (first paragraph, last sentence) but it is an important enough point to be elaborated separately. The difference between and/or similarity of CD and PC have been suggested on both sides and the result is quite confusing. For example, some argue against CD by saying it would take an enormous amount of explosives--but if PC is correct then it only took the equivalent of rigging a single floor (the plane impact floors). On the other side, supporters of CD say it wouldn't take very many explosives--but if that is correct then perhaps the damage on the impact floor is enough. How many floors does CD actually propose? How few would make the CDH (structurally) unnecessary? How many would make CDH (practially) impossible? I think clarifying this issue would improve the article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree it is a common misconception, it might be difficult to clarify this, because, to my knowledge, CD proponents do not have any common theory about it (mostly because no one seems to be sure about it). It looks to me that at stj911.org there are two fronts attacking "official theory": "temperature based" molten metal, and structural "energy transefer" argument attacking Bazant's paper. In one of his recent speeches Jones mentioned that a paper submitted by him and his collegues to a peer-reviewed Enginnering Journal has passed a first round of peer-reviews. Maybe soon something will clarify. Anyway, I'll try checking Debunking 9/11 Debunking for any clues on that matter.salVNaut (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many sceptics discount CD by saying months of work, thousands of kg of explosives are needed and every floor must be rigged. This "theory" overlooks that firstly it is OR, secondly that the buildings were already heavily damaged and thirdly that planting the actual explosives is the fastest part of a CD with the largest CD to date taking 2 men 8 days and that included drilling thousands of holes (the WTC columns were hollow and had access points which would have allowed Thermite to be poured in). If CD has any basis in fact, the amount of explosives used in the WTC would have been based on what they hoped to achieve and could range anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand kgs. This quote from Protec is indicative that not all floors need rigging.


 * "Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower (or basement) floors first and then a few upper stories. In a 20-story building (the record to date for CD is 25 stories), for example, the blasters might blow the columns on the first and second floor, as well as the 12th and 15th floors. In most cases, blowing the support structures on the lower floors is sufficient for collapsing the building, but loading columns on upper floors helps break the building material into smaller pieces as it falls. This makes for easier cleanup following the blast."


 * Here is an indication of the actual amount of explosives used in real CD cases.

The 20-storey tower block Sandridge Court - 50 kgs. A pair of 24-storey tower blocks in Leicester - "A total of 70kgs of explosives and 2,400 non-electric detonating charges were used to bring the blocks down." The largest amount of explosives ever used in a controlled demolition (Sears in Philadelphia 17 separate buildings) took 5,454 kgs due mostly to the fact that the amount of explosives needed is related more to the footprint size than the height of a building. Wayne (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "100 kgs of explosive were used to bring down a 15-storey office block in the Norwegian capital of Oslo."


 * Let's take two scenarios: single floor and multi floor demolition.
 * Single floor demolition is sufficient to bring down a building. That's how regular demolition of buildings works: you wire the ground floor to remove its structural support, and gravity takes care of the rest. A building doesn't even need to be very tall to have enough mass to bring it down decisively once one floor is compromised. The collapse even happens at the famous semi-nonsensical "speed of gravity in vacuum" that conspiracy theorists keep parroting.
 * The problem with the single floor conspiracy theory is its effect also match what happens when you strip fire protection from a steel building and remove 90% of the structural strength of steel (which is what a wood burning fire will do.) In the real world, the failure of one floor really is enough to cause collapse. So no conspiracy is required to explain the effects.
 * Also, either the single floor would have to have been wired in advance and the planes were carefully piloted to hit that exact floor (twice!) and the demolition charges withstood airplane impacts and almost an hour of fire (O RLY?!). Or the demolition company did its work after the impacts, on floors filled with impassable debris and inside a fire so hot that it caused people rather to leap out the windows than stay in (O RLY?!).
 * Therefore we must have a multi floor demolition. Dozens of floors must have explosives. With this theory, we can interpret any old dust we see as "squibs". And "speed of gravity in vacuum" and wild miscalculations about "required energy to pulverize concrete" start to mean ...well, something that makes sense to some people.
 * The multi-floor demolition theory requires that either dozens of floors were wired with explosives in the days/weeks/months before (with none of the thousands of people working in the offices ever rising an eyebrow at all those guys in "Demolition Inc" overalls boring holes in the walls and striging up demolition charges). Or a few hundred guys did the wiring in both towers in less than an hour (again with not a single person noticing, and not a single one of the masses of conspirators ever spilling the beans.)
 * So when you go a little deeper to the theories, both single floor and multi floor kind of fall apart on you. Which is why it is unlikely we'll find reliable sources discussing either scenario (&lt;- tenuous attempt to bring this talk message back to article maintenance :-). You can't think too much about it if you want to keep believing. Weregerbil (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You reply highlights the many false assumptions laymen are making and somehow thinking they are enough to disprove the possibility of CDH. So what if fire can weaken steel columns and make them buckle? The column structures were UL certified to withstand fire a lot hotter than was possible in the WTC for a lot longer before buckling than the time it took for the WTC to collapse and even NIST admitted to this. There is no proof that the columns lost a lot of fireproofing, NIST "assumed" they did. NIST couldn't even make the towers collapse in simulations until they used parameters that were far in excess of what was actually observed and filmed. In the real world there has never been a case where multiple floor failures have caused a steel framed building to collapse (the South american fire is a good example where I believe 8 floors collapsed without affecting the others above or below). Demolition charges can only be detonated by a detonator, fire and impact wont affect them. A little known fact is that some major skyscrapers today actually have demolition charges in place right now after having had them preplaced during construction to save the cost of planting them later if the building has to be demolished. The "fact" most easily proven false is "none of the thousands of people working in the offices ever rising an eyebrow at all those guys in "Demolition Inc" overalls boring holes in the walls and striging up demolition charges". Could it be possible that it was done when the buildings were EMPTY? There was definately plenty of time to do it when the WTC were not only empty but also had all their security cameras and door locks disabled in the weeks prior to 911. What conspiracy site did you get "boring holes" from? The columns were hollow and may have even had access holes already in place for explosives as many highrise buildings today have for that very purpose. Thermate as a powder can be poured into a column like water. Again with the "masses" or "few hundred" of conspirators. Two people could have done it. Or we can be extreme and say a dozen were involved. None of this proves the CDH but it does leave open the remote possibility. I dont believe in the CDH but I'm intelligent enough not to discount it completely until such time as an investigation disproves it. Wayne (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * When was WTC empty and security cameras disabled? RxS (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * According to some reports, there was renovation being done in some offices on one floor of one of the towers for some days (not untypical for an office building). While electrical work was being done it is not inconceivable that security cameras in some offices were offline. Conspiracy theorists repeat that statement, eventually someone drops "in some offices on one floor", someone else adds "for weeks throughout both towers", and hey presto, we get stuff like the above. This is a much used device in conspiracy theory circles. Weregerbil (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These reports are quoted most often: Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted (context here), interview with a person who worked at WTC and speaks about power downs. salVNaut (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Scott Forbes.... There is a good chance he is a fictional person. Even conspiracy sites label him as a likely hoax. Thousands of people would have known about an unprecedented day-and-a-half power outage of half of the building, yet only a Mr. Forbes has ever mentioned it. Despite his pleas for investigation, Mr. Forbes fails to provide any evidence that could be checked. The only evidence that a "Scott Forbes" even exists appear to be one email and a conspiracy theorist blog entry of what is said to be a transcript of a telephone interview. Tourists have said they were in the tower during the claimed power outage, witnessing no sign of it.
 * Most of a WTC tower being powered down for the weekend before 9/11 would be headline news, not a mystical "Scott Forbes" doing a telephone interview in a brave attempt to expose the secret Illuminati masterminds.
 * So far more likely is either a power outage in one office, mistakenly reported by one person; or simply someone having a little fun by posting made up stuff on the 'net (not exactly the first time that has happened.) Weregerbil (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yikes, so it goes from There was definitely plenty of time to do it when the WTC were not only empty but also had all their security cameras and door locks disabled in the weeks prior to 911 to at best a small part of one building and one companies own cameras being affected (not the buildings cameras), and even that might be a hoax. I think this whole article needs a good going over if that's the kind of reference being used to support content. RxS (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think somebody should put in a well-sourced (Griffin, Tarpley or Jones) section on the imagined CD scenario and its critics (Lesley Robertson has debated with Jones about it, George Monbiot recently debated Griffin about it).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahem. DOES UL do structural certification?  I don't think it's in their charter.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A few weeks after 9/11 UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch said: "UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings and we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions." In 2003 Kevin Ryan, who was a senior manager for UL, wrote a letter to Knoblauch asking about the testing because he was worried UL would get a black eye because the steel failed. Knoblauch replied (in writing) on December 1st: "We test to the code requirements, and the (WTC) steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." The NYC code used for the WTC construction required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors which conflicts with a supposed failure according to NIST after only 56 minutes. Ryan sent copies of the reply to other UL executives asking them to go public. He was told to wait until the NIST report came out. In January 2004 at UL's Leadership Summit Ryan suggested a press release but was turned down. UL tested the floor assembly models in August and in october NIST released an official update that included UL's floor test results. The results invalidated both major theories of collapse (Pancake and Progressive). Ryan then wrote a letter directly to NIST asking them to reconcile their conclusions with the test results but NIST never replied so he made the letter public. This led to Ryan being fired 5 days later. Today UL's public statement in support of NIST regarding why the steel failed is: "The effect of scale of test assemblies requires more investigation" and no other mention is made of the tests. The actual results of all the tests UL performed was "no floor collapse" under any scenario. Wayne (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wayne's explanation is accurate and exhaustive, of course, but if I may, Arthur, I recommend you to read Ryan's letter that I posted below. It will introduce you to Ryan's case with UL and claims his making and provide with references to further information. salVNaut (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we know at least one of the truthers who had been with UL was not, actually, a technical person, so I still somewhat uncertain about information which claims to be from UL on this matter. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just who are you referring to? Ryan is a Certified Quality Engineer and has a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry. So can I assume that you are not talking about him? Tony0937 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If what you say is correct, apparently not. Although, a BS in Chemistry doesn't (by itself) qualify one to be a structural engineer.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a structural engineer or not is irrelevant as Ryan has the UL documentation to prove his claims. It may not be proof of CD but it could be proof that the NIST fabricated it's results and if so then their report is totally worthless as an authority on what caused the collapse. Wayne (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Disputed. It would take a expert structural engineer to recognize the (alleged) inconsistencies.  While I can recognize that Jones, for example, is completely wrong, I can't tell from the description above whether there is even a potential inconsistency.  For example, even I know that scale models are significantly stronger than the real structure, because of the square-cube law.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If all models regardless of scale couldn't cause the WTC to fall and these tests, rather than being reported, are redone using parameters that exceed what the physical, photographic and eyewitness evidence supports (which was admitted by NIST) and then presented as proof of why they did fall. Is that not an inconsistancy that even a layman could recognise? Wayne (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This 2004 statement is from NIST: "A fire rating of ¾ hr was determined from the reduced-scale test with the “as-specified” (½ in. or 13 mm) fireproofing thickness. This rating would not have satisfied 1968 NewYork City building code rating requirement for floor systems in Construction Class IB buildings—the designation assigned to the WTC towers when they were built." That ¾ hr was the lowest achieved and the steel in that test failed at 120 minutes (NIST actually said "test terminated imminent collapse" not failed). Almost all the remaining tests resulted in 2 hr ratings. It is interesting to note that when NIST published that they also stated that there was little loss of fireproofing. The loss of fireproofing theory only arose when it became clear the fires were not hot enough to make the columns fail. Wayne (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW..you are totally ignoring that NIST bases it's conclusions on steel failure which is virtually impossible for at least two hours (assuming an intense, fully developed fire @ 1,300 degrees). If the WTC took less than two hours to collapse then weakened steel needs to be ruled out. The tests NIST reported they actually did on the WTC steel (both scale and full size) averaged 2 hours without a load bearing failure (there were no failures regardless of temperature or time) and for sagging the shortest time sagging reached a point where "imminent collapse" could occur was 116 minutes and in one test and 210 minutes in another before sagging became excessive but still not enough to lead to failure.

Move this discussion to Collapse artile?
There is not yet any mention of the physical testing in the collapse of the World Trade Center article. Whatever Wayne and Arthur get out of this discussion probably belongs there, more than here, because NIST is an RS for the invesigations. Though we've made some justifiable exceptions, Ryan's work is not really an RS even for this article (because it is self-published).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Any discussion about the official explanation being untenable without specific mention of alternative explanations belongs there.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Even (or especially) if the officially explanation holds, a discussion of the sorts of testing and modeling that went into it belongs there. The UL tests, it seems, can be satisfactorilly described just using the NIST report as a source. (Even Ryan seems to be satisfied with the report's description. He just doesn't approve of the conclucions drawn from them.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A great read. A new references section maybe?
This letter by Kevin Ryan is a response to a paper written some time ago by Mackey, a weapon industry US scientists: it's a 200page defense of NIST report. I skimmed through Mackey's paper and I must admit it impressed me - it was full of references to NIST, case by case analysis, reasonable arguments. However, having no time to read it carefully and check each reference I could judge it only on that basis. The more I was waiting for a response from CT movement.

Ryan response is very interesting, he shows how careful scientists he is and how well he knows the case. He points out mistakes, not careful referencing by Mackey, and shows his and claim about WTC fireproofing again in clear light. (I must admit that I haven't checked his references either, but it's a matter of who you trust - judge yourself). Ryan also clarifies some personal stuff regarding him and UL, which is less relevant to CDH but still interesting to read. The whole discussion (200p. paper vs 11 pages response by Ryan which I recommend to read), apart from being very informative, shows how difficult is for a layman to follow the discussion with understanding, and how NIST made this task even harder from the beginning by publishing a report that (citing Ryan:)
 * Throughout this paper, Mr. Mackey conveniently ignores the fact that all the tests NIST performed were ultimately useless. That is, none of the results produced can be traced to the final computer generated findings in a straightforward manner. In fact, for some of the tests performed, like those for the floor testing and the steel temperature estimates, NIST now simply admits that they did not use the results in any meaningful way. These admissions can be seen in NIST’s response to a Request for Correction, filed by 9/11 families and concerned citizens, and in our recent appeal to that response.

I don't think we are able to report this Mackey-Ryan exchange of arguments, nor 9/11 families Request for Correction vs NIST, neither there are secondary sources to do so. Then, it's reasonable to assume that anyone interested in CDH would be interested in reading these. However, as of now, I don't think that the wiki article serves well as a pointer to such sources. So my proposition would be to create a new section ("External Links", "Disputes"?) where links to such resources are put. At least aforementioned two cases deserve to be there: Request... earned response from NIST; Mackey can be seen as a representative of a CDH-skeptic Randi forum. I also see there a Purdue Study, Ryan response to it, etc. What do you think? salVNaut (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we can offer SJ911T and AE911T as external links. But I don't think we should report on the disputes that develop there.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Another great read
A Boston Globe article:the_science_of_how_buildings_fall_down. Not clearly connected to CDH but obviously of interest to anyone here.salVNaut (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of citing polls
Not sure I understand the function of citing the polls that state people believe it was controlled demolition. At least, I think the polls ought to be qualified. Perhaps, alongside it could be mentioned that 6 percent of Americans believed the Apollo Moon Landings were faked, to give the poll some perspective? 66.57.225.84 (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The polling info is provided to give a sense of the social significance of the hypothesis. It tells the reader that CDH is not being pursued by just a handful of people (hundreds, say). I think comparing the 6 percent figure to the faked Moon landings hypothesis would discredit the CDH by association. There is no need to do that. There are many things, reasonable and otherwise, that only 6 percent of Americans believe. Listing them would not provide perspective. (That the poll info as it stands allows you to put the hypothesis in perspective, however, attests to the usefulness of including it.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Answering "yes" on a phone poll is not "pursuing" a theory. Although, if the information is reliably sourced, it's relevant. No need to "inoculate" the reader with WP:OR comparisons to the Apollo hoax conspiracy or the like. Just as long as it is not phrased to imply that more than an extremely tiny minority of experts consider the hypothesis worth pursuing. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, "pursue" was too strong a word. We agree about the rest.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Romero's retraction
(Moved from user talk pages, lightly edited for context.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

PM misquoted what the subject said. Romero only made two statements: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." Reporter makes a statement saying Romero has got a lot of email and Romero replies: "I'm very upset about that, I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." Everything else in the retraction is what the reporter asked or said. The actual quote should be more appropriate. Wayne (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the impression PM had talked to Romero themselves. The PM article represents his most recent statement on the affair.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Romero may have said that to PM but it is still a misquote when compared to his original statement. He said planted explosives were definitely the cause and that "the collapse resembled other controled demolitions" (see the context?). Highlighting that he said "resembled" does not negate his original belief that explosives were involved (as PM implies) as it uses the word in isolation thus losing it's context. As such the original is more reliable than PM. I also point out that the WP article falsely implies that he is refering to his mention of explosives rather than the collapse. Wayne (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But the whole point is that Romero claimed, when interviewed by PM, to have been misquoted by the AJ. So obviously the original AJ quotation will conflict with the PM statement. It's best just to leave it at "he later said he had been misquoted", which leaves open whether or not he actually had been.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(End of moved text.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Ah but he was not misquoted by the AJ and therin lie the problem. AJ claimed he said "the collapse resembled other controled demolitions" while Romero told PM that he was misquoted and "only said that was what it looked like" which is exactly what the AJ said. Don't forget to put that first statement in context as what he said before that changes the entire meaning of the statement (basically they have changed a descriptive sentence into a stand alone statement to distort the meaning). PM manipulated what was said to imply the explosives claim was a misquote as well. Having said that I notice the edit suggesting possible motive for recanting has been deleted. The edit has to be relevant because it is supported by Romero and PM or why would they mention it? Wayne (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the context is there as it stands. If Griffin, Tarpley or Jones have speculated about Romero's motives for retracting and we source it to them then I would consider leaving it in. The back and forth has to end somewhere and I think the Emperor's Clothes is too marginal a source of the accusation that someone "got to him" (even given PM's coverage of it). It just isn't a major part of the defense of the CDH.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Good Article?
Please look at the Good Article criteria....here: ...this article completely fails the GA criteria. The title is POV, there is no hypothesis...there is only the conspiracy theories regarding this event. A hypothesis has to have at least some basis in fact, and this article is not based in fact. It serves as an advocacy platform for non-science, not facts. If it was well written, it would be very clear to denounce the CD conspiracy theory for what it is. Scientists use the term hypothesis when they have direct and rational reasons to believe that something is likely to be true, based on observable evidence...this doesn't even come close to being a hypothesis. But, most importantly...this article violates the undue weight clause of NPOV...severely. Sorry, but unless the POV issues are straightened out, I think it would be a bad precident to promote this article to GA.--MONGO 10:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't think it will pass a first review. But it certainly didn't meet the "quick fail" criteria. So nominating it seems like a good way to get improvements going again. While I don't think you fit the description of a reviewer, a list of specific shortcomings would be great.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Start with the title..we have been over that issue in the past. As I mentioned above..there is no hypothesis...there is only a conspiracy theory about it. Yeah, I know, you took that word from a comment made by the leading reseacher on the NIST team that examined the collapse, but even that was out of context.--MONGO 11:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the title was dealt with by the community as part of the delete discussions. However, I have been changing my mind about it lately and I think "accusation" might be a more precise term (because it is assumed that those who could know whether the "hypothesis" is true, already do). Implementing it will require a pretty serious rewrite of the article (making the central idea the "cover up" of the alleged demolition, not the way however, and it may be hard to win consensus. So it would be great if you could rehash your criticism in detail. If it becomes an article about accusations of a coverup, and at the same time becomes a good article all the better.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hypothesis noun: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. The title is correct as the theory exactly fits the dictionary definition. Wayne (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest buying a dictionary. A hypothesis does not require facts. All that is required are unexplained phenomena and some explanation that might remotely be possible (no matter how unlikely) to explain them and I'm sure we all agree that these exist regardless of which theory you believe.
 * I have several dictionaries mind you...which one shall I use...for ease of cross refence, why not look at one that is online and it seems the best example that demostrates what a hypothesis is in correlation with a theory where a hypothesis: "implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation"...however, in this case, since the only explanation that does work for why the towers collapsed was due to high speed impacts by wide body jets laden with aviation fuel in which the resultant damage from the aircraft collisions followed by fire as well as the added weight of the aircraft themselves combined to limit the structures ability to remain standing....other "theories", (which this doesn't come close to being) are easily debunked due to their abject preposterousness. I due, however, tend to agree interestingly with Thomas as he states that this is more akin to an "accusation", since a controlled demolition would have involved a plethora of people committed to both doing the deed and remaining silent about it forever...so if the buildings had been imploded, then they have committed an egregious criminal act...and we, as editors trying to write a NPOV article about the impossible implosion are essentially accusing these shadowy characters of this heinous crime.--MONGO 12:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article itself does not make the accusation (just as it doesn't propose the hypothesis); it explicitly states that proponents make the accusation, i.e., the "inside job" implication. But I think the accusation angle will work best as an accusation of "cover up" rather than direct culpability. Direct accusations about who ordered it are rare. The figures remain sufficiently "shadowy" to be in no position to take offence. (The exception is of course Silverstein, but the issue is presented in the standard way...actually following Popular Mechanics quite closely.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My biggest issue with calling the conspiracy theories 'hypothesis's is that it implies the scientific method is being applied when even the most minor consideration of any show them to be proceeding from an unreasonable position, with unreasonable assumptions, to arrive at an unreasonable conclusion.John Nevard (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much whether they are applying scientific method. Very few sciences actually apply any idealised rational method when you look closely at their practices. More current views of science define it as research conducted within a "paradigm" (Kuhn) or "discourse" (Foucault) or "research programme" (Lakatos). But here the hypothesis also fails to qualify, mainly because the researchers are marginalized in the relevant fields. Now, there is no simple (sociological) truth about whether the hypothesis is being "suppressed" or just ignored (for lack of evidence). But it is pretty clear what the proponents of the hypothesis think. There are also plenty of good sources to write an article about (and the current version is pretty good, this issue notwithstanding).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: For those who are interested (and have access - I'm going to have to order it), this may be the most academic source of information about the CDH (or CDA) we have yet. Episteme is a pretty well-respected (albeit still new) philosophy journal, with a solid editorial board. Clarke apparently applies a Lakatosian framework (cf. my post above).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)