Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 8

Overview: NYT source on controlled demolition theory
This source is already in the text. While it does not contain much information that would be actually new, it gives a good overview and is particularly useful in situations where there is disagreement about where common sense ends and original research begins. (It also might just improve our copy & paste skills.) It would be good to have a closer look at the parts of the article that have been deleted since April 24. The source also allows summarization, e.g.:

Cs32en 09:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Odd picture
The picture at the top of the article does not really illustrate the topic of the article. It's centered on a building that has, by all accounts, not been destroyed by controlled demolition. Do we have another image, or can we switch the image with some other image included in the article? Cs32en 12:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that we fabricate an image, or use an image of a controlled demolition that's not related to 9/11? Perhaps we can find an image of some 9/11 Truth protesters holding signs that demand the "Truth" be told.  Jehochman Talk 13:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It does seem perfectly reasonable to have a picture of the remains of the World Trade Center at the head of an article about its collapse. There are a few possible alternatives here. Hut 8.5 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a quibble, but this article isn't really about the collapse. It's a social science article about a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 15:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The image is not fabricated, but Building 6 is not really the main point of the dispute. I have seen that there are not that many really useful pictures on Wiki at the moment, and I agree that a picture showing the remains of the World Trade Center is a good choice. I agree with Tom Harrison's view that the article is about a social phenomenon. Cs32en  15:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest to use this image:[[Image:WTC Area With Building Numbers 50dpi contrast.jpg|250px|thumb|Debris of the World Trade Center buildings: North Tower (1 WTC), South Tower (2 WTC) and Seven WTC, Sept. 23, 2001.]]


 * First, a question: I don't know which Wikipedia article is intended to be about the science and physics of the controlled demolition hypothesis, if this is not the article for that.  The Collapse of the World Trade Center article doesn't appear to cover the controlled demolition hypothesis to any significant degree.  Perhaps someone could advise.  As for the photo, I don't think that the image that Cs32en is proposing shows anything which would distinguish it (for the lay person) from the collapse by fire hypothesis.  I propose using an image which is more strongly associated with the controlled demolition hypothesis and the movement which supports it.  The image I propose is Figure 9 on page 15 of the report published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, which is an electron micrograph showing what are alleged to be aluminum/silicon platelets packed together in a tight matrix with iron oxide particles, on a scale of tens of nanometers.ref This may constitute the strongest evidence presented to date in the case for controlled demolition, and thus is well-representative of the topic of this article.  It is also the element of the movement which may be getting the strongest coverage in the press lately. list of articles  The OCPJ document is published under a Creative Commons license, so I'm assuming that the use of any of the images contained therein would constitute fair use (for non-commercial purposes), although I haven't (yet) reviewed the license to validate that assumption. Wildbear (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the image of the OCPJ is of course more pertinent to the topic. However, a new reader would understand this only after reading the article. Another possibility would be a picture of the actual collapse of one of the buildings, like this one (see thumb). Cs32en  19:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC) 250px|thumb|Collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC).

(5i) · Cs32en, I think that image is perfect for this article, and you are correct in that it would be preferable not to have to read an article to understand the image. I give my strong support for the use of this image, assuming that it constitutes fair use under copyright law. Wildbear (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · Why do we want to change the picture? Forgive the WP:OR but conspiracy theorists believe all 3 towers were destroyed by controlled domlition, not just WTC7.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · Hm, we have sources that say conspiracy theorists believe that 1 WTC and 2 WTC were destroyed by controlled demolitions. We have other sources that say they believe 7 WTC was destroyed by controlled demolitions. It's a huge strech and certainly WP:SYN to say they believe that 1 WTC, 2 WTC and 7 WTC were destroyed by controlled demolition ;-) Seriously, the problem is that 6 WTC, on which the current image on the top of the article focuses, was not destroyed by controlled demolition, and nobody has alleged that this would have been the case. Cs32en  21:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · Well, none of them were destroyed by controlled demolition. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · I'll have to express that in a more precise way, I guess: Unlike 1 WTC, 2 WTC, and 7 WTC, 6 WTC never has been the subject of any dispute with regard to the possibility of its destruction by controlled demolition. Cs32en  02:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · But 9/11 denial isn't about the buildings, it's about the conspiracy theories, in this case a subset of the conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · Haven't met anyone who denies 9/11 yet. But you never know, of course. But if this is not about the buildings, do you suggest to put the image of an NMR spectrogram from a truther brain on the top of the page, ... err, if we have a reliable source for it? Cs32en  02:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I find that refreshing to hear. Although 9/11 deniers are an extremely small part of the general population, they seem to be quite outspoken about their beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job. If you have not encountered such nutcases, I'm glad to hear that.  Yes, I agree that there needs to be more psychiatric research into 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  Personally, I hope that modern science figures not only figures out what's wrong with them, but can provide a fix.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * · Let's just start with those people who believe that YouTube won't let you see the REAL pictures without the squibs etc... (sorry for messing around with the indentation) Cs32en  03:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please keep the discussion civil and on the subject of the article. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Joking above might be symptomatic of a running unanswered question, WildBear's one above, quote: What page is for the science and physics of the controlled demolition hypothesis, if this is not the article for that. If no one minds, I will convey the question in a new section, since this section has its focus.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Per posting in Wikiproject New York
A posting requested a neutral assessment of this article in Wikiproject New York. I guess it is OK, but my initial reaction was that it seemed a bit long, given the subject matter and that it is a minority view of 9/11. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, one other point: I think the lead should say that the 911 commission made no such conclusion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this WP:SYN?
Our article states "ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said "Anybody who ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you're going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down." It's cited to .  However, this reference makes no mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories.  Are we connecting Point A (Jennings statement about being "demolished on purpose") with Point B (controlled demolition conspiracy theories) without a secondary reliable source making this connnection?  I know fringe sources make this connection, but do reliable sources make this connection?  I'm not saying that this is or is not WP:SYN.  To be honest, I'm not yet very well-versed in WP:SYN to offer much of an opinion, so I'm just throwing this out there for the other editors of this article to weigh in on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that is a valid point. It implies that Jennings believed that the building was brought down by a controlled demolition. In fact, he was just obviously talking off the top of his head, as broadcast people are wont to do.


 * I will read through this article more to see if there is any more questionable things like that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be removed until a better, reliable, source is provided that makes such a link, if there is indeed such a link. Verbal   chat  14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the Loose Trains fallacy. Tom Harrison Talk 14:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

CHANNEL 8 REPORTER: As if a demolition team set off, when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings. It folded down on itself and it is not there anymore. PETER JENNINGS: If you wish to bring -- anybody who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you are going to do this, you have to get at the under-infrastructure of a building and bring it down. NBC ANCHOR: NBC’s Pat Dawson is close to the scene of that attack. Pat? NBC REPORTER PAT DAWSON: Just moments ago, I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. The chief, Albert Turi, he received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could. But he said that there was another explosion, which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. He thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building." It is disingenious to assert the connection is SYNTH if you know everyone was talking about controlled demolition. This should be mentioned, not deleted, with a qualifier if you want that the mainstream media dismisses this connection. It must be remembered that this article is about the CD conspiracy theory not about what parts of the conspiracy theory the mainstream media actually believe warrants reporting. Heres a source that confirms that the truth community connects controlled demolition with Jennings statement if you need one. Wayne (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That Jennings himself made that connection can be inferred by the language used as I doubt he or anyone else knows of any other way to demolished a building of that size on purpose other than CD. Also you need to view it in the context of the entire discussion going on:"CNN ANCHOR: Almost looks like one of those planned implosions.


 * Yes, I know that 9/11 conspiracy theorists make this connection. I already said that it my OP.  Please go back and reread my OP so you understand my question.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That just confirms that this is OR and that the "Loose trains" link is appropriate. Verbal   chat  18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining how loose trains has anything to do with it? They are unambiguously talking about controlled demolition unless you assume they are discussing little green men with pickaxes causing the collapse. Wayne (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You must understand how frustrating it is for experienced  to keep explaining the same things (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYN) over and over again to people who don't get it. Jehochman Talk 20:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you would be more successful if your alphabet soup of arguments was more convincing, more in line with common sense and policy intent and less wikilawyerish overall. Cs32en  22:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Eager's comment about the reverse scientific method, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop dispensing bad advice. You've been editing here for how long?  One month?  Or did you have a prior account.  Where did you become so expert on Wikipedia policies and customs? Jehochman Talk 22:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Key elements of my approach include reading and understanding the policies and guidelines. You may start by consulting this page in my user space. Cs32en  22:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand policy at all, because you keep arguing for insertion of original research and unverified information. Why don't you go edit some articles besides this one? I think that would give you a much better perspective on things. Reading policy is not a substitute for practical experience. Jehochman Talk 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Press releases are for things their promoters want to publicize, but that aren't newsworthy. The "CD conspiracy theory" is exactly and only what reliable sources (not press releases) say it is. To define it for ourselves and then look for citations that fit our definition, is backwards - like deciding what we want to say, then quote-mining policy pages for support; or picking out occurrences of the word "train" in eyewitness accounts, and then pointing to them as evidence of a train wreck. If Jennings' comment is important to the conspiracy theory, a reliable secondary source will say so. The continuing problem is there are few (too few to support a separate article, in my opinion) reliable secondary sources to tell us about this "CD conspiracy theory." Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(restoring indentation) One point that can't be emphasized too much is that Jennings was making this statement on September 11th while the buildings were collapsing! Between 9:54 and 10:36 A.M. on the day of the tragedy. This was spontaneous talk based upon absolutely zero information. Even if he intended for his comment to interpreted as "maybe it was controlled demolition" (and there isn't a shred of evidence of that) it has about as much weight as you or I saying that. In point of fact, the late Mr. Jennings made no further statements indicating that the buildings were destroyed by anything other than the planes going into then. So this is really something that is totally misleading as used in this article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: the same can be said of the statements attributed to Dan Rather in the sentence that follows. The entire paragraph should go. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to remove the Jennings-Rather paragraph for the reasons stated above. I know this is a sensitive article (arb case and all), so I'd like to see if there is further discussion or objection. Rather also made his comments during the frenzied hours of Sept. 11, and I think also is being improperly used here, as both were simply observing the manner in which the buildings fell. Surely both commentators made statements on that day, perhaps minutes before and afterwards, specifically saying that the buildings were brought down by the jets and were terror attacks, contradicting the implication that is made here that they were brought down by demolitions. It would be just as valid to use those statements here. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that Rather and Jennings did not do extensive research before making their statements. However, the fact that they (and others) made them is an important factor to explain the development of the "conspiracy theory". There could be some clarification to the effect that they did not make these statements as a summary of news reports that they received, but as commentators at the very moment the events happened. Be careful not to insert any WP:OR, though ;-)  Cs32en  01:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reliable secondary source that makes this conclusion, or is that your own original thinking? Or is that the original thinking of some unreliable sources such as 911truth.org? Do you now understand why this is synthesis? Jehochman Talk 05:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless we have reliable sources which either report that this person believes the towers were demolished or that conspiracy theorists attach some importance to his words this should be removed. Hut 8.5 20:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a substantive question on point, but it seems I should wait for the personal stuff to die down. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, I am removing the Peter Jennings bit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the Dan Rather bit. We cannot take verified facts A, B, and C and then conclude D on our own.  We need a source that says A, B, and C, therefore D. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

CBS News replaced by Journal of 9/11 Studies?
Cs32en: Did you just replace a cite from CBS News (a reliable source) with a cite to the Journal of 9/11 Studies (a fringe source)? I refer to this edit. Can you please explain your edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait. Nevermind. I see what you did.  But why is Journal of 9/11 Studies even being used at all?  It's not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. J. of 9/11 Studies is used as a subject of the article in this case, not as a source of information. Cs32en  00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "J. of 9/11 Studies is used as a subject of the article in this case" What does that mean? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It means that the NYT is the source for the statement that (in the words of the NYT article here) "an online publication, www.journalof911studies.com, [...] has published much of the material arguing that the government's accounts are false." Cs32en  02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone like Gage (or Griffin) writes about controlled demolition pertinent to this article, should we quote (etc) accurately what was written in itself, or should we supplant that with someone's perception or personal description of what was written? Although I am new here, some notes on this question seem regimented. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for more WTC7 details based on the latest NIST report
I propose to add more details from the final NIST report and the q&a section on NIST's website.

- - - - - - - - - -

After critics on the previous report have been raised during the NIST WTC7 technical briefing on Aug.2008, the revised final report was published in Nov.2008. Different from the previous report assuming the building to descend at an approximately constant speed, does the new report assume an approximately constant acceleration in three phases: (confer NIST q&a page as well as the attached image)
 * Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than free fall, due to buckling of exterior columns in the lower stories.
 * Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall), indicating no support from the structure below.
 * Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, due to increased resistance from the collapsed structure and debris below.

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 that could be observed was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing. For the investigation, the NIST investigators did not look at actual steel samples from WTC 7. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began.

- - - - - - - - - -

It doesn't have to be included exactly like this, but I think the information is interesting for everybody reading controlled demolition theories. The important part is that NIST was unable to distinguish between free-fall and constant speed in a short video-clip after many years of intensive (?) research. They also fail to explain why free-fall occurred - they simply mention it. A further flaw in the NIST explanation is, that even the outer steel-frame is supposed to be more strong than the exterior columns ( the exterior columns collapse first), it still collapses in free fall speed. The complete infomation above was not very welcome on the offcial WTC & WTC7 pages, however it might belong to here. Hope to get some feedback about whether or not to include some or all the informations above. You might have already come accross the following youtube videos WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) (Part II) (Part III) - Johninwiki (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the NIST report specifically mentions the controlled demolition theory, I think that adding details of the report in a manner to deal with the issue would not be allowed by WP:SYN. Personally I think that the article already contains excessive detail, when you consider that this is a fringe conspiracy theory. Adding these details will only further unecessarily lengthen the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article title contains the words "conspiracy theory", I assume that findings and evidences supporting this theory are of interest. Am I wrong here? - Johninwiki (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if NIST did not explicitly say that it pertains to controlled demolition, I think it will not be permitted by WP:SYN. See, it is not our job to compile evidence and make observations. Our sources have to make the observations and conclusions. If NIST is not tying in this data to controlled demolition, I just can't see this in the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just said what Johnny says above, but he got there first - and he's right. Verbal   chat  14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, Wikipedia has to remain objective without WP:SYN. However, its allowed to mention the facts above between the dashed lines and let the conclusion remain up to the reader. It might be supported in an objective way like: "Supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories believe that free-fall is an important evidence for a controlled demolition." - Johninwiki (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is what the NIST says. If not, I think it's verboten by synthesis. I have an even greater problem, from reading this article, that I am going to break out in a separate section. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If this article is only about what reliable sources want to report about conspiracy theories maybe it's time to leave and start a new article about what conspiracy theorists themselves believe so that readers will at least know all the relevant information instead of the bare bones which carries no context. Wayne (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. - Johninwiki (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "If this article is only about what reliable sources want to report about conspiracy theories" Yes! That's exactly what we've been trying to tell you.  It's all about what reliable sources have to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have 9/11 Truth Movement which is about the groups promoting these theories (and that article is in a much worse state than this one). Hut 8.5 15:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have not yet read that article I assume it is about the movement itself. Are there any other articles about the conspiracy theories as the subject? Wayne (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do all sources that can be found in Google news full-fill the requirement of WP:RS ? Is there a list of reliable sources that are allowed to be cited in Wikipedia ? - Johninwiki (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No. You can find some of my writings in Google News, for example. Reliability is not a Boolean value.  There is a judgment depending on the topic and fact.  A non-controversial fact ("Tom Jones is the mayor of Pleasantville") can be sourced to any old news outlet.  Something incredible or scandalous needs much stronger sourcing ("A. Crooke was arrested for embezzlement"). Jehochman Talk 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I was researching this the other day and found many reliable sources in which we can use as sources for the article.                     A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lack of weight given to criticism of controlled demolition
This article has bothered me since I first read about it in Talk:Wikiproject New York. I haven't been able to put my finger on it until I began to see the forest as well as the trees: lack of weight is given to criticism of controlled demolition. Yes, criticism is raised, but it is just "flicked" at briefly. Look down far enough, for instance, and you see a teeny tiny reference to a Popular Mechanics article that ripped apart the controlled demolition theory.

Given that this is indeed a conspiracy theory that has been debunked by the engineering community, I think that lack of proper weight given to criticism and debunking is a serious issue under WP:NPOV. Thoughts? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it's a glaring weakness of this article. It's making the case for controlled demolition rather than explaning the issue. 24.74.139.34 (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To JohnnyB256: There might be evidence for your "given" ("debunked...community"), but such evidence I have not seen.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To know whether popular mechanics "ripped apart" CD or merely attempted to do so is not an easy question. Griffin has an entire book that argues that the PM article relies on many fallacies, and Griffin alleges that the PM article is fundamentally misleading. Anyway, I see that you are right that the use of PM in the article is not much.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The standard procedure in for example pseudoscience subjects is primarily to present the theories. Relevant criticism is usually not the central point of the article, although it would have been from a scientific skepticism viewpoint. See for example homeopathy and acupuncture. We'll need to adhere to Wikipedia standards and not to a scientific skepticism standard, however tempting the latter may be. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Including a more detailed description of the arguments of Popular Mechanics would be indeed helpful and could be done to the extent that their notability is being established by reports about them in third-party reliable sources. Cs32en  15:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with having more criticism but it should be mainly from the NIST FAQ sheets or other scientific based sources. Popular Mechanics is not an engineering publication so is commenting outside it's area of expertise. Wayne (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should not rely so heavily on NIST materials. These are primary sources, easy to misinterpret, and not accessible to the ordinary reader.  It would be far better to replace them with citations to secondary sources. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as they are reliable I have no problem. I would argue against using Popular Mechanics at all as it is arguably unreliable. It's debunking article used several strawman examples that are considered fringe by the 911 truth movement although that alone is not enough to disqualify it. Of concern is that one of it's debunking points was proven completely false (no government intercept policy) and it claimed that Jet fuel burns at 800-1500F when in fact it burns at 550F so fact checking is a problem. It has also been accused of misquoting sources as well I believe although it's been a while since I read the criticism. Wayne (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering many of those same arguments could be made for just about any 911 truth movement source it's probably ok. Soxwon (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is a reason you don't class them as reliable sources. It's nice to agree on something. Wayne (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no we're not b/c the argument is made against 9/11 truth movement by a far more diverse and qualified base of individuals. Soxwon (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't an engineering article. It's a social science article about a conspiracy theory. Popular Mechanics is fine for the scientific aspects (or lack thereof) of the conspiracy theory.  The use of nutcase conspiracy Web sites should be kept to a minimum, if at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are overlooking the fact that Popular Mechanics is not a scientific publication by any definition. It's role can be mentioned as can quotes when relevant but per WP policy it preferably shouldn't be used for "scientific aspects" and other sources should be used wherever possible to avoid giving PM undue weight. Wayne (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is definitely a reliable source on engineering subjects, and its article on the 9-11 conspiracy theories, including controlled demolition, was authoritative and has been more widely quoted in the media than any other such article. A check of Google News confirms that. To say that Popular Mechanics is not reliable on this subject because it is not a scientific publication is like saying that the Washington Post wasn't a reliable source on Watergate because it was not a political journal.
 * But let's not get too hung up on Popular Mechanics for the moment. The threshold issue is, does this article not give sufficient weight to skepticism and criticism of this theory? There seems to be no dispute as to that. As an IP correctly indicated, this article is more of an advocacy piece for controlled demolition than an explanation thereof. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Institutional analysis
Maybe the article should have some emphasis on social sciences in addition to the natural sciences bit, I don't know. In that case, the article might want to include viewpoints from institutional analysis if they exist. Narssarssuaq (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think any additional coverage would be interesting, as long as it is sourced to something reliable, not primary sources that are for advocacy. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For both this and the section above, I'm not opposed necessarily, but the page shouldn't become a dialogue where "proponents claim," then "critics respond," but "supporters note," "although..." etc. If the page were simply a succinct and accurate summary of what the reliable sources say, that would solve a lot of problems. Tom Harrison Talk 20:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article is to be about science and physics of CD hypothesis, if not this?
WildBear raises this question in the "image" discussion, quote: .. ''I don't know which Wikipedia article is intended to be about the science & physics of the controlled demolition hypothesis, if this is not the article for that. The Collapse of the World Trade Center article doesn't appear to cover the controlled demolition hypothesis to any significant degree. Perhaps someone could advise.'' .. I share the same question. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We cover it to the extent that reliable sources do. To the best of my knowledge, Popular Mechanics has done the most in-depth analysis of controlled demolition conspiracy claims from a scientific point of view.  If you think that more in depth coverage is required but no reliable sources have provided this coverage, then we can't include it in the article without violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about the social phenomenon that some people believe this theory. It is going to report the details of the theory to the extent that reliable sources have covered it.  Jehochman Talk 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably not important, but the article's name is not The social phenomenon that some people believe in the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. That should be part of this article, but it should not comprise the entire article, or people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on the theories themselves, as opposed to on the people who propagate them, may be disappointed. Narssarssuaq (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This note above seems to be on point, "We cover it to the extent that reliable sources do." End of Q. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Representative poll
Hi Jehochman — "representative" is a technical term: a representative poll is a poll that uses a representative sample of the population, because participants are chosen randomly. Online polls, for example, are non-representative. I don't know why you are constantly assuming bad faith by implying that the edits of other people have no objective basis. Cs32en 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

An why is Zogby International not a reliable source, in your opinion? Cs32en 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now included another poll by Zogby International, with a NYT reference. It says 42% instead of 67%, but for a harsher statement ("9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate" instead of simply "did not investigate"). Cs32en 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these polls directly related to the CDCT? Verbal   chat  15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how poll results are relevant to this article? There are lots of possibilities between "I don't trust the government" and "nefarious forces of darkness planted bombs at WTC and secretly caused 9/11". This also looks like an attempt at synthesis.  Jehochman Talk 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The poll summary says nothing about controlled demolition, and interpreting the statements it gives to imply that respondents believe in controlled demolition is original research. The poll belongs elsewhere. Hut 8.5 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to see how you switch your arguments, per your edit summaries, from "remove 'representative' -- it sounds like an attempt to validate. The poll is what it is." to "On second thought, do not include this unless it is reported by a reliable, secondary source", and then to "This fact might be appropriate for a more general 9/11 article. It does not address the topic here," Jehochman. Cs32en 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He was obviously swayed by my loquacious and elegant argument. There is a lot of cruft like this which should be removed. Verbal   chat  17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, his prior reasoning was, also per his edit summaries, "911truth.org is not a reliable source for what Zogby says" and "911truth.org may not be used as a source for this fact. Leave it out until you find a proper source" (No one else edited between the two edits.) It would be helpful and save other editors' time if Jehochman would clearly state his true intentions, i.e. in this case, that he wants the content to be removed no matter what argument would be suitable or sufficient. Cs32en  20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a failure to WP:AGF. I thought you'd be happy that people can be swayed by good arguments? Verbal   chat  15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis of eyewitness reports?
Where is the synthesis in the following statement?

"People at the scene, print journalists,  policemen, firefighters, and television news anchor Dan Rather have compared the process of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings to that of a controlled demolition, or have reported explosions."

Cs32en 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * have compared the process of the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings to that of a controlled demolition, or have reported explosions.
 * 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = Conclusion. There needs to be a source to tie all this together. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is the synthesis that they support the CDCT. Verbal   chat
 * There is nothing in the sentence that says they would support the controlled demolition theory. The whole sentence is descriptive. Cs32en  15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and misleading by omission of context. Verbal   chat  15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already suggested to add context, but that has been seen as possible WP:OR. Cs32en  16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding those quotes to a article called "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories" is connecting dots that aren't there. RxS (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The references (actually not quotes) are following a sentence that says "Griffin refers to...", so it's obvious from the position in the article that this is a description of what Griffin refers to, but not in Griffin's words, but in language supported by the WP:RS sources given. Cs32en  16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You cited that sentence to an interview with Griffin, a primary source. You also linked to a database at the NYT with 11,000 pages of eyewitness reports, also a primary source.  What you are trying to do here is called sythesis.  Please find a secondary source that ties all this together.  It should be a reliable source that says something like Griffin claims that eyewitnesses saw (or hear) X, and he thinks that those were observations of explosions.  You need a source that ties all the pieces together.  You can't take three or four sources and stitch together your own conclusion. Jehochman Talk 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUB: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves [...]" The information in the article ("Griffin claims") is information about Griffin, and CBC gave Griffin the opportunity to publish his views by interviewing him, so we can treat this as a self-published source. The fact that the interview was published by a WP:RS source (CBC) is important, because (a) it supports the assumption of notability and (b) we can assume that the text of the interview has not been manipulated. Cs32en  18:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We can probably use the following WP:RS source. (Remember the two claims that are to be included in the article, are: "Griffin claims that eyewitnesses reported explosions." and "Eyewitnesses reported explosion." No statement to the effect that "explosions actually happened" needs to be in the text.) Cs32en  19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[...] Black and gray clouds enveloped the buildings. An enormous rumble, described by one witness as sounding like thunder, only lasting longer, shook the ground. One of the buildings began to collapse. A few moments later, witnesses said, the top of the tower simply was not there. [...]

"I was sitting at my desk and heard the explosion and at first thought it was maybe the air conditioning ducts imploding or something. Then I heard people who were sitting by the window scream," Nessel said. "We saw things falling and thought it was debris but it wasn't. They were bodies."

Nessel hurried to his wife's office as one of the towers collapsed. [...]

"On the plaza, you could see all these bodies lying all over the place," Abel said. "The cops were like, 'Move it! Move it!' There's another explosion. I look back and I can see all this black smoke. I try to get into a police car, but I can't. I run into this building. I hear another boom. I can't believe it."


 * This is purely a side note but the heat of the fires became so intense and painful that people intentionally choose to jump out of the buildings rather than be burned alive. The explosions these people are referring to are the sounds of people's bodies exploding when they hit the ground. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to enter into any kind of substantial discussion here, but bodies do not explode when they hit the ground. Aside from that, the relevant question here is not whether there were explosions or where they have originated from, but whether, according to reliable sources, eyewitnesses reported hearing explosions. By the way, the eyewitness in the Washington Post article says "the explosion" before referring to (multiple) "bodies". Cs32en  19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it was purely a side note. I just wanted to explain to you what they were talking about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest, I just don't believe your explanation holds water; at least one person was photographed standing in the impact zone, the picture is in the FEMA report. Cs32en  19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying you didn't know people were intentionally jumping out of windows on 9/11?. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we can't use that source, as it would be another case of synthesis. Nowhere does that source mention controlled demolition or Griffin. Hut 8.5 20:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the source would have to be used in combination with the CBC interview. I think it's pretty much common sense that Griffin is referring to reports about eyewitness reports of explosions, and that the Washington Post report is an example of such news reports. It was not me, but Jehochman, who put in the following comment in the article: " ".  Cs32en  20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "In combination with" == synthesis. If you have to take two sources and then draw your own conclusion, or assume the reader can, then it's not a verifiable fact. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the sources need not be actually combined. One could write two sentences like (a) "David Ray Griffin claims that eyewitnesses heard explosions." (b) "Eyewitnesses reported that they heard explosions." It's just somewhat awkward to separate both sources in that way. Cs32en  21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I already suspected that Jehochman would remove the WP:RS sources I gave, stating they were unrelated to the article, only to remove the statement about Griffin later on. I didn't mention that, per WP:AGF. Now it has happened. Let me just say that I resent such dishonest behaviour. Cs32en 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dishonest. Me?  Oh, I am hurt. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First asking for a WP:RS source for the eyewitness reports and then deleting the section, after the source you had requested has been found, actually is dishonest. Cs32en  22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether witnesses spoke of an explosion, a train, a UFO, or the Hand of God makes no difference. Nor does what Griffin, or Jones (Steven or Alex), or Tarpley says matter much. What reliable secondary sources sources say about the elements of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory matters. Tom Harrison Talk 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is WP:common sense that it matters what Griffin and Jones say (forget about the hand of god).  Just as any of us is capable of reading a map or book, an encyclopedia is perfectly capable of describing or quoting the documents that define the CD research.  Then, secondary sources have their own role.  Otherwise, it is as if one were suggesting you should remove the photo of the Sistine_Chapel and replace it with verbal descriptions found in Daily News.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point made by Narssarssuaq merits consideration, quote: The standard procedure in for example pseudoscience subjects is primarily to present the theories. Relevant criticism is usually not the central point of the article, although it would have been from a scientific skepticism viewpoint. See for example homeopathy and acupuncture. We'll need to adhere to Wikipedia standards and not to a scientific skepticism standard, however tempting the latter may be. End of Quote. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To Quest (re: side note): We take these questions seriously.  I don't recall anyone suggesting inserting into the article information from witnesses who claimed that people exploded.  Perhaps you meant to say that emergency workers mistook for real explosions what in fact were the sounds of bodies exploding.  If so, it would be good to share with us how you came to this conclusion.  Also, I would like to know how any research method can reveal: when and which emergency workers made this mistake, how one knows they all made the same mistake, how the sounds of bodies and real explosions are exclusive, how non witnesses can know the witnesses' perceptions, and how these highly trained workers suffered from the exact same delusion?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, it was a side-note to Cs32en so he could understand what the article he referenced was talking about. Over 200 people jumped from the burning buildings, many of which were as high up as 105th floor and hit the ground at a speed of 150 mph.  The explosions they heard was the sound of a human body on impact.  This happened over the course of a hour and a half.  The article Cs32en references states that one eyewitness hears explosions and and at first thinks it was the air condition imploding but then they go to the windows and realizes they are human bodies.  There was a documentary I watched on one of the Discovery Channels where talk about this and you can actually hear the explosions but I didn't catch the name.


 * I think I understand your point better. Still I don't see enough information in the discussion here to clear settle the question that way.  Is the citation on hand? (added 5/9) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert in controlled demolition but I would imagine that all the charges are set off at the same time or at least within a few seconds of each other. The jumping occurred over the course of 102 minutes.  Unless Griffin is alledging that controlled demolition happened gradually over the course of an hour and a half, I don't think that these are the explosions to which Griffin is referring.  Unless of course, controlled demolition conspiracy theories are even dumber than I already think.


 * I don't know if Griff is referring, or if witnesses are referring. And, I suppose what would matter is what they think they are referring to.  The upshot of your note here might be different from the way I'm reading it.  Anyway, I thought it would be rather telling that there are evidently so many reports of explosions in the official investigation transcripts.  (aside: Going to new section.)  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To your last point, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's widely (notoriously) known that witnesses are sometimes wrong, and as we noted this thread began with a side note. I understand your point better, but we need more info before the question is settled.  Link on hand?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not state that the eyewitness hears "explosions". - The eyewitness says "the explosion" (singular). Another eyewitness (I think on CBS) says "huge bomb". Even if explosions were simultaneous, the sounds from different places in the towers would arrive at the ears of any single eyewitness at different times. And other eyewitnesses have probably heard the sound of peoples' bodies hitting the ground. I have heard these in a video clip, they don't sound like explosions. There were huge batteries in the towers, for emergency electricity; these are a far more likely source of explosions unrelated to any demolition devices. Cs32en  13:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — You may also have a look at those videos: "Then, an hour later than that, we had that big explosion, from much much lower" (Steven Evans, BBC reporter ), "A bomb in the building, start clearing out." (Firefighter ), "As we were getting our gear on, making our way to the stairwell, there was an... heavy duty explosion" (Firefighter ). They are not talking about the sound of bodies hitting the ground. (They BBC source would even be WP:RS, and should be put into context, of course.)  Cs32en  15:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The article does not state that the eyewitness hears "explosions". - The eyewitness says "the explosion" (singular)." No, but it does say "bodies" (plural) but you're just arguing semantics. In any case, I was only trying to help you by explaining the context of what they were talking about.  You're welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The explosion" (singular) and "bodies" (plural) obviously don't fit together too well. Your "explanation" essentially obfuscates the context. Cs32en  15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wish I could remember the name of the documentary I saw. If you have Netflix it might be this  or  but I'm not sure. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis of NYT source?
The following part of the article, based on the NYT, has been deleted:

In what way is this original research or synthesis? Cs32en 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here, which the removed bit of the article conflated into a single synthesis about explosions. The first part is about the volume and the second part is about thermite. At best, you could word one section to the fact that no loud explosions were detected, and the volume necessary; and a second paragraph/statement about the thermite idea. Of course, you'd also want to point out that no traces of thermite were ever found, either... &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph is immediately following the first paragraph, the omitted sentence is "He said that interviews with eyewitnesses and a review of video taken that day provided no evidence of a sound that loud just before the collapse." So the NYT article itself actually makes the connection between both parts. The issue of the investigation of residues of explosives is dealt with elsewhere in the article, but that could be repeated here, of course. "Explosive boom" is translated into "very loud explosion", the best wording here is probably debatable, but "explosive boom" is probably not encyclopedic language. Cs32en  21:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you post here a summary of the NYT information you'd like to include? The above article looks like it has promising information.  You should be able to condense and paraphrase while perserving the original meaning and balance.  This is not necessarily easy, but we can help you. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've posted the article in a section on this page above. The most relevant parts for our article are in bold text. Cs32en  21:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to you adding something about this information to the article. Could you please try to source each paragraph or each sentence to a reliable source. If you find yourself inserting citations in the middle of a sentence, chances are good you might be doing synthesis.  A sentence is supposed to encapsulate an idea.  If each sentence has no more than one citation, and the sentences combine to make logical paragraphs, you are probably in the clear. Go ahead and try.  If you do it wrong, I'll let you know. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Before starting substantial work on the text, we should get to some common understanding what sythesis is, as opposed to summarization. I'll start with a question. If I have a source that reports: "A says X, B says Y." and another that reports "C says X and Y.", and I shorten this to "A, B, and C say X or Y.", would that be synthesis or summarization? Cs32en 15:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may well be misleading, as it looks as if all have stated "X or Y", which isn't the case. Verbal   chat  15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, all have stated either X or Y. However, I seem to have shortened this too much, also with regard to the actual example we are implicitly dealing with. Rephrasing: If I shorten this to "A, B, and C say X or say Y.", would that be synthesis or summarization? Cs32en  15:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now misleading and reads poorly. I think a formula for this isn't going to work, general rules and case-by-case is the way to go. Generally, I'd say this kind of summation is ambiguous, misleading, and unnecessary. Verbal   chat  15:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it now reads poorly. "A says X, B says Y, and C says X and Y," however, reads even more poorly. We seem to have either a quite different understanding of grammatical structures, or of boolean logic, or of both. If you say "on a case-by-case basis", that is always a fall-back position in the absence of general guidelines, and as such, it can be legitimate, but some guidelines would be preferable. But let's discuss this particular case: why is the shortened statement misleading, in your view? Cs32en  15:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * English /= Boolean logic, which is the problem here. Shortening it too much when there is overlap causes the confusion, while this example is an awful run on sentence that would be better as two: (changing words as appropriate)"A stated that X was the cause,(ref) while B stated the cause to be Y(ref). However, C holds that both X and Y could be joint causes(ref)". It would depend on what A,B, & C said, and what the sources said. Verbal  chat  16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Seems somewhat strange to me, but I'll try to rework that sentence along those lines. Cs32en  16:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking
In an effort to follow WP:Manual_of_Style_(links), I'm going to go through the article and add/edit/remove Wikilinks. Rather than provide an explanation for each change, I'm posting this notice. If more experienced editors notice that I've done something wrong, please let me know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like some of the links to other Wikipedia articles have been removed from the article (such as to The New York Times). Was this intentional or accidental?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Quest, I have removed some links recently. Most of them were duplicates. I have been trying to follow some general guidelines, such as:
 * Does the article that is being linked provide further information to understand the subject (e.g. steel frame)?
 * Does is explain a certain more technical term (e.g. sulfuric)?
 * Is it an abbreviation that some readers might not know (e.g. BBC)?
 * I have assumed that readers know that the New York Times is a major U.S. newspaper, and that additional information on the New York Times would be unrelated to the subject. If my assessment has been wrong, I would of course not object to reinserting the link. Cs32en  18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When I went through the article on the 6th, there shouldn't have been any duplicates left. I looked at a couple other featured articles such as Radiohead, they put a wiki link to Rolling Stone Magazine on its first mention.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rolling Stone Magazine and Radiohead both have something to do with music. Also, some might not know about the magazine, or would mistakenly think that it would be published by the Rolling Stones. Also, the visible link is just Rolling Stone, so that it's not immediately obvious that this is a magazine. If you think that the link to the New York Times is important, put it back in. Cs32en  21:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholars?
. I modified the sentence in question as follows: "Steven Jones and a number of notable proponents suggest that thermite, explosives, or some combination thereof, has been used.[3][4] These conclusions have been rejected by numerous other scholars.[5]" . Wowest (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "widely rejected?" Who cares where the scholars live?
 * "other" as a "weasel word?" That's one of ICB's most common dishonest statements. Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin are clearly BOTH "scholars." So knock it off, ICB. Normally, of course, we would assume good faith on your part, but inasmuch as you are so consistently and so repetitively dishonest in edits such as this, never discussing it in talk first, if you do it again, I will file an enforcement request against you.
 * "Widely" does not refer to distance. Rather, it means the vast majority rejects it. One of those weird English phrases that can be confusing. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And we can argue whether Dr. Griffen is a scholar. I believe Dr. Jones is still a scholar.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jones is a disgraced former professor who was stripped of two classes and placed on leave before resigning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that he was given premature retirement, and that he was not stripped of his title. The Brigham Young University pages cites him as "Retired Professor" . Also, his work on muon-catalyzed fusion is not "disgraced", as far as I can tell. We should be careful to avoid criticism based on anecdotal evidence. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary has a rather extensive definition of "scholar". Even if we restrict the term scholar to scientists (holders of PhD degrees) who have lectured at universities, both Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin, being Professor or Professor emeritus, are scholars. Jones is not "disgraced", he has retired from BYU and continues to publish on his personal website at Brigham Young University.   Cs32en  20:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Griffen is a theologian, not a "scientist", and his doctorate is not in a scientific field. However, whether or not Jones is "disgraced", we don't have a reliable source to that effect, so we must assume he's a scholar, I suppose, unless there are clear lies about data or clearly incorrect reasoning in his papers.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the German acedemic system, someone who holds a PhD is being regarded as a scientist. There is probably agreement that theology is a scholarly discipline. Theologians, unlike priests, use scientific methods in their research. With regard to the "disgraced" issue, there are instances where people lose their title as Dr. or Prof., which obviously has not happened in Jones's case. I also don't know of any WP:RS source that has characterized Jones as "disgraced". (And even a disgraced scholar would be a scholar, as long as he is in possession of his title.) Cs32en  20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I wish the US academic system were more like Germany's but it isn't. Griffen's Ph.D. in theology and religion cannot really be considered a scientific discipline.  As for "disgraced", we do have an example of a disgraced historian in Wikipedia; his degree wasn't pulled, but his professorship was.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * With regard to the German system, the definition "scientist that is allowed to teach at an academic institution" is equivalent to "holder of an advanced academic degree in a scholarly discipline (i.e. a PhD) allowed to teach at an academic institution". With regard to the U.S. system, the second definition should be the relevant one to define a scholar according to the narrow meaning of the term. In the U.S., there is obviously a distinction being made between science and scholarship. Cs32en  22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "disgraced" might be relevant to something if (a) it were wiki policy to favor loaded terms, (b) the article were a bio, and (c) the political views of an employer were deemed a scientific method to evaluate research claims. Perhaps at the time of Galileo, wikipedia wrote that he was disgraced.  :-) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This focus on just one term seems narrow, perhaps influenced by political assumptions about Jones. Policies (such as RS) are expected to instantiate and operationalize common sense, not replace it.  Were it not so, articles would be written by internet-spider-bots and google-keyword tools. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Jones was a politician. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 03:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. To clarify, it seems disgraced has a couched editorial or political tone.  See WP:Words to avoid.  I didn't understand the time spent on it.  Article's not a bio.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
Looking at the second and third paragraphs of the lede:

Various sources of this energy have been proposed; Steven Jones and and others argue that incendiaries have been used to bring down the towers of the World Trade Center.[3] Jones told the New York Times that he and others would be investigating whether thermite or superthermite has been used to demolish the buildings.[4][5] These conclusions are widely rejected by scholars.[6]


 * So, first of all, what Jones et al will be investigating are not conclusions. Second the "widely rejected by scholars" thing isn't supported by the cited reference.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has rejected the idea that collapse due to fire would be impossible, as has the engineering community.[7][8][9]


 * Again, we have something attributed to "the engineering community." We now have 648 architects and engineers who disagree. I think we need a more nearly honest reliable source than Bazant on this.Wowest (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that "conclusions" is inappropriate. It should say "hypotheses". But if you have such a problem with it, why not just be bold and change it yourself?
 * Yes, the "widely rejected by scholars" part is supported by the cited reference :


 * Your "648 architects and engineers" are mostly unqualified as authorities. Although this example (from the same source as above) might not be on their actual list, he's a typical example of the sort of "experts" on it:


 * — NRen2k5 (TALK), 09:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * David Gabbard is listed as one of the (currently) 3602 other supporters, not as one of the (currently) 649 architectural and engineering professionals. Cs32en  15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the petition fails WP:RS, consists of a tiny fraction of the number of people who could have signed it, and you don't have to believe the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition to sign it. (You merely have to believe the idea is worthy of further investigation.) The list is nowhere near enough to justify going against multiple third-party sources which say that the community of engineers rejects the idea. Hut 8.5 19:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You must admit that implying all scholars reject the hypothesis is POV. While it is only "a tiny fraction of the number of people who could have signed it" that number is still probably larger than the number who have gone public in support of the official theory (is there a source that actually says how many?). Instead of saying "widely rejected by scholars" we can say what the source does "Widely rejected by many mainstream scientists"? I wouldn't even have a problem with saying most instead of many if that is what it takes to make the statement more NPOV. Wayne (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "widely rejected by scholars" does not imply that every scholar rejects the idea. We do have sources which say that the opinion of the majority of engineers is against this theory, so we can put what they believe in the article. The petition, even if it was a reliable source and even if it did say that everyone signing it was in favour of controlled demolition, is not evidence that these sources are wrong. This is a fringe theory with little or no support and the lead must say that, not state that "most scientists" reject it (which implies it does have a large body of support). I don't object to changing "scholars" to "scientists". Hut 8.5</b> 06:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Your answer confuses me. Using grammatical rules it does imply "every scholar rejects the idea" because it lacks a qualifier. Similarly, saying "most" does not imply a "large body of support", it only acknowledges that there is some support and the article is clear as to who that "some" is and that it is a minority. The source provided actually says "many" so by your own interpretation of WP policy the article should say many but I feel that is too open to misinterpretation which is why most should be used as it is unambiguous. If you have a problem with interpretation of who supports the idea then replace "most" with "majority" which you suggested above or even better, use "other" instead as this narrows the field to just the handful named in the article. Wayne (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * “Using grammatical rules it does imply "every scholar rejects the idea" because it lacks a qualifier.”
 * It does no such thing. That’s your inference, not the editor’s implication. But go on, entertain me: What “grammatical rules” are you talking about? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you find it entertaining. In Australia, university students have 2% subtracted from their marks for each grammatical error they make and I proof read university papers so I usually feel confident I'm right. A grammatical qualifier is a word or word string used to improve accuracy. There is no set rule that a qualifier be used but you do lose marks for not using them if there is the slightest hint of implication. As English is not a strong suit for most editors I'd end up spending way to much time correcting what looks ok to readers so I don't bother too much about the grammar here unless it is blatantly wrong however, this example was brought up so I put in my two cents. Wayne (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see where you’re coming from. I still disagree about implication, but I would definitely nail it as a “peacock term”. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
Difficult problem. My take is that we can use the book to state what the book claims if that claim appears explicitly in the book, but Amazon book reviews are totally unusable except as indicating the notability of the book, which is not in question here (IMHO). However, Cs32en's latest edit added conclusions about what the book proves, which are not supported by anything except the book itself, and possibly Jones Griffin. Not reliable.

Further reading suggests you should mention the book and its claims in the "in popular culture" section. There, secondary sources are only required as to notability, if at all; provided that you state the book CLAIMS to address the issues, rather than stating that the book addresses the issues. The removal of "CLAIMS" requires a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Arthur, as JEH has removed the sentences that simply stated that the book has been published, we first would have to ascertain whether the book can be mentioned at all in the article. Because the views of Griffin are described elsewhere in the article, they need not be included in a statement on the book.
 * I have taken the information for the statement on the book from the (anonymous) review of Publishers Weekly, which we should, in my view, treat the same way as we would treat unsigned editorials in newspapers. The "popular culture" section would definitely be the wrong section for this book, because this section should treat how the theory has been received by popular culture, while Griffin is, of course, not part of popular culture in this sense. Cs32en  15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not a collection of random facts. Sure, a book has been published.  Big deal. Lots of books are published about lots of topics, and Wikipedia does not mention every one of them.  To mention a book, that book should have been covered by independent, reliable sources.  In addition, we have to maintain WP:WEIGHT by giving the book due prominence (or omitting it) depending on how much coverage it has (or has not) received. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article itself says that Griffin is one of the two most prominent advocates of the theory, based on a WP:RS source. The books companion volume, published in 2008, has been chosen as "Pick of the Week" by Publishers Weekly . Please don't mix up the necessary conditions for a Wikipedia article on a book and the conditions for mentioning a book in a Wikipedia article. Cs32en  16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How does Publisher's Weekly select its "Web Pick of the Week"? BTW, if most reliable sources don't even mention this specific book, then we probably shouldn't either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My guess is it's based largly on sales. According to sales figures it's selling better than Steven King. Several public libraries have included in their recommended reading list with this one calling it (in their review) an updating of the "founding text of the 9/11 truth movement" and "the most thorough critique of the official story available". This public library also recommended it in November 2008, saying "widely cited as the best introduction to the issues". The key here is "founding text". Libraries seem to think it is the information basis of the truth movement. Does that make it worth mentioning? I'll leave it to you. You need to remember that WP:WEIGHT is NOT "dependent on how much coverage it has (or has not) received" from reliable sources but on it's relevance to the article. Wayne (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. You say you found two libraries that include this in their recommended reading lists.  There are an estimated 123,129 libraries in the US alone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's about relevance with regard to this article. Obviously, more libraries will recommend Obama's latest book, for example. But how many libraries have recommended reading Bazant et al.? My initial guess would be zero. Cs32en  17:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't commenting on relevence, but the absurdity of mentioning 2 out of 123,129+ as if it carried any meaning. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't find it absurd at all. Wikipedia has a lot of information that is based on sources that have NEVER been recommended for reading by any library. Cs32en  21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if your comment had nothing to do with determining the relevance of the book, why did you post it at this talk page, after all? Cs32en  21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Point A (importance of the book) is based on Point B (2 out of 123,129+ libraries). I can comment on the absurdity of Point B without actually addressing Point A. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you let us know about your opinion on Steven King's work, if you want to comment on things that are unrelated to the main question of this discussion? Cs32en  02:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is relevent to this discussion as explained in my previous post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do need to use this book as a reference? What would it add to the article? Jehochman Talk 21:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jehochman, I'll answer your question as follows:
 * The book can - in principle - be used per WP:SELFPUB. However, we would want to avoid having any number of SELFPUB sources in the article. So we need conditions for including SELFPUB sources. My suggestion: SELFPUB sources that have been reported on by WP:RS sources and major works by people that are prominent people with regard to the subject of an article, as evidences by WP:RS sources can be included. The Wikipedia article should give the reader some information on what are the most important works with regard to the subject of an article, if the subject is something like "Theory of relativity" or "Fringe theory XY" (the difference is that these works are included in the fringe theory article as SELFPUB, not as RS). Cs32en  22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What does the book say that we need to add to the article? Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  We know the writer is advocating highly exceptional claims.  I don't see how we should be using this as a source. Jehochman Talk 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we really have to discuss this all over again? Seen from an epistomological viewpoint, we include the book as a document, not as a source. If we write in the article "David Ray Griffin claims X", then X itself maybe an exceptional claim, but the claim that Wikipedia makes is simply that Griffin claims X, which is, of course, not an exceptional claim. So WP:REDFLAG does not apply here, if the wording in the article makes it clear that we present Griffin's views, not Wikipedia's. Cs32en  04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Should we mention ? Tom Harrison Talk 23:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that would depend on how you think it should be mentioned. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that a WP:RS source has explicitly characterized David Icke as prominent proponent of the Controlled Demolition theory, or that such prominence can be inferred from WP:RS sources reporting on him. Cs32en  02:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, David Icke's book is not included in the Selected Information Resources at the New York State Library on the September 11 attacks. Cs32en  02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jehochman said: What would it add to the article?. As this article is about the social phenomenon of the theory, the book, described as the founding text of the 9/11 truth movement is relevant in that context and especially as it is one of the very few, if not only, publication that uses scientific investigation and expertise in support of it's claims. Any reader who comes to WP to find out what the controversy is all about expects to find information which, as per WP policy, allows a neutral reader to assess the credibility of relevant viewpoints. As per WP:Weight, CD being a fringe theory means we should give more detail for the opposing view, but according to the same policy we should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. There is an article on collapse of the WTC where CD is clearly not significant but in regards to CD conspiracy theories CD's significance is, not surprisingly,.....significantly higher. Wayne (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that if this book has been a subject of coverage in reliable sources, by all means insert some mention of it. Otherwise, no, because it appears to fall under the WP:SELFPUB (assuming, big caveat, it is not otherwise objectionable). --JohnnyB256 (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see how WP:SELFPUB applies as the author didn't pay to have the book published. Also, the contributors to the book are established experts on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications which is an exemption WP allows for self-published anyway. Wayne (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Usually, a source is being used to report about the topic that the author describes in the source. Here, it is being used to report about the statement that the author makes with regard to a topic. Therefore, it is not a third-party assessment of what the author is stating, but a source that is self-published in the sense of WP:SELFPUB. Now, it may be the case that someone says he believes that a theory Y is true, while he actually does not believe so. If there is any doubt that this is the case, we can always attribute the information to the source: "X says he believes Y is true.[See X: Z.]" Self-published sources should be treated with appropriate caution, because they can be promotional in nature ("X has invented a gold-producing perpetuum mobile and therefore has access to unlimited credit even in deep recessions. [See X: Z.]"). That the author did not pay to have the book published, and that it has been published by a published whose reputation is not linked to that of the author is an indication that information from the source can be used according to WP:SELFPUB. (The title of the WP:SELFPUB section is "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves".) Cs32en  20:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External links and further reading
The External links and further reading needs to be reworked to conform to Wikipedia policies (External_links, WP:FURTHERREADING). Examples from reliable sources include list of links compiled by the BBC and by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Cs32en 22:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any links that strike you as inappropriate? I see the Pop Mechanics article, which definitely belongs there. The rest are not familiar to me. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, never mind. I saw your latest change to the EL section and agree with your approach. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jones on cutter charges: statement or hypothesis?
The New York Times article which mentions Jones's paper reads as follows: "He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) that holds that 'pre-positioned cutter-charges' brought the buildings down." However, Jones writes in his paper [http://web.archive.org/web/20060428063131/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (version of June 2005)] that he calls "for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges". (Abstract) The description of the New York Times, if understood as meaning that the account that Jones composed would refer to his belief, not to the hypothesis that he presents, would be factually wrong. Cs32en 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like your sense is that the nyt was not accurately reflecting the Jones article (but that wikipedia is accurately reflecting the nyt). Is that the sense you are conveying? (signature) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "holds" applies to the word "account", not to his belief.  To the larger issue, when truth and verifiability comes into conflict, we ignore the truth and rely on what's verifiable.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

From Truth page: Jean-Charles Brisard, Mathias Bröckers, Andreas von Bülow
This is found on the 911 Truth Movement page: French author Jean-Charles Brisard and German authors Mathias Bröckers and Andreas von Bülow published books critical of media reporting and advancing the controlled demolition thesis of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.

To the extent those sources do deal in fact with controlled demolition, they likely have some pertinence to this page, given its focus. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we know: "Those who have looked at the" idea ?
The opening says:

"..but are rejected by those in the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community who have looked at the theories."

Questions:

1) Does a source credibly claim to have a way to know who looked at the question? 2) Is wikipedia making the claim above, or is a source making it? 3) "Those" is surely not a synonym for "some" ("some" would presumably be more believably knowable than "all", unless a study really studied "all"). Can a source credibly support "those"?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it's rejected entirely by the mainstream engineering community, and we have a source for that. I was trying to be nice.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Good start. Can someone enter here the quote, for noted reasons. (sig) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see "those who have looked at the" idea has been edited. I agree with that change. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are other problems that might belong to another discussion section. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What about mainstream?
The word "mainstream" (quote below) often refers to (1) the views of the prevailing majority. Mainstream also has synonyms including (2) "normal". Meaning one seems more potentially clear and impartial (npov) than meaning two. But both are part of the word, making it ambiguous. Words to avoid

"..but are rejected by those in the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community who have looked at the theories."

That needs to be clarified to satisfy Words to avoid  and NPOV. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about just clipping them out… — NRen2k5 (TALK), 07:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream" means a majority that resembles a "stream", i.e. that is not a set of totally independent elements, but of elements interacting with each other. I see this word as descriptive; it also has been used by both members and non-members of the mainstream. Cs32en  07:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Those positive aspects (true as they may be) do not remedy the concerning aspects. The term presumes that people who read it know something about what the mainstream and non mainstream are like, again with the numerical meaning being interwoven with the normative (subjective opinion) meaning.  (added) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The definition of "mainstream" is "holding the most common belief". That sentence is therefore a tautology. In it's simplest form of English it reads, people who don't believe in conspiracy theories don't believe the conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to fix it so it makes grammatical sense you need to separate the statement out from the sentence and reverse the new sentence. Wayne (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What would that entail? (May 15) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about just clipping them out… — NRen2k5 (TALK), 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Too simple to me. The larger question is what specific text is the sentence based on? Probably instead the sources support this: "rejected by several prominent engineers".  Am I wrong?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. In fact, among prominent engineers, Jones is the only one who has been quoted as not rejecting it.  But that's extremly difficult to source.  Wayne, however, is also wrong.  "Mainstream" doesn't mean just "holding the most common belief".  It also means that it is generally recognized as being the accepted belief.  Being "common" doesn't make it "mainstream".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just can't win. I cut and paste from NIST and say I did and still get accused of making it up and now I am called wrong even though I cut and pasted from a dictionary. I checked almost a dozen dictionaries and not one said accepted. The three most common definitions were set of beliefs accepted by most people, the prevailing current of thought and holding the most common belief. Wayne (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Generally accepted as being the belief of the majority of (or, in other interpretation of the term mainstream, the most influential) people and institutions" would probably be a more precise definition of "mainstream". Acceptance of this fact does not necessarily mean agreement with the viewpoint. Cs32en  20:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that "mainstream" views are "accepted" by the majority means that most people in this majority have "accepted" the view, but have not come up with it on their own. (This is, as an aside, true for most thoughts, majority and minority viewpoints.) Using "accepted" in the sense of "not being questioned by a relevant number of people" would be wrong when referring to a "mainstream" view. A mainstream view is called mainstream exactly for the reason that there are other "streams" that hold other views on a particular issue. Cs32en 20:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the context. "Mainstream" can refer to the prevailing trend of opinion, the flow of a river, smoke from a cigarette, or pupils without special needs. Tom Harrison Talk 21:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This reflection, in combination with others, suggests some dispute what the word means (ambiguity, Words to Avoid), and multiple meanings ("normal or accepted" and "most common belief", or whatever Wayne's billion magnificent dictionaries say) each which requires support.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * * Rubin writes, above: In fact, among prominent engineers, Jones is the only one who has been quoted as not rejecting it. But that's extremly difficult to source.  END --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * * Sir Rubin. I admire your good intentions, but your answer is not a match to my question. I asked about sources ("specific text") and you referred to what is not sourced ("But that's extremely difficult to source").  I asked about what sources say "rejected" (the article word) and you wrote about who has not rejected it ("Jones..only..").  Here is a problem:  Evidence about Jones' apparent case in support of CD does not count as evidence of how many scientists reject CD (articles says: rejected by the mainstream engineering community).   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * * Rubin writes, above: "Mainstream" doesn't mean just "holding the most common belief".  It also means that it is generally recognized as being the accepted belief.  Being "common" doesn't make it "mainstream". END --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * * Sir Rubin: Although I am ok with the idea that "mainstream" can sometimes imply "accepted" I don't understand your sense that this answer's Wayne's concern about tautology. The word having an additional meaning, as you note, means yet again it has multiple meanings (see Words to Avoid).) That was the original question, the problem.  (One meaning might be supported and the other not.)   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could the author of the original sentence please help us verify the source and check the cite by providing us the text? Regarding "mainstream" and regarding "community".  Are they claims, assumptions, or actual research findings?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight?
Hi Jehochman — if you are worried about undue weight, why did you remove the information about Popular Mechanics from that section, in this edit of May 14 ? Cs32en 18:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not here to list every book or article that anybody ever wrote. Doing so would give undue weight to books or papers that are not necessarily the most notable. We need to focus on the publications that are most notable. We can get those by looking for a reliable secondary source that writes about the history of the CD theory.  Jehochman Talk 18:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If C-SPAN features a book in its series Book TV. Top Nonfiction Authors Every Weekend, should we assume that it's not one of the most notable in its area? There are of course third-party sources on Popular Mechanics and Skeptic, too, and I would encourage you to do some work there, instead of deleting well-sourced content from the article.


 * This is some of the content you have deleted, with your edit summaries:






 * Cs32en 19:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to the rest of what's mentioned above, but I think that the Popular Mechanics article needs to be mentioned. More generally...
 * The previous comment continues in the following section.  Cs32en  00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The concerns about WP:UNDUE would be valid if we were talking about the article Collapse of the World Trade Center. In this article, these publications are part of the article's subject, they are not used as sources from which the general approach of the article towards the subject (i.e. the choice of words, etc.) is being derived. Cs32en  00:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's two ways to solve WP:UNDUE issues. One way is to reduce coverage to the fringe or minority viewpoint and the other is to expand the coverage to the majority viewpoint.  I favor the latter.  I've said this before and I'll say it again, Popular Mechanics has done an excellent job debunking this fringe theory and we should have more of their coverage in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a WP:FRINGE article, and as such, it is obvious that its subject is fringe issues, including fringe publications. Mentioning these, with wording similar to the reliable sources that report on them, is not giving undue weight to the viewpoint of the authors of these sources. (One editor has altered the wording of C-SPAN, apparently thinking that C-SPAN is tendentious, but that's another issue.) Undue weight would be if we would present the self-assessment of some of the proponents of the CD theory ("real American heroes" or whatever) and then mention in passing that "self-styled debunkers call them conspiracy theorists", or anything similar. Cs32en  00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a fringe article. All articles are subject to the same policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  This is a normal article that just happens to be about a fringe theory.  I recommend that you read this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Quest, but you are getting this wrong here. Please start with WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." and read FRINGE: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources." Cs32en  05:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, none of that disagrees with what I've said. There are few, if any, reliable sources that agree that the WTC was destroyed by a controlled demolition and our job as Wikipedia editors is to reflect this viewpoint.  As it stands, this article is biased in favor of the CDCT.  If you feel otherwise, you are more than welcome to bring your concerns to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard.  If you disagree with Wikipedia policies, you might wish to try Conservapedia.com where (ironically) they have a more liberal attitude towards fringe theories (as witnessed by Young Earth Creationism). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is too doggone long
As I did when this article was first mentioned at Wikiproject New York, I still believe that this article is far too long for one about a discredited conspiracy theory. Can we work toward greatly abbreviating it? JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you may get your wish as Cs32en is currently removing valid material sourced to reliable sources. I'm reverted his latest changes but I'm at the 3RR limit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence that I removed was properly sourced. However, in my opinion, details of some speculation of an engineer who retracted that speculation a few days later and has never written any paper or otherwise notable publication on his views on the issue is not really relevant. Moreover, the interested reader can find these details by consulting the source, which, of course, remains in the article. Actually, I don't see much more in the article that can be removed. It's also not longer than other comparable articles in Wikipedia. The structure of the article can be improved, so that a reader who is interested in a particular aspect of the subject can find more easily what he or she is looking for. Cs32en  23:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if you want to talk about relevency, who cares how Griffin came up with the title for his book? "The title of Griffin's bestselling book The New Pearl Harbor, published in 2004, makes a reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually think we could remove that part of the sentence and include a more salient description of the book's content. Cs32en  00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think an end to the edit warring would also be highly desirable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, while I don't know this, I have a feeling that Cs32en is editing to prove a point. He might be upset about some material that was removed and was cited to the New York Times.  See his comment on my talk page.User_talk:A_Quest_For_Knowledge  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we have to try to apply equal standards within the article. I am not making a point, because I have always thought that the paragraph about Van D. Romero has been too detailed. Of course I'm worried about the removal of the information from the New York Times, because I don't think that this removal follows any established policies or guidelines of Wikipedia. Cs32en  00:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Side note: On cleanup, made this past tense: of this investigation on the complexity of the computer model it is using.. .. (and clarified) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Side note: for accuracy (and neutrality), I adjusted language about "claims" in the lead sentence. Claiming would be an inaccurate caricature or oversimplification. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are debunking sources being removed?
In two recent edits, several "debunking" sources have been removed from the article. I assume that reliable sources can be found to support the information about these "debunking" material. At the same time, the editor who has removed the "debunking" sources is expressing concerns [] that the article would give undue weight to other sources (if I am understanding correctly what the undue tag is supposed to indicate). Is there an explanation for this? Cs32en 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You really have to look at the "diffs." Removal of "debunking" sources was clearly not the intent of either edit. The 18:56 5/16 edit did indeed remove synthesis, and I agree with it. I am less clear on the need for the 17:37, May 14 edit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It may not have been the intent of these edits to remove debunking sources. However, it was the actual result of these edits. In case of synthesis or poorly sources statements, you can just insert fact tags, if the statements are not really misleading. Then people can find sources for the statements or correct the synthesis. Also, the tags alert the reader of possible problems with the statements. I don't know why it should be necessary to delete such statements, and I would give other editors at least about a month to look for better sources. Cs32en  09:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Van D. Romero
I think we should avoid further editing disputes on this issue. Can we include the following version of the paragraph? (The Albuquerque Journal did not retract anything that it had reported in the previous article. This can be verified by looking at the source.) Cs32en  00:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe that the Albuquerque Journal didn't issue a retraction? It was properly sourced. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The pro-CD language was retracted. Why do we even need this paragraph? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A retraction, with regard to a newspaper article, is a statement by a newspaper that a previous report has been factually wrong (at the time it had been published). However, the Albuquerque Journal's article on Sep. 22 does not include any such statement. Cs32en  00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read the referenced cite, it states "Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read that part of the Popular Mechanics article. It failed verification by the sources, i.e. the articles of the Albuquerque Journal. We should not present information that is verifiably wrong. Cs32en  01:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [removing indentation, Cs32en] I'm still trying to understand what exactly your objection is. How did you verify that it's wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article in the Albuquerque Journal of Sep. 22 stated that Van D. Romero had changed his opinion about the collapse, not that the newspaper had misrepresented his opinion in its article on Sep. 11, 2001. Cs32en  02:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a link to the Sept 22 article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was in the article, as a source (until the paragraph has been removed). See also the box above. The link is:  Cs32en  13:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You've got the wrong dates there. That article is dated Sept 21, not Sept 22.  The retraction was printed on the 22nd. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not uncommon that publication dates of the internet and the print versions of newspaper articles differ. James B. Meigs, Editor in Chief of Popular Mechanics, says: "Eleven days later, the Journal ran a follow-up story stating his opinion that 'fire is what caused the buildings to fail.'" This is an accurate description of what happened.  Cs32en  14:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that the follow-up story and the retraction are the same thing? I interpretted to mean that they ran a follow-up story and then printed a retraction the following day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You may call the Albuquerque Journal for confirmation, but all the evidence that we have indicates that the Albuquerque Journal ran articles on Sep. 11 and Sep. 22, with the latter article published on the web on Sep. 21. Popular Mechanics probably used the term "retraction" because this makes people believe that Romero would never have had the opinion that explosives were involved in the collapse. Cs32en  15:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I could, but I'm pretty sure that would be WP:OR, not to mention it couldn't be verified. For now, I'm fine with omitting that final sentence since there's some doubt about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would not be WP:OR, because you would be verifying a secondary source, not introducing a primary source. But I agree that we can leave that sentence out, as the relevant fact (i.e. that Romero withdrew his assessment) is already mentioned in the previous sentence. Cs32en  19:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's relevent because conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center. Yes, it's been debunked and that should be in the article, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the article's place among CTers, but we don't need to give space to every little thing the CT crowd makes up or chooses to ignore. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we don't have to cover every little thing the CT crowd comes up with, but if WP:RS have covered it, why not? Let's say that I'm a reader and that I never heard of 9/11 conspiracy theories before.  Then one day I happen to stumble upon a "truther" web site.  I wonder how much of it is true so I turn to Wikipedia to find out.  If these theories have been debunked, we should include that debunking in our article.  This isn't a unrealistic example, either.  One day, I was curious and decided to look up what Holocaust deniers had to say.  Not that I seriously considered it to be true, I was just curious as to what they claimed.  Now, this is POV fork (which we should avoid), but this article does a nice job of debunking.  Although I do not care for the confrontational, point-by-point rebuttal format, our article on the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories does a nice job of debunking.  That's what our articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories should be like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a debunking website. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a debunking web site per se, but we should cover the topic per WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since few (if any) WP:RS even take CDCT seriously, it's against WP:NPOV not to debunk. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:UNDUE: "The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained." An encyclopaedia is not a newspaper editorial or opinion piece. Cs32en  10:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Cs32en, we are supposed to explain CDCT as WP:RS have explained them per WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you don't like the POV of WP:RS, that's not our problem. You've made hundreds if not thousands of edits on this article. Why are we still explaining this to you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it how you refer to yourself as "we". Cs32en  13:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? I guess Jehochman, Hut 8.5, etc. don't count? Seriously, just scroll up the talk page to see how many times we've explained it to you.  I don't see why this article should be held hostage by the efforts of primarily one editor.  If you're unable to contribute to this article in a neutral manner, I suggest you take a break or work on articles that are unrelated to fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When was the last time that you contributed anything substantial to the article that is still included in the present version? Cs32en  16:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a completely irrelevant question. RxS (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * {EC} Restoring NPOV to the Van D. Romero section which has since been removed. In any case, I'm a cautious editor who prefers to seek concensus before making substantial changes (or at least post a decent explanation on the talk page). But with all the endless arguments over the meaning of the words "widely" and "mainstream", my main contribution is in helping to keep the article from getting worse. The sad thing is that if Wikipedia was stricter about POV pushing, we problably could have rewritten the whole article in a couple weeks and be done with it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is long enough and that this passage is too confusing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "In popular culture"
Hi Ice Cold Beer — I don't understand why you have removed the section "In popular culture" from the article. You have given the reason "redundant to parent article" in the edit summary. However, most of the content of that section is not mentioned in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article 9/11 conspiracy theories does not contain a section on popular culture, and Loose Change is not presented with regard to popular culture there. The following content of the section is not mentioned in the parent article at all: Cs32en 00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Skeptic
 * the New York Magazine report
 * Charlie Sheen
 * Willie Nelson
 * Jesse Ventura
 * Zeitgeist, the Movie


 * I was wondering if this should be removed as well, for the same reason that Ice Cold Beer gave. Anyway, if this information isn't in the parent article it should be moved to that article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Controlled demolition from below?
The following sentence in the article needs to be improved:

The source contains the following text:


 * The wording "it is clear that" is unencyclopedic and does not reflect what the source says.
 * The statement "controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings" seems to be factually incorrect. The image at Building implosion illustrates this, and this source says: "Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points."

I'll try to find some more (and better) sources. Cs32en 23:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This source contains another interesting illustration (page 454):  Cs32en  01:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For economic, aesthetic, or technical reasons, conventional controlled demolitions of buildings are most frequently performed from the bottom up. However, I don't think that anyone is arguing that the destruction of the twin towers was a conventional controlled demolition.  Whatever it was that brought the towers down, economics and aesthetics clearly weren't a consideration.  The statement that "controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings" seems irrelevant to the topic of the twin tower's destruction, and therefore also irrelevant to this Wikipedia article.  It's a  red herring.  If someone can find an argument in a reliable source that this was a conventional controlled demolition (adhering to the normal procedures), then the statement might be pertinent.  Otherwise, I would think that it should be removed.  Wildbear (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it actually is being used as an argument against the controlled demolition hypothesis, and the NYT article reflects this situation. If it is used as an argument in the debate, we must present is as such, not as a statement of fact. There are a number of reliable sources on demolitions of single building that collectively indicate that tall buildings are not being demolished "from the bottom", but by placing explosives at multiple parts of the building (the explosives are weaker on the upper parts, because the structural elements are weaker there, too). It's more difficult to find a WP:RS source for the generalization of this evidence. Cs32en  03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "If it is used as an argument in the debate, we must present is as such, not as a statement of fact." True.  However, I question whether a "debate" is taking place, in the usual sense of the term.  In a normal debate, when one side makes an assertion, the other side is allowed to make a rebuttal, in the same venue.  The mainstream media makes numerous assertions similar to the one being discussed here, but with very few exceptions, the opposing side is allowed little or no opportunity for rebuttal within the same venue where the assertions are being made.  This is not how a debate is supposed to work.  For anyone who only views the mainstream media (and Wikipedia's proportional echo of the mainstream media), a debate is virtually non-existent for this particular topic.  If it is true that there is no genuine debate, then Wikipedia should take care to ensure that the assertions within its pages are reasonably accurate.  And if there really is a debate, then would it not be appropriate for Wikipedia to show the assertions and rebuttals coming from both sides?  Wildbear (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FRINGE says: "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe [...]". We haven't used these excellent sources very much yet. And of course, Wikipedia reports on stupid and ridiculous assertions if they are notable. Even if they come from the New York Times. On the other hand, it's neither the place to right great wrongs nor the place to repeat minor lies and inaccuracies, so these assertions must be attributed to their sources. Cs32en  10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT thing you are bugging about is cited. There's no need to write "The New York Times says XYZ.{cite NYT}". That's redundant. It is sufficient to write "XYZ{cite NYT}". What reliable source says the NYT is wrong? The opinions of editors on the accuracy of NYT reports has no place in this article. Jehochman Talk 14:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have given sources for my opinion. It's very obvious from a lot of pictures from various demolitions published in WP:RS material that the statement that controlled demolition starts from below is factually wrong. And, as an experienced editor, you will know that citing from a source is not attributing to the source. More precisely, we should write "According to Jim Dwyer of the New York Times ...". Wikipedia is not for repeating minor nonsense, if there is verifiable evidence that some statement is untrue. Cs32en  14:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It could just be you misinterpretting the NYT article. Explosives can be planted all over the building but the ones on the bottom might be ignited first. I'm not a CD expert so I wouldn't know.  But if that's true, the NYT article is fine.  We might want to tweak our wording however.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this qualifies as a WP:RS so we can't use it in the article but it says that controlled demolitions are initiated at the bottom of a building to take advantage of gravity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may look at this book. It looks pretty simultaneous. As Mark Loizeaux says: "[B]y differentially controlling the velocity of failure in different parts of the structure, you can make it walk, you can make it spin, you can make it dance [...]" (As cited by ) Cs32en  16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty simultaneous and simultaneous are obviously two different things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for advice on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture. Cs32en 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are filling the talk page with this discussion. It's disruptive to belabor a point when nobody agrees with you. Jehochman Talk 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, you do not have the authority to dictate the focus, and this is the second time you have attempted to describe what "nobody" believes.  Having read the article, it seems low in fact checking.  It is not clear that when our sources (Griffin, etc) use the term CD, they are using it in the narrow exacting sense that does the NYT writer (bottom up).  The NYT writer does not attribute the "bottom first" to anyone other than himself, a problem in two respects, one of which relates quality standards and credibility. -- added Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This very likely results in some change of the article (even if not complete in the way I would regard as being correct), so I don't see how discussing this on the talk page could be considered disruptive. Only a few editors have expressed an opinion up to this point, and this discussion is less than 24 hours old. Also, "[controlled demolition] takes place at the bottom" is not a valid paraphrasis of "is done from the bottom" anyway. Cs32en  18:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for WP:OR, I'd love to create a List of pointless debates on the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be best to stay focussed on the substance. Questions arising from this NYT article are more complex than seems recognized. If the NYT writer is claiming that bottom first is a physical necessity to make a building collapse, then why would any reasonable encyclopedia so hastily trust such a strange claim (as fact). (The option of our writing "someone said, etc" is another question).  If the towers did drop top first (generally), and a NYT writer implicitly claims (as fact) that a top first collapse via controlled demolition is impossible, then it is more than fair to question that articles conclusiveness.  An editor above has provided initial evidence that the NYT claim may be in error. Now, if the NYT writer is merely characterizing what is "coventional" (as fact) it is sloppy thinking and entirely irrelevant (explained below). -- added Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at, which is written by someone who actually works in the controlled demolition industry: ''Since their inception in the late 1800s, blast engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximised. This is why blasters always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximise control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving". This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2...'' Your objections to this sentence seem to amount to original research, which is certainly not enough to overturn statements from quality reliable sources. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That citation is in a way useful but we need more holistic information to resolve competing evidence. While in one way it seems to support the idea that "bottom first" is a physical necessity ("always"), in another way it does not support the idea of bottom first being a physical necessity ("work best" etc,).  The NYT author might have made a mistake in haste, and it is reasonable to suspect he may have. If the NYT writer is referring to what "works best" and/or what is conventional, it strikes me as obviously sloppy thinking we should stay away from.  This is because what works best or is conventional is not relevant to alleged criminal use of CD,  where criminals, in contrast to legitimate CD professionals, are not individuals from whom we would expect conventional professional efficacy behavior.   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very clearly trying to get the NYT citation removed by creating your own counter argument, which is original research. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets work hard to stay on focus. Perhaps most of us agree we want sources that are sustainable over time.  My larger point was that the editor's original question brought new evidence to the table.  Lets not pretend it away, but instead face squarely all that is on the table.  I am moving on to the question of how to make sense of it collectively, since no one piece can erase the other pieces.


 * According to the nutshell, Hut, you are mistaken: OR says "Wikipedia does not publish original thought". My secondary points related to what seemed troubling features of the article and implications for reliability and credibility.  My language was directed to editors that might share those concerns.  Wikipedia can over time benefit from careful reading of sources.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There might be a reliable source that would more accurately reflect how building demolitions are done. It's clear that there are significant differences between what happened at the WTC and how a controlled demolition would usually proceed, no matter what reliable source we use. If readers see examples of controlled demolitions that are not taking place "at the bottom", they may doubt whether Wikipedia is a reliable source of knowledge. That has not much effect on how they think about the controlled demolition hypothesis, but it damages Wikipedia's overall credibility. In the vast majority of building implosions, there is no need for explosions higher up in the building (masonry building generally, buildings that are not particularly high, i.e. the there is no risk that a higher portion, after falling for some time, may arrest its fall or simply fall to one side of the building). It's also clear that the argument would only be valid in the dispute if it would actually mean that every demolition takes places at the bottom (e.g. for some technical reasons). But we present irrelevant arguments, of course, if they are notable. So I don't take issue with this as far as the content of the article is concerned. Maybe there is a commercially available source that would be more accurate, but I'm not going to spend money for downloading scholarly papers just because they might contain some more pertinent information. I think that we can change "takes places at the bottom" to "proceeds from the bottom" or something similar, so that we accurately report on what Jim Dwyer is actually saying in the New York Times. Cs32en 11:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's another reliable source that we can use for the article. It states "Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, but what can we find to reconcile seemingly conflicting information. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like another source, this one uses the vague term "always", as if we are to think the past always predicts the future. Imagine, if swat guys "always" aim guns with handle down, and someone claims a crook did not.  Would the "always" information be relevant?  Credible?  It sems too simple.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest we use the word "always", just that it corroborates what the other sources say. I'm fine with Cs32en's change to the wording.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As we've seen many times before, arguing logic in this domain doesn't work. What you need to do is start searching and find "reliable sources" which contradict those statements which you find objectionable.  For this particular topic, it's clear that any assertion that "demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first" is invalid, as I have photos and videos showing that this is clearly not the case.  I just don't have any references to "reliable sources" which illustrate the point (I haven't spent much time looking.) Wildbear (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Questh Why do I have a feeling you are taking the piss? Inserting the word "always" in WP, or not inserting it, is not what the sources stated. The problem is that a writer that uses the word "always", implying that the past always predicts the future, is compromising his credibility, flatly bringing into question their integrity, perhaps having altered the article at the request of another party. Read cointelpro, project mockingbird, william f buckely, pentagon generals scandal. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just read the article; proposed changes
I just read this article and I am so glad that I did, before reading it I thought that perhaps the twin towers had fallen due to a controlled demolition but now I know that it was indeed the pancake effect that caused the collapse of those towers.

I think that this article lacks external links and that we should find some more external links and add them to this article, what do you guys say?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your question is related to reversals of opinion in two government reports, and the article might have misled you by not being clear enough. The article does note that the government report (NIST) rejected pancaking (reversing FEMA).  The government NIST report and truth researchers were evidently on the same page in rejecting pancaking.  Here is the article text:


 * David Ray Griffin has questioned the "pancake collapse" theory originally suggested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[15] NIST rejected the theory in favor of the column failure theory. END. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My sense is that no government agency is talking about pancaking now, certainly I have seen no evidence that FEMA is rejecting NIST's revised view of column failure. (The reasons for which NIST rejected FEMA pancaking I don't know.)  Then, further, I don't recall pancaking having ever been claimed by the government with respect to the third building, building 7.   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes that's Exactly! what I was talking about.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, would you folk take your speculation to a chatroom. This is Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi I was suggesting improvements to the article and I'm pretty sure Ihaveabutt was also discussing possible improvements, what do you think regarding this if I may ask, do you think that the article lacks more external links or that we could possibly work the column failure theory better into the article?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead precision, clarity
Revised language in lead for precision, clarity; the first sentence. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I held off on a bunch of other clarity revisions in the first two paragraphs; watch this space next week. If you have comments here, please keep them on topic, clear, professional. Please ask, don't assume. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like it. You've changed the subject of the first sentence from CDCT to proponents of CDCT.  I'd rather have a straight forward, single sentence definition of the term.  Does anyone have a good definition of the term? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an ill-defined term to begin with. Cs32en  00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Debris / Italian source
Quest, this is not an interpretation of the leading Italian newspaper La Stampa. The newspaper reported that Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, said that the lack of remaining debris made the investigation difficult. Cs32en 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, remember that this should be easy; there are more than enough English language sources on this topic. There is no need to resort to foreign language sources.  As I always say, if you're having difficulty finding English language sources that say something, that's usually a good sign of something that should not be in Wikipedia.  Surely, if it is something important, an English-language source would have covered it.
 * To be honest, this appears to be a thinly veiled attempt at POV pushing; you're having difficulty finding an English language source that says what you want it to say so you're resorting to using foreign language sources.
 * For these reasons and WP:UNDUE, I've removed the material.
 * Please remember that the burden of proof is on the person who adds or restores the content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What is it you want to add, that you can't add without the La Stampa source? Tom Harrison Talk 14:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned to another editor media scholars have highlighted notable recent cases of US media burying or falsifying big stories. Books like those I have in mind include James Fallows, Neil Postman, Eric Boehlert, Jamieson, McChesney, Mitchell, others. Seymour Hersh covered the torture story (executive branch policy links) years before most mainstream press got revved up and he was so far ahead that he was able to break the story in a book, of all things.  If you (general you) still trust US investigative journalism, remember how conveniently inaccurate was coverage of a) WMD, b) illegal domestic spying, c) Jessica Lynch.  Analyses and documentaries (e.g. frontline) have explored related problems of US journalism, but its not widely read.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So I wonder what informs the idea in Quest's comment "an English language source would have covered it." Another editor made a claim about the alleged capabilities of the US press not too long ago.  Its disproved if a foreign paper has covered the story.  But WP conduct, not this particular news story, is the main point.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest's language above seems close to a personal attack, a slur of the type familiar in high politics: having difficulty implies knowledge another editor's inner state, resorting implies some unstated assumption about the source; POV pushing and want it to say insinuate bad faith. We don't have to go back far to find a similar attempt to attack an editor's "intentions" rather than honorably address the merits.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ihaveabutt, but you seem to be mistaking English language sources with US sources. There are plenty of countries that speak English besides the US such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeiland, etc.  Again, if this is something that is important, surely, it should be easy to find English language sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, OK fair enough, language is broader, and your note mentions importance, which is clarifying. Still, my comment did not say press problems are exclusive to the US, only they have been found clearly severe in such markets; but ok, the larger point better said is no press cluster (continent, language, culture) will catch all important stories.  Yes, a story might be caught in New Zealand, but the same, it might instead be caught only in French, Swedish, etc.  Any X-language only proposition seems to me like cutting off a hand.  Is english only WP policy?  -- Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As A Quest For Knowledge said, “if you're having difficulty finding English language sources that say something, that's usually a good sign of something that should not be in Wikipedia.”. You have a good point in that it would be inadvisable to reject, say, French-national sources on a French-national topic. But an Italian-national source on an American topic? Seems kinda like grasping at straws to me.
 * On the other hand, RS is RS. If La Stampa is deemed RS, then information sourced from it should be allowed. As with any other source, though, inferences, hyperbolae, innuendo, etc. are to be avoided.
 * So yeah, the source being Italian doesn’t justify completely discounting it. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 06:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets stop with the disinformative claims about the English language press should and should not cover, does and does not cover, and by what timetable it does so. Also, lets stop with the disinformative claims about wikipedia policy on RS (I don't refer to NRen's comment here). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don’t see “disinformation”… more like personal judgements and rule interpretation. If you feel that somebody is deliberately spreading misinformation, would you be so kind as to quote him and explain? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 01:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Researchers
Just wondering why does the intro only mention Jones and Griffin? Ryan, Gage and Hoffman are the other three well known researchers of demolitions. Since only Jones and Griffin are mentioned, one might think that there are only two people who are responsible for the demolition theory. What was the rationale to that?

Also, I'm not sure why Kevin Barrett is included on this page. While he mentions demolition in his debates and talks, as have almost all researchers, his focus is on religion. While Griffin is also a theologian, he has extensively investigated and published views on the demolitions in a way that Barrett never has. Barrett's website was MUJCA -- a site focused on Muslims and other religions, and he typically tends to equate all forms of "evidence" about the attacks, saying that because the "inside job" is shown so well, the type of evidence that is presented doesn't really matter. So it seems strange to include him on this page. Barrett's job history should be presented on the 9/11 Truth Movement page or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page, but not here. If it is going to be here, then there should be similar mention of the histories of others who have contributed far more material and analysis on demolitions, such as Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage and Jim Hoffman.

Google search results --
 * 15,300 for "Kevin Barrett" demolition
 * 26,700 for "Kevin Ryan" demolition
 * 39,200 for "Steven Jones" demolition
 * 39,600 for "Richard Gage" demolition
 * 45,400 for "David Ray Griffin" demolition
 * 50,300 for "Jim Hoffman" demolition

76.102.212.231 (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The number of hits returned by a Google search is a poor indication of notability and significance. Basically need to examine each hit to see if it meets WP:RS.  See the (unfortunately lengthy) WP:GOOGLE for more information.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer the rest of the questions. Why were some added, but others were removed?  A rationale needs to be stated. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If I was the editor who made any of the changes, unless it's a no-brainer, I usually post an explanation on the Talk Page or put a discription in the summary of the edit. Some editors feel the article is too long.  A few weeks ago, I tried expanding out a section on a quote by an engineer but it was eventually removed.  Every edit on this article is heavily scrutinized.  There's no point in trying to make any major changes to the article unless you're prepared for the inevitable battle that will ensue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In having read most of the talk page, I don't recall much discussion of Gage either way. If so, it would seem to suggest that the structure was formed by something other than consensus. We need a consensus way to identify his importance.  I would not be surprised if Gage had at the time received less attention in conventional media outlets than had Griff and Jone, but I can't speak for others.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ledes aren't supposed to have references
Cs32en: We are try to acheive GA and FA status with this article. Ledes aren't supposed to have references. I moved them down into the body of the article where they belong and you moved them back again. Why? Please undo your edit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that if this were to become a perfect article, there should not be references in the lead. There are a vast number of of things in this article that should improved, however, and this is really way down in our list of priorities. It's better to have references now for every statement in the article rather than to argue about whether any statements are sourced or not. Cs32en  21:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But the references were still there. I just moved them to the body of the article.  If anyone asks or complains, we can explain they are in the body.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we could explain. But why run the risk that someone will ask, and having the trouble to explain it? The lead is something that should be done after the content and structure of the article is sound and fairly stable. Cs32en  22:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ledes are supposed to be summaries of the article
The summary currently states:

"Jones told the New York Times he and others would be investigating whether thermite or superthermite has been used".

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First, can someone explain why Jones saying he is going do something in the future is so important that it needs to be included in the lede?
 * Second, ledes are supposed to be summaries of the article. Maybe I missed it, but I did a quick scan of the article and don't see this mentioned.


 * Basically, the demolition theory has evolved over time and most recently Jones has established the strongest evidence for the METHOD of demolition. Previously, this has always been speculated about, but having found nanothermite suggests a means by which it could have been done.  Regardless of the legitimacy of the finding, the subject of nanothermite is now a central issue both in the movement and amongst those researchers who focus on demolition.


 * The history is that initially, a series of pieces of evidence were established which suggested the possibility that the towers were demolished based on the video evidence of the collapses -- characteristics such as their speed, explosiveness, falling through the path of most resistance, level of pulverization, etc. There were also other types of evidence -- eye witness accounts of rapid blasting sounds and scientific oddities in reports and in images of what happened to the steel (i.e., bending in ways that suggested extreme heat beyond that capable of an office fire).


 * When Steven Jones got involved, scientific experiments in the lab were done for the first time and this began the series of findings suggesting the use of thermite -- first molten metal spheres, then nanothermite bi-layered chips.


 * These two stages are fairly distinct yet neither contradicts the other.


 * The lead should mention both of these stages and their findings, but someone like Tom Harrison will then come along and add a citation needed tag if you don't provide links and then will use that to simply delete the section to replace it by how NIST and Bazant know what the deal is and the conspiracy theorists don't -- never mind what the CTs are writing about, they're just wrong, so move along. But again, regardless of what you think of the claims, it makes no sense to talk about a theory but have a policy to hide the actual writings of the theory because it is considered somehow wrong, not notable, in a forbidden journal, etc.  Having policies that function to conceal information that is basic to the topic of the article suggests that editors are merely at war on the page, and that those who want the information to go away are just more numerous. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Barrett
In the History section, the article currently states:

"In the U.S. Midwest, 61 legislators signed a petition calling for the dismissal of a University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, after he joined the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Citing academic freedom, the university provost declined to take action against Barrett."

This content as it is stated has nothing to do with controlled demolition conspiracy theories so I am removing it from the article. If there's a way to work it back in such that it is about CDCT, fine. But right now, it doesn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with this. Barrett is not a demolition researcher.  His area is religion and 9/11 truth, with a focus on Muslims.  His original website and group was MUJCA and now he has TruthJihad, both dedicated to religion.  Griffin is a theologian but has spent a great deal of time researching the evidence of demolition and presenting it in a comprehensive manner.  Barrett has said more than once that the "how" of the demolition or anything else isn't that important because "we have already proven inside job."  Reader2010 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Main Towers section
May 31 i added 4 'citation needed' tags to some statements of facts for which there was no source cite. Then Legobot II added May 09 to these tags, and RxS removed all 4 'citation needed' tags with the message "(- mass placement of fact tags)"

The edits can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories&diff=next&oldid=293463485 Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been elemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. NIST also pointed out that cutting through the vertical columns would require planting an enormous amount of explosives inconspicuously in highly secured buildings, then igniting it remotely while keeping it in contact with the columns. -	The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes "progressive collapse" inevitable once an initial collapse occurs.

Why were the 'citation needed' tags removed? And what is meant by the statement "(- mass placement of fact tags)"?

I added just 4 'citation needed' tags to 4 statements of fact for which there was no source cite:

1) "Jones has argued that the molten metal may have been elemental iron, a product of a thermite reaction. "

2) "NIST found that the condition of the steel in the wreckage of the towers does not provide conclusive information on the condition of the building before the collapse "

3) "and concluded that the material coming from the South Tower was molten aluminum from the plane, which would have melted at lower temperatures than steel. "

As far as I know, NIST has not "concluded" it was molten aluminum; Sunder has repeatedly referred to it as "molten material" in public statements, and it has been hypothesized that it was molten aluminum. I could be wrong; if NIST has, in fact, concluded that it was "molten aluminum", there should be a source cite.

4) "The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes "progressive collapse" inevitable once an initial collapse occurs."

As there is a quote- "progressive collapse"- this certainly needs a source cite. I'm not sure where this quote appears, but NIST NCTSTAR 1 does mention "global collapse" in Sections 6.14.2 and 6.14.3, and in 6.14.4 it says, "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass." (146)

Changes to Intro Paragraph: Richard Gage added
I have added Richard Gage to the list of proponents at the start. His video on the Fox news station in Fresno has already had over 100,000 views in a couple of days. He is one of the more well known demolition advocates and is an architect. It looks like users like Verbal will need to discuss every change I make so I will be starting a discussion here for each one. 76.102.212.231 (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to Intro Paragraph: removing "widely rejected"
First of all, the primary error with the title of the article is that it suggests that there are multiple theories of demolition, when really there is only one as far as I can tell -- that the buildings were demolished with explosives. Most proponents believe that not all methods can be known, but that nanothermite is one method that appears to have been used. However, whichever method, the theory is essentially the same, that the buildings were intentionally demolished with explosives. This is really only one theory, not several. If someone knows what other theories there are about demolition which are notable within the movement, please explain that here.

Second, to deride the "theories" in the main sentence describing the theories is over the top. The first sentence should merely explain that the topic is, not put a judgement on it before the reader even knows what it is. I have thus removed "widely rejected" and the word "claim" for the same reason -- pov. The article is packed with refutations and there do not need to be multiple ones in the first sentence. It now reads:

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories describes the theory that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the plane crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, nor by resulting fire damage, but by explosives planted in the buildings in advance.

76.102.212.231 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As written here, the first line has the word theory twice. Is that best?  Or do we want ... WTC controlled demolition theory refers to the idea that the ... --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to mince whether it should be singular or plural? Personally, I'd probably be fine with singular but it seems like too minor a detail to worry about.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fail-safe theory
Why is the "fail-safe theory" not mentioned? The theory says, that explosives were actually integrated into the towers' structure when they were built in the 60s and 70s as part of a fail-safe. In case of a catastrophic event, the towers would be destroyed with the integrated explosives, so they don't tip over, damaging or even destroying other surrounding buildings, killing many people. The towers were built in a highly populated area, with many buildings standing nearby. It wouldn't be that surprising, if the architects in fact thought about a fail-safe.

The point of the theory is, that either the fail-safe was triggered by the planes hitting both towers, or the fail-safe was used by officials, sacrificing many people, but also saving many more!


 * If you can demonstrate that this theory has sufficient weight in reliable sources to establish notability, it can be added to the article. Finding good references and establishing notability is the first step before adding material to an article.  You will probably find it a challenge to establish notability of this theory; if it were easy, it would probably already be in the article. Wildbear (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)