Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 9

Unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology
Should a section be devoted to the published paper by The Open Chemical Physics Journal dated 2009, 2, 7-31 called "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"? signed nmollo

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmollo (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed to death on this page and many others previously. Read the archives. Hut 8.5 11:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Still the issue remains, the possible need for a new section. I came to this article expecting to find the topic addressed directly. "discussed to death" is not addressing the possible need for a new section about the peer reviewed paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". signed nmollo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.186.158 (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, discussion in the archive is not a substitute for synthesized information on the WP page. However, such synthesis does exist in the Main towers section. - Dandv (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A broader point on the presented evidence of nano-thermites in WTC dust has to do with the lack of application of typical scientific methods to refute the findings presented in the Open Chemical Physics Journal. This Wikipedia article refutes the findings by simply attacking the flaws in the chain of evidence management. However, what it does not mention is that no similar experiments have been done by scientists on WTC dust for which the chain of evidence is not in question. Since such materials are in the possession of government authorities, the Wikipedia article's refutation of the cited article should state something to the effect that the government has not tried to reproduce the results of this study on materials in their control. 74.89.249.49 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have a point if there was any reason to test for the material. But there really isn't. The science behind the journal article is so poor there's really nothing to refute. No one is ever going to test and refute every fringe theory that comes along. RxS (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * RxS, do you have reliable source for your assertion? Specifically, "The science behind the journal article is so poor there's really nothing to refute."  Or is this just your personal opinion?  Wildbear (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source that the science isn't that poor? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the assertion "the science is poor" seems to be poorly founded. Based on what specific analysis of the science? By whom? The simplest way to assert that the tests were poor science would be to reproduce the test using trusted materials. Those controlling trusted materials have not done so. Anyone who wants to refute the findings of a scientific study usually starts by trying to reproduce the results of that study using the methodologies applied in the original study. An unwillingness to do so or to even consider doing so would seem to run counter to productive scientific inquiry. Therefore the lack of studies on properly controlled specimens of WTC dust using established methodologies should be noted in the article. Jblossom (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard the particular paper:
 * It appears in an (at least, nominally) peer-reviewed journal, but the chief reviewer denies that the article was reviewed by his people.
 * There is no credible evidence as to the validity of the science, good or bad. I believe it's bad, and RxS thinks it's obviously bad.  The author is capable of good science, but, if it were good science, one would think it would have been published in a journal with a reputation for good science.  We just don't have evidence that would allow us to use it as other than a primary source.
 * I agree with RxS on refutation; those who have custody of the material have no reasons to refute all the fringe theories that they could refute; as most of the tests are destructive, they would have run out of material long ago. Furthermore, in this case, wouldn't do any good in terms of convincing anyone not already convinced.  One could say the samples were taken from different places, so that a failure by reputable research to find nano-thermate residue would just lead to the assertion that they took the samples from the wrong place.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The article in www.WorldArchitectureNews.com
I suppose that this article deserves a note (which I may add at some point if no one else does).

Also, could someone be so kind and summarize briefly the argument why there is no mention about "Active thermitic material discovered in WTC dust" paper in this article? salVNaut (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a comment, rather than an article or even an editorial. Perhaps the link is wrong, and there is a vetted article there?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The newspaper of course does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the article. It was a decision of the newspaper, however, to offer the authors (Gage and the two others) the space to publish their views. This decision by a reliable source makes the content of the article notable enough to be mentioned in WP articles, but we should of course attribute any such content to the authors of the article. (There is a very similar dispute going on on 9/11 conspiracy theories about an article written by neo-conservative political activist Cinnamon Stillwell in the San Francisco Chronicle.) We also need to check what would be the appropriate place for this information. There is a more general article about 9/11 theories (including Richard Gage's) in the Californian journal metroactive. Cs32en  20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm don't think they actually offered Gage space to air his views. From it seems the site functions as a space for architects to publish their projects, and the instructions on  (where this piece was published) indicate that you just have to register and post. I can't see any reason to treat this piece any differently from something Gage self-published. Hut 8.5 21:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are clear indications that WAN has actively approved Gage, Roberts and Chandler publishing the text. (Whether they invited them or whether they were asked and agreed to do it may be another question, but is not relevant to our discussion here.) The wording "Allowing architects to publish their projects and describe them in their own words" does not mean that anyone can publish anything there. It means that you can submit a description of your project, and that WAN will then publish this or not. The article written by Gage, Roberts and Chandler is linked at the News section's front page (lower right). In the text, we find the sentence "As the anniversary of the events approaches, Gage tells WAN why he thinks there are hidden depths to the destruction of the World Trade Centre..." (lead section), which does not seem to have been written by the authors.  Cs32en  21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: WAN obviously invites other people to submit texts for on-line publication by the journal . Looking through these submissions, one finds many that have been submitted by "Editorial", but also others who have been submitted by other IDs . The "Editorial" ID also submits texts that are clearly originating from the editorial board. It seems that there is the technical possibility for outsiders to submit texts through the website's content management system. However, it looks like most contributors have sent their texts to the journal, and someone at the journal (with access to the "Editorial" ID) has uploaded them subsequently. We don't know how much editorial process is associated with this (e.g. content checking, changing the wording, feedback and communication with the authors, formatting of images). What we can say is that it is very unlikely that Gage just pressed a button on his computer, and the text then appeared at WAN's website.  Cs32en  22:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the contrary -- the links provided by Hut make it seem likely that that's exactly what Gage did. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That would require us to assume that Gage knows the password to the "Editorial" content management system ID on the www.worldarchitecturenews.com website. I think this is very unlikely. Cs32en  02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Do you have strong views on a particular subject? Now is your chance to comment on topics and publish them to a global audience. Format is 500 words and one image 170px wide and will cost one WAN credit. Just logon and upload your information."


 * At over 1600 words and 8 pictures and the fact that it is featured on the front page I find it hard to believe that Gage used this channel to get the article published without WAN knowing. Absurd Tony0937 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wouldn't infer too much from the number of words or the pictures. But if you read the lead of the text ("Gage tells WAN..."), and then imagine that Gage wrote it and submitted it to WAN without approval, don't you think WAN would object to it and take the text out quickly? We can safely assume that they know about the text, given that the editor of the journal has submitted other content through the same ID. Also, the number of comments about Gage's text indicate that it did not go unnoticed. Cs32en  03:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we have to guess and speculate about this then it doesn't belong. It's labeled as a comment and that's how we should treat it. Not much different than a letter to the editor. RxS (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one could say just as well that it's labeled "editorial". The newspaper doesn't vouch for the accuracy, as I already said. It's much more like an invited op-ed, rather than a letter to editor, however. (Nobody writes "X told newspaper Z" in a letter to the editor.) Cs32en  07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost everything in the comment section is marked "editorial", and this piece of information is listed as "company". Sure enough if you scroll through a few pages you see names of companies appearing. It's pretty obvious that "editorial" just means "written by a single individual and not on behalf of a company". The fact that they haven't removed it doesn't mean anything - the fact that I haven't blocked your account doesn't mean that I agree with what you say. Hut 8.5 09:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not assume that the publication of this text implies that WAN agrees with Gage's views. If, say a foreign head of state writes a text that is being published in the New York Times, that doesn't mean the NYT agrees with what he says. Why would the editor of the journal submit a text using the ID "Editorial", as she did, if this was an ID anybody could use? In a content management system, IDs are usually not shared by different people (the journal would have to connect the ID to their "WAN credit point" account, for example), and it's very unlikely that Gage uses the same ID as the editor of the journal. It's exactly because the fact that there are company names there (which I have pointed out in a previous comment) that shows that the "Editorial" ID is a specific account of the content management system. It's in the "Company" column because the content management system of the website has limited flexibility, so the user interface (not the ID) is the same for the staff and for other people. Just look at the lead section of the various texts submitted by the "Editorial" ID - it's obvious that they have either been written exclusively by the journal's staff, or in cooperation with the authors of the different texts (that are following the lead sections). Cs32en  09:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's very obvious that these words, all submitted by the "Editorial" ID, have been written by people who work for the journal, not by external contributors: Cs32en 10:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "WAN thought their concept was cool (sorry, couldn't help it), so we got in some Q & A time with Natasha...."
 * "Now Babatunde Fagbemi, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Maevis Limited, talks to WAN about why Nigeria is ready for this revolution..."
 * "and here she talks to WAN about the realities of working in a parliament"
 * "WAN Business Correspondent David Taylor rounds up the month's most important industry dealings..."
 * "Today Rick talks to WAN about the future of Manhattan's most treasured development site..."
 * "Gage tells WAN why he thinks there are hidden depths to the destruction of the World Trade Centre..."
 * That all sounds like OR and not a very good supporting argument. Verbal chat  10:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Original research, in the context of the Wikipedia guidelines, means original research with regard to the content of the text, not with regard to it's status, or with regard to the reliability of the source. Please don't throw around acronyms like OR without looking at what they actually mean. Cs32en  11:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This argument is getting rather tenuous. Even if you're right and somebody from the website thought this piece could be posted, that doesn't mean they vetted the content, support its conclusions, or even decided to ask Gage to submit his views. On the other hand this is clearly an opinion piece written by Gage and published in a "Comment" section which invites people to send in submissions. As far as we're concerned Gage might as well have published it on his own website, and we shouldn't include it an an article. Hut 8.5 10:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say (and I think it's actually quite unlikely) that they support Gage's conclusions. That's why I said that any content from this text must be attributed to Gage, Roberts and Chandler as the source. Gage could not have published the text on his website, because he cannot write there that he told the information to WAN, as this text does. It's (mainly, not exclusively) written by Gage (and the others), and published by WAN - in a format that makes clear that Gage, not WAN, is vouching for the accuracy of the content. Cs32en  11:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it significant enough to put in the article then? This article isn't an indiscriminate collection of writings by controlled demolition proponents. The piece doesn't meet reliability standards and publishing it doesn't represent an achievement. Gage has written lots of self-published material - what makes this piece any different? Hut 8.5 11:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, much of the information in the text is already present in our article. What makes it different is that an independent institution has found the content important enough to publish it. Therefore, it meets, in principle, the notability condition for inclusion in articles other than articles about the source of the text, i.e. articles other than Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. With attribution, of course. Cs32en  12:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any relevance that WAN sought fit to accept the material (if they actually took action to accept it, as opposed to merely not taking a specific action to reject it) to its credibility. Could you explain?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From the Editor's Desk
 * More questions arose from the devastation of 9/11 and these are the subject of our featured comment this week, penned by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. While it would be easy to dismiss Gage’s opinion, that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was in fact caused by controlled demolition techniques, as nothing more than conspiracy theory, the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration. Armed with photographic and even video evidence, Gage calls for questions to be answered in an open forum to find out what exactly caused the unprecedented collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7."
 * WAN is well aware of Gage's article. This is a "featured comment" not just something that Gage sneaked in. They chose not only to allow his comment to be published they are featuring it. The statement is at worst neutral if not a cautious endorsement. Tony0937 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To call it any kind of endorsement is a stretch, but it would certainly seem to qualify as "notable bullshit". Guy (Help!) 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration" summarizes it better I think, then anyway, isn't it what this article is about?? The comment in WAN is notable, mostly relevant to the topic of this article, verifiable as a statement from architects and scientists of 911 truth, so I'd say it's obvious that it should be included, if I didn't know the scrutiny we look at every source here with. salVNaut (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to highlight the statement from Niki May Young, the editor of World Architecture News: "the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration" Much of this discussion would obviously not have been necessary if we just had had a look at the complete information that is available at WAN's website. If nobody objects right here, I think it's appropriate to say that, by looking at the evidence, we have consensus that WAN actively approved the publication of the text. Of course, this does not mean that we could state that WAN itself would support its content.  Cs32en  21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper article about technical aspects of the collapse
The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute

Out-of-date references
A new subsection was added, currently titled "Other observers". I have no objection to this topic being added, but there's a problem: all of the references used to support the assertions being presented are out-of-date. In these references, the assumed argument is that the WTC buildings were brought down by conventional controlled demolition. Since the release in April 2009 of the paper presenting the alleged finding of nanothermitic material (a military grade substance) in the WTC dust (ref), I am not aware of anyone arguing that the WTC was destroyed using conventional demolition materials and methods. For the article to be relevant in today's environment, references used should have been written in this context; they should have been written after the release of the nanothermite paper in April. The "conventional demolition" argument has minimal (if any) relevance to the topic today. Documents currently referenced: Wildbear (talk) 05:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective (ref) September 11th, 2006
 * 2 U.S. Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11. (ref) September 2, 2006
 * A Conspiracy of Ignorance. (ref) January 02, 2007
 * Theories of 9/11. (ref) January 29, 2008
 * Outrageous Conspiracy Theories: Popular and Official Responses to 9/11 in Germany and the United States. (ref) Spring 2008
 * World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects. (ref) May 28, 2008


 * Two problems with this: it's original research, and it's wrong. The primary author of the nanothermite paper thinks conventional explosives were used:
 * ...I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.
 * Question: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?
 * Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
 * Hut 8.5 09:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good reference, and I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. It's more up to date than the previous references, and it's relevant to the topic. On a rapidly changing topic such as this one, I consider it prudent to ensure consistency with new references before material based solely on old references is introduced into an article. Wildbear (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In any case, the paragraph isn't about conventional versus non-conventional controlled demolition.  It's about the feasibility of tearing apart the building and planting all those explosives without anyone noticing.  BTW - I forget if this was Griffin or Gage, but when asked how the government was able to do this (without anyone in the noticing), he said suggested that the explosives were planted when the buildings were first constructed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen such a statement from either Griffin or Gage. Actually, I don't know of anyone claiming or suggesting that the government would have planted explosives in the building during construction. Cs32en  04:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I watched a few documentaries on 9/11 conspiracy theories this past weekend, one by National Geographic and two by BBC News. It was in one of them, but I don't remember which. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * BBC: The Conspiracy Files: 9/11: The Third Tower
 * Gage: "It's possible... although this is mere speculation... that the explosives could have been planted prior to each floor being remodeled... during such remodeling... or even during the initial erection of the building."
 * BBC: "And when would that be? What's the date that you get into for that?"
 * Gage: "The building was built in the eighties."
 * (Note that this documentary was released on July 6, 2008, which predates the NIST final report on WTC 7, and the nanothermite paper.)
 * Wildbear (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Something missing in the article
What purpose did a controlled demolition of the towers serve? Surely at least some of the writers on the topic have tried to give a reason why a controlled demolition was needed in addition to ramming a couple of planes into the buildings?


 * The obvious answer is "to ensure that the buildings will come down". The attackers had no way of being sure that the buildings will come down from the airplanes alone, so they needed a "plan B". It could be that explosives were the main plan, and the airplanes were there to add drama. I don't see why this hypothesis must be labelled a "conspiracy theory".

I can understand imputing a motive on the government for the plane attacks - you can certainly argue


 * The controlled explosion hypothesis is independent of conspiracy theories involving the government.

that either letting them happen, or maybe even assisting the plot (either directly, or just by clearing the way for them) would have a big political reward for the risks entailed (especially the more passive routes) - if you assume a suitably cynical and callous bunch of politicians (and that is hardly unreasonable given history).

But what does a controlled demolition add to the political value of the attacks? The towers burning for weeks and then having to be pulled down weeks or months later would seem to be enough to generate all the outrage and political capital required for whatever wars/laws were required, so why go from almost no risk of being caught to having to plant thousands of charges in a heavily occupied and well secured building for little or no additional benefit? --86.129.6.0 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The motivation may have been more complex than just doing something and then blaming Al Qaeda for it. Cs32en  20:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind that, the article doesn't actually say who controlled demolition proponents blame for the disaster. We ought to at least put a sentence in somewhere saying that the US government is usually blamed. Hut 8.5 21:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The theory that the bombers themselves wired the buildings seems less compelling than that there was a swift official operation to ensure that the rest of Manhattan stayed in one piece and only the three buildings went down. This is implicitly dismissed by reference to the man-hours required, but it might be better to address the point directly. As a lay reader I find there's too much trawling needed to get to the question that's most interesting to agnostics, namely why the towers went down so neatly if there was no controlled explosion. Maybe the paragraph could be separated, headlined 'structural somethingorother', to explain to us ignoramuses that all big buildings of the period are built to collapse equally neatly (if indeed that is the case, which I don't claim to have any idea about).Sartoresartus (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice no one has mentioned the use of the underground railway system that would be a very nice and convenient logistical approach to unloading a vast array of demolitions equipment; namely, enough to ensure the complete and total destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 (for whatever reason..I feel that 7 is a continuous "smoking gun", as it is continuously referred to as an anomalous source of questionable logic). Surely, a subway system would be absolutely guaranteed to work without any impediment(s) from any parties, Anywhere... Warfistprime (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

replace "conspiracy theory" with "controlled demolition theory"
I would like to suggest that the word "conspiracy" be removed from the title of this page and from the contents themselves. Here are my reasons for suggesting this:

a) used properly, the word simply means "A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot" ("The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"). Thus the mainstream version of al-Qaeda being responsible for the 9/11 attacks is also a "conspiracy theory".  This word is therefore not helpful in distinguishing between the mainstream view and the various alternative theory.

b) the word is mostly used inproperly, as a way do suggest that the theory put for his somehow the result of a paranoid mind or that it lacks any basis in fact or logic. Since the mainstream theory on the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 has changed over time (for example, NIST has rejected the "pancaking theory" (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) and since no explanation for the collapse WTC7 it would appear that there is no foundation to reject *any* theory "a priori".

I suggest that the expression "conspiracy theory" be replaced with "controlled demolition theory" which is far less subjective and far more descriptive.

Thank you, --Andrei Raevsky (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed, please check the archives. Soxwon (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And great moments in NPOV they are not. Conspiracy theory itself admits the pejorative nature of the term. Around 15% of US adults believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition, and the possibility has been discussed openly and seriously by foreign governments, understandably much less so within the US. Much remains uncertain, but to tar all such notions with the same brush used for the Illuminati Lizard People from Beyond the Moon is in terribly bad form. - Tzaquiel (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 15%? I don't think I've seen that one before.…
 * I disagree with your point about "conspiracy theory" being necessarily pejorative. I agree that the theories dealt with here should be called "controlled demolition theories", but for reasons of consistency and clarity rather than neutrality. — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK), 00:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

grouping explosives and controlled demolitions
It seems like many of the counter claims to explosives being planted in this building are in the context of how explosives are planted in controlled demolitions. They don't seem to be refuting claims about people placing explosives in places that will be working with the fire and debris created by air planes that crash into a building.

It seems like there should be a better seperation between discussions and arguments relating to traditional controlled demolitions; vs. controlled demolitions under the condition of a building on fire after being struck by planes; and vs. the idea of people planting in areas that are intended to work with a building being damaged by high temperature fires that have been corrupting the stability of the architecture. Each of these seem to be very different in nature and probably shouldn't be mixed and matched or grouped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.185.43 (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article on CD hypothesis published in German mainstream journal "Focus Money"
Focus Money, a mainstream German weekly journal, has published an article about the controlled demolition hypothesis. It title is "We don't believe you!". The article reports on the major arguments put forward by proponents of the hypothesis. It asks "What distinguishes these concerned citizens from those who believe that everyone who doesn't accept the official version would be a crazy conspiracy theorist?" and comments "NIST [...] has not taken into account the possibility of a controlled demolition. The strange justification: Controlled demolitions usually start from the bottom." It also reports about the study of Steven Jones and Niels Harrit, who claim to have found nano-thermite in the debris of the World Trade Center. A similar article (written by a different journalist) has appeared in a German TV journal and in a German science magazine.


 * "We do not believe you!" (Focus Money) (Contents of Focus Money, 2/2010, on the website of Focus magazine)
 * The secret files of 9/11 (TV Hören und Sehen)
 * The secret files of 9/11 (Welt der Wunder)

Cs32en 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Freefall
Freefall is aplicable to the twins (the north tower fall in 10 sec and southern in 8 sec), that's freefall. Alakasam (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And why question911.com is not a good source?, What they says is credible. Only what CNN says is credible? Alakasam (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Freefall is an exceptional claim, given its implications. In this instance, freefall would mean that the upper section of each building fell through the stronger lower portion while encountering zero resistance; the same acceleration acquired when falling through a vacuum. Freefall means that there would be no energy available to break the steel structure; no energy to crush the concrete into dust, and no energy to hurl large chunks of heavy steel across the street.  Per Wikipedia policy, such exceptional claims require exceptional sources.  As for question911.com, a site which describes "911 In Plane Site" as "another great documentary" on its home page has questionable credibility, in my view.  Not that there aren't some good independent 9/11 sites out there; but this one doesn't stand out as such.  NIST's take on the rate of fall is "...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." (ref, pg 146).  We could thus refer to it as "essentially in free fall", while conforming to Wikipedia's reliable source requirements.  Wildbear (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not find what you say on page 146.

At the speed that the towers fell, it was almost a free fall. This indicates that there was implosion. You can see in any video. The conclusions reached by the U.S. government can not explain why the buildings disintegrated. Alakasam (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The U.S. government can not explain why buildings have burned for hours have not fallen. And these, one of the strongest and best constructed of the world it could. Nor can they explain very well cut columns at an angle or explosions reported by firefighters before the fall of the towers. Alakasam (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I say all this so that we keep this in mind when writting. Alakasam (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about no. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 19:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to be rude, NRen2k5. It is a conspiracy theory article, so suggestions from a genuine conspiracy theorist should be given consideration. Let's take it point by point: 146 is NIST's page number. Your pdf reader's page number may be 196. This is acknowledged by NIST, which termed it "essentially in free fall". However, using the statement stand-alone in the article, outside of reliably sourced conspiracy theory context, would be what Wikipedia calls "original research". Maybe, but you will need a reliable source to say so. You will need a source more widely recognized as "reliable" than question911.com, if you want this assertion to appear in the article.
 * I could not find what you say on page 146
 * At the speed that the towers fell, it was almost a free fall.
 * This indicates that there was implosion.
 * The conclusions reached by the U.S. government can not explain why the buildings disintegrated.

That is a statement of your personal opinion, and as such is not usable in the article. For any changes to be made to the article, you need to present information about conspiracy theory obtained from reliable sources.
 * The U.S. government can not explain why buildings have burned for hours have not fallen.

You will need a reliable source to show why this assertion is relevant to this article, and who made the assertion. The matter of angle-cut columns is questionable as evidence unless your sources show that the photographs were taken before the cleanup began. If you have reliable sourcing for this, and can show how it is relevant to this article, it might be usable. This is already documented in the article (rather than firefighters, the article uses the term "eyewitness accounts").
 * Nor can they explain very well cut columns at an angle or explosions reported by firefighters before the fall of the towers.
 * explosions reported by firefighters

Wildbear (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

When I have more time I'll do. Is there any official article where says which sources are good?, because I don't want to convince you, I want to do right. Alakasam (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Start by reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, if you haven't done so already. When you first start adding references, I suggest choosing major, well-known sources like BBC, The New York Times, the journal Nature, etc.  After you have edited for a while, you should start to get a feel for which sources are acceptable by Wikipedia and which are not.  You can check the References sections on Wikipedia articles to find examples of acceptable sources.


 * Can you add that paragraph about the freefall?. Alakasam (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To add that paragraph, it would need to appear within context related to the topic of the article, which in this case is WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Since the paragraph comes from a document which is not about conspiracy theory, we can't add it in standalone fashion.  A paragraph like this can be used for support or counterpoint to other material which is specifically about the article topic.  For example, something like the following might be written:  "The National Association of Conspiracy theorists cites the near-free-fall collapse of the towers as evidence of controlled demolition."  The near-free-fall collapse is documented by NIST, which referred to the collapse acceleration as "essentially in free fall".  This is just a rough example.  How it would appear in actual practice (if it could be used at all) would depend on what the sources have to say.  In a situation like this, you need to be careful to avoid synthesis, which means using more than one source to draw a conclusion that neither of the sources are stating.  Notice also that (for the example) I gave specific attribution to the individuals or groups making the statements.  Without the attribution, such assertions might be considered to be weasel words, meaning a vague, evasive, or non-specific assertion, which can be difficult or impossible to verify.  Wildbear (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a serious problem here: you required a reliable source to support information that is purely speculative. What kind of reliable media are going to even try to mention the possibility of a self attack by the US government? Use reliable sources for the main article (September 11 attacks). Request for reliable sources here is silly. Remember that the name of this article is World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. If there was something confirmed by a reliable source would not go in this article. Common sense. Alakasam  02:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't have a reliable source for the factual claims themselves (because as you say, they are conspiracy theories, not actual verifiable facts). But you can have reliable sources that a conspiracist claims it to be true. So you can't say "The speed at which they towers fell implies controlled demolition", because that's not true, so there is no reliable source stating this. But you can say "Conspiracy theorist Oompa Loompa claims that the speed at which they towers fell implies controlled demolition". To then make the article NPOV, we also need to point out that others don't claim it. So you need to find reliable sources for people claiming the opposite as well. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I like that much more and is much more logical than Wildbear claims. Alakasam  19:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased Characterization
The alternate hypothesis that the collapse may have involved planted explosives is not in itself a "conspiracy theory".

There is no question that some group of people conspired together to attack the buildings, one way or another.

They may have chosen a combination of approaches.

The use of the "conspiracy theory" derogatory term is unnecessary in this context; such a theory has more to do with who is responsible, not how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.96.174 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the label "conspiracy theory" for this article is erroneous and misleading. In fact, most of the article is not given over to a discussion of conspiracy theories but is used instead to present government-supported theories as fact. A more appropriate title might be "World Trade Center Collapse Theories" so as to indicate that there are theories coming from both government-supported researchers and non-government-supported researchers. Jblossom (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely wrong. I can't point to the Wikipedia consensus at the moment, but "conspiracy theories" is a relatively neutral term referring to non-mainstream theories involving conspiracies.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Arthur, I am afraid that you're missing my point. Whether "conspiracy theory" is a perjorative term or not is not the point, here. The point is that the article for the most part does not present information about conspiracies but instead about government-supported investigations. If it were an article primarily about conspiracy theories it should not have such an emphasis. Jblossom (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, when we report conspiracy theories, we need to report the investigations (government or not) which refute them. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from on this editorially, but there's a matter of emphasis. The emphasis I see in this article could be summarized as follows: "The government says this is what happened. Some people with conspiracy theories say that there are other explanations." If in fact this is an article on alternative theories, then it could be summarized as follows: "People with conspiracy theories say this is what happened. The government offers alternative explanations." I won't argue in this section as to whether the label "conspiracy theory" is appropriate, but that would seem to be the appropriate emphasis if it were used. Jblossom (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. IMHO, the mainstream (not "government") comments should be summarized first, as background.  Then the conspiracy theories.  Then (or immediately following each conspiracy theory) the mainstream opposition (or support) of the specific points in the conpspiracy theories.  This may give the mainstream position more "real estate" than conspiracy theories, but it seems a better organization than what we have.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I see how you're trying to attain balance, but in suggesting this type of organization you're arguing in effect for a renaming of this article, since its contents would then be only about a third relevant to the article title. Perhaps this goal would be better attained by having a separate article for generally accepted theories, entitled something like "World Trade Center Tower Collapses - Generally Accepted Theories" and this article, titled "World Trade Center Tower Collapses - Alternative Theories and Conspiracy Theories". Or, has been suggested, rename this article something like "World Trade Center Tower Collapse Theories." I would prefer the latter, since all work done on this subject is, in fact, theoretical. There is very limited physical evidence available to support valid testing of any kind of theory. Jblossom (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Logical Analysis
A little simple reasoning demonstrates why all these conspiracy theories are rubbish, or at the least very, very likely to be so. First Ockham's razor - the simplest explanation is usually the right one. What is more likely, that a lot of burning aviation fuel caused a structural collapse; or that there is a huge conspiracy, involving presumably dozens of operatives, that has been successfully concealed for ten years now, despite a change of presidency even, when any one of the supposed operatives in the alleged conspiracy could make $millions selling their story to the press? Watergate was a far smaller conspiracy than the one proposed here and that all came out in a couple of years. Then there is motivation, cui bono, especially with WTC7 controlled demolition theory. What possible motive is there for destroying WTC7? Who would gain anything? Destruction of files? Come on, you don't need to destroy a whole tower block to destroy some files. Because WTC7 was the base for the whole conspiracy? It was steel and concrete. It was no evidence of anything. No-one gained anything from the destruction of WTC7 so logically it's extremely unlikely that it was a controlled demolition.

Maybe the article could have some mention of this?

 SmokeyTheCat   •TALK•  21:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You would need to provide reliably sourced references for your assertions. Otherwise, they are just personal opinion and have no applicability to the article.  Wildbear (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * They're not really assertions or opinions. I am just stating what anyone with a passing knowledge of the subject knows and applying a little thought Wildbear. I don't have a source. Don't put it in if you don't want.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  04:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SmokeyTheCat wrote: any one of the supposed operatives in the alleged conspiracy could make $millions selling their story to the press. Umm... and end up enjoying their millions in prison, awaiting possible execution for involvement in mass murder?  I respectfully disagree that this (and some of your other propositions) are a logical conclusion.  Wikipedia minimizes such contentions by requiring references from "reliable" third party sources.  Wildbear (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * SmokeyTheCat: We demand reliable sourcing of the conspiracy theorists, then we must demand it of ourselves too. Even more so since conspiracy theorists aren't subject to logic or common sense. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair point. I will say no more on the subject suffice to say that the idea that this huge posited conspiracy could be buried without trace for ten years strikes me as far-fetched in the extreme. But call me old-fashioned. I don't really care that much. People can believe what they like.  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an emotipnal argument, not a rational response. The fact is that there have been many large conspiracies that have persisted in secrecy for far longer than that, such as the secrecy around the NSA that lasted for 40 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.231.166.229 (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of MacQueen/Szamboti Paper refuting NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
The following paper by Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti should appear as a reference in this article and should be mentioned in the body under the "Main Towers" subsection of "Propositions and hypotheses" as an alternative to the Bazant theory. MacQueen and Szamboti argue in their mathematical analysis that Bazant's required "jolt" from deceleration of a solid block of descending stories is not substantiated in data obtained from measuring actual photographic evidence of the rate of WTC tower collapses. Without such evidence, the Bazant theory must not stand alone as an explanation for explaining the collapse of the WTC towers.

The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis (PDF) Jblossom (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable source? Well, perhaps, but Bazant's comment is mainstream, and the article is WP:FRINGE.  But so is this article, so it might be appropriate.  We would need to say "claims to refute", though. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly the Journal of 9/11 Studies is an alternative source of scientific research, but the article itself is based on sound mathematics and an examination of actual physical evidence. There are numerous alternative sources included in this article anyway. More to the point, it is somewhat disingenuous to have an article on conspiracy theories, which are, rather by definition, out of the mainstream, without citing those out-of-the-mainstream sources. If the article were entitled "World Trade Center Collapse Theories" it would be better circumscribed, perhaps, as it would then focus on scientists using scientific methods applied to physical data. Regarding the use of the phrase "claims to refute," why put in the word "claims" if its data clearly contradicts data from the other article? It is an alternative explanation based on an examination of physical evidence. Jblossom (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet read completely read the MacQueen/Szamboti article, but I can confirm that some of the 9/11 articles, including one allegedly published in a peer-reviewed journal are not based on the physical evidence. That being said, MacQueen/Szamboti probably does belong in this article, even if (as a preliminary investigation of the article reveals), it makes a number of erroneous assumptions on the first two pages.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I look forward to hearing more, especially about any specific errors that you note. The key error, though, would seem to lie with Bazant's theory. If data from the photographic evidence does not support his acceleration/deceleration calculations, then his theory is fundamentally flawed. Jblossom (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I've been busy with an unrelated ArbCom case to follow this discussion too closely. However, journalof911studies.com does not appear to be a secondary reliable source.  While Jblossom is correct that it's usable as a primary source, it brings up several problems.  First, the article has already been written (as best as reasonably possible) to follow WP:NPOV.  Adding additional content to fringe viewpoints might upset this balance.   Further,  I'm concerned about giving undue weight to this source.  IOW, it is notable?  Have any secondary reliable sources published any articles about it?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bild?
Is Bild really a good source for anything much other than football, celebs and scandal? This edit seems to assume that it is. I have my doubts. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bild is regularly cited by other German newspaper as a source for political news, and its content is considered to be factually correct, although the political news come along with a lot of gossip about celebrities, as well as sports news. It uses quite simple language, but it's different from the Sun, for example. I'd guess that the issue might have been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard already, but I haven't checked the archives. Cs32en   Talk to me  23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, you can ask me, since I AM from Germany :) Oh yes, the Bild Zeitung is our most known and top-selling tabloid rag we have in *.de. I strongly suggest that you take ANY information from them with a pinch of salt! (Medium-size grains preferred!) In the 1970s, Günter Wallraff did undercover investigations under the alias Hans Esser and revealed many both illegal and inhumane slander campaigns when he worked there as a non-fictional (!) journalist! In fact he was really there in person---though in disguise---and afterwards, he collected all the (actually confidential) information in one of his best-selling books. -andy 77.190.59.173 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Although BILD usually combines factual information with commentary, and I certainly would not recommend to uncritically consume the paper, the factual information is correct in most cases, with about the same amount of mistakes that you may find in non-tabloid papers such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the New York Times. As far as political spin is concerned, it's less than what you will find in the Sun, and not more than what can be found in the Wall Street Journal, Al-Ahram or the Jerusalem Post, which are regularly being used as legitimate sources. Cs32en   Talk to me  20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics
Is Popular Mechanics some sort of scientific journal? I don't understand how their analysis can be used as "proof" of anything.2CrudeDudes (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

~Popular Mechanics is a very well respected publication in the field of engineering whether you agree with their analysis of the situation or not. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

-No it is not. It serves more like an entertainment magazine, replete with predictions of what we will be driving in the future like hovercars and such. On one hand, the article talks about peer-reviewed scientific journals and the next it is citing Popular Mechanics....

67.71.58.61 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's actually a little of both. DanTD (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics has a lot of stories leading you to believe in UFO's, unfortunately, I can't say that in the article because it would be WP:OR, original research, and I can't find an "reliable source" (WP:RS) article debunking Popular Mechanics for the tabloid journalism that it is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much the only journal that bothered to go to the trouble of authoritatively debunking the obvious nonsense peddled by Truthers. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I am most decidedly not in the conspiracy camp, but it seems ridiculous to use Popular Mechanics as a credible source. Nicmart (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "authoritatively debunking" is not possible when you're not an authority. It's a ridiculous ref to use here, a DIY tool and entertainment mag. I agree with Nicmart and Raquel.

The Term "Conspiracy Theory"
I want to point out that this is a theory, not a conspiracy theory. Truth be told, the accepted narrative about what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It proposes that a conspiracy of foreign nationals flew planes into buildings and so forth. It is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. On the other hand, the theory about controlled demolitions isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. It is a theory about how the buildings may have come down that is different from the accepted narrative. Who may have planted the bombs / thermite / whatever there is not determined by the theory. One might say the government, or one might say it was Al Qaida. But terming this theory a "conspiracy theory" is a way to discredit it from the get go. For the record, I do not believe the theory of controlled demolitions. But slanting the theory as merely a conspiracy theory, in the negative sense, does us no favors. This is a structural problem with the article itself. A fairer article would term it a theory, and explore along the way how some people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory in the negative sense. 202.62.73.138 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have that precisely the wrong way round. A group of foreign nationals conspired to fly jets into WTC - that was a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. It's not a conspiracy theory because it's factual. The controlled demolition "theory" is an arse-backwards rationalisation that starts by discounting the obvious and erects in its place a structure of ad hoc hypotheses to arrive at the pre-existing "conclusion" of malfeasance. That is a conspiracy theory in its classic sense. And it's time for the Truther community to get over it and move on. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Structural Engineering community rejects these theories." I don't believe this claim can be supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting the obvious conflict of interest in the NIST report, and that their models were kept secret in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests. NIST's work has not been peer reviewed. Popular Mechanics bases the entire article on the NIST report. To suggest that these two organizations independently examined the evidence is misleading. It does not imply in any way that the scientific community generally accepts the standard explanation. This article should acknowledge that the scientific community has not reached consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It makes little sense to claim the CD theory is generally accepted to be wrong solely on the basis of people who would have a conflict or interest in claiming otherwise. This article does not make a compelling case for the existence of a large number of scientists who independently reject the CD theory. NIST report has caused controversy among physicists and engineers. NIST has acknowledged that it is unable to explain the free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. The P M article and other articles that reject CD theories carefully ignore this piece of evidence which in itself makes a very strong case for CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.181.15 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article is absurd and absolutely non factual. One thing is "controlled demolition theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. another thing is: "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition in the context of a certain conspiracy. As far as i know, the controlled demolition theorists that stick to the technical and factual analysis of the 9/11 don't analyze the "conspiracy context", they only analyze if the buildings went down by plane, controlled demolition, or whatever other technical cause. They don't analyze the facts of why, who, and when conspired to bring the buildings down. The conspiracy subject is not the subject of many controlled demolition theorists. So the article title is highly innacurate and it doesn't reflect its content that only analyzes and describes the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. Simple logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.178.239 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the necessity for a conspiracy to accomplish the conjectured demolition, the reliable sources used by Wikipedia for content references call it a conspiracy theory. The reason the conspiracy enthusiasts don't analyze motivation is because isolating the controlled demolition idea on its own keeps up a pretense of serious commentary rather than conspiracy promotion, obfuscating the obvious questions of who and why. This effectively whitewashes the decidedly anti-Semitic tone of many of those who have speculated on those who are supposed to have been conspirators.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * first, you analyze the facts and be open to all possibilities for a conjectured demolition or a not conjectured demolition, then, secondly, one should take a stance about a possible conspiracy. Doing it the other way around is a blatant logical fallacy and a unreliable way to conduct any investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.69.89 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, on Wikipedia you use a consensus of reliable sources, treating fringe views as they are viewed in mainstream media. Wikipedia is designed to preclude personal analysis, and is not a vehicle for "investigation." Wikipedia is by design not open to all possibilities.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I did NOT say that Wikipedia is for personal analysis or investigation. What I DID say is that if you want to make an article about the the theory of "controlled demolition" you SHOULD NOT make an article about the theory of "controlled demolition in the context of conspiracy". They are two different things. Even if a "conspiracy" is the only possible cause of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC, in the sense that they are interconnected in space and time, they are two completely separate and different subjects, even if one leads to the other. Also note that the Article in question doesn't have a chapter about the "conspiracy" theories that its subject refers to. This article talks only about technical stuff (explosives, thermite, etc...), not conspiracies, not a single line about political or social theories of the alleged conspirators, the Article it's completely contradictory with its own title.
 * To pretend that no conspiratorial context exists concerning the postulated deliberate and pre-planned demolition of buildings full of people (after being having been hit by airplanes), and concurrent with two other attacks, is ludicrous.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Every event in the course of human interaction involves conspiracy. To label something as a "conspiracy theory" is to suggest that is a fringe theory, far from proven, and probably not true. This is not the case with the demolition of the world trade center. It simply *is* a demolition. I would consider that scientific mainstream. I find it very strange the Wikipedia does not report accurately on this. There are two possibilities: they are willfully complicit in the cover-up - or they are unable to suspend trust in authority long enough to see that this was plainly a controlled demolition. At least they should knowledge the magnitude of the group of scientists pushing for truth. These are not people who normally dabble in conspiracy theory or revisionist history. The fact that so many respectable scientists are convinced that this as a demolition deserves attention. "Reality takes precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "tinfoil haberdashery" would be more appropriate than "conspiracy theory." "Utter delusions" possibly insults otherwise reasonable people who just need medication by associating their condition with conspiracy theorism.  "Absolute error" still implies a relationship (if negative) to reality that many conspiracy theories lack.  We're not going to go for 'politically correct' hogwash like "alternate facts," either.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - your refusal to look at the evidence instead of tossing around insults suggests you are part of the cover-up. I mean it's pretty simple stuff - a building cannot crush itself at free fall acceleration. Free fall implies 0 resistance. I have yet to hear anyone explain how that can happen without explosives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that the IP editors take a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But at the end of the day there is no ministry of truth and the individual is forced to evaluate source based on hi/her own intuition. How do we know the NYT is reliable? Because it says so in the NYT of course! I am hoping to appeal to common intuition that the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is in fact very easy to see if you just watch the video. Having convinced yourself that it was a demolition you will realize that the msm is not free. If it were, it would have reported this fact already. So the least wikipedia could do is admit that this is not a settled issue. That there is a huge number of respectable scientists speaking out against the government. That the government does not always tell the truth - that the msm is not independent. As it is, wikipedia is just part of the propaganda machine on this issue. They make it seem as tho this is a settled issue. And citing popular mechanics is so weak - that's not a peer reviewed journal. The case against cd theories revolves around one engineer - Bazant. There are many more engineers who support controlled demo theories — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Mr IP editor, you caught me. I'm secretly a Jewish/Catholic/Mason patsy working for our Satan-worshiping reptilian overlords from Alpha Draconis. Now that my cover's blown, the powers that be will just have to wipe out everyone involved. You should avoid any further replies, as that will only make it easier for them to track you. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your confounding several different theories. There are thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists who support the controlled demolition theory. These are not the same people who study reptilians etc. You are trying to taint the truth movement by associating it with other conspiracies and ignoring the fact that it is rooted in hard science — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You talk as though the idea is widely presented as credible by the majority of mainstream academic and journalistic sources, which it's not. You can't pretend that it's just one author and only the NIST when all mainstream sources agree with the reality of the NIST's findings -- to do so is either dishonest or insane, hence my refusal to address you seriously.  Either present professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that argue against it being a conspiracy theory or quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.voltairenet.org/article194344.html http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Margulis.html http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-15/911-mysterious-collapse-wtc-building-7-was-not-inside-job

Just to list a few — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No I do not talk as if a majority of mainstream sources give credibility to this idea. I'm saying there is a reason they don't. And Wikipedia is ignoring the credible people who present the demolition theory. The fact is, there are many more engineers who support the demolition theory than those who don't - if you exclude the ones who are working for the government. Mainstream news sources are not an authority on engineering issues. They are an outlet for government propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream sources do not *agree* with NIST through independent analysis. They simply *report* NIST's findings and *assume* they are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/wtc-destruction-an-analysis-of-peer-reviewed-technical-literature/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth http://www.ae911truth.org/images//PDFs/Peter_Ketcham_EPN_LTE.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Orr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Good criticism of the NIST report from acclaimed scientist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7oti6KGEf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM_l_4sJ-sY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3_TboFltI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zceJhfYV69M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0QEutd1Unc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4y6cweaegI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKUaxyd7x0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxztmVmthWg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_S5wx7_d20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6ExxYOPYNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Absolutely none of those are reliable sources. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is clear evidence that the engineering community does not generally accept the standard collapse theory. Regardless of the interviewer, these scientists and engineers have credentials. What makes A&E911 Truth an unreliable source? Wikipedia cites a paper by a single engineer Bazant as proof of its claim? what makes him a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

How is Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science, not worth anything? Why is Popular Mechanics more reliable than Europhysucs News? I would like to see an equivalent number of engineers/scientists outside of the government who can defend the official collapse theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Journal is not a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did you even look at all these links? Who decides what is a reliable source? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to transcend the bias of mainstream sources. There is a large number of engineers/scientists who disagree with NIST's findings. This article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand it is not WIkipedia's job to determine the truth of this theory. But they should accurately represent the nature of the movement. These sources confirm that a large number of scientists and engineers believe the CD theory. Whether or not they are correct, wikipedia should cover AE4 9 9 11 truth, Scentists for 9 11 truth. They aren't even mentioned here. You make it sound like Jones is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What part of MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC OR JOURNALISTIC sources do you not understand? Those websites do not represent the mainstream engineering community -- it is either dishonest or insane to pretend the engineering community as a whole "does not generally accept" reality (i.e. the "collapse theory").  A number of the figures you cite, such as Lynn Margulis, are not engineers and that you would bother citing them gives us little reason to believe that you even know what an engineer is.  That you ask if Wikipedia is a reliable source proves you have no clue what a reliable source is, even after the concept has been explained and linked for you repeatedly.  That you continually refuse to even figure out reliable sources are but instead spam conspiracy theory bullshit is a sign that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're just here to peddle your X-Files fantasies.  And yes, reliable sourcing has been explained to you: MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC OR JOURNALISTIC sources.  The link has more information.  Like it or not, you are advocating a conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is not going to create artificial validity for.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Mainstream sources place this subject firmly in fringe theory territory. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the like are disregarded by their professional peers and disowned by their professional organizations. We have articles on them too. Wikipedia doesn't "transcend the bias of mainstream sources." You're in the wrong place for that, there are innumerable Internet fora where you can transcend as much as you'd like. As previously and exhaustively discussed, Europhysics News has disowned the 9/11 material and changed their policies. You have proposed nothing new. Wikipedia isn't a forum for conspiracy enthusiasts and is not a place for promotion of causes or fringe theories.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not attempting to present reliable sources to prove that the CD theory is true. I am presenting sources to show that the engineering community has not reached consensus. I have an issue with the following statement: "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." The citation for this is a single paper by Bazant. There is much controversy surrounding this paper and many believe it to fraudulent. Either way it does not speak for the engineering community as a whole. Also I think their is misunderstanding about the nature of allowable citations in this article. This article as it stands cites many sources which you would claim to be non-mainstream: C-span interviews with David Ray Griffan, Engineering papers by Jones. For example "Active Thermitic Material found in WTC Dust" is used as a source. These sources are used to describe the nature of the movement: who are its members and what are they saying. These points are not controversial. The fact that many professional engineers are outspokenly opposed to the NIST report is not controversial. The sources I presented are first hand statements by engineers. These sources are reliable in determining the viewpoints of these engineers just as an C-span interview with Ray Griffin is reliable in determining Griffin's viewpoint. Just as a paper published by Stephen E Jones is a reliable source for determining what Steven E Jone's view is. These papers and books as well as cites like countercurrent.org are already used as citations in this article. These are not mainstream sources, but they are still cited in this article. You declared my C-span interview with Gage to be unreliable yet there is a C span interview with Griffin already cited here. My main point is this: "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" does not a source to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you tried to hide the links I provided when they are not that different to links already cited in this article suggest a conscious effort to hide the truth on this subject. I repeat "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." IS FALSE. "Consensus" implies that (almost) everyone agrees. And yet there are thousands of dissenters, some of them quite outspoken. This article deliberately downplays and covers up this fact. Bazant seems to be just about the only non-government engineer who is willing to defend the official theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and refuses to comply or acknowledge any of the policies, or arbitrary sanctions around such highly-controversial topics. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have non-mainstream sources already cited all over this article. You have a C-span interview with David Ray Griffin. You said the C-span interview with Richard Gage is not reliable. You have the Daily Mail as a source and you declared the Daily Express to be unreliable. I want an answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And I want a real citation for "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I just notice that Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth is already listed as a source for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This article claims the engineering community has reached consensus in agreement with NIST. It does not provide a source for this or acknowledge the scale of the dissenting group of engineers and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Given your views on "Bazant," (who co-authored the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal reviewing the extant sources), as well as you completely ignoring the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers (neither of which are government bodies) and the various academic sources cited in the article (e.g. Thomas Eagar), it's clear that no matter how many sources are provided, you will just claim that it is just that author's view while pretending that the exceptions (and questionable exceptions) found on conspiracy theorist sites represent a significant portion of the engineering community. Quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth, you are not getting your way here.  Your tendentious behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated much longer.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide sources for those statements. The links provided don't lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm describing citations already in the article!
 * The full citation that is already in this article for Bazant includes a co-author and is published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article already mentions the ASCE and the ISE, and cites their works.  This article already cites scholars such as Thomas Eagar.  Asking for a citation to prove that those citation are in the article is sheer trolling.  If you are unable to access the materials cited in the article or are unable to comprehend them, that's your problem.
 * Stop asking stupid questions, you're not making other people look bad with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the dissenting engineers are not "Conspiracy Theorists." They are professional engineers who have never before researched "conspiracy theories." And they are far more numerous than the engineers who defend the government theory. Neither group speaks for the majority of engineers. The majority of engineers are silent on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * They disagree with mainstream engineers and scientists, and make claims that would involve a shadowy conspiracy to execute and cover up -- they are conspiracy theorists. They do not outnumber the sources cited in peer-reviewed journals, nor the ASCE and ISE (whose jobs are to speak for the majority of legitimate engineers!), it is an insane trolling to claim that those conspiracy theorists outnumber mainstream sources -- otherwise, they would be be the mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How exactly do distinguish a "mainstream" engineer from a non-mainstream one? lol. You have not provided sources for the ASCE, ISE claims. There is almost no literature in peer reviewed journals defending the official collapse theory. Bazant and one or two others. I sent links to at least 5 - 10 professionals who support CD theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The dissenting petition has thousands of signatures from professional architects and engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided sources for the ASCE claim. Thus your entire proof of the engineering "consensus" rests on Bazant and Eagar. Yet there are thousands of engineers who disagree. How can you claim there is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a video of the collapse of Building 7 should appear somewhere in this article - just to give an intuitive motivation for the theory

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

Open Chemical Physics Journal
What does the line "The paper contained no scientific rebuttal" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 06:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If no one knows what it means, I am going to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * How can you not know what that means? It means that the paper completely forgot to include the science that points out how wrong its conclusions were.  Do not remove it again, and do not add unsourced material to try and support this or any other conspiracy theory.  Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You did not have to remove my edit. I could have easily found a source http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/06/27/uaf-researcher-looks-at-causes-of-the-911-world-trade-center-attack/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs)
 * Yes I did have to remove it. Material that ultimately originates from conspiracy theorist groups requires coverage in higher-quality sources than a local news station's editorial failure. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. The University of Alaska is not a conspiracy group. This has been confirmed by many news sources. How about the Daily Express? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also on the University Website http://ine.uaf.edu/werc/seminars/seminars/2016-2017/2016-10-7/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 07:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The first article you cite states "Dr. J Leroy Hulsey is funded by the group “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”" -- AE9/11 is a conspiracy theorist group. The university's website would be affiliated.  You need high-quality unaffiliated sources -- see WP:FRINGE.  The Daily Express is a can't even reach up to the same level of failure as the Daily Mail, which we recently banned.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are funded by AE911. The statement of the fact that the university is conducting the study is what we're trying to source. Not the credibility of the study. Shouldn't the University's website be sufficient to verify a statement about themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not simply a statement about themselves. It's a statement that gives attention to someone who is funded by a group dedicated to promoting a conspiracy theory that contradicts all mainstream academic sources. It needs unaffiliated high-quality independent coverage that shows that wider mainstream academia thinks it is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

About the Neils Harrit paper - I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, that paper is undisputed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is a highly charged political issue which is probably why people refer to it as a "conspiracy theory." But generally mainstream news is not an authority on pure science. So although it may appear as a fringe theory in a sociology-political sense, it is somewhat mainstream in peer-reviewed scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 07:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article, is that it confounds the science with the political implications. If you consider the science separate, it is not a conspiracy theory and not a fringe theory. Most of the scientists and engineers who support this theory are not conspiracy theorists by trade. Many of them specifically state that they do not speculate on the conspiratorial implications of the demolition theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs)
 * No, it's not about politics, you've just been trapped in an echo chamber. Only conspiracy theorists are suggesting that the building fell for reasons other than planes hitting them. The conspiracy theory is not mainstream in scientific literature, which is why the arbitration committee has authorized uninvolved admins to hand out topic bans and even blocks as they see fit on this topic.
 * You're starting to sound a lot like 71.188.115.27 from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say the moon landing hoax is a fringe theory. There are no scientific peer reviewed papers on that subject. To put WTC demolition in the same category is somewhat misleading - there are many peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Just a few here https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/ Until you find a good source, I would suggest removing "Allegations of controlled demolition have been found to be devoid of scientific merit by mainstream engineering scholarship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That group does not represent mainstream academia, pull your head out of your echo chamber. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers represent mainstream engineering, and they have no political agenda.  You are really sounding like like 71.188.115.27 from earlier, which is funny, because he was just blocked a second time after being told to stop saying the same kind of stuff you're saying.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol the "waist of bandwidth" guy? I'm not saying the kind of stuff he was saying. I've had this account. You don't have to take the group's word for it. Go to the journals themselves. Bazant doesn't represent mainstream academia either, and his paper has been shown to be fraudulent. Not saying the theory is true or false, but it is certainly not fringe in the scientific literature. This article paints it as a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are saying the same stuff: you are pretending that the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers do not represent mainstream academia on the matter, that conspiracy theorist groups represent an equal voice (not just a vocal fringe minority), and now you're likewise dismissing Bazant out of hand. You also can't sign your posts or indent them.  You've also got remarkably comparable spelling errors.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * He was a troll. Whatever - if you insist on having a misleading article, that's your call. I'm just trying to help. You cite a vague statement from those organizations and provide a broken link as a source. Regardless, that's not a peer reviewed paper. Adrionwells (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If Albert Eistein was ressurected and published a paper on this, you'd dismiss him as a conspiracy theorist. You've clearly made up your mind and judge scientists on their conclusions, ignoring their credentials Adrionwells (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C635198488%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430003625/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2010/09/10/neue-videos-911-aufgetaucht/terror-anschlaege-world-trade-center.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714061116/http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html to http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5spvzRCDS?url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop trying to push the official story
You've already shoved it down everyone's throats in the 'September 11 attacks' article. In this article you're supposed to solely write about the arguments of the 'conspiracy theories'. I put those apostrophes there because a lot of you still haven't figured out that the official story is by definition a conspiracy theory, so everyone who believes the official story is a conspiracy theorist too.

You have absolutely no reason to start debunking (or attempting to, because most of the statements in this article are completely false) the theories, the only thing you need to do is provide the statements and give the evidence behind those statements. Let the reader come to their own conclusions. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this article is utterly biased towards the official narrative.

I've said it already but I'll say it again, it's articles like these that make Wikipedia an untrustworthy source.

Also, can you back off on the apathy towards the people who think it was an inside job?

SpreaderOfTruth (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you want a ban? Because posting conspiracy theorist screed is how you get a ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh so I'm not allowed to correct statements and voice my opinions Ian? SpreaderOfTruth (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the notice on your talk page. Wikipedia's official stance is that the reality-based version of events is what happened, not the conspiracy theorist version. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)