User:Tony0937

Why am I here
This account was created as a result of research into the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2007.

I do not know a lot of things so when I go to wikipedia to look them up I want them to be accurate. When I looked at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center I felt the article was biased.
 * I have written in the talk section of the main September 11 attack article a proposed revision of the conspiracy theory section. In that talk section I would like your reaction. As a researcher does it help you more then the paragraph that is there?. Is it biased?. Too long?, To short?.etc. Edkollin (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Who am I

 * Network Administrator - Since 1992
 * Contributor for the Wine Project - Since 2002
 * Father - 2 chidren
 * Husband - 14 years
 * Christian - Catholic
 * Canadian - Alberta
 * Adult fan of Lego

Reason for Concern?

 * http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2007/111207eye.html
 * http://www.ae911truth.org/info/23

Revised 9/11 Conspiracy theory section proposal (Rough Draft)
The 9/11 truth movement has emerged to contest the version of events described above. Allegations of conspiracy have been leveled at primarily elements of the government of the United States. Other allegations have been leveled toword Rudolph Giuliani mayor of New York City at the time and currently a candidate for President of the United States, Larry Silverstein owner of the World Trade Center properties at the time of the attacks, The Carlyle Group an international conglomerate whose membership has including many top level former officials from several governments, the Bin Laden family, and Saudi Royal Family and the Project for a New American Century a neoconservative think tank  whose membership in the 1990’s included Vice President Dick Chaney and many eventual high ranking Bush Administration officials.

The general motives for the alleged conspiracies were stirring up the passions and winning the allegiance of the American people in order to facilitate military spending, the restriction of civil liberties, and/or a program of aggressive foreign policy.

There are many sometimes contradictory theorys. They fall under two main categories  The LIHOP theories allege advanced knowledge of the attacks and that the attackers were actively helped (such as disabling defenses that day) or nothing was done to prevent them on purpose. The MIHOP theories allege actual involvement. There has been of great deal of interest in theories that conclude that World Trade Center buildings one,two and seven were destroyed by a controlled demolition. Of particular interest has been World Trade Center Seven which was not directly attacked had several high profile organizations as tenants. The National Institute of Standards and Technology have not reached a final conclusion as to why that building fell. Other conspiracy theories claim that hijacked planes were not used but either military aircraft or pods in a false flag operation and that Flight 93 was shot down

9/11 reaserchers use a documentary approach using videotape, eyewitness descriptions, and news reports (particularly those from the immediate aftermath of the attacks) to reach alternative conclusions as to what happened that day and why it happened.

needs rework  note: Most advocates cite that the investigations are incomplete and/or secretive and omit witnesses testimony. Prominent 9/11 researchers include author David Ray Griffin, Multimedia personality Alex Jones, Steven E. Jones a Brigham Young University physicist who was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave after his views became public, and Dylan Avery director of the film Loose Change

These theories have been mostly advocated via the Internet through the use of websites and streaming video sometimes in the form of full length documentaries. After receiving little mainstream media coverage in the first few years following the attacks the theories started to receive more attention when a number of 9/11 opinion polls concluded that a significant minority of the American public were sympathetic towered them. Time Magazine concluded in 2006 that “ This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality”

Thanks: The first twelve hours was all negative now it is more positive. You need to go to the talk page explain why you think with a few revisions here or there the general idea is a good one Edkollin (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you learned some new things from this exercise. As for the 9/11 conspiracy section as they say “forget about it”. If you have read that talk page in the last week you have noticed that the vast majority of the editors there are A. So emotionally against the theories they can not think straight about this topic. B. Since the “mainstream media ” is generally very skeptical of the theories and support for the theories has been mostly people on the internet “connecting the dots” the theories do not conform to Wikipedia standards of notability and reliability. Interestingly only one editor has suggested deleting the entire section which would seen to be the logical action to take based on many of the arguments. There is an interesting non emotional discussion in the talk pages of the 9/11 conspiracy article started by yours truly as to why most editors even in the 9/11 conspiracy article are skeptical of the theories. Speaking of the 9/11 conspiracy article I put in you cite about the claim made by the former Italian President as a separate subsection. Anyway hope you have a good New Year Edkollin (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Good old CBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

Reaction of the engineering community - Draft - More Engineers
William Rice, Civil Engineer, called it "The politically unthinkable theory" His business home page http://www.caainspectors.com/rice.htm

Charles Pegelow, Civil Engineer http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments-on-Some-of-NISTs-FAQs.html is very critical of NISTS FAQS. Public record Engineering license http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=26344&P_LTE_ID=741

Dave Heller, Architect, in http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm. says: "There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously — and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition." Another Personal statement http://lsb.kpfa.org/legacy/elections/2006/candidate_daveheller.php.html

Doug Plumb in http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/04/03/01471.html says "The collapse of wtc7 has all of the characteristics of a conventional controlled demolition. The building collapsed straight down into its own footprint at close to freefall speed very suddenly provides its own footprint. The characteristics of controlled demolition are: (1) The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly. (2) The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint. (3) Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event. (4) The collapse is total. (5) The main structure collapses totally in under slightly slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum."

Shocked the Hell out of me
Every once in a while there are edits that just make you laugh