User talk:92.234.56.99

March 2022
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with being blocked from editing, or other sanctions. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Bonoahx (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * What an extraordinary claim - that I am reproducing a hoax theory - it would be more accurate to say that I was adding to the essential body of conspiracy facts. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree! As a construction professional, I don't expect non-construction individuals to immediately grasp how buildings stand up, and fall down. If you also do not understand these principals, may I suggest that you speak with both the Architect and the Structural Engineer of the World Trade Center, neither of whom believe that the NIST report tells the full truth (and that is putting it mildly). If you cannot do that then contact the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Structural Engineering Dept. Some of us including numerous architects and structural engineers understand that modern steel reinforced concrete buildings have never fallen vertically straight down at terminal velocity speed just because of fire, partly because designing to prevent progressive collapse has been mandatory for many decades. You will be shown up as on the wrong side of history if you stick with that one. And the WP entry for AE 9/11 Truth stating "Their claims and theories lack support among the relevant professional communities" is factually incorrect - ESPECIALLY considering the opinions of the WTC Architect and Structural Engineer - these are the MOST important opinions of all and failing to recognise this is absurd. If the buildings did actually progressively collapse, then wshy were the designers not sued for failing in their duties? After all, was the building you are in now not designed by trusted construction professionals? What is your evidence that AE 9/11 truth has any hoaxes going? Using the WP definition of a hoax (connected to facts), since calculated factual structural engineering evidence exists that the Twin Towers could NOT have collapsed as per the NIST text, it must be true that the NIST report itself contains hoax issues. BTW is WP capable of dealing with conspiracy facts? And did anyone at WP actually read the NIST report, and what mistakes were spotted? Do you need help clarifying those mistakes in the WP description of the NIST report? Where does WP state the current percentage of US citizens who do not believe the 'official' 9/11 story? 92.234.56.99 (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)