User talk:DerwinUMD

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.JoshuaZ 02:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you keep undoing other people's work, you risk having your editing priviledges temporarily suspended. Please try to build a consensus for the changes you want on the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In one day, I have been threatened by two admins here for reverting back to my edits which both of them removed without reason, due to their distaste for my terminology.

Great.


 * "If you keep undoing other people's work" - it was my work which was undone, thank you.
 * "Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly" it was YOU who undid my edits, thank you again.
 * DerwinUMD 00:15, December 11, 2006. (UTC)

Regarding your comment- I have been watching the discussion for some time now- being quiet doesn't mean I'm jumping in all of a sudden with no basis. JoshuaZ 07:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My complaint is most founded in the fact that the page was changed from

Main article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center After viewing the collapses of towers 1,2 and 7, some people have felt that they appeared far too close to a controlled demolition to be merely the fault of gravity and overstrained and weakend steel.

Van Romero, an explosives expert in New Mexico, had seen videos on the day of the attacks and proposed that explosive devices had brought down the buildings.[45] Though he quickly retracted his remarks,[46] the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapses of the World Trade Center buildings has been described as the "grassy knoll" of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[47]

Prompted by inquiries from the public, NIST stated in its final report that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[36] However, NIST did not investigate the controlled demolition hypothesis using computer modeling, nor did it test for the residue of proposed demolition materials such as sulfur (from thermite). NIST said it saw no reason to undertake such studies.[22] The hypothesis has also never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship and those who would suggest it are considered "outsiders".[48] In August of 2006, NIST posted a webpage addressing it among other frequently-asked questions.[22]

Amongst many conspiracy theorists, this is often linked to an idea that some how, the government was behind such a demolition, thus, many people have deemed the idea of a controlled demolition as a conspiracy theory.

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories However, other alternatives exists, such as perhaps a terrorist planted bomb in a van in the basement of the towers. [8] to Main article: Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center Van Romero, an explosives expert in New Mexico, had seen videos on the day of the attacks and proposed that explosive devices had brought down the buildings.[45] Though he quickly retracted his remarks,[46] the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapses of the World Trade Center buildings has been described as the "grassy knoll" of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[47] Prompted by inquiries from the public, NIST stated in its final report that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."[36] However, NIST did not investigate the controlled demolition hypothesis using computer modeling, nor did it test for the residue of proposed demolition materials such as sulfur (from thermite). NIST said it saw no reason to undertake such studies.[22] The hypothesis has also never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship and its proponents are considered "outsiders".[48] In August of 2006, NIST posted a webpage addressing it among other frequently-asked questions.[22]

While most of my additions were straight from suggestions from the talk page, and the reason cited for your edit was "rv, the entire section was reverted because among other issues your version attempts to use youtube as a source- youtube is neither reliable nor notable. rving for already discussed reasons" and "restore citations, fix formating, main articles, section title." The youtube source (a clip from CNN) was discussed there, so no need to comment, but the other rational for the edits seemed interly unjustified except for the change of the title (conspiracy v hypothesis, yadda yadda yadda). In my opinion this did not warrant a full scale revert. Thank you for your level headedness (although I do not appreciate the warnings, which seemed heavy handed). DerwinUMD 04:05 December 11, 2006. (UTC)

JoshuaZ
Please place your comments on User talk:JoshuaZ if you wish to leave a comment or query for him. I placed your last comment on his talk page for you. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad about that, thought I was on your talk page (not sure how I came to that conclusion, its late, and Im working on two term papers, just wiki-ing for a break). DerwinUMD 00:27 December 11, 2006 (UTC)

Replaceing personal attacks
Anyone who is threatening another editor with having their editing priviledges removed is in violation of our personal attacks policy. Please do not replace this egregious personal attack again. Thanks.--MONGO 19:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)