User talk:WhoWillTellThePeople

Unspecified source for Image:Wtc_dustfountain.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wtc_dustfountain.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then you need to specify who owns the copyright, please. If you got it from a website, then a link to the website where it was taken from with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NMajdan &bull;talk 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Wtc molten metal.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wtc molten metal.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center
In an edit summary, you said: Reactions from engineers - removed POV mainstream, no such thing as a mainstream structural engineer unless you have a POV as to what constitutes mainstream laws of physics. That was one of the funniest things I've heard in a long time. The idea that one could think there were mainstream laws of physics gave me the first genuine laugh I've had here in a long while. If only more of the editors on this article could approach it in good humor. --Ssbohio 05:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dust issue
You keep trying to insert:
 * "To date no scientific theory has been presented to explain how such massive clouds of concrete dust could have been created by a gravity collapse."

... into the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center article. I'm curious as to why. Collapsing buildings do create large amounts of dust. Why is a scientific theory necessary to explain the dust from the collapse? -- Kesh 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Controlled demolition do create large amounts of dust due to the explosives used. In straight gravity collapses, assuming the welded steel columns somehow all fail, the concrete would fall in enormous chunks, not be pulverized into dust. The pulverization of concrete into dust points to explosives being used, and i think if you research a bit, none of the studies done attempt to explain how the concrete was pulverized into dust by a simple gravity collapse.WhoWillTellThePeople 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the CD article's talk page. There is a discussion about dust clouds, and some good proposals were put forward. Revert war won't lead anywhere... I think that it should be pointed out that CD proponents would like to see a study about dust cloud volume. It has to be done in an NPOV way, though - for some CD is indeed non-issue,unfortunately... Anyway, just join the discussion - we should be able to work out some good phrase. SalvNaut 01:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With pleasure. However, my edit is the scientifically correct one. To claim I need proof that there has been no study done is preposterous. There has been no study of how such a massive dust cloud could have been created with gravity and jet fuel, end of discussion. If people disagree, the onus is on them to find the study, not to make me prove that there is no study.WhoWillTellThePeople 01:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There has also been no study done to show that aliens didn't disintegrate the towers. That doesn't mean we have to add text saying that no investigation into aliens has been conducted. You're approaching this from the wrong angle. -- Kesh 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is such a basic violation of the rules of logic I won't even respond. Take Logic 101 at University and get back to me with that analogy.WhoWillTellThePeople 05:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Insults don't help your cause. My point stands: we don't have to add text stating a study has not been done, as there are an infinite number of possible subjects that have not been studied. Why should we include text stating that no study has been done on X? Including such a statement is POV. Now, if one of the notable individuals mentioned in the article claims such a study should be conducted, we could include text about that. -- Kesh 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see so you compare the dust clouds issue with aliens destroying the towers and you expect anyone to take you seriously? Grow up. WhoWillTellThePeople 01:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A non-answer and an insult. I see the POV you're using to edit the article, now. Ah well. -- Kesh 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. 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. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * At the top of that article's discussion page it states: A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. I am making whatever edits I see fit, as I have a lot of experience with this issue. I have studied it extensively and would be happy to discuss whatever theories you have about it. I will respect the 3 revert rule, but I will not back off on this issue. I have proposed a solution on the article's discussion page as to how this issue should be resolved. For the time being, I shall continue to abide by the rules and edit this article as I see fit.WhoWillTellThePeople 05:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)