Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. Strength of numbers below favors deletion; it is also worth noting that the limited sources are mostly not independent. Of the few that are, these mentions merely verify the existence of the group, and do not devote much time to it, or ascribe to it any great significance. A very limited mention of these folks in the 9/11 Truth article might be undertaken (one sourced sentence) without the need for the GFDL history here, if commenters at that talk page don't object. Xoloz 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm nominating this because it's unsourced (apart from one unreliable source) and I think it's probably unverifiable. A cursory google search doesn't turn up any third-party reliable sources. P4k 08:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am writing this article, so I'm going to respond to each criticism.
 * Third-party "reliable" sources have been added by various people. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources for an unnotable "organisation". Nick mallory 09:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very notable organization. I'll explain below. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unverifiable unless reliable third-party sources can be found. Jakew 10:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, such sources have been added. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable; according to its own page, it has about 400 members only. This of course doesn't necessarily equate a lack of notability, but if it is small, it should at least assert some importance, which the article doesn't. User: (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Noted. I'll add an assertion of importance. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete We have a page for this, don't we? --Tarage 17:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you care to discuss this?
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into the article 9/11 Truth Movement, of which this group apparently is involved. There are actually several websites associated with this group according to Yahoo!:  Group's homepage:   Squad51 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The biggest difference is that the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * does not have official members or spokespeople. This group does.Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into the article 9/11 Truth Movement. bov 17:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll discuss this below. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * merge or delete. Keep, for such a non-notable organization, is clearly wrong.  It could be notable by the Truthers, in which case it should be merged.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment noted. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:HOAX/WP:NONSENSE. [S]elf proclaimed ... professionals is a contradiction in terms. Peter Grey 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute, please. The phrase "self proclaimed" was added by
 * a vandal. Professional members have to FAX in copies of their
 * credentials to be admitted. Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was that vandal. I put in 'self proclaimed' because this organisation carries out NO background checks on the supposed qualifications of its members.  Therefore they are exactly 'self proclaimed' in their professional status. Nick mallory 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into 9/11 Truth Movement to minimise verifiability and notability concerns. I had no idea there were so many 9/11 conspiracy articles on wikipedia. Sheffield Steel talkersstalkers 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to what you have no idea of, it reflects society.
 * Released: September 06, 2007
 * Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney
 * Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
 * 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous
 * collapse of World Trade Center 7
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous
 * collapse of World Trade Center 7
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

--Haemo 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge appears to be the best course of action here.
 * Delete Including the fair bit of conspiracy theorizing in-article, there is nothing notable here. It seems to be a small group based exclusively in San Francisco, so merge would probably be a bad idea--otherwise the 9/11 Truth Movement article will be filled with sections on this group, Minneapolis Ironworkers for Truth, Butte Accountants for Truth, and any other group of a couple dozen people loosely associated with the larger group. --Deusnoctum 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please find "theorizing" in the article, and we will remove it.
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no compelling reason to keep the article on this non-notable group.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability, and I oppose any merging because of this lack of notability Corpx 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep may need some more sourcing, but I recall this group running a fullpage an in Newsweek If nothing else, merge it with the other 9/11 conspiracy theory articles. Mandsford 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional; non-notable; also per Jakew above. Tom Harrison Talk 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mergeto 9/11 Truth Movement . Just not enough sources satisfying WP:RS to justify a stand-alone article. Edison 03:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Various people are adding additional sources. Are you willing to wait
 * a few months for more sources? I'll have more comments shortly.Wowest 03:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks notability.--MONGO 06:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, without merge - as per User:Corpx - fchd 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable Vanispamcruftisement, and smacks strongly of an attempt to promote the WP:TRUTH.   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, hello, Mr. POV warrior! I see that you have quite a record of suppressing information about information you disagree with! :-) Wowest 11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on edits, not on editors. See WP:NPA.--Strothra 18:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Geir 11:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete More POV content forks. --DHeyward 16:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if any of these guys is actually a PE, then membership in an organization like this sould be grounds for termination of the liscens. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * POV Wowest 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of notability and reliable sources out there to merit an article. --Aude (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per WP:RS, we need independent sources to warrant inclusion of an organization like this. Fringe groups are out there, but this one isn't notable enough. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources explaining notability. Very little (none?) of the information in the article is sourced from reliable sources. I can't spot anything that is sourced, so nothing there to merge. Not every web site is automatically notable, and conspiracy theory sites are no more an exception than Pokemon chat forums are. Weregerbil 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into the article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Lack of notability and reliable sources out there to merit an article, there is already a link to the organization on the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center page and they are mainly concerned with the collapse of the buildings, from the "about us" section on their website:
 * "We call upon Congress for a truly independent investigation with subpoena power. We believe that there may be sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vessey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives."

--PTR 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable and lacks reliable sources. --Strothra 16:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

General reply
. O.K. I'm new around here, and I see that I have to write two articles, one for Wikipedia and one for critics. . The importance of this article is revealed, in part, by the amount of vandalism it has attracted. . The DVD Loose Change has its own article. The DVD from ae911truth is the new Loose Change. It has only been out for two days, but by the time it's as old as Loose Change, it will have a very long bibliography. . I discovered earlier that I cannot re-add an article which was previously deleted, no matter how much circumstances have changed since the earlier discussion, and apparently, I can't even read the earlier discussion. It just gets a quick removal. . This article will have several categories of opponents. It merely presents facts about an organization which merely presents evidence that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Therefore, there is no "conspiracy theory" involved. It has been asserted elsewhere that in any gathering where architects and engineers are present when Richard Gage makes his presentation, 90% of those people join his organization. Where do you imagine he got 150 professional members in a fairly short time? . Dr. Steven Jones has presented a chemical analysis of material retrieved from the WTC and of dust from the neighborhood along with his analysis of the physics of the falling structure. He was faulted for this by the engineering faculty at BYU because he is "only a physicist," and not an architect or structural engineer. ae911truth.org presents a list of 16 indicators that controlled demolition was used at the WTC. One of these indicators is the thermite/ thermate residue Dr. Jones identified in the formerly molten metal from the site and the "iron rich spheroids" retrieved from the dust. Formerly molten metal? Yes. Dozens of people, including the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. mentioned TONS of molten metal under each of the three high-rises that collapsed at the WTC more than a MONTH after the demolition. That cannot be explained by the theory of burning jet fuel (a/k/a "kerosene"). Very large quantities of thermate were apparently used in this demolition. There is easily enough evidence of arson here that an independent congressional investigation of the events of 9/11 is called for, which is the goal of ae911truth.org. Given all of that, within the historical context of the conversation, this organization is very significant. Wowest 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are new, you should stick around Wiki longer and observe before creating articles. You learn by making small edits and working your way up.  Once you learn the policies and requirements concerning how to make a good article then you will be ready to write an article. --Strothra 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

problem
Given the amount of vandalism this article has attracted, it should be protected at some level. It is, therefore, inappropriate to merge it into another article. Wowest 04:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional problem: some of the professional members of the Architects and Engineers organization do not wish to have their organization listed on Wikipedia due to the recent publicity given to defense contractors and other similar organizations hiring staffs to manipulate Wikipedia articles. The organization is still formulating a consensus on this issue, however. Other, less flattering, comments regarding Wikipedia were made by another architect in a recent email. If it is deleted, it should be deleted in such a way that it can be re-added in a few months when more "reliable" sources are available, without running into the "speedy delete" problem, which I don't have the foggiest idea how to handle. Wowest 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The 'vandalism' you say this article has attracted was actually attempts to make it a balanced and NPOV article. The fact that you and your comrades removed such comments show why such articles have no place on wikipedia.  This is not a place to push ludicrous conspiracy theories if you cannot handle the insertion of the occasional fact to counter your lurid and baseless accusations.   'In fact, the overwhelming majority of accredited engineers and architects have not considered the issue at all. Like most Americans, they accepted what they saw on the network news programs, which came from press releases of the Bush administration. Presumably all engineers and architects currently working for the Federal Government will agree with this assessment. Among retired governmental employees, whose pensions are no longer in danger, this is no longer the case." Nick mallory 10:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider the insertion of "self-professed." This was cited as a reason to delete the article for "fraud" because there is no such thing as a self-professed professional. In fact, all professional members of the group are licensed professionals who must FAX in copies of their credentials to become members.


 * If you visit [www.patriotsquestion911.com], you will numerous examples of accomplished and high-ranking individuals, mostly retired, who seriously question the official conspiracy theory (OCT) laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report. Some now retired military personnel (mentioned elsewhere) have stated that they waited until they were retired to criticize unconscionable activities of several administrations, Democrat as well as Republican.


 * Let me see! What did you say?


 * "(1) This is not a place to push ludicrous conspiracy theories"
 * Actually, there is no "ludicrous conspiracy theory" mentioned here. This article is about a RAPIDLY GROWING group of professional architects and engineers (ten new members since we started this conversation) promoting the idea that WTC buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition and that there should be a congressional investigation. Nothing I have seen on their website alleges that the demolitions were carried out by Martians or anyone else.


 * Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks;
 * Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
 * 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
 * Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007


 * If fifty-one percent of Americans agree with the goals of the group, how can you call their position "ludicrous?" Most people would disagree.

Or, are you disagreeing with my objection? Let me try to edit the POV out.


 * And, by the way, (August, 2007) "James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11."


 * "(2) if you cannot handle the insertion of the occasional fact"
 * Apparently I should have used that {fact} thingie. Did I get it right? No, I didn't. Exactly what percentage of professional engineers and architects promote the OCT ?


 * "(3) to counter your lurid and baseless accusations."
 * Baseless? Kevin Ryan was fired for blowing the whistle about the quality of the steel used in the WTC. Military personnel have been court-martialed for expressing political opinions about 9/11 on their own time, "out of uniform."
 * Lurid? I'd welcome suggestions on how to fix that. I tend to over-react to certain kinds of troll-editing.

Wowest 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nick mallory: Who deleted your last comment? I was just studying "Playing the Dozens for Dummies," getting ready to respond.... Wowest 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't removed my last comment and stand by it completely. In my opinion you are quite deranged.  You believe in something which runs counter to all the available evidence.  You are entirely at odds with reality.  All the points you've made have been thoroughly debunked time and again and yet you still keep making them.  Even the kids behind the ludicrous 'loose change' video aren't claiming there was any 'controlled demolition' in their latest version.  Claiming that anyone who actually believes in what the evidence obviously shows is 'a troll' or 'a vandal' doesn't actually strengthen your argument.  Nick mallory 07:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting bit of projection. You start out with an ad hominem argument -- I'm "deranged." So nobody should investigate what I say because if they agree with me, they'll be "deranged" as well?

I "believe in something which runs counter to all the available evidence?" You don't have a clue what I believe. Numerous witnesses, including the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. report seeing tons of molten metal under all three high-rises at the WTC more than a month after the 9/11 events. There is nothing about that in the OCT report from the 9/11 Commission. There is nothing there about building 7, at all, as a matter of fact.

"All the points you've made have been thoroughly debunked time and again" -- that's false. That's simply what Popular Mechanics claims, but that doesn't make it true. Popular Mechanics attacked a lot of minor points and brought in an irresponsible piece of anti-semitic "art," which has nothing to do with anything. That's called "guilt by association," and it's pretty desperate. When it came to Norman Minetta's testimony, the Popular Mechanics "expert" -- twenty-something Hearst Corporation employee Davin Coburn -- tried to argue that some OTHER plane was "50 miles out." 50 miles out from WHERE? "...and yet you still keep making them" -- that's true. We need a truly independent, possibly international, investigation that looks at ALL of the evidence.

Dr. Steven Jones did the first analysis of the formerly molten metal from the WTC and the first analysis of the black residue in the dust. His analysis has now been validated by several other scientists. It was molten iron which had never been steel.

"Even the kids behind the ludicrous 'loose change' video aren't claiming there was any 'controlled demolition' in their latest version." -- that's false as well. They have decided to focus on WTC-7 as a better use of time in their video. Let's see a recent news item:

 Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation  — By Alan Miller "James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

"'I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,' explained Dr. Quintiere. "Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another."

Original Content at www.opednews.com August 21, 2007

(continuing)
This isn't a forum. Stop.--P4k 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

........ VOTING is UP THERE somewhere. ^ ..............................|

 It's already 9/11 on the East Coast  ........ Six years ago, I was sitting at my desk when MSNBC popped open a new window on my desktop, interrupting my work. What I saw was truly horrible. People were jumping out of windows, to their death, to avoid being burned to death. As I continued to watch these awful images over the next day or so, I accepted the messages that came with them, uncritically. Fanatical members of some extremist cult had crashed airliners into buildings. I believed every bit of it. I was very sad. Some human beings had grown up in a culture in which someone couldd come along and brainwash them into "dying for Allah." Then, as quickly as they had come, the awful images stopped appearing on television, but the conversation continued. A lot of people were angry. Some fastened American flags on their cars and went speeding up and down business streets as if their violating the law would somehow revenge America's honor. ( When something similar happened in Germany, ending on August 31, 1939, the government announced that the state sponsored terrorism from Poland would end, and the next morning WWII began. We learned about the deception at the Nuremberg trials. The Germans had been attacking themselves nearly thirty times, blaming it on Poland, and their troops rolled into Poland with 2,000 tanks certain that they were defending their country from terrorists. After the war, Americans called the German experience "mass hypnosis.") ......... A few years later, I came across other interpretations of the 9/11 events. I met an older woman who hadn't been hypnotized at all. She saw the buildings fall and thought "so that's why had to steal that election." She may or may not have been correct in her assessment, but it was her own assessment, rather than mindless repetition of something she had heard on television. I woke up. A few things definitely happened on 9/11. A few other things had to have happened as well, but we don't know exactly what they were. ......... A new study came out this week. Liberals and conservatives have brains that work in different ways. Conservatives are more tenacious in their thinking (liberals would call that bull-headedness). Liberals are more flexible (conservatives would call that wishy-washy). Conservatives have less tolerance for ambiguity. Conservatives make more mistakes. (end of study) On the other hand, eighty percent of new businesses in this country fail within five years, usually from lack of capital. Along with that, the average successful businessman has been through four bankruptcies. (end of common knowledge) Some conservative business educators claim that successful people don't change their minds. Some liberals would say that trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, is a sign of insanity. (end of paraphrase) For every proverb there is an equal and opposite proverb. .......... People are different. I take exception to your coming in here and engaging in name-calling because someone disagrees with you. You haven't looked at all the evidence. There are pictures on the ae911truth website which you have never seen. They are NOT on the Popular Mechanics website. They are part of the slide show -- the Powerpoint presentation. Just look at it once, if you have time. .......... ''' This is not supposed to be about whether the organization being discussed is "correct" in its opinions and goals or not. The article is about the organization. It exists. Historically, it is notable. This conversation is supposed to be about the article.''' Ten to fifteen new architectural and engineering professionals have been joining it every week. As soon as people start watching their new DVD, it will grow geometrically, all over the country. ..........

At the same time, 51 percent of the country already agrees with their goal: there should be a new, independent 9/11 investigation.

''' I suggest that we keep this conversation open for three months to see how large ae911truth is by then. ''' Deleting it at this point would have the effect of CENSORING something which will be quite large in a few months. Then, what do we do? Claim that we've already reached a consensus when circumstances have changed?

It's 10:31 PM Pacific Time, on September 10th, 2007. Wowest 05:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how things work here. If the consensus is to keep the article, or if there's no consensus either way, the article is kept. If, at the end of the roughly five-day period, the consensus is to delete the article, it is deleted. If the organisation becomes "quite large" later on and is better able to meet the notability requirements, there's nothing wrong with writing the article again with sources demonstrating this notability. Consensus can and does change, and I don't think people are going to dispute that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

someone else's comments

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.