Talk:7 World Trade Center

---

Tenants

NAIC Securities was not a tenant of 7 WTC. As stated in that company's wikipedia page, their headquarters is in Michigan. It should read the Securities Valuation Office of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This is now corrected in the article. --Aude (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "Conspiracy Theorists"

"Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition"

should be changed to:

"Some skeptics believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition"

The phrase "Conspiracy Theorists" has come to conote "blathering idiots" in the popular media. This casts on unfair shadow on the belief, and hence violates NPOV.

POV

I think this article as it stands is not POV enough. We should remove any mention of the controlled demolition theory. 220.104.123.23 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that NIST is government-funded, pulverised dust was viewed, a 'kink' is seen on the roof as it collapses, it collapses in a radially symmetrical manner (it suffered assymmetric damage), and every one of its 80-odd struts wouldve had to fail simultaneously for it to collapse the way that it did, a mention of controlled demolition in this article is an absolute necessity.81.103.164.119 (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you failed to notice the sarcastic tone. 170.148.96.107 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM. Hut 8.5 08:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

still... 221.191.93.206 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories

[this section was archived soon after I had entered it, and as it received one pertinent question, I re-enter the relevant parts]

As part of my other modifications to this article, I had added the following sentence after the sentence referring to conspiracy theorists:

"Their concerns are shared by hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts, who demand an 'independent investigation with subpoena power' into the destruction of 7 World Trade Center and the Twin Towers."

After a reflexive removal and my reversal (in which I pointed out that the sentence was relevant in its context), it was allowed to stay for weeks - until someone made a "spelling correction" and removed it.

Why shouldn't the large number of professional engineers, architects (many of them well-known members of the American Institute of Architects) and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories be referred to in this article?

(Note that the actual number of AE professionals is already higher than the 387 mentioned at http://www.ae911truth.org/ - this is because, as I've been informed by one of the verifiers, there is backlog of over 100 persons in the verification of credentials. Yes, careful verification has been place for a long time on the site.)

Earlier someone indicated these people should not be mentioned because they are conspiracy theorists. Can someone really seriously claim that e.g. Danny Jowenko, the head of a Dutch controlled demolition company with 30 years of experience in the field, can simply be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist"? Jowenko has reaffirmed his original expert analysis according to which WTC 7 can only have been a controlled demolition.

Are the people at Bentham "conspiracy-minded" when its engineering journal published an article by physicists and engineers that challenges the official theories?

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction"

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley

Bentham, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1

The article is freely downloadable at

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

The unquestioning reliance on the official investigations in this article is truly mind-boggling, in the light of many obvious problems: for example, no on-site investigation was conducted, and by 15 March 2002 only four (4) pieces of steel from WTC 7 had been salvaged for investigation (from where the steel was temporarily stored before it was shipped abroad for melting). Some of those few pieces revealed a "very unusual phenomenon" - intergranular melting of steel, among other things - prompting FEMA to call for a detailed investigation into this. NIST has not conducted such an investigation. It says "no steel was recovered from WTC 7".

A careful documentation and examination of the steel debris of the building would have revealed the cause and mechanism of its destruction. Instead, we have had pure official speculation, year after year, aiming to come up with a plausible explanation for how random (20-minute) fires and asymmetric damage could have caused 81 steel columns to fail. Anyone can realize that what we have seen is no building disaster investigation. The cause of a skyscraper's collapse is not investigated by first destroying the physical research material and then starting to speculate.

Incidentally, I discussed this at some length in my presentation at the Finnish Social Forum in Tampere earlier this month, as part of a seminar entitled (my English translation) "9/11: a Terrorist Attack by Muslims or a False-Flag Operation Familiar from History?" http://www.sosiaalifoorumi.fi/292 Many members of the audience were visibly stunned by the way in which the demise of this skyscraper - one of the worst building disasters in history - has been "investigated".

Finally, to return briefly to the notion "conspiracy theorists": even in the 1930s Germany, those who saw what the Reichstag fire was used to legitimate and saw what was coming, were often dismissed as such. Similar things are happening in today's USA: illegal wiretapping, the increasing curtailment of civil rights, legalized torture, the loss of Habeas Corpus, no-fly lists, lists of citizens' activists, anyone suspected of terrorism can be detained for an indefinite period without access to legal counsel, etc. At Wikipedia, we should at least maintain neutrality in the articles that deal with the "legitimating" events for these developments, instead of being oblivious of all the problems and even internal contradictions in the official narrative. Perscurator (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is normal on Wikipedia - there are hordes of Neocons and Zionists and Judaeochristian fundamentalists busily twisting the content to promote their agendas and they are always backed up by the "dispute resolution" farce appointed by the owner of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales. Not much point in getting upset about it. Fourtildas (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Who removed it, then, and why? What is the benefit of including this, and what is the benefit of removing it? --Michelle, 22 May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Kuiper (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One benefit in including it is in the recognition of the fact that there are a large number of professionals in the relevant fields who question or reject NIST's (and FEMA's) theories of what brought the building to its foundations. By contrast, no benefit is achieved by raising the flawed official investigations into a pedestal and pretending that there is no serious scientific support for the controlled demolition hypothesis.

In fact, the BBC's upcoming special on WTC7 will be aired in June. In its program description, it also points out that the debris was hastily destroyed without investigation. Surely, that would be RS enough to warrant a mention of the evidence destruction in the article?

In any case, the publication in a peer-reviewed journal (the "Open" in the name refers to the fact that the articles are freely downloadable on the net) of an article by scientists who reject NIST's theorizing merits mention in a neutral and objective Wikipedia article. Suggestions? Perscurator (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest you re-read WP:UNDUE, and in particular the section concerning tiny minorities and prominent adherents. The architects and engineers involved in this petition are a very small minority and contain no prominent or influential names. It is right to mention that there are skeptics and to refer to the relevant article on their views: it is undue weight to insist that this particular group be mentioned in the main article, implying some form of currency or influence in the A/E community that simply does not exist. There are roughly 95,000 registered US architects, and hundreds of thousands of engineers. 200 of them are on this list. Acroterion _(talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, I'd be inclined to treat that source with scepticism, as similar creationist lists of "experts supporting our cause" are highly misleading. Hut 8.5 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely concur with both Acroterion and Hut. Furthermore, I believe this sentence is a ideal example of WP:Weasel. Not only that, I don’t know how credible the website listing these engineers, architects etc. really is. One look at the website and it is littered with 9/11 conspiracy theory propaganda, it is unquestionably subjective by all means. Cdynas (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not true that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has no prominent or influential names. To give just one example: Marx Ayres is a "former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities." http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/4

I also don't think it is *right* to try to bypass those professionals who have actually looked into this as "conspiracy theorists". This is what effectively happens when the skeptics' petition is listed as a source in connection with a statement referring to the "theorists". Associating 9/11 skeptics with Creationists seems to be the latest strategy and has apparently found its way here, too.

As already mentioned, in its current form this article represents one-sided propaganda that e.g. completely avoids even mentioning the absurdity of the investigation, which even mainstream sources seem to be starting to address.

Finally: there doesn't seem to be a debate over whether Bentham is a reputable source, which is a good thing. Perscurator (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're following me. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is exactly the sort of organization described in WP:UNDUE. As an advocacy organization, they aren't a reliable source. Mr. Ayers is a respected HVAC engineer: if we were discussing air conditioning, he'd be an expert. Otherwise, he's one of a small community of skeptics, compared with 83,000 AIA members or 141,000 ASCE members. Bentham is a different matter: I don't have an opinion on whether it's "good" or bad, merely that information based on that source is more in line with policy, provided it is stated appropriately, and not used for vindication or condemnation of a particular point of view. Acroterion _(talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will further note that Bentham appears to be something like a vanity press for scientific articles, so I question its usefulness. Acroterion _(talk) 01:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I suggest you have a bit closer look at the qualifications (and 9/11 statement) of mr Ayres (note spelling) here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

That site, incidentally, lists the qualifications and statements of a large number of respected individuals in different fields, including Lynn Margulis, a world-renowned scientist and former chair of the National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Margulis

The large majority of the members of the American Institute of Architects, for example, have not expressed a stand on 9/11, so the membership of AE911Truth cannot be simply contrasted with other architects and engineers by saying that all the others have the opposite view. From what I have read, there is a lot of skepticism among building professionals, but many are unlikely to voice it for professional or other personal reasons. As a whole, those Americans who question the official explanations of 9/11 are, based on various polls, not exactly a tiny majority either.

I would say that Architects and Engineers of 9/11 Truth are, in fact, a far more reliable source than FEMA and NIST in that they are actually themselves investigating, and demanding an objective investigation of, an obvious alternative hypothesis for the total destruction of three skyscrapers on 9/11. It has to be understood that there have been glaring "irregularities" in the official investigation, protested by several relevant parties. E.g., as already pointed out, the debris of WTC 7, especially, was destroyed without investigation, and the investigation necessitated by (and called for on the basis of) the findings from the few steel pieces that were salvaged was never carried out. Another example: NIST simply ignored the results of its own experiment in which steel was subjected to considerably more severe and longer-lasting fire exposure than on 9/11, and the steel did just fine (as NIST had to note in the relevant section of its report). There are other examples. NIST has clearly done its best to fit the facts into its predetermined conclusions - a clearly unscientific modus operandi.

As such, this is not surprising, as NIST is a government institution. More generally, in different countries, the mainstream media have historically aligned themselves in an unquestioning manner with official stories legitimating attacks against the desired targets. Viewing things from the outside may give a more neutral perspective. Is Italian TV's Canale 5 a "respected source"? It aired a long investigative piece on 9/11. Here's an excerpt from the program that deals with WTC 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 One can actually hear several powerful explosions in it. In one scene, first responders are startled by a loud explosion. Of course, whatever the cause of the explosions (also reported by first responders in the towers), their role in the destruction of the buildings should have been found out!

Now that you got me going, allow me to point out that the evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag operation is, unfortunately, already stronger than, say, the evidence for the Operation Gladio in cold-war Europe - an operation that the EU officially condemned in 1990. In Gladio, hundreds of civilians were murdered in false-flag terror attacks blamed on the Left (for power-political reasons) "in certain Member States", in which "military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime" (from the EU resolution). To substantiate this claim, I copied below a list presented at the Finnish Social Forum earlier this month of some major reasons to doubt the official story. A couple of such points could perhaps still be explained as a coincidence, incompetence or luck on the part of the administration, but in toto they amount to powerful evidence that the official story does not hold up.

1) When everyone knew the country was under attack, President Bush was not carried into safety from his publicized location in the Sarasota school. [Of course, in a "real" attack the President would have been brought into an undisclosed safe location without delay. The White House's revisionist account was shown to be false by the footage shown in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", since then available on the net. After continuing to listen to the children's reading exercise for a good while, Bush continued his photo-op in the classroom, and then gave a press conference at the school.]

2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continued his breakfast meeting until the third target – the Pentagon – had been attacked. [Of course, in a "real" attack the defense secretary would have responded immediately to such a calamity.]

3) The Pentagon was struck over an hour after the attacks had started.

4) The Andrews Air Force Base, where combat units were kept ”in the highest possible state of readiness”, was only 12 miles from the Pentagon.

5) Three completely different explanations for the failure to reach any of the planes have been given. No one has been charged with lying, and no one has resigned due to negligence.

6) Even the FBI acknowledged in 2006 that it has "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Yet Afghanistan was officially invaded in search of Osama, while Saddam was accused of complicity in the attacks in cooperation with Osama.

7) Many professional pilots have said they could not have performed the required maneuvers. The alleged hijackers, in turn, had only flown small planes, and many poorly at that.

8) Simultaneously with the attacks, an anti-hijacking exercise was going on.

9) The Bush administration fought against the establishment of the 9/11 Commission for over 400 days, then manned it with its "trusted persons".

10) WTC: the total destruction of three skyscrapers in seconds; the numerous (ignored) accounts of explosions; the near-total destruction of the steel debris without investigation.

11) Qui bono? Who profited? The attacks provided the desired impetus for the military-industrial complex, triggered "a war that will not end in our lifetime" wherever desired, and legitimated increasingly Orwellian laws, a "national security state", repression of citizens' rights, illegal spying, Guantanamo, and torture.

12) The anthrax letters posted soon after the 9/11 attacks. The bacteria used in the letters were traced to a U.S. military laboratory, after which the investigation came to a halt. Two Senators received a letter. They had delayed the passing of the 342-page Patriot Act legislation, written before the attacks but rushed through under the pretext of the attacks.

Perscurator (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an interesting collection of original research, synthesis, rumor, doubt, suspicion and commentary, but none of it can be the basis of Wikipedia content, except as it pertains to 9/11 conspiracy theories - and even there, it must be appropriately sourced. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a place for manifestoes. Since you commented in the ArbCom case, you should be aware of the terms stated for editors participating in 9/11-related topics: please note the particular emphasis on undue weight. Here is the link; please review items 1 to 3 of the principles stated, because they apply here, and affect your participation in this matter. Please respect these guidelines and the consensus of the community, and please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Acroterion _(talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that none of the above can be part of Wikipedia content in so far Wikipedia content is based on an unquestioning acceptance of certain sources considered as "reliable". To continue the historical analogy, in the 1930s and 1940s Germany the mainstream sources buttressed the official reasons for the increasingly suppressive legislation and the wars. Similarly, basing everything on the U.S. corporate media very closely connected with the military-industrial complex (excellent documentaries have discussed this, and remember the recent revelations about the Pentagon-sponsored "commentators) and the war-hungry U.S. administration is a very unfortunate policy.

The glaring problems in the official 9/11 narrative have been extensively analyzed in several books published by reputable science publishers and in TV and other documentaries, especially those made outside the U.S. The current Wikipedia policy could be summed up by saying that no matter how absurd or impossible an official explanation, articles will be based on it if it is reported (in the sense "re-ported", or transmitted) by the New York Times or Washington Post - whose office chief, incidentally, acknowledged to me that the WP should have *investigated* several things about 9/11 - and they still haven't, while the independent media have, but their carefully detailed analyses cannot be mentioned.

By the way, one aspect of the absurdity of the official explanations can be wittnessed by simply having a reflective look at the following:

http://www.newguards.us/brent/wtc/WTC_Frame1_Crop_p8310115.jpg

http://www.newguards.us/brent/wtc/WTC_Frame3_Crop_p8310117.jpg

Perscurator (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments here have no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. All articles must be written according to our rules. If you aren't prepared to live with that then there's nothing obliging you to edit here. Hut 8.5 09:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: all of the points mentioned at the Finnish Social Forum, quoted above, are verified and verifiable facts. It is just a question if one does not have any problem with those facts - such as the president being allowed to stay in a publicized location long after the attacks started; that no air defense arrived from an air force base only 12 miles from the Pentagon; that no one has been charged with lying although several different explanations have been offered, etc. As a Finn, I can in a way understand why the U.S. corporate media won't critically analyze the (even internally contradictory) official stories - we had our own uncritical media during the 1960s and 1970s, which was "Finlandized" vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

Incidentally, sometimes rules are worth modifying. Perscurator (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable that, for instance, Bush stayed in the classroom for ten minutes after being told that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. You then interpret this fact to support the viewpoint that he knew about the attacks in advance, which contravenes our no original research policy. If you want to change the rules, then you should go to the policy talk page and try and get a consensus for the change. It is unlikely you will succeed. Hut 8.5 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also verifiable that Bush stayed in the school even longer than that. And to be precise, I'm not trying to support the viewpoint that "Bush knew about the attacks in advance"; what I am saying is that his security detail somehow had to know that the publicized location would continue to be safe for the President (and the children, for that matter). I also pointed out that the White House promoted a false story about the President leaving immediately after being told about the second strike - ie, that they lied. Perscurator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a general forum for discussion of 9/11. What you are posting here doesn't confirm to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and even if it did it shouldn't be in this article because it has nothing to do with 7 WTC. Hut 8.5 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected your claim that I interpreted Bush staying in the classroom as an indication that Bush knew about the attacks in advance. Perscurator (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're interpreting it as an indication of something. That's where you violate WP:NOR. Hut 8.5 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If the President was allowed to remain for over half an hour in a publicized location, one does not really need to interpret it as meaning that the location was considered safe! http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2026.shtml

(The above article, incidentally, exhibits elements of the kind of investigative journalism that the corporate media should be pursuing. Or does it not matter at all what the Secretary of Defense was doing for half an hour before the Pentagon was attacked, and how he acted after that? To the 9/11 Commission it clearly did not.) Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other valid interpretations (what's more interpretations that are backed up by sources). Bush didn't want to spread panic [1], and if he had stormed out of the room the footage would have been replayed endlessly on television and it wouldn't have done much for national morale. Hut 8.5 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a valid interpretation. The President's security is responsible for safeguarding the life of the Head of State! If terrorists had killed the President in his publicized location, what do you think would have happened to national morale?

The president could simply have calmly excused himself and left (to avoid being carried away by his security detail).

Rumsfeld's behavior was even stranger, in light of the official story. He did not no anything to protect the country the whole time (see the above-linked article). Perscurator (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been told this before, but I will respectfully remind you that neither Wikipedia or the talk pages are to be used as a soapbox. Please stop. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

So I should not have had the right to respond to Hut's argument with my counterargument? Perscurator (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I put that argument there to demonstrate that your interpretation doesn't have to follow from the evidence, not to try to persuade you it is correct. Hut 8.5 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the evidence and logic, I just think it is much more plausible to argue that Bush was allowed to stay at the school because there was no threat to the President there than to argue that the President's decision to "project calm" could have been the reason for not evacuating him (and the children). Perscurator (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that Bentham article

There is a serious question about whether this journal of Bentham's is legitimate or not, and a serious question about whether the letter submitted by Jones et al was peer-reviewed or not.

The journal appears to be a vanity publication. Bentham is known to spam not only for articles but also FOR EDITORS, asking academics repeatedly to join its editorial board to review articles that are entirely outside of the academics' field of expertise.

Further, with specific reference to this letter by Jones et al (and is a letter, not a paper - take a look at Bentham's submissions page), a fellow over at JREF wrote to Bentham to make inquiries about its peer review process and about the editorial standards of the publication (because the letter, on its face, is blatantly unsuited to a civil engineering journal, as it is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material or argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal).

The publishing director, Mahmood Alam, then sent the inquiry to - get this - not to the editors or the editorial board, but to the authors for them to respond to it! If that isn't evidence of a broken "peer review" process, I don't know what is. I have never, ever heard of a legitimate journal sending inquiries about its editorial standards and its peer review process to the submitter of an article for response. That is just bizarre, and I cannot imagine any legitimate journal would do such a thing.

The fellow at JREF then wrote to the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, and informed him of the situation. Dr. Dong-Sheng advised that prior to him taking over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. Dr. Dong-Sheng correctly insisted that all publications must go through the editors, but the Jones et al paper did not. What's more, the Editor in Chief tried to find out who were the reviewers were, and he could not. Have you ever heard of a legitimate engineering journal in which submissions don't even make it to the editors, and in which the Editor in Chief cannot find out from the publishers who the alleged reviewers are?

So, in summary, I think that the reference to the Jones et al letter being "peer reviewed", ought to be removed from the article unless and until there is evidence that it was peer reviewed at all. {Jazz2006 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)}

It has been removed. Even in the tangible reference it didn’t cite anything about a peer-review anywhere. I worried Perscurator is slowly trying to obliterate the neutrality of this article by militantly enforcing his POV. Cdynas (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He or she added it back in and it is in the current version of the article, as follows: "In spring 2008, a civil engineering journal published a peer-reviewed article written by supporters of the controlled demolition theory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2006 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot is quick :) I added another comment to say that I had forgotten to sign my last comment and I got an error message "edit conflict" while trying to post the comment with my signature. Good job, SineBot! {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)}

Agreed. I doubt whether thus should be in the article at all, given that the authors sent various articles to several peer-reviewed journals in an effort to find one that would publish something in order to make their cause look more legitimate. [2] Hut 8.5 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Bentham uses a fee-based financial model, rather than a subscription model, they are more akin to a vanity press than a traditional peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I think we should treat them as we treat other fee-based publishers - as unreliable sources. Acroterion _(talk) 12:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theorist letter, a minor web publication, a publication fee, very few external reliable sources, Wikipedia:Recentism, ... ...Why is an encyclopedia even mentioning non-notable ultra-fringe stuff like this outside a conspiracycruft article...??? Weregerbil (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is way outside the realm of the encyclopedic aims of Wikipedia. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt by members of a fringe group to try to use Wiki in an effort to claim credibility that the fringe group cannot gain on its own. Jazz2006 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I read, even the JREF guy didn't have a problem with publication fees per se. After all, they are quite common. If the fees were somehow decisive, there wouldn't be enough space for all the articles that would be published. The peer reviews decide which of the offered articles are published and which not. I don't think publication fees (typically paid by someone else than the author him/herself) in any way detract from the reliability of a journal.

I've read that other papers questioning the official "fire demolition" theories have been accepted for publication. I think this is a welcome development, also because NIST still hasn't explained how fires burning out in 20 minutes in any given place could have weakened a single steel column, let alone cause steel skyscrapers to be destroyed at the average speed of 7 entire floors (or more) per 1 second (110 floors divided by at most 15 seconds). I'd think one doesn't have to be my brother, who is a Master Builder, to see that on average 0.14 seconds (or less) is not enough even in theory for the dropping and total destruction of a floor. Perscurator (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bentham, however, does not appear to be a reliable source. In the larger scientific community, it appears that Bentham is viewed as a vanity publisher with little to no legitimacy. Bentham seems to be about quantity, not quality. It has been established that they spam for authors, spam for editors, seek out both authors and editors who actually have NO connection to or expertise in the subject matters upon which Bentham asks them to participate. It appears that Bentham publishes on a straight "dollars for publication" basis without even going through any editorial process at all. I mean, come on, when not even the Editor in Chief of the publication can find out from the publishing company what the heck is going on, that does not bode well for the legitimacy of the publication as a supposed "peer-reviewed" "journal".

It is not, therefore, a "welcome development" at all that a vanity journal published a letter for a fee, apparently without a care in the world for its lack of validity, lack of legitimacy, lack of accuracy, poor writing, and its complete void of any furtherance of science or scientific inquiry.

And it harms the reputation of Wikipedia to allow unreliable sources to stand, or even to be linked, because Wikipedia's legitimacy as a resource depends upon the legitimacy of the sources that it cites. So, I am also going to remove the link to the Bentham letter, in the interests of Wikipedia's reputation, until this is more fully resolved. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, first substantiate the claim that "In the larger scientific community, it appears that Bentham is viewed as a vanity publisher with little to no legitimacy". Cf. also the endorsements here and on the linked page:

http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm

Certainly, I will collect up some links to legitimate academics who say that Bentham spams for authors and editors for its journals on subjects that the invited authors and editors have no relevant knowledge or experience. There are several such links in the thread at JREF mentioned above. Also, I have already pointed out to you the serious "peer-review" problem that Bentham has demonstrated in this particular case with the Jones et al letter.{Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Here are some links:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0604&L=CHMINF-L&P=R10547&I=-3

http://www.library.yale.edu/%7Ellicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/

http://www.freelists.org/archives/neuroling/10-2007/msg00000.html

There are lots more that you can find online by searching for "bentham journals" and "spam".{Jazz2006 (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Thanks - there does appear to be a problem in this respect. I am wondering what the following sentence implies for the Nature magazine, though:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham." Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Even Nature has been regarded as a "vanity journal" by some, eg:

http://harijay.wordpress.com/2006/06/07/science-review-americal-idol-style/

"Supplementary material at 'vanity' journals like Nature already run into 10s of pages." The article expresses reservations for the review practices used in Nature, as does the one below:

"Publishing Versus Posting: Nature Magazine Turns to a Conversational Content Model"

http://www.shore.com/commentary/weblogs/2007/06/publishing-versus-posting-nature.html

The following might be of interest to Wikipedians:

"Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study - Britannica hits back at junk science"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

The purpose of the above examples is just to show that similar critiques as those expressed against Bentham have been voiced even against magazines like Nature. Discrediting a particular science publication based on such critiques is problematic. Perscurator (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that Nature was conducting a trial of the "open review" process, and (quite rightly) rejected it after that trial.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

And: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

There is a vast difference between a respected and legitimate journal and the vanity publication that is Bentham's "open civil engineering" journal. That's why Jones et al had to pay an illegitimate "journal" to publish their "letter" while simultaneously avoiding proper editorial processes. That "letter" would not cut muster in any legitimate scientific journal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

So, no comment on the numerous academics who have been spammed by Bentham to join their outrageously large editorial board, to opine on subjects in which they have no expertise? No problem with the letter by Jones et al bypassing the editorial process? No red flags raised by the fact that more than 40% of the nine articles published in Bentham's "open civil engineering journal" are written by members of its editorial board? No concerns at all about the lack of credibility that this journal seems to have? {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

I wrote above "there does appear to be a problem in this respect". I also asked what the following implies for Nature, for example:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.

The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print..."

The above suggests that other journals, perhaps even Nature, have earlier been caught using similar questionable strategies. And this is not meant to "purify" Bentham. Perscurator (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding responding directly to the specific complaints about Bentham here. In particular, the most grievous problems: the letter by Jones et al bypassing the editorial process, the fact that the editor-in-chief cannot even get a proper response from the publishers about whether the letter was peer reviewed or not, the fact that more than 40% of the nine articles published in Bentham's "open civil engineering journal" are written by members of its editorial board, and the extreme lack of credibility that this journal seems to have. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

As I wrote, similar complaints about other respected journals do not, per se, exonerate Bentham. And we cannot rely on one individual's story that the letter by Jones et al bypassed the editorial process and that he could not get a proper response. Perscurator (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that Nature was conducting a trial of the "open review" process, and (quite rightly) rejected it after the trial.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

And: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

There is a vast difference between a respected and legitimate journal and the vanity publication that is Bentham's "open civil engineering" journal. That's why Jones et al had to pay an illegitimate "journal" to publish their "letter" while simultaneously avoiding proper editorial processes.

When that "one individual" is the editor-in-chief of the publication and he says that the letter bypassed the editorial process, well, I think that's a rational basis upon which to treat the letter as suspect until there is evidence to the contrary. Jones et al appear unwilling to provide any evidence to the contrary.{Jazz2006 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

Saying that a journal "publishes a letter for a fee" is highly disingenuous because publication fees are common and because the fee is the same for all so that it cannot decide which of the offered manuscripts are published and which are not (there are always many more manuscripts offered than published).

No, nothing that I said was disingenuous, and you cannot make it so by changing what I actually said to something that I did not say. You are incorrect in assuming or insinuating that Bentham charges the "same fee for all" as it does not. Part of its spam for editors, in fact, includes reference to giving them a 50% discount on its publication fees. Bentham's approach appears to be a blatant attempt to appeal to vanity in hopes of attracting authors and editors, and yet their "peer review" process is fatally flawed. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Here are would need to know if and how many other publishers also provide discounts under various conditions. And what about, for example, the following, quoted by Jones:

"PNAS authors who don't want to wait that long for their articles to become available to everyone can make them instantly free by paying a $1,000 open-access fee, which can be waived in cases of need. The fee drops to $750 for authors from institutions that have site licenses for PNAS. "Springer, another commercial publisher, introduced a similar option in mid-2004 with its Open Choice program. Authors who want their articles to be immediately free to all on Springer's website pay a $3,000 fee..." Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You do recognize that citing an unsupported quote by Steven Jones is not helpful since he's the guy trying to pretend that his little letter is a "peer reviewed paper" in a "legitimate engineering journal", when both of those points are the subject matter of the dispute, right? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

"Unsupported quote"? The passages Jones quotes can be found here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8320openaccess.html

Perscurator (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is well written and offers important information not readily available elsewhere, such as a reference to the evidence independently produced by three research teams of temperatures at the WTC that were considerably higher than what could have been caused by normal building / hydrocarbon fires. It also addresses other important things, including the destruction of steel without investigation. I cannot imagine any of you guys really cannot find any problem with the way WTC 7, in particular, has been investigated - no on-site investigation; 4 pieces of steel collected for investigation by March 15, 2002; the lack of the called-for follow-up on the "highly unusual phenomenon" revealed by some of those collected specimens; delaying the report year after year - or with the media's evident (and quite successful) attempt to bury the subject with its vast implications for construction safety, etc.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with you, and I think that the letter is extremely poorly written, in terms of style, tone and content. It also does not include anything new at all. It cites its own authors' unsubstantiated and highly dubious papers from Jones' own non-journal as sources, and dishonestly calls them "published papers". Come on. Publishing something in your own sham "journal" on your own website doesn't make it a "published paper" or a proper reference for purposes of a legitimate article. It advances no theory, makes no claims (only insinuating accusations), offers no evidence, comes to no result, adds nothing to the field of civil engineering, and it doesn't even include any science. It reads like a blog entry or a "Letter to the Editor" rather than anything that would be accepted by a legitimate technical journal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Well, although I am not a native speaker of English, I have studied the language as my main subject at the university and done quite a lot of translation work. I have also read quite a number of scientific books and articles, and I find the letter well written and stylistically appropriate for a science journal. But this is a dead end, so let's leave it at that. In terms of content, I could not disagree more.

As regards the credibility of the official investigations, I think it is quite adequately illustrated by the following statement from NIST's lead investigator in 2006, as quoted in the New York Magazine:

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

Perhaps they could have got a handle on building 7 if the steel debris had been investigated to determine what had happened inside the facade, and if the called-for detailed studies had been performed. Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you put that quote in context [3] you see this is because of staffing and budget problems. That article was published in March 2006 (i.e. more than two years ago), and he must have actually said it a bit before that. Bearing in mind that NIST only resumed investigations on 7 WTC in October the year before, and that investigating a building collapse like this is a very complicated process, they probably didn't know exactly what happened to the building at that time. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. What I meant was that any serious building disaster investigation begins with a careful documentation and examination of the debris to determine the factors and mechanisms causing the destruction (really a platitude, but one that was confirmed to me by one of Finland's leading accident researchers).

Obviously, NIST cannot be accused of destroying the debris without investigation, as that had already been done by the time FEMA published its report in May 2002 in which they said that their hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurrence". However, NIST can be criticized for several things, one of which is not conducting the detailed study called for by FEMA concerning the few steel pieces salvaged from WTC 7 that showed signs of melting, for example. Perscurator (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, even the mainstream media are now (only after 7 years) beginning to address the oddities of the investigation - see the program description of BBC's upcoming WTC 7 special:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7330169.stm

Again, I don't think it is right to refer to e.g. the over 400 architects, engineers and demolition experts (many of them highly respected in their fields) as "conspiracy theorists" when all they are saying, based on their expertise, that the official theories do not hold. Perscurator (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever you call them they (even if they all are what they claim, which is by no means clear) don't hold a minority view that raises to the level of inclusion in an article like this. People wave the number 400 around like it means something, it's a tiny minority of whatever group they claim to belong to. Having said that, a solid case can be made that conspiracy theorists is an apt label as that's what mainstream and reliable sources call them in general. RxS (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For approximately the fourth time: you are applying undue weight to the opinions and qualifications of a tiny minority. Acroterion _(talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Several polls have shown that those skeptical of the 9/11 explanations given by the war-hungry and clearly criminal administration (caught in one lie, legal violation etc. after another) are not so tiny a minority. On the other hand, as pointed out before, there are no polls to show how large a proportion of architects, engineers, physicists and demolition experts agree or disagree with the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. To say that the AEs are a tiny minority needs substantiation. On the other hand, significant minority views need to be dealt with fairly. Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls of the general public prove very little. 20% of Americans believe that atoms are smaller than electrons,[4] yet this view is not represented on Wikipedia at all. --Hut 8.5 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One may argue that 0.2% of any given population believe in practically any theory you can name on any subject. The idea that the remaining 99.8% apparently have no opinion, or choose not to express one, does not mean that they may be discounted in favor of the stridently-stated opinion of the 0.2%, or that the minority is due greater weight based on the relative depth of their conviction. Acroterion _(talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The polls prove that the skeptics of the official 9/11 theory cannot be regarded as a tiny minority. The fact that we do not know the opinion of most architects and engineers cannot be counted as a support for the official views, either.

There is a vast, vast difference between 1) being skeptical that the general public has been told every single thing known to various governmental agencies about the events of 9/11 and 2) thinking that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the government. Personally, I am quite sure that we, the public, have not been told every single detail known to the various governmental agencies, but there is absolutely no evidence of it being an "inside job" perpetrated by the government, so I do not buy into the conspiracy fantasies perpetuated by the "truth" movement. If you really wish to go with "public polls", you are going to have to also live with the fact that a mere 4.6% of those polled by Zogby - in a poll commissioned by conspiracy fantasists, no less - answered that they thought it was an inside job, and that 95.4% thought otherwise. 4.6% is a tiny minority. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

The Financial Times has just published an article dealing with WTC 7 that actually manages to be fairer than the Wikipedia article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html

It uses the terms "sceptics" and "critics" instead of "conspiracy theorists". It even mentions the fact that the BBC reported the "collapse" over 20 minutes before it happened, notes the near-freefall speed of collapse (=the falling of the roof), and so on. Perscurator (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this (Word document), p.263:

The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards.

The author then goes on to attack the contents of the article. Hut 8.5 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is not only not a peer-reviewed publication, but it should be put on the blacklist as a known copyright violator. There is adequate evidence that the publishers sent a copy of the request for confirmation of peer review to the author of the article, rather than to the editorial board — a likely copyright violation and a clear breech of confidence. I'm not going to request it — yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. This is regarding an assertion by "Ryan Mackey". Which is NOT RS. Please explain what you are talking about since it is not clear (at least to me). Tony0937 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Mackey is lying. Perhaps the publisher is lying about the journal(s) being peer-reviewed.

But one or the other is lying, and Mackey seems more reputable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him before, So I cannot comment on his reputation. Whatever else this document of his is, it is not RS by Wikipedia Standards. Have you contacted Bentham? Tony0937 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Jones's response to this discussion

I contacted Steven E. Jones and some of the other authors of the letter "14 Points of Agreement..." in Bentham's Open Civil Engineering Journal to verify the peer review process. With Steven's permission, I quote his detailed response at length below in the hope that it helps settle this issue.

• [begin quotation] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I have published over fifty peer-reviewed papers including articles and letters in various technical journals, including Nature and Physical Review Letters. I cannot think of any case in which I was informed of the identity of the reviewers, as anonymity is the common practice for the technical journals I have published in, and that includes The Open Civil Engineering Journal. So saying that the peer-review process is questionable because the reviewers have not been identified demonstrates a lamentable ignorance of the standard peer-review process.

We received three separate reviews from three anonymous reviewers. In the end, all three approved the paper for publication. The fact that we have three peer-review reports is demonstration that peer-review has taken place. By convention that I am aware of in my years of publishing peer-reviewed papers, the peer-reviewers' identities are anonymous and their reports made during the peer-review process are privately sent just to the authors (and journal editors).

Here is a statement from Bentham Scientific, the publishers:

"The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The topics covered in the journal include (but not limit to): concrete structures, construction materials, structural mechanics, soil mechanics, foundation engineering, offshore geotechnics, water resources, hydraulics, horology, coastal engineering, river engineering, ocean modeling, fluid-solid-structure interactions, offshore engineering, marine structures, constructional management and other civil engineering relevant areas."

Our paper is a Letter, as identified in the abstract. One reason that we chose the Open Civil Engineering Journal is that they permit Letters (as also does Nature, for example).

Complaints that somehow the journal is sub-standard since it makes page-charges also reflects profound ignorance of the current status of technical publications, since many charge processing or page fees. I recall that many of the journals in which I have published required page fees. This is very common in technical journals and I expected it. Evidently the Bentham Open Journals also raise finances by offering on-line advertising, and I see nothing wrong with that as it helps keep page charges at a reasonable level ($600 for an approved, peer-reviewed Letter).

The Wikipedia article for Physical Review (a series of journals) notes: "The Special Topics journals are open access; Physics Education Research requires page charges from the authors, but Physical Review Special Topics — Accelerators and Beams does not."

An American Chemical Society posting discusses the issue of publication fees and open access, noting in particular:

"The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides free access to its archive after six months. "Not only has it not adversely affected us, it has benefited us by engendering loyalty among authors and reviewers," Cozzarelli said at the workshop. "It generates goodwill." PNAS originally tested a model in which it provided free access one month after publication, noted editorial staff member Sarah B. Tegen at the ACS meeting. But subscriptions declined, and the delay was extended to six months.

"PNAS authors who don't want to wait that long for their articles to become available to everyone can make them instantly free by paying a $1,000 open-access fee, which can be waived in cases of need. The fee drops to $750 for authors from institutions that have site licenses for PNAS. In the April 26, 2005, issue, authors of six articles out of 61 opted for the open-access feature. PNAS will track whether these articles are read more than toll-access articles. So far, on average, the articles that are open access immediately are read 50% more than the other articles, according to Cozzarelli.

"Springer, another commercial publisher, introduced a similar option in mid-2004 with its Open Choice program. Authors who want their articles to be immediately free to all on Springer's website pay a $3,000 fee.... "EACH ARTICLE that appears in PNAS [Proc. Nat. Academy of Science] costs the journal up to $3,800 to publish. The journal covers part of this cost through author publication charges, which average about $1,500 per article. As with several other journals that levy publication charges, PNAS can waive this fee in cases of need, although only about 2% of authors request a waiver." The same article emphasizes, in red letters, "If open-access journals are to succeed in chemistry and physics, authors may have to drop their opposition to page charges and agree to manuscript submission charges." And they note that the New Journal of Physics has page charges ranging up to $900 per paper. From this article with regard to open (free on-line access) journals:

"Fully open-access journals are "gold" no matter what their source of revenue, according to a classification developed by Stevan Harnad, a cognitive scientist at the University of Quebec, Montreal, and a central figure in open-access circles. "

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8320openaccess.html

Endorsements of the Bentham Open Journals can be found here: http://www.bentham.org/open/quotes.htm

For example,

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area." Hubert Wolterbeek (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

And here a comment from a Nobel laureate from Bentham Scientific's home page:

"Bentham's open access journals offer a creative avenue towards the goal of rapid publication and dissemination of relevant science results." Richard R. Ernst (Nobel Laureate)

• [end quotation] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It seems that there are no grounds for the claim that the letter was not peer-reviewed. No valid evidence to support that claim has been presented, while the publisher's repeated assurance that a normal peer-review process has been followed are bypassed with arguments that evidently are based on false assumptions about the way in which the process works and may, in some cases (not necessarily, and hopefully not, by any of us here), manifest an attempt, in bad faith, to paint the publisher in an unfavourable light to mitigate the article. Perscurator (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There certainly are grounds for the claim that the letter was not properly peer reviewed. When the letter from Jones et al appeared, the publisher was contacted to request contact information for the editors and information about Bentham's editorial standards and peer review process, the publisher sent the inquiry to Steven Jones - the contact author of the letter - for response. That is completely inappropriate, and quite beyond the pale for any legitimate publication that it calls everything about the publication into question. That the Editor-in-Chief says that the publishers bypassed the editors - whose role it is to oversee the peer review process - and that the Editor-in-Chief himself could not obtain any information about the alleged peer review of this letter shows quite clearly that the peer review process is badly, badly broken. How anyone can even pretend that this is "normal" is, frankly, beyond me.

That "statement from Bentham" is just the advertising blurb it publishes on its website. Take a look at the articles (all 9 of them) that have been posted on the internet by the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, and you will see that they are about: flexural behaviour of polymer poles, sediment transport in rivers and lakes, piezoelectrical patches, flange connectors, water resource management, flexural behaviour of concrete, airport pavement testing, and bond behaviour in concrete. You will also see that 4 of the 9 articles are written by members of the editorial board. That is more than 40%! This is another thing that should trigger warning bells, particularly in conjunction with the fact that this journal spams for authors and editors willy nilly without making any effort to identify the fields in which those authors or editors have any expertise, and then offers those who sign up as editors a 50% discount on their own submissions.

Those are some of the things that make it substandard. Jones appears to want to focus on the publication fees as the only basis of complaint, when that is not the case at all. The substandard quality of the publication is made evident by the facts set out above, and also by the facts set out in the section above this one dealing with the Jones letter. You can put lipstick on a pig but...well, you know the rest.

Also, the reference to a Nobel Laureate praising Bentham, you should note, has nothing to do with the Open Civil Engineering Journal. The concept of open access journals is good (and there are some excellent ones), but the execution of this one in particular is bad. See the difference? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

What we have here are

1) someone calling the publisher and giving his account of that - an account that may be twisted or at least strongly "colored", perhaps reflecting his personal biases, and that certainly cannot verified (and we cannot know what confusion and misunderstanding during the call may have been translated into his own interpretation of the quality of the review process); and

Jones is a far less credible source than Ryan Mackey, and Jones quite obviously has a vested interest in obfuscating about the peer review process, as he seems to be doing in the comment you posted above. After all, he's been trying to get a legitimate journal to publish his conspiracy theory writings for quite some time, without any success. It appears that he finally gave up and paid to publish a completely unscientific, poorly written, poorly sourced piece of fluff in a vanity journal and that he is now simply trying to put lipstick on a pig. I notice that neither you nor Jones has commented on the real issue here - which is that the editor-in-chief of the publication says that the letter did not go through the proper editorial channels.

Mr. Mackey didn't just 'call the publisher' - he wrote to the publisher, the publisher responded to him, the publisher sent Mr. Mackey's legitimate questions about editorial issues, not to the editors but to Jones. This is a startling display of incompetence by the publishers of this "journal". Mr. Mackey then, quite correctly, wrote to the editor-in-chief, who confirmed that the letter by Jones et al did not, in fact, go through the proper editorial channels. I do not understand how anyone can, in these circumstances, be satisfied that a proper peer review process has been adhered to.{Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

2) the publisher's verifiable (oa dot bentham dot org) assurance that peer review has taken place. The former represents a second hand account and cannot form the basis of saying that the letter was not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, the quality of the peer review is a separate issue.

Yet, the editor-in-chief says otherwise. I am more inclined to take the word of the editor-in-chief over an advertising blurb by the publisher. And, no, the quality of the peer review is not a separate issue. Jones et al desperately seek the cache of the "peer review" to lend credence to their conspiracy writings. They are counting on lazy readers to take the term to mean that their letter was properly reviewed by legitimate reviewers. But "peer review" is meaningless if it is not properly conducted. Jones knows this, but he sought out an online journal that would accept his money to publish a very poorly written letter in exchange for a stamp of false "legitimacy" in furtherance of his conspiracy theories. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

Other articles critical of the official "fire demolition" theories have now been approved for publication in relevant journals. Will Wikipedia editors question their assurances of peer review as well, just because they are not comfortable with the content of the articles? Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the publishers have a vested interest to distort facts in order to protect their reputation and promote their journals, whereas other commentators have no such vested interest. This is particularly the case when the other commentator is a researcher in the field and has plenty of experience in the field of engineering. If there are other published papers supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis, then list them here and we will evaluate their suitability. And please don't add assertions of peer review to the article until you have a consensus on this page to do so - doing otherwise is called edit warring, it is considered disruptive and can lead to blocks and other sanctions. Hut 8.5 17:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are really saying that some researchers' views can override the publisher's assurance that a peer review process has been followed? There are other researchers who do not agree with that particular researcher. Why should his view override even theirs, let alone the publisher's? I'm at a loss for words here. Can Wikipedia even in principle claim, based on some individual's account, that a publisher has not peer-reviewed a paper it says it has peer-reviewed? I have a hard time believing that, and I think we will need to examine this very carefully, contacting the related parties and considering all the implications of this. Perscurator (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when the EDITOR IN CHIEF says that the proper procedures were not followed, and that the letter bypassed the editorial process that was supposed to be in place, that certainly can override the publisher's "assurance" (advertising blurb) to the contrary. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

Hut 8.5, editing an article, adding things without waiting for consensus is not edit warring. It is editing. Edit warring is the process where two or more editors continually revert each others changes. Please do not say that adding "assertions of peer review...is considered disruptive and can lead to blocks and other sanctions", as a) it is untrue, and b) it is an entirely unwarranted threat against many a good faith editor. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He has added this material 6 times, reverting 5 other editors. Even while there was an ongoing conversation on the talk page discussing the material, he put it back in. I call that edit warring. Hut 8.5 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I took your words in isolation, without realising this was a party I'd arrived late at. OK. Perhaps be careful with your wording though, lest anyone else make the same mistake as I :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Hut 8.5 09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that one of the reverts was of my own addition: I reverted the expression "peer-reviewed" pending further clarification. Before that I had received a confirmation from the Director of Publications that the paper was peer-reviewed, and I had thought that should certainly suffice. Anyway, regarding the use of mr. Mackay's paper as a source for the claim that the paper was not peer-reviewed, Tony0937 had the following pertinent comment above:

"I've never heard of him before, So I cannot comment on his reputation. Whatever else this document of his is, it is not RS by Wikipedia Standards. Have you contacted Bentham?" Tony0937 (talk) 03:36, 9

Perscurator (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just dropping in on this discussion. I don't know why, but I have a gut feeling that there MIGHT be a problem with the peer-review thing. Truthers are sort of out-cast, and it will be hard for them to get peer-reviews, I imagine, even if their work would be sound. On the other hand, does anyone know who this Ryan Mackey is (apart from: a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft) and why in God's name he is writing a threehundred (!) page report that some scientist is producing bad work? What is it to him? It might be he has a prejudice against Truthers. Is he getting paid for this work, or is it done in his spare time?
According to this [5] press release last November, Bentham only recently started this project of open access, if I understand correctly, so that might explain there to be only 9 other studies and some confusion about review processes?? Michelle Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know who Ryan Mackey is, and no, he is not being paid for the work that he does in his spare time refuting certain conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11. He does not have a prejudice against "truthers" (what an inapt title these people have given themselves) - rather, he has a strong commitment to legitimate scientific research, reality, critical thinking, and teaching. The paper to which you refer (it is not 300 pages long, by the way) was not in response to "some scientist producing bad work" but rather a response to a theologian (David Griffin) who repeatedly publishes utter nonsense whilst pretending that it's scientific. It appears that you, too, were fooled by Griffin's nonsense if you got the impression that he is a scientist. He is not.

Also, Bentham started spamming for both authors and editors prior to November 2007, and if you read prior posts on this talk page, you'll see that the 'civil engineering' open journal dates back to May of 2007, with all of 9 articles to date, and you will see that more than 40% of the articles are written by members of the editorial board, and you will see that the peer review process remains hopelessly flawed, despite the editor-in-chief having given explicit instructions to the publisher in an effort to correct the obvious, glaring, and frankly embarrassing "peer review" fraud that the journal seems to be engaged in.{Jazz2006 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

"The paper to which you refer (it is not 300 pages long, by the way)"

You are right, it isn't: it is 306 pages long with sources, at least in my Word.

I suggest reading Griffin's new book "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press"

http://www.amazon.com/11-Contradictions-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567165

Just one hilarious example of the contradictions in the official story: in the Moussaoui trial, the FBI provided evidence that Barbara Olson's alleged call to his husband lasted zero seconds, ie could not be connected.

Now even some current and previous Senators are demanding a new investigation. In fact, anyone with a modicum of critical thinking can see that the official story is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Given the acknowledged record of lying and criminal offenses of the current U.S. administration, it is funny how some people still regard the official 9/11 story as some kind of a sacred cow, implying that everything is as the government says.

Now, to make the article a bit more neutral, I again suggest mentioning in it the important fact that the steel debris of the evacuated WTC 7 was not documented and examined to find out why and how the skyscraper collapsed; that by March 15, 2002, only 4 pieces of it had been salvaged for investigation before being recycled; and that the detailed study called for by FEMA based on the "very unusual phenomenon" revealed by the few pieces that were in fact investigated was never carried out. Perscurator (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest reading this: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

There are also other rebuttals of Mackey's essay.

The following evaluation by Hoffman sums it up: "Someone reading just the Introduction or Discussion of Mackey's 180-page article might easily conclude that that the entire article is composed of insults, straw-man arguments, innuendo, and appeals to authority. However, the article contains a range of types of arguments, from the obviously fallacious ones to cleverly misleading ones to superficially persuasive ones having some didactic value."

There are a lot of errors - with purposefully deceptive intent or not (although the former impression is hard to avoid in many cases) - in Mackey's essay. I will provide examples if necessary. However, it appears to be clear that (as also pointed out by Tony0937), by Wikipedia's own criteria, it does not constitute a RS and cannot override both the publisher's and the several authors' statement that the letter was peer-reviewed before publication.

Anyway, should we opt for some alternative formulation? What about something along these lines? "... journal reviewed and published a letter by..."? Perscurator (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Mackey dealt rather decisively and incisively with Hoffman's purported "rebuttal" - did you miss it? Hoffman's purported "rebuttal" is utter nonsense from a scientific point of view. His criticisms were shallow, nonsensical and unsupported. He did not refute anything that Mackey wrote, he did not identify any errors, and, frankly, he didn't even try to do so. He simply wrote a little ditty that he thought would be sufficient to appeal to conspiracy fantasists, as usual. Perhaps you should consider actually reading Mackey's paper and commenting on it if you have any issue with it, instead of just repeating unsupported things that you read on conspiracy sites.

Here you go: http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

I respectfully disagree. Mackey's dishonest argumentation is not particularly difficult to notice. As I said, I can give examples, and I will do so after my summer holiday, which has just begun.

Last night, incidentally, we Finns celebrated Midsummer. Here are some photos I took of a local bonfire, which contained much more burnable material than any corresponding area in the three WTC buildings:

http://juhannuskokko.blogspot.com/2008/06/tali-2008.html

I think the utter absurdity of the official WTC explanations is revealed by the fact that a long, narrow, drooping wooden plank turned out to be more resilient to intense fire than the massive WTC steel columns are suggested to have been.

Much of the time it was possible to stand only a few meters away from the ceiling-height fire. The idea that 20-minute fires - according to NIST, the fires almost without exception burned out in that time in any given spot in all of the affected buildings, which is understandable also because the amount of burnables in office buildings is regulated - could weaken a steel column is ridiculous and can only appeal to those who cannot distance themselves at all from the official propaganda of one's own government (a historically not uncommon but still a sad phenomenon). Perscurator (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, we can't include original research in this article. Hut 8.5 10:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think editors here are losing a bit of perspective. The claim that the controlled demolition hypothesis has received coverage in a peer reviewed journal, despite undeniably reputable previous studies finding no evidence to support it, is going to be a contentious one. WP:V demands that we be especially careful cases like this with regard to sourcing and if high-quality sourcing is not available then material should be removed. We should also be careful that we are not giving undue weight to the controlled demolition hypothesis. The discussion here has raised a number of problems with the Bentham article:

• The publisher is known to spam for reviewers to review papers on subjects they have no expertise in, which means this paper may well have been reviewed by people from unrelated fields and therefore the claim that it has been "peer reviewed" is misleading.
• This letter/article was not published due to concern in the scientific community about the hypothesis, but rather as part of a promotional campaign by supporters of the hypothesis, and they had 4-5 papers rejected before they found a journal that was willing to publish one.
• Multiple people have contacted the publishers and the editorial board and received responses which indicate peer review processes were not properly followed.
• The only actual evidence we have that the article was peer reviewed is advertising blurb from the publisher and a letter from the author of the paper.

There is sufficient doubt here about the reputability and editorial processes which were applied here to mean that calling it "peer-reviewed" is misleading. I propose that we leave a note at WP:RS/N asking for uninvolved editors to come and evaluate this source. Hut 8.5 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we step back and get rid of the disinformation being used to discredit Bentham? I've been reading up on what is claimed.

• The publisher is NOT known to spam for reviewers "to review papers on subjects they have no expertise in". According to JREF, the evidence they have for spamming is that the majority of the first 20 Bentham reviewers have surnames starting in A, B and C, while no proof is presented that they review outside their expertise. After looking at the list of reviewers I found that the next 20 surnames start with D, E, F, G and H, the next 20 I, J, k etc....This looks suspiciously like the names are listed alphabetically rather than the order in which they were approached.
• "they had 4-5 papers rejected before they found a journal that was willing to publish one". I checked and this is interesting. A major Physics Journal rejected one because "the subject is outside our purview", or in plain English "we have no interest in reviewing articles supporting conspiracy theories" which makes rejection irrelevant.
• "indicate peer review processes were not properly followed". This is WP:OR.
• "The only actual evidence we have that the article was peer reviewed is advertising blurb from the publisher and a letter from the author of the paper". Do we ignore that this claim requires the letter to be the ONLY submission published by Bentham to not have been peer reviewed?
• "There is sufficient doubt here about the reputability and editorial processes which were applied here to mean that calling it "peer-reviewed" is misleading". What standard do we use? I point out that Bazants paper which is undisputably accepted was, by the authors own admission, submitted 48 hours after 9/11, used only photographs taken by the media as evidence, was based entirely on previous experience rather than research and concludes "errors of magnitude would not be surprising". We do not dispute Bazant yet we argue over not being given the names of the reviewers of the letter when it is standard practice not to do so. The only evaluation of Bentham we need is if it is accepted by the scientific community at large rather than those organisations and individuals that are biased against conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Wayne. In addition to Bazant's hastily produced "analysis", one could mention Thomas Eagar's paper published as early as December 2001. Jeff King from the MIT has some insightful comments regarding Eagar's statements (eg the ludicrous "a buildings that is mostly air" comment, which would equally apply to the allegedly-all-crushing top sections): http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/eagar.html

Has it ever happened before that it takes a while before a researcher finds a journal that publishes his or her paper? It is also worth noting that Jones has published over 50 peer-reviewed papers. Some of them have also dealt with controversial subjects, and he has been validated in the end. As I'm quite sure he will be here, too; otherwise there should have been more examples (than the alleged three on one day) of random fires and damage suddenly bringing highrises to their foundations at the speed of 7-8 floors per second.

I think it is quite a stretch to claim that the letter by Jones et al was not reviewed at all or in any way before it was published. Wayne, what about my suggestion for formulation? Perscurator (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use Mackey's investigation as a WP:RS, but we can use to as evidence that the journal in question is not a WP:RS. Together with the "letter" fiasco, and the fact that "letters" (or even letter-length articles) in traditional journals are not peer-reviewed, this means we can't use the journal article either. The spam accussations are not really relevant except in that it suggests that they select peer-reviewers on the basis of who's willing to reply to spam, rather than professional credibility, but Mackey's statement the the editorial board was not involved in the peer-review seems at least equal to the publisher's and Jones' statement that it was peer-reviewed.

There's a policy question here, as well: can we use an unreliable, but generally credible, source as evidence that another source is not reliable? I think we must. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that Jones's letter is the only Bentham paper not to be peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The spam accusations are relevant - the academics who were being spammed admitted they had no experience in the field they were being asked to review papers in, so any "peer review" by this journal may not be reliable. And there is plenty of evidence for this that is unrelated to the names of the reviewers - earlier links were given where academics complained they were being spammed by Bentham. I am not using original research since the conclusion that the practices were not appropriate is the one of the people who investigated the journal. Arthur Rubin is correct to point out that nobody is advocating the insertion of a statement that the letter was not peer-reviewed. To answer Perscurator, the paper was probably reviewed by someone in some way, but it seems to have been reviewed by the publishers and not the editorial board and some of the people reviewing it may not have had expertise in this area, so it is misleading to describe it as "peer reviewed". It would be accurate to describe it as "reviewed", but that is to vague it is meaningless. I furthermore note that the journal allows you to suggest peer reviewers for your paper.

I have posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for some more opinions on this. Hut 8.5 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, spam accusations have evidently been levelled against other journals as well, including Nature:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise. [...] The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print..."

(I also mentioned that this is not meant to exonerate Bentham.) Wayne above already pointed out things that cast doubt on the honesty of some of those who have "investigated the journal". Mackay's strong bias, errors and dishonest argumentation, in turn, is evident when reading his essay (again, I can provide examples if needed), so there is no way his essay can be regarded as a generally reliable source: quite the contrary.

In principle, it does sound "anti-Wiki" to suggest that an "unreliable source" could be used to discredit a generally "reliable source" such as a science journal of an established publisher.

Touching upon the topic, is Elsevier an RS?

http://www.amazon.com/History-9-11-2001-Research-Political-Economy/dp/0762313056

Perscurator (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The decision as to whether Bentham (established publisher????) is reliable cannot depend only on what we call reliable sources, because that would leave us with no starting point and no sources. We either have to depend on editorial judgement WP:CONSENSUS to establish whether a source is reliable, or, ... actually, I can't think of an alternative method consistent with Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And since when is "JAI Press" equal to "Elsevier". Even if it's a subsidiary (which I didn't check), it doesn't inherit reputation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

Wikipedia is such a good idea in principle - shame a bunch of biased editors/admins with too much time in their hands can bully other editors by interpreting the rules to support their argument. This article without a section or sub-section dedicated to the controversy is just a joke.

I think it's pretty clear to everybody that the neutrality of this article is being disputed on a quasi-daily basis. Why not say so in the article lead? 221.191.93.206 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy, no political, academic, scientific or media controversy. Just an extremely tiny minority using the internet to push an agenda. Our policys don't support covering issues like that in the main articles, they have plenty of coverage in "sub" articles. RxS (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's pretty clear to everybody that the neutrality of this article is being disputed on a quasi-daily basis. Why not say so in the article lead?" 222.148.6.28 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To "221.191.93.206" - If you have strong feelings about the conspiracy theories about the WTC and WTC7, you should consider taking them to the 9/11 Conspiracies article, where they belong. This article is about the building. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody answer the question please? Can we please reflect the fact that the neutrality of this article is being disputed in the lead of the article? Thank you. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't report on our own editorial debates in the articles themselves. For example, see WP:SELF for more information. RxS (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors are using an odd notion of neutrality. Surely this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. It should therefore be a path to any phenomonon. Among the many phenomena about the WTC is the fact that there is a debate about how the buildings collapsed. Surely the appropriate action of Wikipadia is to provide neutral coverage of the debate, not to exclude one side of it. Gravity32 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy, no political, academic, scientific or media debate about how the buildings collapsed. See my comments earlier in the section. RxS (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we put Template:POV at the top of the article please? 122.29.91.176 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just because someone requests it, no. You would need to outline with reliable sources WP:RS what the controversy is as it relates to political, academic, scientific or media debate - not in terms of an editor disagreeing with the article.--PTR (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article without a section or sub-section dedicated to the controversy is just a joke.

Indeed, but actually they are quite serious. Much is at stake. When events like a valid scientific article questioning the official version of events finally comes out -- something that the defenders of the official version cannot allow -- it must literally be supressed. Nothing more to it than that. No use in saying "shame on you" or letting emotions get involved, the admins know just what they are doing. The many side-arguments, convoluted wiki-regulations and distractions posted to "shut up" everyone who disagrees with the official story are only there to cover-up the truth for as long as possible to protect those in power. The official version must appear to have been challenged only by "nutcases." And when a scientific journal article breaks though, it must, very simply, have a lid put on that mistake. Obfuscate, blockade, create Orwellian nonsense arguments and rules . . . whatever it takes. Just shut it up and bury any idea that anyone does not agree with officials.

It's more healthy to be truthful about the situation than play into it. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If a valid scientific analysis comes out that contradicts the "official" version, I'll be at the head of the line to put it in. Until then, innuendo and speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a second. If we had sources that everyone deemed reliable and worthy of inclusion, then we would include them in the article. However, we don't. Therefore, there is an ongoing dispute among WP editors about the neutrality of this article, and this is all Template:POV is saying. We don't need any sources to support that there is this dispute before we include the template in the page. I would add it myself if the page were not protected, as there is no need to ask anybody in normal situations. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag is not added if there is an editor dispute. From WP:NPOVD:

Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

WP:NPOV states: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.

--PTR (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are a number of specific issues, being suggested by different editors, that are actionable within the content policies. The problem is that a team of editors and admins are denying that this is the case, which is in itself a dispute. I think we are pretty much at the last resort with this article, although you will certainly disagree and there is nothing I can do about that. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NIST report timescale

We currently have "In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center." However, this currently gives August 2008 as the latest projected final report date. Given that the time-line has now slipped a number of times, how should we best report this? It is clearly no longer a "three-year" investigation, having started in May 2002. --John (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed nobody found time to respond to this. I've removed the obsolete timescale and cost from the article. --John (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming BBC documentary

Apparently the BBC is going to screen a documentary to debunk conspiracy theories claiming "the program will offer the solution to the final mystery of 9/11" (their words). To represent the official theory they are using the former counter-terrorism adviser to the White House, Richard Clarke. "The main proponent of conspiracy theories" the BBC are using (their words) is Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom whom they are presenting as an example of the supporters of conspiracy theories (Kollerstrom was the only "truther" the BBC invited to appear on the program). If you have not heard of him in regards to conspiracy theories it is because the entire truth movement rejects him. Although he has a physics degree he is better known as an Astrologer and Alchemist who claims Auschwitz was a resettlement camp where the Jewish inmates "would sunbathe on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches" (his words) and that 911 was a zionist backed government plot. He claims supporters of the official theory are being controlled with mind control devices. And these are some of his more sensible theories. Enjoy. Wayne (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify how this is relevant to this article? Hut 8.5 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just clarifying before anyone tries to use it as a source as the BBC claim to have the answer as to why WTC7 collapsed. The BBC may be reliable but not this particular documentary. Wayne (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I was too late. Someone has already added it to the 911 conspiracies page. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

These concerns aren't valid. The documentary interviewed a number of proponents of the controlled demolition theory, including Steven E. Jones, several members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (including the founder) and the director of Loose Change. Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom did not appear at all (they interviewed him for a different documentary about 7/7, not 7 World Trade Center). Richard Clarke did appear for about thirty seconds at the end and all he said was that the government couldn't have covered up such a conspiracy based on his (extensive) experience dealing with top-secret material, and they interviewed plenty of other people who supported the mainstream viewpoint. Hut 8.5 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke

Like somebody said, the controlled demolition theory deserves at least its own section. It seems that the usual suspects are selecting "reliable" sources here. And even so, they report only what accommodates their agenda.

So, for example, if an apparently notable and reliable source like ScrippsNews reports that a "Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy", that gets translated to "Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition." - even though the article does not mention building 7 at all. "Third of Americans" somehow was not deemed important enough to be mentioned.

The "9/11 truth" petition, ironically, is also used in support of the same sentence, even though there is no mention of the word "conspiracy" in that petition.

And what about the factually inaccurate opinion piece at usnews.com? Can it really be taken seriously? It says: "The World Trade Center towers and nearby Building 7, though struck by planes, were brought down by controlled demolitions [...]" If this is really an article worthy of mention in Wikipedia, we should also report that Building 7 was struck by planes, because that's news to me.

The "official theory" seems to have undue weight in this article, and certainly there doesn't seem to be a consensus on the matter, so I agree that we should really put template:NPOV at the top of the article, thank you very much. 160.79.134.3 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is ok as it stands. I've read the draft NIST WTC7 report and it barely resembles this articles explanation so don't worry too much yet as once the report is released next month there will be major changes. Some you may like and some you may not but it's clear the new report will be more acceptable to conspiracy theorists (without actually supporting any) and shouldn't be as controversial as that for the other towers. Wayne (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to this major development keenly, and I envy you for having read the draft report. It's high time this was made public. BTW, is it at all possible to avoid referring to those skeptical with the official version of events as "conspiracy theorists"? It's pejorative and sneering. Those skeptics can be divided into a) conspiracy theorists and b) those who say "no, sorry, the official version of events just doesn't wash with me". Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe people who believe 7 World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives as "conspiracy theorists", so that is the term we should use. The controlled demolition hypothesis is only held by a tiny minority of the engineering community and we would be violating our policy of undue weight to give it much consideration. The paragraph it currently has is quite enough. Hut 8.5 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, since this is a debate on the alternative cause of a controlled demolition, which would have required a conspiracy to enact, proponents of this are theorizing that a conspiracy resulted in a controlled demolition. Thusly, the term "conspiracy theorists" is not to be taken pejoratively. That said, those who hold simply that causes beyond or in addition to the official explanation are responsible for the collapse, then it would be accurate to describe those individuals as skeptics. In the case of the conspiracy theorists, they are simply a subset of the skeptics. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

@Wayne: "The article is ok as it stands" - This is not addressing any of my concerns.

@Wayne: "there will be major changes. Some you may like and some you may not" - You seem to be assuming that I have an opinion, or that I actually even care about "the truth", whereas in fact my concerns are about the lack of NPOV of this Wikipedia article, based on reliable sources at hand.

@AlasdairGreen27: Indeed, "conspiracy theorists" in this context has been perceived by many editors as pejorative, despite numerous explanations from other editors about how that term should be interpreted - explanations that readers of the article don't have the privilege to see. I agree that "skeptics" would be a more neutral and more appropriate term.

@Hut: You have either not read my concerns or you decided to ignore them.

160.79.134.3 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke. You may have an opinion, but your comments about the article have not been consistent with Wikipedia policies or guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to be more specific please? 160.79.134.3 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Hut 8.5 06:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

More specific please? The OP claims that undue weight is given to the official theory, so you do actually demonstrate that you are not paying attention. --93.144.159.243 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The reverse is true. To give a whole section to a theory which is rejected by the mainstream media, experts and all reliable sources is giving undue weight to fringe theorists. May I remind you that this article is a featured article and has been featured on the main page. Hut 8.5 16:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See, many editors seem to disagree on this. Can we therefore have a template:POV tag yet please? You are still failing to address the OP's concerns.

And thank you for reminding us that you and your buddies managed somehow to make this a featured article. Unfortunately however, this fact also fails to address the OP's concerns and is irrelevant to our discussion. It certainly does not mean that it's a perfect article that should never change again. --93.144.159.243 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

These concerns are not valid. 160.79.134.3 disputes the sourcing of a particular statement, and I have added three more sources to it. The concerns about the usnews article looks to me the result of bad wording rather than factual inaccuracy. This article is not meant to comprehensively cover the controlled demolition theory and other 9/11 conspiracy theories, merely give a summary. There are other articles dealing with these topics exclusively which do cover polls of the American public. Giving additional weight to these claims because of these polls is a bad idea - 20% of Americans believe atoms are smaller than electrons, yet Wikipedia does not cover this widespread opinion. WP:UNDUE says that the coverage of minority views should be limited, and we have to do this here. Nobody has presented any reliable sources which support the claim that this building was brought down by controlled demolition and we should respect the verdict of the sources. Hut 8.5 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A POV template is not when editors disagree it's when there is a controversy in the mainstream press that is not addressed in an article - and I'm not his buddy. --PTR (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not my reading of template:POV and WP:NPOVD, which do not mention any "controversy in the mainstream press". I am not interested in continuing a discussion with editors (and admins at that) who spin their way out of existing rules, dodge very precise questions for which it seems they cannot find an answer and deny even this very dispute about the neutrality of the article. --93.144.159.243 (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• What I meant was the article is ok for now regardless if it is or not as changes will be made next month based on the report.
• Like and not like applies to everyone. For example (much simplified) the damage to WTC7 is dismissed by NIST as a contributing cause and the collapse is claimed to be due entirely to fire so there is something there for everyone.
• Apologies...When I use "conspiracy theorists" I always assume it includes everyone who dissagrees with the official story no matter how minor the dissagreement is and it is not meant to mean any specific subset of beliefs.
• I read your concerns but until the rewrite they are premature. Wayne (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BBC documentary

The BBC this evening screened an interesting and sensible-seeming documentary (9/11 The Conspiracy Files - which I don't think is the one mentioned above) about the collapse of Tower 7, airing both sides of the theory that it was a controlled explosion. It could be used as a source if this article says a bit more about this controversy.

You (or people in the UK anyway) can watch it for a limited time online here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd

The main interviewees in favour of the theory were Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - their case is outlined here: http://www.ae911truth.org/ 79.78.126.201 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

July Report

If I am not mistaken, I believe the report has already been published. However, I'm just asking about whether if the report has been published here to confirm that I have not been misinformed. If the report has been published, the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolotter88 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been published yet, [6] though draft versions have been commented on by the media. Hut 8.5 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)