Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

This is not a forum for general discussion of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted.

NIST only a fraction of the Engineering community

Socking by a probable banned user or meat puppet

To say that NIST represents the Engineering community is incorrect. It represents only a small fraction of the community as a whole. There is no poll of the community and we have no justification for assuming anything about the larger body of engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.111.14 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC) The article cites several reliable sources for the statement that the CDH is rejected by engineers, and you haven't provided any references which say otherwise. The engineers who have spoken in favour of the CDH represent a small minority. Hut 8.5 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC) There is a petition at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which disagrees with the official story with over 640 named and qualified architects and engineers. There are many more named students and academics with qualifications also on the petition. It would be nice to see a string of supporters for the official story, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynda20 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I count 25 AIA members in their "Architects: Degreed & Licensed – Active & Retired" section. Given that the AIA has over 83,500 members this isn't very impressive. The number of people who could possibly have signed their petition is huge. In addition, it's not a reliable source (even newspapers reporting on them only say they "claim" X members) and you don't have to accept controlled demolition to sign it, you just need to believe that it's sufficiently interesting to warrant a bigger investigation. This link is nowhere near enough to counter the multiple reliable sources which say that the majority of engineers reject controlled demolition. Hut 8.5 17:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC) When we talk about reliability, it's important to consider the character of the information provided. If a source says that extra-terrestrial form of life exist, these forms of life would probably not know about it. Here, it's very likely that people who are on the list know about it, and would ask AE911Truth to remove them from the list if they do not agree. AE911Truth would be under legal obligation to do so. We can still argue whether 600 architects are relevant, but we need to consider circumstancial evidence when we assess the reliability of a given source. --Cs32en (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The response to B7 report

The demolition proponents have responded to NIST in a detailed letter. The letter has now been posted in numerous locations.[1][2][3] It makes no sense to remove the positions of demolition proponents from the page claiming to be about the demolition theory. Please do not remove this letter. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that these sources are now "unreliable" is clearly grasping at straws as a rationale for not allowing the sentence to be added. These sites -- 911blogger.com, 911truth.org, stj911.org -- are all over wikipedia on the 9/11 pages. Since when did they suddenly become unreliable? bov (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They're not reliable. I think we've been allowing some slack for messages apparently from and claiming to be from a source reliable among truthers. I'm not sure it's in keeping with Wikipedia policies, but I'm willing to let it stay in the CDH article, with some corrections. It should not be in a non-fringe article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that defenders of the official theory on here are trying to hide or bury the challenges to it made by the actual people this article claims to be about, with handwaving about "reliability" and "truthers". The exact same article is posted all over the internet, so the assumption that somehow all these blogs faked this letter, yet none of the 18 authors has noticed or commented, is pretty much as fringe conspiracy theory as it gets. It's like the rightwingers who attack gays and then turn out to be gay themselves . . . Also, tacking the sentence that includes this info onto a long-winded paragraph about the official report, and removing it's date, is another time-honored wikipedia tactic to obfuscate awareness. bov (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fascinating that users Hut and Arthur Rubin continue to delete the DATE from a single sentence about the NIST submission comments by demolition proponents. They have no basis for removing it except the need to hide the relevance of it. See here. bov (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Explain the relevance of the date. I don't see it, other than the date being after that of the draft report, and recent enough that no one outside the truth movement would have looked at it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Engineering community = Zdeněk Bažant?

I spent some time reading this article and tried to figure out what was meant by the engineering community. I came to the conclusion that this community equals Zdeněk Bažant (with the possible addition of 9/11 Commission). Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No - it refers to engineers as a collective body. Hut 8.5 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be more citations in the introductory chapter, in that case. Imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is there something wrong with the references we have? Bear in mind that the introduction is meant to summarise the rest of the article, and anything sourced in another part of the article doesn't need to be sourced again in the introduction. Hut 8.5 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As a WP reader I was quite confused and had to spend a lot of time finding out what was meant by the engineering community. Basically it just links to Bažant paper (in the first chapter). Could be a good idea to elaborate what is meant by the engineering community (imho, again). Didn't mean anything was wrong with the references, just wanted to see more of those [n] in the first chapter. Ilkkah (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bazant paper is the reference cited for the information, it's not a link to improve the reader's understanding. I suppose we could link to Scientific community or Scientific consensus. Hut 8.5 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, not reader's understanding. Then I missed the point of WP. I thought it was about reader's understanding of things. Ilkkah (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've missed the point. It's so the reader can verify the information in the article, not for the reader's understanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to be both (yes I checked this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference :-) ... OK, my initial question was trollish, sorry about it. I wanted to understand the engineering community comment, and after considerable research I think I can see why it's there. So I'm not complaining because the comment is there (a couple of days ago I wasn't agreeing on it that much, but maybe I have changed my views a bit), I just wished some more backing/explaining/references for it. Ilkkah (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We can all wish for better references. The problem is that, as the mainstream engineering community generally thinks this theory (or theories) has (or have) been discredited, they're not writing about it any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the term to Scientific community. If necessary I can add two more references to that sentence. Hut 8.5 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't link it to the scientific community because they are fence sitting on the subject. I think what Ilkkah is talking about is that using the term engineering community should require more than one cite especially as that one couldn't pass a peer review. I suggest citing at least two peer reviewed papers to prove the term is correctly used. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Explantion for Diagonally Cut Steel Girder

I did not see the diagonally cut steel girder mentioned on this page. This image has been floating around the internet for some time and it has not been explained. (http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2006/06/341239.jpg) How did the steel girder get cut at a diagonal angle. The official NIST explanation says the building collapse began with one column. If this girder was not cut by clean up crews then how was it cut, the collapsing building would not have cut it in such a fasion. This potentially crucial piece of evidence needs to be on this page and it needs to be fully explained. 68.229.87.128 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to add information to Wikipedia articles you need to have references for your claims, can you provide some? I can't see anything in the report saying that only one column failed, can you provide a specific reference for that as well? Hut 8.5 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused, 68. The NIST report says that building 7 fell because one vertical failed, followed by others. However, the NIST report also says that the two people who were rescued from building 7 after the initial explosions there were rescued after one of the towers fell. The newscasts of their rescue were broadcast before the towers fell. Also, Bazant claims that "the engineering community" agrees with the OTC. However, the real engineering community, as a whole, appears to be just as unconscious as the rest of the population, so Bazant is just spouting baseless propaganda. Neither Bazant nor NIST should be regarded as a reliable souce. We should change the attribution to something more explicit, such as "Bazant claims that the engineering community rejects everything but the official conspiracy theory." FEMA seems to be slightly more reliable.

You will note, however, the recently melted metal around the edges of the cut. Most of the columns were hastily shipped to China and melted down, but some pieces were retained for various reasons. For the ones for which the recently molten metal was recovered, however, it has been shown to be mostly iron with traces of aluminum, sulfur, potassium and manganese, but no chromium, so it comes from some source other than the column itself. Wowest (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FEMA? Reliable? And NIST report clearly stated that the debris from WTC 7 was made available to researchers. If they weren't actually looked at, it must mean the researchers didn't see the need. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that speculations on the meaning of a contextless photo on the internet are reliable, but a world-renowned engineer writing in a peer reviewed journal or a 10,000 page report produced by hundreds of experts aren't? We have no idea who took this photo, where or when it was taken, or what it is depicting. Including the picture with this information would be pure original research. Hut 8.5 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This crops up on Wikipedia whenever brainwashing is involved. We have something called mind-control cults. These groups claim to be religions. They have some fairly predictable, but strange beliefs. You can expect, right off the bat that the leader of the group has a unique relationship with God. Maybe he IS God. One guy claimed to be "greater than God," and another, "greater than or equal to God." Some of the members -- or casualties -- got to be that way because they participated in the "sacrament" of LSD in the leader's presence. Some learned to "pray" or "meditate" in a certain way that deprived them of their ability to criticize what they were told. The biggest issue, here, is the practice -- the hypnotic drugs or unwitting self-hypnotic "meditation" or "prayer."

So, some of these groups got together and bribed experts in the relatively small community of scholars of sociology of religion. They got to go to special conferences, all expenses paid. They got consulting fees. Nothing was stated explicitly, but there were certain expectations, which were met. Suddenly "New Religious Movements" were good and special, even if they were neither new nor religious. However, when someone gets deprogrammed from the practice (not always possible), then they recognize that they believed something they were told with no real proof. Maybe they had an astonishing "religious" experience, but that does not make the explanation they were given true, and they have no proof that the leader really was the Lord.

So, who are the main suspects here? Al Queda and several domestic and/or foreign organizations. Is NIST funded by one of the principal suspects? Yes. In fact, it's subordinate to the Bush White House. Can we believe what it says? Maybe. We can certainly extend tentative suspension of disbelief to some of what NIST has to say, but when it contradicts known facts, we have to be suspicious.

Bezant? He says things he has no way of knowing. Is he intentionally lying when he talks about the "community of engineers?" We have no way of knowing that, and he is an expert, but when over 500 lesser experts disagree with him, we have to evaluate what he says objectively. In that context, we really should say "according to Bazant, the community of engineers rejects...." It's about HONESTY.Wowest (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What you are arguing for has no place in Wikipedia. Wild conspiracy theories can't be used to evaluate the credibility of sources, and the sources in question pass WP:RS with flying colours. The federal government isn't considered a "suspect" by anyone except fringe theorists and our article must reflect this per WP:UNDUE. Even if we take the claims of expert support from the CD supporters at face value they don't represent anything more than a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of experts in the fields in question. This is still original synthesis to advance a viewpoint. Hut 8.5 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can some of the above be cleaned up or archived? (a) accusing the white house without foundation, and (b) the long discussion of religious movements, are probably unproductive themes and matters that by now are probably tentatively resolved or answered. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Yeah, kinda new, where should I add these links: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html They seem relevant, but I'm not sure where they would go. Thanks Soxwon (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You could put them in an external link section or cite them as references somewhere. There is an article on the collapse of the World Trade Center, they might be better off there. Hut 8.5 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to add them as references, but it didn't seem right, I think the external link is what I was looking for. Thank you Soxwon (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

JOM only says "The editor or advisor acquires a prospective manuscript, both review it and consider the merit and compatibility of the paper with the proposed technical emphasis topic. Usually, this process takes about a month.", so there may be doubt about whether this is really peer-reviewed. --Cs32en (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics

I don't know if this is a problem with this article specifically, but I posted this on some other articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories and thought it might be helpful here.

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not supposed to represent any sides of an issue. You present facts, and then present citations so those facts can be verified. I dispute the neutrality of this article based on the title. I feel the title of the article is not neutral. The title infers its not true before the reader has a chance to read any data. The word conspiracy should not be in the title. Rtconner (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We do present facts. It is a fact that Islamic terrorists attacked the US on 9/11 and it is a fact that these attacks brought down the WTC, not controlled demoltion. As for the title, you'll need reliable sources to back you up. We already looked it up and the vast majority of reliable sources about controlled demolition on 9/11 refer to it as a conspiracy theory. Regardless, I'd suggest you make future posts in the thread about the title as this one was just a helpful reminder. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, we are supposed to represent view points on an issue. Please read the policy pages I linked to in my original post to this thread. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I didnt think a conspiracy theory page was a reliable source anyway since its not based on factOttawa4ever (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This line is deceptive

"Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[18][19][20] and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation.[21] " I think this line leaves the impression that engineers were surprised by the collapses after the planes struck, when, I believe, the articles themselves expressed surprise at 9/11 generally. Additionally, we should be clear that when we say that engineers considered explosives as an explanation, they considered the explanation and found it to be absurd. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Much agreed, Also source [21] is from 8 days after 9/11. It would seem to be pretty unrealistic that an engineer could accurately assess accuraetly the event in that short of time Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aude compiled a list of engineers' statements about the collapse in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 here, most of them don't indicate surprise that the towers fell. I agree this ought to be removed. Hut 8.5 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read Bazants paper again. Quote:To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001 came as the greatest surprise since the collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Wayne (talk) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A very similar sentence was removed from Collapse of the World Trade Center because it did not represent the majority of the sources.[4] To be consistent we should remove it from here. Hut 8.5 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not have to "represent the majority of the sources". The claim is not disputed so as long as it is reliably sourced then it is relevant and should stay. Wayne (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is accurate. Everyone was surprised at 911 but that is not what the engineers are refering to. It is clear that they were surprised by the collapses themselves from an engineering viewpoint as it was believed to be virtually impossible given the state of pre 911 knowledge. If such was not the case then there would have been no need for NIST to investigate as NIST themselves admit. That at least one engineer considered explosives is not disputed and that he changed his mind later does not alter the accuracy of the sentence. Don't give conspiracy theorists ammunition to support their claims of censorship guys. Wayne (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of Explosion: What Kind of Bomb Could Have Pulverized Everything?

Apparent trolling by editor who is now indefinitely blocked

From the article: "Additionally, the production and expansion of the enormous dust clouds that covered Manhattan after the collapses has also been taken as an indication of an additional source of energy, such as explosives. Some proponents suggest that the energy required for this expansion alone (ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials) exceeded the gravitational energy available by 9.7 × 1012 J to 4.2 × 1013 J.[44][66] This corresponds to extra energy of about 2000 to 10000 tons of TNT, or 40 to 200 times the yield of the most powerful conventional bomb. NIST attributes these clouds to the ejection of air from compressed parts of the building.[23]" The reference #23 is broken. That's NIST's POV . . . sounds incredible, unbelievable to ALL skeptics of the Government's POV. No one has adequetly explained where two 100-story buildings vanished to except "the enormous dust clouds that covered Manhattan" several inches deep in some places. Also note the tiny debris pile of mostly steel beams . . . like where's all the broken glass, concrete, steel desks, etc? Since there was no radioactivity at Ground Zero, it seems obvious to me (and many 9/11 researchers), some kinda non-radioactive bomb destroyed the Twin Towers. I'm NOT an expert on bombs but it appears likely some kind of Thermobaric bomb was used. Here's what a 9/11 skeptic wrote about Thermobaric bombs at the WTC if U Google, "Thermobaric" & "WTC" you will find others saying a bomb such as this brougnt down the WTCs. A reference is also needed for this sentence in the above-quoted paragraph: "This corresponds to extra energy of about 2000 to 10000 tons of TNT, or 40 to 200 times the yield of the most powerful conventional bomb." Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Okay, you've restored the WP:SOAPy content that I previously removed as a misuse of this talk page. The next step is I am giving you the WP:ARB9/11 warning notification. If you continue using Wikipedia as a Truther chatroom, you'll swiftly be banned from these pages. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I suggest a new Topic catagory in the article discussing Thermobaric_weapon Bombs.Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) If you are proposing a specific change to the article, please specify what it is, along with sources. Hut 8.5 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I'm suggesting we have a new section in the article explaining the likelyhood that a Thermobaric bomb pulverized the Twin Towers. I'm also saying that citations are needed for one sentence (see above) and that the link to reference 23 is broken. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, but what do you want to put in this section? And which sources back it up? Hut 8.5 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I've fixed the link and added a template requesting a citation to the claim. Hut 8.5 19:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC) What page number in reference link #23 explains why there was a tiny debris pile and dust several inches thick throughout lower Manhattan? I'm suggesting a topic in the article discussing the likely-hood of bombs in the WTC. Google: "Thermobaric" & "WTC" you will find others saying a bomb brought down the WTCs. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC) I Googled "Thermobaric" and "WTC". Admittedly I did not check every single reference, but in general, all I got back were just a bunch of crazy 9/11 conpiracy sites. Wikipedia doesn't write articles based on insane conspiracy theory web sites. Instead, we rely on reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources that actually claim that thermobaric bombs were used to pulverize the Twin Towers? If not, it doesn't belong in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC) If there aren't any "reliable" sources to explain why there is such a small debris pile (no broken glass, desks, etc. from two 100-story buildings) and several inches of dust throughout Manhattan. Then what are U going to do? Ignore the elephant in the room as if the evidence for something unusual isn't there? Obviously bombs were planted in the WTC's which pulverized the buldings. Check out these pics for evidence of explosion. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC) If you want to include something in the article, you have to provide sources to back it up. That is how Wikipedia works. Simply saying "It's obvious" doesn't cut it. Flickr images can't be used as sources by the way. Hut 8.5 17:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC) O.K. Raquel -- you have valid eye-witness accounts of various phenomena, such as the absence of any office equipment even as large as a telephone. The question is whether commercially available DVD's of firemen and other eyewitness constitutes a Wikipedia "Reliable Source." I don't see why it shouldn't. That would appear to have about the same status as a book. If we see an identifiable fireman on a commercially available DVD making a statement, it should be clear that he made the statement. If the fireman didn't publish the DVD himself, then we have a third party source that he made the statement. However, you need to CITE the source. You can't just assume that someone else understands what you're referring to. On the other hand, this "thermobaric" theory is pure speculation. If we examine the available physical and video evidence, it's clear (1) that the second tower hit was leaning out over the street and about to topple when an unidentified energy source (2) dessicated and pulverized the concrete in the upper floors resulting in "pyroclastic" clouds of material finer than a human hair. Subsequently, the structural metal in the upper floors was "pancaked" together into what appears,in the available photograph (3) , as a "diamond" shape , which is also moved toward the center of the structure. Finally, the upper floors fell into the lower floors which had previously supported them, but with all of their weight now concentrated in the point of the "diamond" at the center of the underlying structure. Then the tower fell. That's pretty clear from the pictures, but are the pictures obtainable by Wikipedia? Each of (1), (2) and (3) is a separate photograph, and I've only seen (3) once, myself. I have some questions about its authenticity, actually. The scholarly debate here is whether the steel in the floors below the point of impact should have had enough resiliency to resist the force of gravity on the disconnected upper section. The other issue is where the energy came from to pulverize the concrete to such a degree. However, the scholars raising these questions are not, for the most part, doing so in mainstream scientific journals. Additionally, you can't really explain what is shown in the photographs without engaging in "original research." It is necessary either to find a "reliable source" who reports the explanation or to write a book or article which is published by a "reliable source" so that you can quote yourself. Otherwise, even if you can get appropriate releases for the three photographs, that's all you have -- three photographs. Wowest (talk) 06:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC) There's lotsa good evidence in videos of firemen saying there were explosions. Another video of a chief fireman who was in WTC7 who was victim of an explosion who was rescued and interviewed on a nwes station. These people obviously aren't actors. Some of these videos are soooo convincing I don't see how anyone can still believe the government's conspiracy theory. I had to delete the flickr photo 'cause the flickr police NIPSA'd my account so I substituted my webpage, which has many pics and the two videos I mentioned here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In any case, this is not a discussion forum for controlled demolition conspiracy theories or 9/11 denial. This is a talk page for the improvement of this article. What is the specific change that you would like to make to the article and what reliable sources do you have to back it up? If you don't have any, I suggest you seek an internet forum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I'm saying, the article is biased, missing a lot of information, needs to be improved or deleted. Here's some examples of bias in the article: "Supporters of the hypothesis claim that anecdotal evidence[21] of molten steel found in the rubble of the collapse[56]." Should read "eyewitness testimony." "the use of thermite, explosives, or some combination thereof is the most common suggestion being made today.[2][3][4] I'd like to add, "thermobaric bombs" with links to an article at 911Research.com. "The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses." This is not true. The video I cited above has a very credible witness interviewed by a TV station saying he was a victim of an explosion in WTC7, the witness also mentioned stepping over dead bodies in the lobby of WTC7 as he was being evacuated/rescued by firemen! "It was first suggested in late 2001 and has since become increasingly important to the 9/11 Truth Movement, but is rejected by the mainstream media and the mainstream engineering community.[1]" Why does "mainstream media" have to be mentioned? Mainstream media in Russia recently showed an entire video, I forget which one, on public TV and, more and more archetects & engineers are comming out against the government's conspiracy theory. (see AE911Truth.org) There's so much more wrong with this article. The article should be deleted! Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC) "anecdotal evidence" is the term used by the source, which meets WP:RS, so that is what we should call it. "the use of thermite..." the terms already in this sentence are backed up with references either to reliable sources or to people who have been mentioned in reliable sources as promoting CD theories. 911Research.com isn't in this category and the fact that someone has suggested thermobaric bombs doesn't mean it's one of the most common suggestions. "The investigation noted that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses." It is certainly true that the investigation noted this. The sentence is referring to NIST, which said that "no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses" (see the reference cited in the article). "mainstream media and the engineering community". The sentence is included because there are sources backing up both parts of it. (In fact the reference cited is a proper academic journal.) AE911Truth.org is not a reliable source and they do not represent most of the engineering community. I should also note that articles are only deleted through Wikipedia's deletion policy. It is extremely unlikely that an attempt to delete this article would succeed. Hut 8.5 09:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Point 1: The source says "anecdotal evidence" because he never interviewed the eyewitnesses which makes the terminology correct. If you want to change it to "eyewitness evidence" you need to find a relevant RS source that does interview the witnesses. Point 2: Thermobaric bomb claims are by no means common enough to have more than a passing reference if at all. Point 3: You are indeed correct that the claim is wrong in regards to witnesses but IT IS what the investigation reported. It might be appropriate to mention that many witnesses did report explosions somewhere but mention should then also be made that they misinterpreted what they heard. I believe a source I once read claims they were hearing the building moving. Point 4: Mainstream media still rejects the hypothesis regardless of how many engineers come out in support. Please avoid bringing up multiple complaints. Getting consensus or not on one at a time is easier and less disruptive than presenting 3 or 4 suggestions that are OR or unsupported and having a valid concern that might have otherwise got consensus lumped in with it. You may feel strongly about 911 but care must be taken when dealing with a controversial subject. Wayne (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Recommend renaming this article

Discussion from April 5 to April 7

There is no "hypothesis" that controlled demolition brought down the WTC. There are "conspiracy theories" that this occurred, but thats all. I recommend and urge we retitle this article to properly reflect what this article discusses, namely the conspiracy theories. So I think that retitling it to [[Controlled demolition conspiracy theories about the collapse of the World Trade Center]] would be the most accurate title which reflects the information in the article.--MONGO 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mongo. I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or do we use newspaper terminology? A conspiracy theory is who did it and why while a hypothesis is what happened. A conspiracy theory requires a hypothesis as a basis. To use newspaper terminology is inappropriate and could even be POV.
Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. Wayne (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Most reliable sources talk about "controlled demolition" and then go on to describe it as a conspiracy theory. A hypothsis is a scientific proposal that has yet to be proven. Things that are patently false are not called hypotheses. Only Truther literature uses the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". Therefore, in accordance with our general practice on Wikipedia to call things by what they are, I think this article should be named World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. See also Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, October surprise conspiracy theory. Jehochman ^Talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename it. Isn't a hypothesis something that can be falsified? But to the point, calling it the "controlled demolition hypothesis" is substituting what some guys on the internet think best for what the sources say. That's original research. We should describe things as the sources describe them. To the extent they talk about this at all, they do so in the context of the 911 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it that several editors with a known bias suggest a name change using false information in support and six hours later it is a done deal? If it had been a move by conspiracy theorists they ould have been blocked if not topic banned. Since the reasons given for the change are not valid (have you even read the reliable sources?) I request the name be reverted and time given for editors to comment. Nist uses several phrases in ther reports when talking of controlled demolition. 1: Controlled demolition hypothesis (the most common term they use), 2: Controlled demolition theory, 3: Controlled demolition event and 4: an alternative hypothesis. Are you suggesting NIST is not a reliable source? If Nist is not reliable then how about Bazant who uses the term? Manuel Garcia? A physicist and engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses the phrase Controlled demolition hypothesis in his article titled We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist The Physics of 911 as does Pierre Sprey in his The Absurdity of Controlled Demolition. Even Shermer called it the planned demolition hypothesis. Wayne (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• @Wayne, Conspiracy theorists are definitely not on equal footing at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for verifiable facts. Jehochman ^Talk 11:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• A name change seems perfectly reasonable to me. WP:NAME says that "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", and when the controlled demolition ideas are discussed in reliable sources they are labelled as conspiracy theories, even in academic journals. Furthermore I should note that the article's title was one of the reasons why it failed a GA review in 2008. NIST reports use phrases like "allegations of controlled demolition" or "hypothetical blast scenarios" to describe parts of the idea. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is quite clear here: If reliable sources as referenced above use a word in a title to cast a sardonic light upon the subject matter in a non-neutral and biased fashion, the word may be relied upon by Wiki editors (although in violation of neutrality rules) because the word is commonly used by reliable sources. So you see, even though common sense and reason show that the word conspiracy used in this context is not a neutral term, the very fact the source of the sarcastic use is reliable, makes its use permitted as a title on Wiki. Here, the reliablility rule is clearly in conclict with the neutrality rule. To remedy the situation now and for futire Wiki users, the title must be changed to reflect a neutral stance. Another remedy may be a caveat that Wiki acknowledges that the term is used to cast an unfavorable light upon the subject in violation of its terms of neutrality. (Peterbadgely (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

Discussion from April 10 to April 16

• I'd suggest to rename the article "World Trade Center controlled demolition allegations", as the term "allegation", according to the Wiki entry, describes "a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove" (without at the same time implying that the claim would be about the existence of a conspiracy). --Cs32en (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• You sound a lot like prior editors who were banned from this page, and I notice that you have a very short edit history, focusing on 9/11 conspiracy theory topics. So, have you ever edited Wikipedia before under a different userid? Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not answer your question earlier, as my account was temporarily blocked. I am also using an account on the German Wikipedia, which you can find here. I have never edited Wikipedia under a different userid.

There seem to exist considerable cultural differences between Wikis of different countries. For example, if you log out from the English Wikipedia, you see the following text:

"You are now logged out. This computer may be used to browse and edit Wikipedia without a username, or for another user to log in."

Logging out from the German Wikipedia, the notice reads:

"You are now logged out. You can continue to use Wikipedia (your edits will be registered with your IP adress), or you can log in again.

(I do not think anyone using Wikipedia for any extended period of time should use an IP adress.) --Cs32en (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. There are big differences. By now you are aware that this article is a battlezone, and that this talk page has been engaging in circular discussions with tendentious editors and banned editors using sock puppets. Please forgive us for being suspicious. 9/11 is not some minor event. The media in New York cover evering single detail and angle that has any legitimacy. If you need to look to far distant media to find verification of something, that something is likely to be quite dubious. There is an online community of Truthers who are lobbying quite heavily to promote their conspiracy theories. It is not surprising that they occasionally dupe somebody into publishing something. My concern is that these folks not be allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform for their propaganda. Jehochman ^Talk 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that only New York media is reliable and other sources dubious is laughable. U.S. media is widely known as unreliable on some topics. There is no online community of truthers as exists for the opposite viewpoint although I accept that though I have not seen evidence of one I may be wrong. I doubt that there is more than minimal contact between them and lobbying is non existant. My concern is that reliably sourced good faith edits are treated as using Wikipedia as a "platform for their propaganda" if any of a certain group don't like it. Unless an editor has a history of propaganda treat them as you wish your edits to be treated instead of dismissing everything you dont agree with. Wayne (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeh and claiming the BBC is a reliable source is also laughable. These after all are the people who reported that the hijackers were still alive a few days after the event and "lost" key tapes of their coverage of the 21st centuries defining moment. Then there's NIST, who have been caught DENYING the existance of molten metal and the high temperatures of Ground Zero and, despite being LEGALLY MANDATED to under the NFPA 921 code, did not check for thermite residues. Oh, and let's not forget Mark Loizeux of Controlled Demolition Inc, who doesn't believe a series of thermite reactions can bring down a building in a symmetrical fashion... but believes normal office fires can!--90.212.181.83 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion since April 26

I wholeheartedly agree that this article should be retitled. The additon of the word "conspiracy" only serves to make the article anything but neutral. The title of this article is in clear violation of Wiki's policy of a neutral point of view. An adequate title to remedy the situation might be : "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Theory" or something to that effect.(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I have reviewed the messages below this, and since one of the editors referred to "controlled demolition proponents" rather than using the word conspiracy, I feel that "proponents" may be an adequate remedy to the above violation of neutrality rules. Note that the word proponent was promoted by a detractor of the banned editor. There must be a more adult manner to deal with these alternative theories. Note that Wikipedia will be read centuries from now, so much the better if we look upon all sound (or arguable) theories with a neutral and inquisitive mind in the present day (2009).(Peterbadgely (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

The reasoning behind the current name seems to be that the CD hypothesis would be some kind of pseudoscience. However, the term pseudoscience refers to a theory or a belief about general properties of the world, not about singular events or a set of such events. Such distinctions get lost in the confrontational atmosphere of the editing process here. --Cs32en (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no, pseudoscience:

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. You're also having problems with fulfilling Occam's razor as any CD result leads to so many other things and can't be taken by itself. Soxwon (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a "belief about general properties of the world". If the hypothesis is true, this may indeed lead to "many other things", but would not imply that any of the current scientific theories about general properties of the world would be invalidated. So you may apply Occam's razor, but not with regard to the question of whether the hypothesis fulfills the definition of pseudoscience. Please read the article on Occam's razor, which states, inter alia, that "Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may," carefully. --Cs32en (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They ought to hire you all as spin doctors. My two objections were not linked and that was perfectly evident. Soxwon (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

From a viewpoint of lexical semantics: Something that is called "pseudoscience" should have some of the properties of what is being called "science". "Science", however, is an organized set of statements about general properties of the observable universe. A hypothesis, whether true or false, is not "science". By the same Occam's razor that you have invoked, it would be a stretch of terminology to posit that a false hypothesis should be called "pseudoscience". --Cs32en (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This a bit of a red herring. When the article was renamed, one of the main reasons was that the majority of reliable sources use this terminology. The first person to use the term "pseudoscience" was Cs32en today, I believe. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, wow, can't I believe I walked right into that. Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would like to avoid the issue, because of its implications as to which Wikipedia guidelines should apply to this article, and how the relevant Wikipedia policies should be interpreted. --Cs32en (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Avoid the issue you created? Soxwon (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is of course whether we should follow the policy Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Impartial_tone or not. I didn't create the issue, but this question remains to be answered. --Cs32en (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice use of Ignoratio elenchi. The problem is not whether or not CD is a pseudoscience or not, but what is should be named. Soxwon (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, the word "pseudoscience" would be a worse choice than the fiery term "conspiracy theories." But the issue is whether the term "conspiracy theories" as it is applied to the title of this article violates Wiki's policy of having a neutral point of view. In this case, based on the cultural connotations of this term used in this case, the answer must be an unequivocal: YES! We should not pretent to fool ourselves here. The title "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theories" has an almost cartoon-like sardonic quality to it. I strongly recommend that the title be changed to something like: "World Trade Center Controlled Demoliton Theory", or something in that vein. The present title is clearly in violation of neutrality. I am not taking into account any related and independent scientific articles which may support this hypothesis and be considered "reliable sources". That is a separeate issue to be dealt with soon. Thank you... (Peterbadgely (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

Wikipedia policies would only allow the article to be legitimately named "conspiracy theories" if the topic of the article would be a pseudoscience. It is quite revealing that the proponents of the name change are trying to avoid the topic by throwing around latin words like "Ignoratio elenchi". --Cs32en (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have the text that states that? Soxwon (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just read Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Impartial_tone and WP:Psci. --Cs32en (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Right and your claim holds no merit. Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Says Soxwon, who may or may not have read and/or understood the texts. --Cs32en (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're seriously on the wrong track. Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Impartial_tone is valid whether or not WP:RS sources, or any other sources, report on an issue using partisan language. --Cs32en (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about article content, not article titles. For article titles, see WP:COMMONAME which says "Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COMMONAME: "What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?" You don't suppose anyone would look for "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories", do you? If you google this, you get exactly 18 links at this moment, most of which point to Wikipedia content. So it is clear that "conspiracy theories" is not part of the commonly used name, while it may be an attribute used in connection with the topic. Attributes should, of course, not be part of any encyclopedic lemmata. In addition, it violates Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Impartial_tone, this policy applies to the content as well as to the names of Wikipedia articles: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view." (WP:NPOV) --Cs32en (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You fail to mention they are even less likely to type in "World Trade Center controlled demolition hypothesis" and the NPOV violation is your interpretation and a non-issue at this point. Soxwon (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed unlikely that anyone will type in any meaningful name we could choose for the article. Most people will find it by looking for either World Trade Center controlled demolition or "World Trade Center" AND "controlled demolition". "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia." (WP:NPOV). It thus takes precedence over Wikipedia:COMMONAMES, which is a guideline. --Cs32en (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:NPOV is about what reliable, third-party sources say about a subject. So, either way, your argument fails. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, and it's by your interpretation alone that the title as it is now violates NPOV. Soxwon (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to disagree with my opinion. --Cs32en (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So now we have an article that has a title which is in clear violation of the neutral point of view Wiki standard and Wikipedia:Undue_weight#Impartial_tone. The term "conspiracy" as associated with the title of this article is unequivocally sardonic, sarcastic, biased, unprofessional, uncouth, and certainly not necessary. The title would easily be considered neutral by using the Wikipedia:COMMONAME standard: World Trade Center Controlled Demolition, Controlled Demolition Theory, or something along those neutral lines. If it is the purpose of the editors and administrators of Wikipedia to paint the title of this article in a light which is in violation of several Wikipedia policies, then they have succeeded brilliantly. Clearly, the title must be changed in order to meet the strict standards that this publication purports to uphold. (Peterbadgely (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

I've made this point before regarding WP:NPOV and I'll make it again: In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well.

This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition as a conspiracy theory, then that's exactly how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

We do not introduce bias to counter bias of reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." (WP:NPOV). This does refer to perspectives that are reported by those sources, it does not refer to how those sources present them. "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively."

"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. [...] Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." (WP:FRINGE) This does not mean: "You must write in a non-neutral way!" It means: "You may be unable to write in a non-neutral way." However, there are enough reliable sources on what the controlled demolition hypothesis is about, so there is nothing that would prevent us to present it an encyclopedic, neutral way. And of course we should report that it is a minority viewpoint at present, and that most media refer to it as a fringe theory at the moment. — Cs32en (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No, the title of the article now is entirely proper (WTC controlled demolition conspiracy theories). See the thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative Theory Critiques Need a more Neutral Stance to prevent violation of Wiki Policies. It is a conspiracy theory; a theory that there was a conspiracy. If it was 100% true, it's still a conspiracy theory. To be honest I'd have a hard time to continue to AGF from anyone arguing that this isn't a conspiracy theory. Verbal chat 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, you have already engaged in dismissive rhetoric here. Why don't you fix the missing citation in that article first, after you have been fiercely defending what the supposed source says. — Cs32en (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And, to comment on the substance of what you say here: you probably know that the term "conspiracy theory" is intended to convey the impression that the proponents of the theory would think that all other people would conspire against them, covering things up etc. Thus, the pejorative meaning of the term is that the mindset of the proponents of such theories would be in some way identical or similar to that of people suffering from paranoia, a mental condition. Referring to a possible alternative meaning of "conspiracy theory", i.e. a theory about a conspiracy, is just a tactics to obscure the primary intention with which the term is actually being used. — Cs32en (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories should be labeled what they are, per WP:WEASEL. That's what the reliable sources call them. If you don't like it, take it up with the New York Times. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wants to rename this article, except for a few single purpose accounts that have come to Wikipedia with the apparent agenda of promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. Per our longstanding customs, the opinions of such accounts are discounted. SPAs are not members of the community. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, your following statement is on the record here and is currently being discussed by the arbitrators: "Any new user who appears on Wikipedia suggesting, in earnest, that the World Trade Center was brought down by explosives planted by "conspiracists", may be reasonably viewed as a meat puppet of one of those blocked or banned editors. As such, they may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator." — Cs32en (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The general rule is quite clear here: If reliable sources as referenced above use a word in a title to cast a sardonic light upon the subject matter in a non-neutral and biased fashion, the word may be relied upon by Wiki editors (although in violation of neutrality rules) because the word is commonly used by reliable sources. So you see, even though common sense and reason show that the word conspiracy used in this context is not a neutral term, the very fact that the source of the sarcastic use is reliable, makes its use permitted as a title on Wiki. Here, the reliablility rule is clearly in conflict with the neutrality rule. To remedy the situation now and for futire Wiki users, the title must be changed to reflect a neutral stance. Another remedy may be a caveat that Wiki acknowledges that the term is used to cast an unfavorable light upon the subject in violation of its terms of neutrality. (Peterbadgely (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely (moved comment to correct date after date sections were added).

peterbadgely and Cs32en seem to have a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ADVOCACY, and Cs32en's personal attacks aren't welcome. Is there an AE measure that can be invoked here, or do we have to take this to ANI? Verbal chat 14:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARB9/11 and WP:ARB9/11#Discretionary sanctions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir (Papyrus), please addess me. It is not my intention to be repetitive in any way shape or form--only to hone the issue. The issue is whether to change the title to the article. Since this very section has been broken down into separte time periods, my rather recent writings seem timely and relevant. The importance of this issue appears to be of utmost importance to Wiki editors. (68.14.146.78 (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)) peterbadgely

Removals of the new paper

Thread by editor who is now topic banned

Please explain why the article about demolition "conspiracy theories" is not allowed to include references to the papers that are written about the subject itself, just because they are published by Bentham. Obviously there is no concern about references to conspiracy theory books. But since when is an open scientific journal not allowed on wikipedia? Bentham articles have been referenced here for a long time, and the topic is extremely relevant to this article, written by the very researchers the article is supposedly about. If one were writing an article about moon landing deniers, but no actual articles written by moon landing deniers would be allowed to even be referenced in the article, how is anyone supposed to see what the claims actually are? The only reason I can imagine is that editors here don't want anyone to know that conspiracy theorists have written articles at all. If their claims are all wrong, what difference does it make if people see them? Apparently if the public sees these articles, they will be misinformed about what the conspiracy theories are really about. Or is there some other reason? bov (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) "If one were writing an article about moon landing deniers, but no actual articles written by moon landing deniers would be allowed to even be referenced in the article, how is anyone supposed to see what the claims actually are?" The answer to this question would be how do reliable sources treat these claims? If no reliable source has covered the conspiracy theories, then it need not be in the article. If reliable sources have covered the conspiracy theories, then they might be in article but only as the reliable sources resported it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC) A Quest For Knowledge, would you see a government-owned Danish television channel as a reliable source, and if so, would you be in favor or against including the information about the published paper, as reported by the television channel, in the article? --Cs32en (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Why are we labelling these papers as "reaction of the engineering community"? They weren't written by engineers, so keeping them in this section falsely implies that engineers are writing papers about controlled demolition ideas. If these papers are going to stay they need to be moved to another section. Hut 8.5 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I have requested arbitration enforcement. We should not have to answer the same questions to the same users a million times. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC) You opened the door to the same questions with the name change. If the name change is acceptable then material that may not have been appropriate for a hypothesis is now relevant under the more general conspiracy theory title. For example, no reasonable arguement can now be made to keep out the Bentham paper anymore. Wayne (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) That's almost true. However, the claim that either Bentham paper is in a peer-reviewed journal is not suitable for inclusion, nor is the claim that the authors are engineers or otherwise credible. Notability is still in question, not verifiability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC) {ec} Is Bentham a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Probably not. I don't have the pointers on the tips of my fingers, but there is evidence that people (not necessarily experts) were encouraged to sign up to be "peer"-reviewers. It may not apply to all Bentham open-access journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Bentham is peer reviewed but a minority query how extensively based mainly on the fact that article contributors pay for the review. The "encouragment" was Bentham mass mailing scientists and University professors offering them a place on the review board when the journals were first set up. While some were not as qualified as they should have been there has been no evidence that article reviews have been compromised. However the edit Bov made does not mention peer review so it's left for the reader to decide reliability. I also notice the edit makes no claim that the authors are engineers, it is clear that they are chemists and physicists which is consistant with what the paper is about and the journal it is in (The Open Chemical Physics Journal) and it is also clear that such disciplines are part of the engineering community. I see no problem with the edit as it is consistant with the article subject and is not pushing any view. Wayne (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Based on the article's contents, they apparently analyzed dust that random people sent to them: "It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Thay may be a problem best left for the reader. That all samples were identical is support for their provenance. Another supporting factor is that NIST also found the same chemicals in the 911 dust but didn't investigate further as they believed they were likely naturally produced from the destruction of the building contents. I believe that the papers point is that they were in quantities more consistant with explosives than contents. They are likely wrong but that is not for us to say. The idea of research is to discover facts to form a hypothesis and let scientists (and by extension lay readers) decide for themselves which is the stronger case. If the hypothesis is out there it should be presented to Wikipedia readers in an appropriate manner. Just because it lends support for a conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. The assasination of JFK and his brother are examples where some facts support conspiracy theories better than the official theory does but we still accept the official theory because it has more evidence, yet we still include those facts in their articles so I fail to see why this topic should be treated differently. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Including these papers in a section entitled "reaction of the engineering community" implies that they are part of the response of engineers to the idea of controlled demolition, like the publications described earlier in this section. In fact they are written by prominent non-engineer proponents of controlled demolition. Descriptions of the papers should therefore be moved to "History" or "Notable proponents". I don't mind mentioning this paper somewhere, as long as we are clear this is just another publication by controlled demolition proponents. Hut 8.5 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with it being in another section. Wayne (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC) I basically agree that the reference to the paper should be moved to another section, if the section title remains as it is. However, it is probably preferable to rename the section to "Discussion within the scientific community", instead of "engineering community", as the latter is (a) too restrictive and (b) appears to convey the notion that the community as a whole would "react" in some way, which is not how such communities work. Please note that the authors of the paper are not just "controlled demolition proponents", but (in part) scientists in a relevant field, i.e. nano-technology. The editor-in-chief of the publication, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni, member of the European Academy of Science, has received, among others, the Research award of the prestigious German Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. --Cs32en (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC), modified --Cs32en (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Please see Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: * surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; * reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended; * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. Judging from the English subtitles, neither the channel nor the interviewer characterize the researchers as conspiracy theorists, although, at one point, the interviewer asks: "What do you say to viewers who hear about your research and say, 'we’ve heard it all before, there are lots of conspiracy theories'?". --Cs32en (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Information

{{collapse top|Circular discussion started by single purpose account}}

In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and 8 other authors, published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. The paper suggested that super-thermite chips were discovered in the dust and was covered in the Danish and Croatian press as well as in Utah.

Thanks for this - it became apparent from my watchlist that there was something somebody didn't want me to read here, for whatever reason. Now that I have read it, the only conceivable reasons I can think why somebody wouldn't want me to have read that information, are all utterly vile and reprehensible, sir. Please give an adequate rationale why I should not have been allowed to read that. No Time Toulouse (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, sockpuppet. Because Bentham's editorial policies are, shall we say, doubtful, this statement is not allowable unless the authors were recognized experts in the field. Furthermore, even if they were recognized experts, it's a summary paper quoting Jones's earlier Bentham paper for which there is a credible claim that even the doubtful editorial policies were not followed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I've never had any involvement with this article or this subject whatsoever - but I have been watchlisting it and lurking for some time. It seems pointless to deny that we are talking about a potential crime scene, and potential evidence to that crime. I first found out about this evidence existing, when I noticed that high level wikipedia administrators were pulling every trick available to stop potential crime evidence from being considered - a claim that thermate use was found on analysis of the residue. Even including my fear of being banned or worse now just for expressing my opinion here. I would imagine it's really too late too "keep a lid on" this report now, simply by banning anyone who mentions its existence on wikipedia, and thereby backfiring by drawing more attention to the report instead of keeping new attention away from it. But the mentality behind all the insults and threats here seems the same: Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit. That's all I have to say now. No Time Toulouse (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Four major Danish newspapers, across the political landscape, have reported on the publication. Collectively, they directly reach 8-10% of the population of Denmark. Videnskab, a science journal sponsored by the Danish Minstry for Science and Technology, currently features this as their main story for the month of April. The editor-in-chief of the journal has received numerous scientific awards and is an officer of the French National Order of Merit. People who ignore these facts are probably also thinking that Cheney is still Vice President, because the New York Times and CNN are unreliable news sources. --Cs32en (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This is just my 2 cents but...

Regarding Bentham, WP:V states that "articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Does Bentham has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?

Regarding the Danish newspapers, we really should avoid foreign language newspapers. This is an English wikipedia for English readers. Yes, foreign language sources are allowed but should be avoided and it's up to the editors to make this decision. There are more than enough English sources to use. There shouldn't be any reason to have to resort to foreign sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}

It seems Mr. Jehochman is either forgetting that wikipedia is 100% transparent and can be followed by anyone anywhere, or else he deliberately wishes to be seen as trying to obscure even discussion of potential criminal evidence to a crime scene. I would not be surprised if more and more lurkers come out of the woodwork with this kind of leak being reported, but it does not mean they are all "sockpuppets" or "single purpose accounts", it just means lots of unconnected people are wondering the same thing. No Time Toulouse (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Attempted user intimidation

Single purpose account objected to receiving the ARB9/11 warning.

I would like to ask the community engaged in editing and improving this article, whether the following method of communication should be considered acceptable practice on Wikipedia: 911 conspiracy theories subject to discretionary sanctions Please follow our core policies on Verifiability, Consensus, and No original research. Note in particular the discretionary sanctions listed here could result in a topic ban. Specificaly, stop trying to force in your version against consensus. The burden is on the person who wannts to add the material to justify it. You haven't met that burden. When you have, you won't have to keep reverting. Tom Harrison Talk 23:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Tom, please have look at BRD-cycle. It's obvious that the content in question is verifiable, although people might differ on whether the conclusions of the paper are correct. Also, mentioning the article does not fall under the category of original research, as (a) the research was neither done nor published by me (b) the article is about theories on the WTC destruction, so the article itself is a subject of the article, not a piece of research with regard to the topic of the article. --Cs32en (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) --Cs32en (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with Tom's communication. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Good work, Tom. Cs32en, please follow the advice. This page has been subject to intense, prolonged abuse. Patience levels here are much lower than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 23:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal Ejections of Steel

Ok, find reliable sources stating that it's significant and possible explanations. No WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. Thank you, have a nice day.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does the section on the main towers make no mention of the fact that horizontal pieces of steel weighing several tonnes, were explosively ejected and hurled several hundred feet? Image: [5] It's a fairly key piece of evidence, which has been acknowledged by various official reports. Is it because it hasn't been, and can't be, explained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.234.34 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC) No first of all there's a difference b/w a reliable source and 9/11 truther crap. Learn the difference before you ask why things aren't in the article. Soxwon (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) It's a photo ... and there are other official photos of steel beams embedded into buildings more than 350 feet away ... such as this one from the FEMA report: http://911guide.googlepages.com/WFC3Damage2.jpg/WFC3Damage2-large.jpg. You can't deny that steel beams were flung huge distances so why can't we include that in the twin tower section? Is it because it can't be debunked? --90.219.234.34 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, find reliable sources stating that it's significant and possible explanations. No WP:OR or WP:FRINGE. Thank you, have a nice day. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I think a 100+ story building has more than enough potential energy to make all sorts of things happen to its components during a structural failure. I once dropped a cup that landed on the floor and managed to shoot coffee onto the ceiling. Who could know what might happen to steel girders during a building collapse. It is not appropriate to use this page for such speculations. From now on, I suggest removing any such comments to prevent discussions from being sidetracked. Jehochman Talk 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Disinformation section needed

Rejected idea proposed by anonymous account

For actively controversial pages, there should be included, as part of the article itself, a section that summarizes the nature of the controversy and the efforts by various parties to have their way in determining the final content of the article. It is not enough for this issue to be on the discussion page, even though it is a meta issue. Of course I am not suggesting that all the discussion be in the main article page, but at the very least, a summary of the main points should be on the main page, just so readers know that there is a controversy. It is obvious to anyone who already knows (all the readers of this talk page), but I'm talking about the readers who happen by looking for information that is new to them. How would they know? In particular, regarding 9/11, since it is claimed that the true story includes a coverup of the true story, then the cover up and Disinformation itself is part of that story. Therefore, there should be a section in this page in particular about the recent efforts to change the title and references, etc, to hide the recent article on thermite, and to cast the "hypothesis" as a mere "conspiracy theory". There should be references to other pages on Disinformation as a warning to the reader that even the appearance of credible sources may need to be questioned. To pretend to be objective when there is quite obviously so much subjectivity and prejudice around these controversial issues is self-defeating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.157.3 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think this is a good idea. This would immediately lead to conflicts about what the controversy was about, instead of about how to improve the article, and people would spend time on editing, reverting, and discussing the meta section. In my view, we can safely assume that the people who read this page, which is not the main page about the Sept. 11 attack, but about one alternative theory about the attacks, would be aware that there is controversy about the subject. --Cs32en (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I doubt if there are any reliable sources that are about this particular Wikipedia talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (I wrote the proposal, and I didn't want to bother creating a new account (forgot my password, and email has changed), so it was anonymous. Suggesting that I used a "single purpose" account is unnecessarily demeaning.) Regarding your response to my proposal, would it be more or less controversial to agree on what is controversial rather than to fight about which way the article should be phrased as if that is the one truth? I believe that acknowledging and summarizing the controversy will tend to quell the struggle for dominance, rather than inflame it. You inflame it by suppressing the expression of this controversy. But moreover, the controversy and the disinformation campaign IS part of the story itself, and therefore, not acknowledging that controversy is covering up part of the story. You simply have to add this section or admit that you are guilty of exactly what I am talking about: covering up part of the story. This should also be on the main http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories page, and reference it from this page. There is a section on "Criticism" but that is only part of the issue - it should be something like "Controversy". Editing a wiki talk page is a lousy way to have a discussion, by the way. That is disincentive enough.

Conspiracy Label (problematic in a different way)

The "Conspiracy theory" idea is probably problematic on a few levels, ones not subject to prior discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.82.240 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should reject attempts at wikilawyering by a sock or meat puppet account. Jehochman ^Talk 22:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Johachman's intentions and I think he has rationale for bad faith. It is my mistake - still making green (signature) errors I guess. However, there is much a rationale for the idea stated; I just don't know how to explain it perfectly yet. I promise to be more efficient and clear and everyone can agree also: let's not bite the new guys. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Head of FBI Counterterrorism Division on Controlled Demolition hypothesis

I propose to include the following information in this article:

The FBI does not exclude alternative theories about the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, from its investigation. Michael J. Heimbach, head of the FBI Counterterrorism Division has characterized the hypothesis, brought forward by Richard Gage, that the buildings of the World Trade Center would have collapsed as a result of controlled demolitions, as "an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis".

With regard to the relevance and verifiability this information, I would like to add the following:

• The FBI is, of course, a well-known institution, and its views are highly relevant in the context of this article. Michael J. Heimbach, who expresses these views in his capacity as Assistant Director at the FBI, is certainly not a Truther.

• Wikipedia is not about finding out the truth (WP:Verifiability), and this article should not be about finding out the truth, either. This article is about a minority viewpoint, as its title indicates, so the following policy item from WP:SOURCES is relevant: "Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them" (emphasis by me).

• With regard to the source of this letter, I am very well aware that it is not a peer-reviewed paper. However, if the letter would have been forged or manipulated, the FBI would have taken effective steps against the publication of the PDF file, and more than three months after its publications, there would be some trace of any such action on the internet. Cirumstantial evidence, therefore, indicates that the source is reliable.

• I have added the information above, with (almost) the same wording (e.g., the FBI is the "US-American federal police" in the german text), in the section on "Conspiracy theories" of the main German article on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on March 8. As of today, no other editor has either modified this paragraph or objected to the inclusion of it. --Cs32en (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You can't use unreliable fringe theorist sources to back up statements about anything other than the opinions of the group that published the source. This includes statements commenting on the level of the acceptance of the fringe theory, and we have to be especially careful if we are dealing with statements by real people. The fact that the FBI hasn't requested that the material be removed certainly doesn't make it reliable (see WP:RS for things that do), and decisions on the German Wikipedia have no effect on the English Wikipedia (and vice versa). Hut 8.5 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that including this material is not a good idea. Wikipedia does not draw conclusions. We merely assemble what is reported by reliable sources. If it were verifiable and relevant, it would appear in a reliable source, such as the New York Times (which has covered 9/11 in very great detail). We should not look to distant, minor, or exotic sources, nor should be be drawing inferences based on speculation. This article in particular has been the subject of intense speculation, lobbying and attempts at publishing original research. We should very strictly apply Wikipedia's verifiability, neutral point of view and biography of living persons policies here. Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a big difference between saying it's "interesting" and "backed by thorough research" and saying it's true. There are all sorts of mad theories which are interesting and it is a feature of conspiracy theorists that they tend to be obsessive and thus produce reams of research - of course, such research tends to quietly ignore anything inconvenient to its pre-existing conclusions, which is why it does not generally get published in reliable independent peer-reviewed sources. The controlled demolition theory is a classic conspiracy theory, and this is just one more example of supporting conspiracy theories by demanding proof of a negative. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Heimbach or the FBI would think that the hypothesis is true. But they say they do not exclude it from their investigation, which at least means that the do not think there is sufficient evidence to declare with certainty that it is false. --Cs32en (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

When I was in 5th grade, I was taught that a "hypothesis" was an "educated guess." Not just a guess, but an *educated* guess. It is unfortunate that some editors on Wikipedia choose to act as gatekeepers by insisting that the New York Times is an unquestioningly reputable source when all one has to do is look at the Jayson Blair scandal. It is likewise unfortunate that these same editors have gotten to the point where they can not see the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific study and a conspiracy theory. Clearly the only "agenda" is not by "truthers" but by those folks who wish to marginalize the controlled demolition hypothesis using the term "conspiracy theory," which has become a byword for "wacky nutcase idea." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameelyun (talk • contribs) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha! You are starting to get the point. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing wacky, nutcase ideas. There are plenty of websites for that. This isn't one of them. Go elsewhere if that's your agenda. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

So why are there any number of articles on Wikipedia about Flat Earth etc., and there is even an explicit policy on fringe theories, both in articles about the subject of such theories and in articles about such theories themselves? --Cs32en (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're following NPOV and RS, we're not promoting wacky, nutcase ideas, we're debunking them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither about promoting nor about debunking ideas. It is about presenting ideas in rough proportion to their notability. --Cs32en (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the Popular Mechanics and NIST's report regarding the controlled demolition conspiracy theories? They debunk. So should we. It would be against WP:NPOV not to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive". It represented "the WTC 2 structure above th 86th floor as a 'single super-element'" (Final Report, p. 104), although it is clearly disintegrating before collaps initiation. "Since the stories below ... provided little resistance ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall" (p. 146). First, there is no "building section", but a cloud of dust above the "stories below". Second, even if there was a building section, and if it was intact, and if the steel had lost 50 % of its strength, then a large part of the potential (gravitational) energy of the upper "building section" would still have been needed to deform the steel, and thus would not have been available for the acceleration at "essentially ... free fall" speed. So we you need to ask: why did the lower stories, from top to bottom, provide "little resistance", as the NIST report concedes? --Cs32en (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN, we don't ask anything, we report. Soxwon (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I changed my comment. --Cs32en (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone widely quoted and notable as asking that (non-fringe too), but otherwise it's speculation and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Soxwon (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sir Jehochman: Thank you for acknowledging that you DO have an agenda to marginalize the hypothesis is a "nutcase wacko conspiracy theory." Wikipedia is for finding information. The controlled demolition hypothesis exists, and it is backed explicitly (in writing, if just by petition signature) by hundreds of relevant professionals with appropriate credentials, and likely by thousands more. Not only that, the FBI has acknowledged that the hypothesis is "backed by thorough research and analysis." These facts alone should make anyone's head turn. As such, sir, it is merely YOUR OPINION that it is a "wacky nutcase idea" and you are using your editorial power to attempt to marginalize the idea with the negative term "conspiracy theory" which puts it in the category of Elvis sitings, UFO's etc. I am very disappointed. EDIT: Do you remember the Jayson Blair scandal? Do you remember the "60 Minutes" accuracy scandals? I'm disappointed that you unquestioningly seem to believe that the New York Times is a de facto reliable source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kameelyun (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I notice that your username sounds like Chameleon. Do you change appearances to blend in? Are you avoiding scrutiny by using multiple accounts? Yes, it is my agenda to prevent people from using this website for wikiality. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please address personal issues at the talk pages of the respective editors, or at the Administrators' noticeboard, if necessary, Jehochman. Bringing these things up here merely disrupts the discussion. --Cs32en (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is my first account on Wikipedia because I was angered enough by the censorship on your part to register and give my $0.02. Thank you for admitting you are indeed biased. -- Preceeding comment added by Kameelyun (diff) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC).

Bart Simpson: 'conspiracy theory' is like 'bitch' (female dog)

The first sentence as written says that "theories claim."

The problem is the evidence which might be dealt with as such, which is dealt with as evidence in many countries around the world, and it will be interesting to see the US writers slowly catch up with many countries.

This term used (c.t.) is a perfect one for one who wishes to claim that he "means in a good way" a vague phrase that has cold meanings, like the fun way rascal children like to use the word "bitch" and say they mean "female dog" (think Bart Simpson).

As the families and firefighters note, to criticize evidence (calling it theory) makes sense if we are playing in the land of Simpsons whose double meanings are indeed a joke.

wiki quote:

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be (*) a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, (*) a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and (*) a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some (*) for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is (*) that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

Here come the dogs ..

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

The 2008 article "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" in The Environmentalist

I propose also adding, as a significant event, the following peer-reviewed article published in Springer's science journal to the History section: "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials" http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ Perscurator (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's still a fringe theory. Per WP:NPOV, "each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." One or two articles do not outweigh the thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC by crashing two jets into them. Come back when you have a few hundred more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This article, of course, is named "Controlled Demolition conspriracy theory", not "Refutations of Controlled Demolition conspiracy theory", so the article is relevant, even if it would not be relevant in an article on "9/11 theories". Significant means significant in the context of the article, as defined by its title. You start gaming the policies here. --Cs32en (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We're supposed to fairly represent all sides to an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint. There are few, if any, reliable sources that say that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition. Even if there were any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderence of reliable sources backing of that perspective. As I already pointed out, there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that Al Qaeda destroyed the WTC by crashing two jets into them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for presenting the non-mainstream sources in the same way as the mainstream sources. Your reasoning would be correct if the article would be about the subject itself (in this case, the title would be "Destruction of the World Trade Center"). In the context of this article, however, it is not a question of relative weight, but a question of the wording which we use when we present the sources and their content. This is an article about a non-mainstream hypothesis, so I think it's obvious that the relevant statements and arguments of its proponents should be included. Objections to these statements and arguments should be included as well, according to their relevance. --Cs32en (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a common misunderstanding, but that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. All Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow NPOV. There are no exceptions. Fringe theories don't get special treatment just because we're in an article about fringe theories. I've made this point before and I'll make it again:

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as being wrong and unsupported by factual evidence, that that's exactly how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

AQFK has stated numerous times on this page "If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well." I think I finally get what he or she is saying now. Put another way: In this case, we are allowed to endorse a particular viewpoint over another, because all the sources that hold that viewpoint are the ones we call "reliable". No Time Toulouse (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus on removing reference to the "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" article?

Disruption and meat puppetry

The article can be found here: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM I returned a reference to it as it is significant - obviously for the 9/11 truth movement, but also because the international group of scientists have identified material that in their tests turned out to be even more energetic than traditional thermite. After that, I received this kind of notification: Some users of Wikipedia have been restoring text about 'active thermitic material' to a variety of 9/11-related articles, without getting consensus on any Talk page that the material belongs. A variety of regular editors keep removing this change. You may take this as one of the signs that 'active thermitic material' does not have consensus on Wikipedia. We believe that you are capable of realizing this, and of knowing that you should not restore contentious material to an article under Arbcom sanctions without getting wide support. If you continue, you make be blocked for edit warring. I don't think there is consensus on either removing or keeping the reference to the article. It does sound strange that the Wikipedia article, which evidently for years had included the word "hypothesis", was hastily renamed using the biased and ahistorical "conspiracy theory" label after the publication of the active thermitic material article. How can the editors defending the official conspiracy theory(1) just decide that the name of the article has to be changed and then change it hours later although there was no consensus for the change? And then proceed to block anyone who challenges their view of what should be presented in a Wikipedia article? Sounds pretty totalitarian to me. Perscurator (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (1) A theory that is crumbling by the day, see an upcoming book by John Farmer, the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2009/041409_government_agreed.htm "Make no mistake, Farmer is not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, however, Farmer's testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities' version of events today, is a lie - according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny." The reasons for the name change were given in that thread. BTW, there's no such thing as the "official conspiracy theory". That's a term used predominently by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Farmer is not saying it was an inside job, so what does this have to do with controlled demolition? RxS (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC) That should be on the 911 page and not here as it is not really part of conspiracy theories (apart from a "conspiracy" to hide failings by the military). Farmers views are documented in reliable sources and are not in dispute. Wayne (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) The arogance boggles the mind. The reasons for the name change were given in that thread. There were only six reasons given for the name change. All but number five are crap if not outright lies and even that one is dubious. Either the editors are morons, biased or they have not read the sources. If the later they should not be editing here. That's not to say there are no legitimate reasons for a name change as I can think of a couple without even trying. Lets have a look at the "reasons" given. 1. "There is no "hypothesis" that controlled demolition brought down the WTC". Refuted by NIST. 2. No reliable sources use hypothesis: Refuted. NIST, Bazant and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory all use the term and do not use the term conspiracy theory. 3. "Only Truther literature uses the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". See above. 4. Using hypothesis is original research: See above. 5. "When the controlled demolition ideas are discussed in reliable sources they are labelled as conspiracy theories": See above. 6. Only American media is legitimate and they use conspiracy theory: WTH!!! Wayne (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Wow, those are some great straw man arguments. Since you have offered nothing of substance, there is no reason to revisit the issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) My point was not to offer substance. My point was to point out the ignorant garbage used to justify a page rename. Apart from number 5 not a single legitimate arguement was put forward and a page should not be renamed on a single vote. Wayne (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The fact that some sources don't refer to the idea as a conspiracy theory or that some refer to it as a hypothesis isn't the deciding factor. We are supposed to use whichever label is most recognisable to an English speaker, and the most common label is "conspiracy theory". For some examples, look at the academic paper cited in reference 1: "Conspiracy Theories and the Internet: Controlled Demolition and Arrested Development", and it didn't take me long to find that the BBC, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times and Time have all described the idea as a conspiracy theory. In addition calling it a "hypothesis" does imply some degree of respectability, and ideas that are rejected aren't generally called hypotheses. Hut 8.5 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I don't see strawman arguments, I see someone expressing real concerns that are being met with derision and attack. I find it absurd that the thermite article is being censored from this page, of all pages. The funny thing is that the censorship itself is now becoming news. Just think how this will look when the next paper is published, with the same findings, in another journal, and again and again. The more this gets out there, the more that this incident on wikipedia will be able to be used to show what really goes on here. ScholarTruthJustice (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) WOW. I just checked and there are thousands of pages on the current arguement and some name the participants. Some of you guys are now famous and not in a good way lol. Wayne (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I was the first editor to agree with Mongo's suggestion and I gave my reason as this: " I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, controlled demolition is often described as a hypothesis brought forward in the context of conspiracy theories. Irrespective of the disagreements about verifiability and relevance, a controlled demolition is not a conspiracy, so a claim to that effect cannot be a conspiracy theory. This is a question of language, not a question of Wikipedia policy. The article may of course refer to conspiracy theories in the introduction. --Cs32en (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Like I said, when I looked it up, the vast majority referred to it as a conspiracy theory, not a hypothesis. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Obviously, I have not expressed myself clearly enough. Let me restate: Actually, controlled demolition is often described as a hypothesis brought forward in the context of conspiracy theories. --Cs32en (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ScholarTruthJustice: Please do not insert 9/11 "truth" spam into other Wikipedia articles just because you can't get it in here.[6] Fortunately, one of the other editors on the Thermite article reverted your changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC) This is not a case of how many sources call it anything. Controlled demolition is a hypothesis and not a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory requires accusations of a "plot by a secret group or alliance" that is generally absent from the article. A hypothesis accuses no one but presents a "problem that can be tested by further investigation" which is what Jones et al does. It is clear that the correct terminology is hypothesis which trumps personal opinion by reporters and this is supported by the main reliable sources used for all 911 articles. Wayne (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The problem then becomes, can you give one example of a CD that doesn't have a conspiracy theory attached? Soxwon (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "This is not a case of how many sources call it anything." Actually, it is. Wikipedia uses the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. "A conspiracy theory requires accusations of a 'plot by a secret group or alliance' that is generally absent from the article." If the article doesn't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories, then we still can't include it because that's WP:SYN. "It is clear that the correct terminology is hypothesis which trumps personal opinion by reporters." Wrong again. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipidia is verifiability, not truth. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The number of sources using the term is relevant because WP:NAME tells us to use the most easily recognised name, which in this case is "conspiracy theory". Whether or not you consider this name to be correct is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Back to the basic question, to which I have not received an answer. There clearly is no consensus that the latest Bentham article should be removed from the Wikipedia article. On what basis can some editors, then, remove the reference to it and say that those who return it are breaking the consensus, and even initiate disciplinary procedures against them? Please answer this question. Of course, the same question applies to the name change. How can some people suddenly change the name and say that there is a consensus for the change? And some say that Wikipedia is not censored... Perscurator (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) You've received an answer several times over. It's still a fringe theory. Per WP:NPOV, "each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." One or two articles do not outweigh the thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that the WTC was destroyed because Al Qaeda crashed two jets into them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC) This is, per its title, an article about a fringe theory. So, of course, the views of the people, whether academics or not, that support this theory are clearly significant with regard to the topic of this article. How the article presents these views is a different matter. --Cs32en (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Only insofar as reliable sources have covered their views. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Ok. So please tell me if you consider these mainstream Danish sources, seriously and factually discussing the thermite residue article, reliable: * Danmark's TV2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911blogger.com%2Fnode%2F19805&feature=player_embedded * Politiken http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece * Videnskab.dk http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center/niels_harrit_videnskabeligt_bevis_for_gammel_viden_om_911 * Jyllandposten http://jp.dk/nyviden/article1654301.ece * Ingenioren http://ing.dk/artikel/97728-forskergruppe-paastaar-at-have-fundet-nanospraengstof-i-world-trade-center?highlight=harrit And many other mainstream media sources. Are they reliable or not? A simple question. Or do only U.S. mainstream sources count? Perscurator (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The YouTube video is not a reliable source and the others I cannot even read, so I have no idea what they're saying. There are plenty of English-language reliable sources on this topic, so there is no need to resort to foreign language Web sites in the first place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) The YouTube video is just a replication of the TV interview from Danish government owned TV station TV2. There are, as of this moment, no (or very few) reliable English sources on this aspect of the topic, so in this case, we have to use non-english sources. --Cs32en (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC) That mainstream sources have covered the topic of this article establishes notability, otherwise the article would not exists. It's not necessary to check whether CNN and BBC have reported on a particular aspect of an article, and whether the US President has mentioned it in a State of the Union address, if we have a WP:RS source reporting about it. In this case, we actually have a number of WP:RS sources. --Cs32en (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a user after one edit and a few comments on the Talk page?

As I noted above, after I returned a reference to the Bentham article supporting the controlled demolition "conspiracy theory", I was immediately warned that I could be blocked from Wikipedia. After that sigle edit, I only wrote two comments on this Talk page. After that, I found the following on my own talk page:

I've filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. See

WP:AE. Jehochman ^[[User

talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is going on here? I appeal to all fair-minded editors: do not allow Wikipedia to go down this route. Perscurator (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perscurator, this is being discussed on some other pages: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Problem_with_recurring_sock_puppetry., Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Perscurator. --Cs32en (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I checked it out.

Respectful and serious coverage of the nanothermite residue article in reliable sources in Danmark

Disruption and meat puppetry

Now, this is what I do not understand: there has been a reference to an earlier Bentham article in the History section, evidently for some time. What would be the problem with referring to the new article, which Steven E. Jones, for example, is likely to regard as considerably more important than the earlier article - which he, in fact, is likely to regard as the most important of the numerous peer-reviewed articles that he has authored or coauthored in his lifetime? Perhaps it is worth noting that the results of the article have received extensive mainstream coverage in Danmark - and, unlike by some editors here, have been treated with seriousness and respect. For a list of mainstream references to it in Danmark, see "9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark": http://www.911blogger.com/node/19805 At the top of that page there is, for example, a link to a detailed interview of Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen (the lead author of the article) in TV2, perhaps the most respected TV channel in Danmark. The interview is conducted in a very serious and civil manner. The main thing that seems to surprise the interviewer is why this hasn't been discovered earlier. Note that the interview has been subtitled in English. Danmark's TV2 and the other mainstream media listed on the above-mentioned page certainly qualify for "reliable sources" by all Wikipedia criteria. If they take the nanothermite article seriously, so should Wikipedia. But, as I have pointed out above, there is no logic in preventing a reference to a more significant article in a journal already referred to in the section under discussion. And where is the name change being discussed at the moment? There is clearly no consensus to change it at all, so it is absolutely unacceptable that some consider it their prerogative to change it and then regard all future changes as a break of consensus. Perscurator (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC) This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think that - in general - our coverage of 9/11 conspiracy theories has been following NPOV particularly well. Although this particular article is one of the better ones, there are others that are very much in need of attention. Judging from the cites used, the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and especially the 9/11 Truth Movement articles are based disproportionately on fringe sources. I've been going through the cites listed on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article and I have not yet completed my analysis, but there are at least 70 cites to 9/11 conspiracy Web sites. By contrast, there are only 17 cites to bona-fide reliable sources that are actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is not acceptable and are most certainly violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. There are an additional 60 cites to reliable sources that aren't actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories and many are being used as a back door way of promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have to research the policy but these may be in violation of WP:SYN. But again, I haven't gone through each one yet; I'm currently about 2/3rds done. I haven't even begun analyzing the 9/11 Truth Movement, but at a quick glance, 12 out of the first 15 cites are to fringe sources. That's absurdly ridiculous and needs to changed. My point is that past mistakes don't justify new mistakes. There are more than enough reliable sources in English on this topic. From a technical perspective, I don't think there is anything of significance that NIST or Popular Mechanics hasn't already covered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC) These articles are, as defined by their titles, articles about non-mainstream views. So, evidently, they contain a large number of references to these sources. Your (rather unspecific) references to Wikipedia policies mainly refer to articles about the subjects themselves, but these are articles about particular views on these subjects. So, the wording of the articles, not the relative weight of citations, is the issue here, if anything. Aside from that, NIST did not look for residues of explosives, and its "probable collapse sequence" does not, for "brevity in this report", include "the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached". NIST's report is an insult to anyone who knows a thing or two about physics, and as it's so blatantly wrong, I understand that a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on government financing have concluded that it's probably unwise to criticize it. --Cs32en (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) "So, the wording of the articles, not the relative weight of citations, is the issue here". You are correct (partly). As I said, I'm not yet done with my analysis. Going through the cites is just the first step of an overall process. Over the course of the next 6 months to a year, I plan on going through all the articles related to 9/11 conspiracy theories and fixing them so that they correctly follow WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. And not just this one. All of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Surely the respected mainstream media programmes and articles in Danmark, listed on the above-linked page, are a good starting point as regards the present topic. Perscurator (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC) It's still a fringe theory. Per WP:NPOV, "each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." One or two articles do not outweigh the thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say that the WTC was destroyed because Al Qaeda crashed two jets into them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC) No it isn't and considering how much has been discussed offsite with regards to this page and spamming I'm taking the liberty of ending this discussion.Soxwon (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC) The following comments have been made after this section had been collapsed on 16 April 2009. --Cs32en (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Some people seem to be unwilling to discuss the reliability and characteristics of sources, which is, of course, a primary requisite for building consensus on what should be included in the article and how it should be referred to. --Cs32en (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Considering the comments made on [7] about the above subject, you'd do well to drop it. Soxwon (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I do not see that you have a right to suddenly close a relevant entry as "spam" without discussing this with others, not just those who have participated in the discussion. That is also very uncivil behavior. Therefore, I'm reopening this. However, I will comply if you or someone else can point me to a rule that shows that you had the right to close this discussion and label it as spam and that this decision cannot be contested. Perscurator (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) I closed it b/c of numerous pages that advertised the 'problem' recently and this one is highly suspicious considering the timing.[8] (add li between period and frong slash after serendipity), [9], and others make it seem rather convenient when this discussion began. I know I'm assuming bad faith, but considering the extraordinary circumstances I hope you will forgive me if I'm wrong. Soxwon Ok. I hope you can understand that I simply consider the topic centrally important - see also my new question related to this in the "Consensus on removing..." thread. Perscurator (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I am not surprised that people are incensed at the perceived censorship on wikipedia. To me it is obvious that Bentham Open passes RS and I see no reason for it not to be referenced in this article Tony0937 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sure we can have a more detailed and relaxed discussion on this subject Perscurator, when ppl stop spamming, which will hopefully blow over by next week. Soxwon (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Why not discuss this now? This page is semi protected so there is no spam Tony0937 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, then why are the two articles mentioned being pushed with gusto above and got a fresh spurt very recently? Soxwon (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are "conspiracy theory" (their word) editors referring to? (weird page name)

Extended content

Some editors are calling the collapse a conspiracy by the way the page is named. This needs justification: who are they accusing? Do they know something special the country doesn't know? What's with the tight lip? --67.103.182.21 (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC) This is outlined in the article. Most proponents of the idea assume the United States Goverment was conspiring to destroy the towers. A few accuse other nations, corporations (the owners of the WTC are a popular target), or even aliens. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Virtually all crime investigations are subject to additional data, and this is the focus of this article. It is not a forum for wacko editors to accuses American scientists of engaging in criminal conspiracy. Not all science is a conspiracy, so lets drop the lunacy of that word from the title. If wikipedia editors keep referring to scientists that investigate a crime "conspiracists" then we will have to start asking if the frenzied editors have an agenda. If an apple falls, we can measure the speed of the fall; This is called gravity, not "wiki conspiracy". This is the demolition hypothesis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabut (talk • contribs) 03:51, April 17, 2009 (UTC) Deal with it. While it's true not all science is conspiracy, WP:SPADE would contest that looks like a Conspiracy Theory and has extensive evidence identifying it as such. Can you name an instance where it would not be a Conspiracy Theory (where there was a logical reason to bring it down with explosives)? Soxwon (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) So you claim that if al Qaeda used controled demolition it falls under the conspiracy banner rather than hypothesis? Individual theories held by specific groups can be conspiracy theories on their own but this page is not specifically about one of those. To The Hand That Feeds You, If some proponents "assume" you are an idiot do we use that term when refering to you because they do or do we still call you The Hand That Feeds You because that's who you are? Wayne (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Isn't that still a conspiracy? To not be one it would have to be above board and totally legitimate. Al-Queda wouldn't fit that. Soxwon (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC) It is a conspiracy in exactly the same way that the official theory is a conspiracy but we don't call it that do we? Or should we? Wayne (talk) You might be confusing the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy thoery". They're entirely too separate concepts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC) (unindenting) I now recognize what Soxwon mentions about SPADE, and for this reason I believe the name change to include CT has some defensibility. (I don't know if the article had its origins - had its start - on evidence plus theory, or dominantly evidence without theory.) The term CT seems sound in one way (usage) and misleading in maybe two (perhaps smaller) ways. I unindented for readability - if that's bad please tell me and revise without shame. To HandThatFeeds, I appreciate your answer and now I can form my question more clearly: There is some case for the term CT under SPADE, but it is also useful for us to contemplate how the term can both inform and mislead. The term CT is known to have some negative connotations (e.g., compare 'government reports'); First, the term CT seems closer to referring to (i) aprior speculation, than to (ii) empirical investigation and analysis, and, Second, it seems closer to implying (i) accusing people-guilt than (ii) evaluating events and data-points. In the work of the researchers named, I have not seen the attributes (i) to dominate over attributes (ii). I refer mostly to Gage and Tarpley, but I am familiar with also Griff and S Jones. Also, in principle, CT has a positive meaning, although, finally, the term been used clearly to smear military officials that spoke out giving evidence contrary to administration officials. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

English sources only, it was argued

I notice that editors on one page were lobbying for a standard of using ONLY English sources of news or research. Hmmm... this discussion page has an odd atmosphere at times.

There is a large literature about reliability problems of US news: take Fallows, Postman, Jamieson, McChesney and Mitchell.

It probably requires no stating that that the US news frequently misses huge stories (Europe was not taken in by US WMD stories) and that is why US intelligence agencies officials and (see Clark), and leaders internationally track news around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A note on reliable sources

Although it is false, the legend has since been repeated by reputable media, such as the BBC (by Alistair Cooke in his Letter from America program),[11] The Guardian,[12] MSNBC,[13] CNN,[14] Time magazine,[15] The New York Times,[16] in several books about Germany written by English-speaking authors, including Norman Davies[17] and Kenneth C. Davis,[18] and is even mentioned in a stand-up show by Eddie Izzard. --Cs32en (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute! How can we really be sure this is true?? This wiki editor did not provide a single WP:RS source that reported that these sources have been wrong! And even if it was true, the fact that no WP:RS source has reported this proves that this is not notable!! --Cs32en (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if you're not editing in WP:AGF, but to prove a point. I fail to see what a speech John F Kennedy made in the 1960s has to do with an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in the 2000s. Perhaps you can enlighted us?

In any case, do you actually have anything of meaningful substance that needs to be considered? Given that you appear to be advocating a fringe theory not supported by reliable sourses, I'm at a loss as to what you expect to come of this discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If I would have wanted to make a WP:POINT, I would have used the article space and deleted the section in the Ich bin ein Berliner article. Here, I am giving an example. Examples are often easier to understand than theoretical elaborations.

The example illustrates that Wikipedia contains much information that is not specifically supported by WP:RS sources. This is because nobody doubts that the information is true. In this case here, nobody has doubted that the paper by Niels Harrit et al. exists, or that it it relevant for the proponents of the fringe theory that the article is describing, per its title, or that it accurately represents what a major part of these proponents are thinking and arguing. Still, it is being argued that one would need to have an exceptional claim to be able to introduce such information (that nobody actually claims to be false). And no, I am not arguing for including a sentence that says "Harrit has got it right, and we have been talking nonsense here for all of the time." (In this case, there are actually a number of WP:RS sources that actually support the claim that the paper exists.) --Cs32en (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is in regard to "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", there are numerous issues which have already been addressed above. Since you have offered nothing new to the discussion, I fail to see why we should re-open it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious: cited article does not support claim

The Steve Clarke article cited (abstract) does not justify the claim that CD theories are rejected by the mainstream engineering community.

• The article does not claim to document or represent the opinion of mainstream engineering, or indeed engineering at all; it appears in "Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology" (link mine).
• One article does not represent the opinion of an entire field
• The full article is not available online without special access, and hence is difficult to check. Surely any mainstream opinion should be widely available online, and hence better (and multiple) sources can be found for this claim.
• Just from the article's abstract, the article would seem to be arguing in favor of the validity of CD theories, since they have persisted and grown over time despite "the hyper-critical atmosphere of the internet [which] has slowed down the development of conspiracy theories" (see Imre Lakatos#Research_programmes for some explanation of the term "Lakotosian research programs" used in the abstract). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woozle (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As you say the cite does not support the claim. rewording or deletion is required. Tony0937 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jehochman removed the cite entirely, saying only "Remove cruft - the lede does not need references", which seems rather dismissive. Is there indeed a policy that claims made in an article lede do not need to be sourced? I changed the claim to the more accurate "and some members of the mainstream engineering community" (italics just here to show what was changed). --Woozle (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no support among the mainstream engineering community for controlled demolition. There is no controversy or debate among main stream sources, experts working in their field or academia as to the basic cause of the collapse. There's an abundance of sources for this. RxS (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the link also points to [Scientific_community] and given that there are a number of scientific papers that support the hypothesis this is an untrue statement. Tony0937 (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the fact that there are a small number of "scientific papers" does not mean that there's is any significant debate among mainstream sources about the cause of the collapse. They are the very essence of fringe sources. The scientific papers you speak of are not reliable or mainstream sources. Please revert the changes you made. RxS (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Open Chemical Physics Journal" is a fringe source? --Woozle (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's one source. It doesn not indicate that there is a debate among mainstream sources. It's a single paper, that's basically self published. It has no impact on the debate about the collapse (there isn't any). You'll need much more than one example. RxS (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so The Open Chemical Physics Journal amounts to self-publication, despite being peer reviewed. Who decided that? Why does "just one" source mean that you don't have to back up the claim of mainstream scientific rejection? (The mainstream media are not noted for their accurate portrayal of mainstream science.) How do I know I won't spend all day digging up articles in one peer-reviewed scientific publication after another, only to have you dismiss each one as "non-mainstream"? --Woozle (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not just the one article. The only way that you can dismiss them is that they do not conform to your viewpoint. There are at least four peer reviewed articles out at present that support the hypothesis. Tony0937 (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You're using the term peer review much looser than most people. RxS (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Tony, but I'm using it because the OCPJ calls itself that. If you believe this to be a misrepresentation, could you point me at the reasons why you believe this? --Woozle (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If there was a valid debate among mainstream sources it wouldn't be an issue. We both know there isn't. Regardless of how you (or I) feel about coverage of scientific issues in mainstream press they drive how we cover things (along with multiple other sources: scientific press/literature, academia, expert commentary (within their field) etc. One single paper can't drive how we cover things. These theories are considered fringe and do not carry any weight among the sources we draw content from. RxS (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The lack of reasonable coverage in the mainstream media is a problem, yes. There are, however, other sources whose contentions and reputations can be checked. (I'm researching this right now, but it takes time to get meaningful facts together.) My understanding is that many reputable scientists and engineers have tried to publish papers, but that these papers have been largely rejected by the mainstream sci/eng journals without reasonable cause, i.e. not because the science was questionable. I do recall there being at least one other mainstream publication, but it will take me some time to go through my notes. --Woozle (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who started this thread is arguing that a specific source does not support a claim, despite the fact they are admitting they haven't read the source themselves. I have read it, and I can tell you it advances several arguments against controlled demolition and says that though the theory is vaguely specified, it is hard to believe that it is not a "degenerative research programme" which means we should abandon it. It is definitely not arguing in favour of the validity of the conspiracy theories. Though the author is not an engineer his status as an epistemologist means he is in some sort of position to observe the acceptance of particular theories. The idea that because the article is not readily available it is not a good source is clearly wrong, since the same is true of the majority of academic articles and books.

If you look at the third paragraph you will find a very similar statement, backed with the following (easily accessible) references:

• [10]: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows" (followed by a statement of the mainstream view)
• [11]: "While there are a handful of Web sites that seek to debunk the claims of Mr. Jones and others in the movement, most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them", "There's nothing to debunk", "It's a non-issue", "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details", "Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Jones's hypothesis is more or less dead on the vine."
• [12]: "While the group has collected some interesting data, their hypotheses are largely dismissed by the larger academic world."

As Jechochman said, the lead doesn't actually need any citations for claims which are cited elsewhere, as any citations would be redundant (see WP:LEAD). Trying to assess the level of acceptance in the engineering community ourselfes would be original research, and we should simply state what the sources above are saying - that the idea has little or no support and is rejected. Hut 8.5 18:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Woozle responds

I started this thread. Thank you for your explanation. The links you cite would seem to be at least the beginning of the information I was looking for.

One question: Is there a policy regarding the use of limited-availability sources, especially as evidence of support for a controversial point of view?

I am going to go read those links now. --Woozle (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If by "limited-availability sources" you mean "sources that aren't available for free on the internet" then no, there is no policy forbidding their use, and if there was one we would have to rewrite large portions of Wikipedia. If something is genuinely impossible for an interested editor to get at (the work hasn't been published, for instance) then you will run into problems, but that's not the case here. Hut 8.5 06:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected for three days

I have protected the article for three days in order to stop the ongoing edit war by multiple editors over the sentence in the lead concerning the stance of the "engineering community". I will also consider imposing WP:ARB9/11 sanctions on any editor who restarts the edit war as soon as the protection elapses or is lifted.  Sandstein  20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rejection of mainstream scientific community

Regarding this change [13], there are mainstream scientific sources rejecting controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Off the top of my head, there's Popular Mechanics [14] and Keith Seffen of Cambridge University's engineering department [15]. Also, to say that the scientific community has "avoided the issue" or to qualify its rejection with "who have looked at the theory" doesn't explain why this conspiracy theory is ignored. Specifically, that it's not worthy of serious study. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Popular Mechanics is hardly a refereed/peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the articles in PM (this page seems to be a hub) were full of holes -- not that you can tell from looking at their site, as they don't have any way to post comments.
• I recognize that it's not the job of Wikipedia editors to "prove" anything one way or the other, but it does seem a bit peculiar to claim general rejection by the scientific community when you don't seem to actually have any evidence of this. What is the actual basis of your belief, so that I can read it for myself and end up agreeing with you?
• And finally, by what rule does Wikipedia ultimately decide what the truth is, in this or any other instance? --Woozle (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Did Seffen ever get that paper to pass peer review? If he did I was not aware of it. I remember that there was a big hopla about him going to publish and then it not passing peer review. Tony0937 (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's published in: ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134, 2 (2008), p. 125-32. As, for example, the statements included in the peer-reviewed article written by the authors of the "Purdue Study" differ significantly from the press release distributed earlier, so it might be important to check the actual content of the peer-reviewed article. --Cs32en (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Being a peer-reviewed, scientific journal is good, but not a requirement to be a reliable source. If it was a requirement, most (if not all) the cites in the article would need to be removed and this article probably wouldn't even exist. What is required (in a nutshell) is that articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Popular Mechanics meets all of these requirements.
• Perhaps the wording can be improved, I'm not sure.
• Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST

The article currently states: "Following the NIST final draft on Building 7 in August 2008, a group of demolition proponents submitted a response challenging several points of the draft.." Not only is it currently cited to a fringe source, not only is it currently cited to a blog of a fringe source, but the link is broken. Do we have a reliable source that actually covers the 9/11 conspiracy theorists' response to the NIST's final draft? If not, we should remove this line from the article. We are under no obligation to cover what 9/11 conspiracy theorists say unless reliable sources cover it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en: Thanks for your recent edit [16] but it's still not a reliable source. If we can't find a reliable source for this, it needs to be removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, Wikipedia is not collection of excerpts from the media. We often use WP:RS, i.e., reliable sources, because of the presumption that the information they report is correct. There is nothing wrong with using other sources, if the verifiability of the information is not in doubt. With regard to notability, there are any number of pieces of information all over Wikipedia, on which no mainstream, or otherwise WP:RS source, has ever reported. Please ask the community whether all these sources should be removed. --Cs32en (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What I always say is that if something isn't covered by reliable sources, that's usually a good sign of something that probably should not be in an article. Yes, there are many poorly referenced articles on Wikipedia. I've decided to focus on ones dealing with 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If something hasn't been covered by any third-party sources then it probably isn't significant to include here. Please don't claim that "another article says X, therefore it's fine for this one to do so". If you want to change the policies and guidelines in question then propose a change on the relevant talk page. Hut 8.5 16:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any real doubt that these sources reliably represent relevant positions of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, the very subject of the article? If not, what is the reason for the opinions you have expressed here? --Cs32en (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was talking about significance. If few or no reliable sources have bothered covering it, then it can't be that important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight." (emphasis by me) --Cs32en (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding non-notable trivia to articles is a violation of WP:UNDUE, a section of WP:NPOV. Jehochman ^Talk 20:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable trivia have nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, they should not be in an article anyway. Please do not confuse the issue of notability with the issue of WP:UNDUE here. --Cs32en (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You're seeking to add poorly referenced material to articles. This violates policies. Stop before external controls are applied to your editing. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm discontinuing this particular discussion at this point. --Cs32en (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

{after 2 EC's} I understand that the notability guidelines are about articles as a whole and not actual content. That is why I used the terms "important" and "significant". If the reliable sources don't consider this important enough to cover, why should we? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, please understand that I am not continuing to discuss this matter at this point. --Cs32en (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Using YouTube as a source

Generally speaking, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources. The only exception that I'm aware of this is in the situation where 1) a reliable source such as BBC News creates a YouTube channel and 2) The reliable source publishes something to the effect that they have an official YouTube channel. Can someone please check to see if this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o was uploaded by CBS News (assuming they even have an official account) and not just some guy on the Internet? If the latter, it should be removed from the article. I do not have access to YouTube right now. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm able to access YouTube now and the user who uploaded it is 911REICHSTAG. This is not a reliable source. I am adding a {fact} tag to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman proceeds to serial deletion of article content

In less than 40 minutes, Jehochman has deleted 6790 bytes, or more than 12% of the text, from the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories (15:31, 15:33, 15:34, 15:36, 15:52, 15:56, 15:58, 15:58, 15:59, 16:01, 16:03, 16:07, 16:08, 16:09). This happened without any attempt to discuss the changes on the talk page, and numerous parts of the article that have been there for weeks, if not months or years, have been deleted. Jehochman has requested a semi-protection of the article at 13:00 today, and has received a reply to his request at 14:35. [17] This may have triggered the ensuing rampage.

At this moment, I would like to suggest to anyone offended by these actions to act wisely. This may be an action intended to provoke edit-warring. Jehochman has not received the support from other editors and administrators that he was hoping for, and he could use the occurence of edit-warring at this point of time as an argument in the ongoing discussions. Everyone who is concerned about the situation regarding this article and wants to improve Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia should take part in these discussions. Jehochman has filed an Arbitration request here. --Cs32en (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The first five that I checked were removal of unsourced information with a {{fact}} tag. If that's what he did, it's clearly within normal Wikipedia process. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I was clearing cruft from the article. I have a bit of experience at WP:FAC and WP:GAC. I'd like to see this article rated via one of those processes, but there is no chance of doing so as long as there is unreference controversial information or information cited to non-reliable sources (e.g. original research). All editors, regardless of POV, are welcome to help improve the article. Please cite reliable sources, such as NYT, Guardian, FT, Reuters, and so on. We should avoid using primary sources, such as 9/11 Truth Movement websites. I am also not that keen on relying heaving on government websites. I think we should look to reliable news outlets with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, as well as scholarly books and journals. For broader discussion about reliable sources, questions can be taken to reliable sources noticeboard. To reduce the level of conflict here, I suggest we work toward a concrete objective, such as good article candidacy. We can also take advantage of the peer review process. The reason I am interested in this article is that I like writing about shipwrecks, crashes, and disasters (my shipwreck contributions include Eagle 56, German submarine U-853, Russian submarine K-152 Nerpa, SS Edmund Fitzgerald). Jehochman ^Talk 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a worthy goal. I have no experience with WP:GAC or WP:FAC so if we do indeed procede down this route, it will be a good learning experience for me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I would be happy to help if possible, though I have little experience with those processes (I did once save an FA from being demoted). Note this article previously had a GA review, and failed due to neutrality and stability issues. Hut 8.5 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"The first five that I checked were removal of unsourced information with a {{fact}} tag." Note that there were only two {{fact}} tags in the article [18] when Jehochman started his rampage. --Cs32en (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Jehochman. I agree about over-reliance on primary sources. They've often been used to support original research by synthesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[Bows] Thank you very much. The article is still rather bloated. The section on 7 WTC seems to have excessive detail (why do the tenants matter?) and could use a trimming. We should treat this article the same as any other being prepared for good article candidacy. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Note the CIA and the US Secret Service are in the list. I think someone tried to imply that the presence of these organisations in the building was a motive for destroying it as part of a cover-up, and then someone else added the other tenants to point out they didn't occupy most of the building. I think the list can go. Hut 8.5 09:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and pulled the tenant list. The section is still way too long - it should summarize what mainstream sources say about building 7 and the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is looking much better for these edits by Tom and Jehochman et al. Well done. Verbal chat 13:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen Cite

The article states that Charlie Sheen supports 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Although the cited source is from CNN, it's from a "rush transcript". Given the nature of a "rough transcript", I'm not sure that this qualifies as a reliable source. Can we find a better source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Added some cites here, and removed some that were uncited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some audio excerpts from the interview available here. We can use the "Showbiz Tonight" broadcast as the source, whether we can link to the youtube video is maybe a copyright issue. --Cs32en (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Living people

I removed uncited material about El-P, Mos Def, and Martin Sheen under our policy on biographies of living people. Please do not restore without including citation to a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New Scientific evidence about thermite used talk

The conversation is here: Talk:Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Scientific_evidence_about_thermite_used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.130.225 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing

I just wanted to comment regarding the recent edits to the section about Seven Jones' resignation from BYU, that none of the five sources says he "elected" to retire.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23], however this section is better than it was before, but the POV pushing is starting to creep back in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe any of the above sources say he resigned in order to conduct his own research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The perils of a slow dialup..... This is a direct quote from a statment released by BYU (not jones) announcing the resignation that is in two of the sources: I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my own choosing.[24][25] Wayne (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's still a quote from Steven Jones: "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my choosing". That can't be used for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I would agree if Jones had said it (a primary source) to the media but it was in the universities own statement (a secondary source) and not refuted by them so has to be assumed to be factual. Wayne (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{EC} BYU said that Jones said "I am electing to retire so that I can spend more time speaking and conducting research of my choosing". That's completely different than BYU saying "Jones has elected to retire so that he can spend more time speacking and conducting research of his own choosing". It cannot be used for statements of fact. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It a statement from a person about himself that a reliable source found credible enough to report. So there is no reason why we should not use it. We could write something like "stating his intent to spend more time...". --Cs32en (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording "his actions" would of course better fit to your POV, as it would invite speculation about whether Jones did anything else, except for expressing his opinion. I know that this remark may be viewed as a personal attack, but it fits in well here, given the title ("POV Pushing") that you have chosen for the section you have opened. --Cs32en (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{EC} I got the word "actions" from the following: "Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called '9/11 truth movement' that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center. BYU will conduct an official review of Jones' actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said." [26]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem including it but it is irrelevant when considering what the actions were. To put it in context, the actions were the universities concern that he may have implied that BYU supported his views when speaking publicly (a concern that has been proven unfounded) and were not a concern that his work was faulty or bad as it implies. Wayne (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not imply that you would have invented the word "actions". --Cs32en (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you need more we also have the university stating they didn't force him to leave which is supporting evidence it was his decision. Also, if you can provide a RS for evidence that jones has not conducted any research since he resigned then that would refute the why and your edit would then not be POV. Wayne (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. In the older version of this section, it claimed that the reason why Jones resigned was to conduct his own research. None of the reliable sources cited actually makes that claim. In reality, it had more to do with the fact that Jones embarrassed the university and hurt its reputation. But I don't think that any of the cites says that either. So, my edit did not offer a reason why he resigned. I simply said, "Jones resigned" and left it at that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the sources say the university was embarrassed because the academic community backed Jones against them (before it even became public) but I'm not asking to include that. Two of the sources include the universities statement and both say Jones said he resigned to concentrate on research which is what he actually did after resigning. Not to mention the why implies he had ulterior and possibly sinister motives which is very POV. Wayne (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jones

The article original said that Jones was forced to resign from BYU. I edited to say he elected to resign which is the word used by the sources. BYU also made public statements that they did not force him to resign so we have confirmation both jones and the sources are correct. I also added why he resigned. A Quest for Knowledge keeps reverting so that it says simply "Jones resigned". This leaves open to the reader the implication he was forced. To avoid this implication (which is POV) the text must say it was his idea and to avoid the added implication that he resigned to end the review we have to include why. BYU chose to end it and Jones requested it be continued which was denied. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems like material about Jones' career and retirement belongs in Jones' bio, and in this article only in passing if at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is being discussed in the U.S. News & World article as an example of how institutions such as universities have reacted to academics expressing support for the controlled demolition hypothesis. Therefore, it is relevant with regard to the topic of this article, not just with regard to Jones' bio. --Cs32en (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Former director of Japan's parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense supports CD hypothesis

The article should mention that Yukihisa Fujita, a current member of the Japanese parliament and former director of its Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, has supported the controlled demolition hypothesis. WP:RS source: [27]. Given his current and earlier functions, this is certainly both relevant to the article and notable. Further sources are available, as well as transcripts from his Diet speeches, in which he called for a new investigation into the September 11 attacks in his capacity as a member of parliament. --Cs32en (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion opened at NPOV noticeboard

Editors here might want to see [28] Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Alternative Theory Critiques Need a more Neutral Stance to prevent violation of Wiki Policies. Verbal chat 08:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)