Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

World Architecture News article

The references to the World Architecture News article are all used for information about statements made by Gage and the other authors of that text. It's not necessary to say "According to Gage, Gage stated...", and the source would be valid, even if the text would just appear on AE911Truth's website (as a self-published source for statements by the subject of an article). So I see no reason to tag this source as "unreliable". It is reliable for information about Gage's, and by implication, AE911Truth's views.

As NIST has confirmed the free fall of 7 WTC, it does not seem to be appropriate to characterize this description as "alleged". It's actually one point where NIST and the 9/11 Truth movement are now in agreement.  Cs32en  22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Even NIST admits free fall

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Tony0937 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the term "alleged" should be removed from the description of the collapse since there is no dispute currently on the topic.Carolinequarrier (talk)carolinequarrier —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

The Bazant Language has always been misleading and unencylopedic

WP policies with respect to common sense and be rational have always been operative, but have long been nakedly violated in the claim that Bazant studied the scientific community, knows which members are informed, knows it has a unified view, and has any way to know what its views were. The false claims with respect to Bazant's view are patently unencyclopedic, and statements to the contrary by some editors have been repetitively lacking in common sense, violating of be rational and disruptive. I've put a POV alert at the head of the article until this can be resolved, and I suggest this issue be moved to another stage of outside arbitration. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody’s claiming that Bazant studied the scientific community? How did I miss that? Obviously, his statement about what the rest of the scientific community thinks doesn’t carry the same weight as his scientific and technical work, but don’t you think that considering the publication of his work, that he’s a reliable source? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How did you get this far as an editor without having thought about issues. If you agree Bazant has not studied the issues, then his view is an entirely irrelevant opinion, or relevant but only by putting them in an honest context by saying it has not been studied. Please take time to think about the issues before turning the discussion into into a mere dispute over opinions and shooting from the hip. My points above you have not addressed, and WP policies can not be reduced, as you propose, to RS. The discussion page is supposed to be a place to building consensus by thinking, not a merely blackboard of opinion-voting. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

An editor called Priest appears to have reverted my edit without explanation. The false and unencylopedic use of Bazant was long overdue for correction. Note, despite that the fact that Bazant makes claims without substantiation, I have not proposed removing his claim, but merely stating the truth that you have not disputed, that no studies have been found that identify the views of informed scientists about controlled demolition, but that Bazant makes a certain statement that many specialists reject it. THat would be wp:BeReasonable and WP:common sense, and honest. Oh, wait, is there a new prohibition against honesty, reasonability and common sense at WP? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My edit was explained and is consistent with wp:beBold. Conversely, Oreo's reversion was done with no explanation given. Why don't you join me in proposing that this question, which has lingered for a long long time, be brought to a higher level of POV or content arbitration.

See reasonability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonability_Rule See common sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Look. If you were to take a look at the history, you'd see that there is a discussion on the talk page about that part. And the explanation I gave said that. Cool your jets. Calling those who disagree with you irrational, disruptive and lacking in common sense is certainly not being civil, and isn't lending you any credibility. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the proper venue for your opinions on those matters. Your comments here do not address the merits of the question. If I seemed to accuse people of being irrational and lacking common sense, please recognize that my comment is focused an a sentence in the article that is misleading, and that needs to be improved. Please take a moment to recognize that WP really does have policies that pertain to wp:beRational and WP:common sense. It does not advance the discussion for you to ignore the merits of the case that were noted in my initial comment (if Bazant has no way to know something, then we need to be honest about that and present it as his claim or his opinion, or remove it altogether. He has used unfairly to falsify the matter. Correction of this misleading and unencylopedic information is long overdue.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody is trying to be rational and use common sense. Not everyone agrees with you. If you have something constructive to say, we've been discussing this two sections up. Oreo Priest ^talk 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo. Please be patient and recognize the topic at and instead of telling me what to write or where to write. You haven't responded to my comment on yoru talk page, and it is there too that I show how you are not addressing the substance of the issue. I still have no reason to believe you are thinking before you type into the discussion. The prior section showed that editors were not listening to each other, and did not come to a consensus. That is why I opened this new section. I am returning the pov-section-template. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. If you recognize we have not come to a consensus, stop adding material without consensus (I'd say against consensus, but that's just my opinion.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you Sir Rubin. Welcome back, no need for your polite reticence. By the way, you comment attempts to ignore be bold, common sense and be rational, and although I like you, I am not going to accept that. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember Sir Rubin, the purpose of this section is to discuss why bazant does not give evidence for his view. Why do you suppose that is? More importantly, why was his unsupported claim allowed to INITIALLY enter the article without consensus (in addition to violating WP Common Sense and being unencylopedic). His unsupported claim is in a journal that is supposted to have higher standers than WP. Bazant's tendency to make unsupported claims probably proves his paper is not reliable, and his claim should not be included, but I appreciate that many people want to include his view (or opinion). So, instead we could do what real scholarly papers do, namely, reveal the actual truth that no study has been found which reveals what engineers think about CD, and to report bazant's view as being his personal statement, attributing it to him. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear all Sirs. This question has existed for a long time before these two sections were created. Why don't we submit it to a mediation cabal, although I don't know if that is the official term. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Orea Priest indicated that his removal of my POV-Section warning was accidental, and creditably he said he was sorry. I am surprised, now, that it has been removed a second time. Lets remember that a POV section warning specifies that a certain section is being contested. This is a signal to readers that, as everyone acknowledges, the writing of a section has not been resolved. In this case, the problem is that bazant's unsupported claim is being presented, falsely, as a finding, as a fact, when this problem can be easily remedied by reporting what seems to be simple truth, that it his his own claim (and that it is too early to know what most scientists think because no such studies exist of their view, or no such studies have been found). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, removing a POV section warning is a violation of policies and protocol. It feels very strange that, in addition to having to deal with the problem of POV, it seems we now how to deal with efforts to hide the POV question. This is the alert that was added: In addition, a warning about misinterpreted citation needs to be added. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir OreoPriest. Despite the fact that you apologized for removing a pov section warning, the SECOND removal of the POV Section warning has your signature on it. It is almost edit warring to assume that your cryptic unexplained edit summaries will count as discussion. The POV SEction warning is not redundant to a POV Article warning, because the problems underlying each one are distinct; one may be resolved and removed even when the other one is not. I don't know who is making the claim linked with the article POV warning, and only he or she can represent the POV concern attached to it. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought the double tag was unnecessary; I added the tag in the header after removing the section tag by accident. If you really think we need both, suit yourself. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt - I agree with "Neutrality" warning. I support seeking mediation (but am unfamiliar with the process). I'd also reiterate WP standards for "Verifiability" - 1. the source must "unambiguously support" the claim "as presented in article" and 2. "burden of evidence" is on editor seeking inclusion of the (Bazant) claim. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration wouldn't be a bad idea. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or mediation. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromise? (in conjunction with mediation). What if we replace:

The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings.

With:

In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of WTC Building 7.

Granted, less concise, but infinitely more verifiable, fact-based, and neutral than the "community rejects CD" phrasing (for which we have no evidence). It seems to me a solid balance of the multiple concerns on both sides. Any objections? (if so, please cite the relevant WP guideline) Doctorhoneydew (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We should include the second part as well, but I oppose removing the first part. We don't have no evidence, it's just that some of us don't think the evidence is conclusive and some do. I do applaud that you are working towards a compromise. Oreo Priest ^talk 01:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I added the reports to #Advocacy rather than the lead, as the amount of detail seems excessive per WP:Lead section. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Undone". 2over0, I reverted your bastardization of my proposal. I specifically wrote that language as a proposed compromise to replace Bazant language in the lead. However, I'll assume that you didn't intend bad-faith random insult removed - 2/0 (cont.) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo, counter my compromise with new compromise. Otherwise you're not even attempting to build consensus. Contradicts your claim of "applauding" my attempt at compromise. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo - "some think evidence is conclusive and some do not". False. There is zero evidence for the article as written ("...community generally rejects controlled demo.."). Zero evidence. What we DO have is a claim that the community supports NIST. That is different.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, I would accept the proposed compromise - but it seems you have not accepted it. If you insist on maintaining the controversial language which presents bazant's statement as a fact, its not much of a compromise its it? It merely adds new information. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, lets face the idea that readers would know more, not less, were they to know that his statement is a statement (not a finding, not a research fact). Above it was said that bazant's claim should be welcomed as an expert opinion. Why has the proponent of that view not proposed letting the readers see the reality of that very truth, the truth that bazant is giving is his professional opinion, not a finding? Oreo Priest may have supported that view, above - but does not propose including the very thing he acknowledges in the article so readers know the truth.) --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Oreo Priest, Would you object to the insertion of three words? That is, replace this

The engineering and scientific community generally ... etc...

with this

Bazant states that the engineering and scientific community generally...etc...

That change would make the statement less misleading and more encylopedic, since bazant's paper and his data are not fundamentally about what others believe, and he hasn't given reason for his view. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In addition, to facilitate our esteemed dialogue, the quote seems to be this -

Quoting: 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 END. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as mentioned above, I do object to inserting those three words. Quantpole's comment on 19 August 2009 sums up why I object. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo, what compromise are you proposing? Or what solution to the multiple concerns? Many editors have demonstrated numerous flaws in the sentence as written. Bulk of WP guidelines support the objectors. Deletion is justified, but I prefer compromise if others, like yourself, are willing to attempt it. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? Why did you just delete well sourced information?

And no, deletion isn't justified, many editors have demonstrated the strengths in the sentence as written. And no, I don't really have any ideas for a compromise myself. I think mediation might be the way to go. Oreo Priest ^talk 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to read my "edit summary", I'll reiterate here. I deleted it because I wrote it, and it was intended for a different section as possible compromise in disputed Bazant line in lead. And, yes, deletion of current Bazant line is quite clearly justified. The sentence misrepresents the Bazant quote, and by clear WP standards ("unambiguous support"), it never qualified for inclusion in the first place. But in WP communal spirit, I'm willing to attempt compromise and/or mediation. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of building consensus, I'd like to note that Oreo has rejected two proposed compromises both of which "IhaveButt" has accepted. Either: 1. Adding "According to Bazant" to show that Bazant was giving an opinion, not verifiable fact. or- 2. My proposed compromise to replace Bazant opinion with NIST conclusion (see above). Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

HaveButt, while we continue our unreciprocated attempts at compromise, can we start a "mediation" discussion on talk page? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You and Ihaveabutt agreed to begin with, so of course he would accept your "compromise". Second, I read your edit summary, but you don't own that sentence or any other content on Wikipedia. I'm putting it back in because it was true, well-sourced and relevant. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oreo Priest, if multiple editors are in the process of discussing a compromise, involving compromise language that I drafted on this discussion page, and then you pre-emptively place that language in a different section of the article (thus obviating the very possibility of compromise), can you see how that might give the impression that you're acting in bad faith? I hope you'll respect my efforts to build a collaborative solution. Please don't do that again. . Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(1) We really should not recapitulate the entirety of Collapse of the World Trade Center here. Mentioning how this group differs from the consensus stance is necessary contextualization, but keep it simple. (2) Per Wikipedia:Lead section, we should not present any information in the lead which is not in the body. The greater detail of giving a couple major references to the consensus position belongs where we discuss A&E's dissenting opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good points 2/0 - mention the consensus stance and be brief. That can help us shape a compromise. Well, we can definitely trim my proposed compromise, something like, (rough) "The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires." Definitely more concise than my prior version (though a tad less accurate because 7 wasn't hit by a jet. Maybe okay). And far more fact based than Bazant opinion being presented as verifiable fact. I would support that compromise. You? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, 2/0 and Oreo Priest, do me a favor and don't preemptively misplace this 2nd version I'm proposing like you did with my other proposal. It would suggest you're acting in bad faith. Thanks! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally believe that the "engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition" but to say so is unsupported WP:OR without someone doing some type of "headcount" which has never been done. Similar reliably sourced unsupported statements by conspiracy theorists would not and have not been in the past tolerated. Despite complying with WP policy (which the current wording does not) I dislike Ihaveabutt's suggestion to add "Bazant states..." or "According to Bazant..." as it inadvertantly opens the door for the topic to become a he said she said arguement. I do like Doctorhoneydew's compromise though as it is NPOV, unambiguous, undisputed and encyclopaedic. It is not our job to decide what everyone should believe no matter what our agenda or personal beliefs are. Wayne (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne, your clarity and reasonable tone much appreciated. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're getting at Wayne, but Bazant is an expert in the subject, has presented multiple papers in peer reviewed sources (which were written with a number of other experts). Conspiracy theorists do not get their thinking published in journals and the like, which is why their opinions do not carry the same merit. I don't see how WP:OR applies - that is wikipedia editors doing original research, not the sources we quote. It is not original research to quote what a RS says. Quantpole (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So far, three editors agree to the my "NIST" compromise (see 8/24 discussion). Two editors object but, unless I've missed it, have made zero counter-compromise. I do not see where they've made any effort at building consensus. 2over0 has a good point about the proposed compromise being too long. If he supports a shortened version, that would be four in favor one against. I see the discussion shifting toward the compromise position, but I'll give editors more time. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've had an informal relationship with the NIST which goes back many decades. For a long time, I knew them as the National Bureau of Standards, and I idolized them for their science, precision, and integrity. They helped inspire me to a lifelong interest in science. That admiration totally evaporated under the Bush Administration, when, in my eyes, an institution of science was redirected to a purpose of propaganda and disinformation. I like the idea of a compromise, but I regard a compromise involving the NIST as sinking too low to be acceptable. Surely there must be something on a higher plane of scientific acceptability. Wildbear (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you support replacing the Bazant "community rejects" language with a NPOV report. No? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. That's an interesting thought. Let me suggest a possible example. From a report written by "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" (ref), page 4: "The Council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building professionals, that all the failures at the WTC (WTC 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers." And on the same page, "The Council does not agree with the NIST statement that the failure was a result of the buckling of Column 79. We believe that the failure was a result of the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and subsequent buckling of internal columns." A document such as this would provide some of the desired POV balance we are seeking for this article, while at the same time showing that not everyone with professional expertise on the topic automatically agrees with the NIST's hypothesis. The authors of this report are making the same kind of unsupported assertion that Bazant makes, but at least the report has a feel to it which is a little bit closer to NPOV. Wildbear (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting info, Bear. In the context of the Lead paragraph, I sense that majority of editors are seeking to hold up what I'll call the "commonly accepted mainstream report". I'm not sure this report does that. But I agree with you that it's relevant to article that not all experts support the specifics of NIST theory. Could make a good addition lower in body of article? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, providing balance to the "commonly accepted view" is appropriate for the lead in the interest of NPOV. And I can agree as well, that it is unclear that this report I mentioned does that. As my earlier comments reflect, I just wish to see the balance in the lead done in a manner which does not obfuscate any facts or misrepresent what the sources are saying. It's possible that the document I mentioned might work in a lower part of the article. It might fit in even better in a criticism section in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. Wildbear (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For editors info, I hope my concerns are unfounded but Oreo Priest has now made two attempts to (apparently) co-opt compromise by lifting language that I drafted in the discussion page and using it pre-emtively in a different section. (see my compromise proposal, 8/24). I'm not assuming bad faith yet, though other explanations grow slim if it continues. I address him directly in bolded paragraph above.Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; your proposed NIST wording belongs in the other section, and the "engineering and scientific community" wording also belongs somewhere in the article. They are not directly related. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, you may be right but 1) you cite no WP guidelines to support your opinion and 2) more importantly, we're in the process of discussing the very point you find so certain. Given my repeated attempts to engage in a discussion on compromise, for you to knowingly edit in a way that directly undermines that effort strikes me as clear bad faith. Not an assumption. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editors. With apparent indifference to our attempt to find compromise, Arthur Rubin has joined Oreo's effort to preemptively misplace language which I wrote and which we are in the process of discussing as a possible compromise in the lead paragraph. Given the clear discussion notes, Arthur's insistence strikes me as an unambiguous bad faith attempt to undermine those of us who are attempting to find a compromise here. Since I am fairly new, I would appreciate any advice editors can offer on how to report cases of bad faith editing. I think the discussion thread lays it all out clearly. Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic. For those of us interested in good faith WP editing, I will attempt yet another compromise. The only objector to my 8/24 proposal who cited an actual WP rationale was 2over0 who pointed out that my proposal may be too long for WP-Lead. Since he didn't propose a counter-compromise, I will do it for him, like this - How about a shorter NIST reference? In other words,

what if we replace this:

The engineering and scientific community generally rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the buildings.

With something like this:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires.

Shorter than my prior proposal, still fact-based, NPOV, with that "official" govt imprimatur that connotes "mainstream". And, unlike Bazant opinion, the sentence is verifiable. I'd love to hear any WP-based feedback, thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why the Bazant phrase should be replaced. It is authoritative and unequivocal, and no other RS have been shown to disagree with it. I've already said that the phrase should be changed to more properly reflect the source. How about combining the two, to put the Bazant source in better context. e.g.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition.

I've tried to keep it as neutral as possible and if anything have toned down the Bazant language. Quantpole (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, although Bazant (with an accent I can't type) did refer to both engineers and scientists. As for WP policies, Bazant's paper is clearly a WP:RS, so there is no reason to remove an accurate statement of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Even if something is RS there are ample legitimate reasons to take something down. For example if it's the wrong section. And we're currently in the process of discussing whether it's in the correct section. But effort to cite WP standard is appreciated. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a bad start. I would like to reword it "The scientific and engineering community agrees with this explanation, but ..." Oreo Priest ^talk 13:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible which talks about "communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers". Quantpole (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proposing compromise, Quantpole! Your phrasing (8/25, above) strikes me as an improvement in WP-verifiability and NPOV and WPLead over the current article. While your phrasing is closer to the source, I notice that Bazant uses the phrasing "generally accepted" and your proposal drops the "generally". I'd back your compromise if we stick to the source and say "generally accepted". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally is fine by me. Oreo Priest ^talk 00:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't use a qualifier is that the second, more recent, source uses 'universally'. I was trying to avoid the question by not including either! Quantpole (talk) 07:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne. The use of "According to x" is commonplace in journalism, and it is better than attributing to nobody as if to presume and assume a fact. Knocking down an improvement without an alternative strikes me as a strange way of going about it. To quote bazant, and attribute it to him, would not be OR. a) To quote him, and not attribute it to him, when he is just spouting talking points of the day violates common sense and be rational. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WildBear I appreciate what you say about NIST. However, how do you propose setting the mainstream context? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If bazant's peer reviewers had an ounce of credibility they should have rejected his paper for making claims about what scientists think without a shred of evidence. Well, that is too strong a statement because they could have trusted that readers would know that "what scientists think" was not the focus of his paper, and they could have expected most readers would not take his non empirical assumptions seriously. Scientists used to believe they could know your personality by feeling the bumps on your head. And theyused to believe they could cure personality problems by jamming a steel prod through your forehead. This is why articles need to conform to wp:commonSense and wp:BeRational. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, maybe Bazant's peer reviewers are not complete idiots, and actually being part of the structural engineering community and being in correspondence with lots of other structural engineers, they could plainly see that everyone thought that the official explanation made sense. No peer reviewer in their right mind would demand you formally conduct a survey of structural engineers to see what they think if it's so blindingly obvious [what they think].

If a geologist were to publish the claim that "the geological community agrees that the earth is round, although some outsiders insist that the earth is flat", would you say that that's just their opinion? Would you say they have no evidence and that the claim is baseless because they didn't do a formal survey of geologists to see what they think? Would anyone ever do a formal survey of their peers for any reason, much less to debunk a fringe theory that is already clearly rejected by the community? Oreo Priest ^talk 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bazant's loaded language, though he might be partly right, further undermines his credibility. To know how many people take a certain view is not established to invoking the fuzzy-land term "the community". To know how many people take a certain view is known by measuring it, not labeling it nicely. Thus his quote needs to be *properly *described. His journal's reputation was not built by scientist making unsupported, vague statements pretending to be known. There is no scientist tribe called "outside" scientists, except when ideological scientists try to make an argument without evidence. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone said Bazant is authoritative. But that is the type of shoot from the hip argument that explains why the article is in such poor shape, and consensus has so long eluded this article. To say he is authoritive is a nice and pretty label, not an analysis. Knowledge doesn't grow on trees, nor is it cultivated by assuming someone has it. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is in poor shape because this organization isn't notable. So, of course, you're going to have trouble finding good reliable sources about it. BTW, your opening sentence "If bazant's peer reviewers had an ounce of credibility they should have rejected his paper for making claims about what scientists think without a shred of evidence." is a wonderful piece of WP:OR. Perhaps we should add more WP:OR to the article. Since we've decided to ignore WP:NOTE, we might as well ignore WP:OR, too. Besides, it's not like we'll find many WP:RS about this organization. A Quest For Knowledge 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Butt, while I share your concerns about presenting Bazant's opinion as verifiable fact, I don't think the phrasing that Quantpole suggests -- in total -- does that. I think it presents a reasonable "snapshot" of the debate. It connotes that there is more-or-less a mainstream opinion and that there is more-or-less a minority opinion. But his phrasing fixes the "community rejects" falsehood/bias. Also, since Bazant uses the phrasing "generally accepted" (which I hope we retain) it becomes more clear to WP-reader that it can be taken as generally true, and not necessarily verifiable fact. Since compromise can be very difficult, I back Quantpole's proposal. Which I'll reiterate here for easy reference (I've added the word "generally", in keeping with the source).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been generally accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition.

Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with using the word "outside" to qualify critics as it strongly implies no engineers or scientists reject NIST. In reply to Oreo Priest, little in science is "blindingly obvious" and the cause of the collapse certainly is not or there would be no conspiracy theories in the first place. Using the "Earth is round" is a straw man argument as you have cherry picked an example not disputed within the community itself. Was Bazant "authoritative" when he first published it was a pancake collapse or when he revised it (five times) after NIST published? If he was as authoritative as you believe, wouldn't NIST be using his data instead of the other way around? You need to keep in mind that Bazant is treated with unusual leniency in regards to peer review. His peer review was not only limited to the mathematics of his paper (which he himself described as a simplified approximate analysis) but the reviewers also exempted him from the normal rules applying to the peer review process in regards to closure. Wayne (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is no straw man argument. The only thing that keeps the arguments from being exactly analogous is that we know without any doubt that all geologists agree that the earth is round, whereas we (independent of the Bazant quote at least) haven't established (in a manner that satisfies everyone) that all structural engineers agree about what caused the collapse. And what I meant as "blindingly obvious" was a consensus within the community (which none of us are actually part of). It was meant to portray a scenario (very likely the actual one in my opinion) in which the peer reviewers would have no reason at all to disagree with his claims, much less demand he formally conduct a survey. My question remains: Would anyone ever do a formal survey of their peers for any reason, much less to debunk a fringe theory that is already clearly rejected by the community? Oreo Priest ^talk 14:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Orea, "flat earth" is straw man AND irrelevant to this thread. No evidence of scientific dissent in "flat earth" case. Whereas there IS evidence of scientific dissent in "CD" case (Jones, Harrit, AE). Also, if you read your note above, I think you'll find that you essentially wrote that the only thing that keeps them from being exactly analogous is that they are different :) Hilarious. That's definitely true! Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you are assuming a communities position on a subject based on your own views. Let's put that straw man arguement to bed. Do a search for geologists who have supported or opposed the Earth being round and you will find supporters overwhelmingly outnumber flat Earthers with very few not disclosing their position. Ergo, we can safely say the geological community agrees that the earth is round. In contrast, a similar search in regards to 911 will find there is no clear support (in terms of numbers) for either view as the majority of engineers and scientists, unlike in the case of the aforementioned geologists, have not made their position known. This majority in all probability supports NIST but we do not know that for a fact so we can not honestly say that the community agrees with NIST with the same reliability as we can for the Earth being round. To be truly neutral you must base the article on known facts not personal beliefs. It is POV to use unsupported statements by otherwise reliable sources to support a particular viewpoint no matter how true that viewpoint is. Wayne (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a straw man. Seriously, I bet you couldn't even come up with the sort of evidence you're demanding for something this obvious. That's the whole point. How many geologists do you think are on the record as having said the earth is round? The others therefore "have not made their positions known". Even if you could find plenty that are on the record, how would you prove it's a majority? Aside from your dismissive argument that we all already know what all geologists think, what kind of proof would you require to establish that they reject the flat earth? That is a completely serious question, and it has a tremendous bearing on this discussion. Oreo Priest ^talk 08:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything we are taught in school in any number of disciplines is based on the premise that the Earth is round. I doubt that geologists would be awarded a degree if their dissertations asserted geology was wrong. 911 is completely different in that there is no course subject that specifically accepts the NIST report as undisputed. Originally the multiverse was a fringe theory only found in science fiction and believed by a few "kooks" but today the concept is accepted by the scientific community. I'm not equating this with CD but it is closer than the example you used. I'm using it as an example to show you how difficult it is to use examples for this subject. Wayne (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, most serious scientists aren't going to waste their time examining fringe theories. I'm not aware of a single study that disputes Time Cube theory. Nevertheless, it is still patent nonsense. For better or for worse, CDCT have become enough of a social phenomenon that some scientific analysis has been done and they have all rejected CDCT. We should not use wording that implies doubt when there is none. Right now, the word of the article says "The engineering and scientific community generally rejects". Wrong. It is universally rejected by the scientific community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Time Cube is flawed analogy as it has only one proponent and is thus another attempt at presenting a straw man arguement. I challenge you to prove you are not pushing your own beliefs as your reply seems to indicate. Prove that it is universally rejected. Prove that all scientific analysis has rejected CDCT. Show us how Doctorhoneydew's suggestion implies doubt. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Time Cube might have more adherents than you might think based on the number of people on the various Time Cube forums. You ask that I prove that CDCT theory is universally rejected. I believe that I already have. So now it's your turn: Please prove that Time Cube has been universally rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this thread. For discussion on Time Cube, please see Discussion page in article on Time Cube. Even as an "analogy" for alleged "fringe theory" it's irrelevant, as you already admitted there are no refutations of Time Cube. Whereas there are studies on both sides of "CD". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. AFAIK, there is not a single reliable source supporting CDCT and numerous rejecting CDCT. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what edit are you proposing? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating, QfK, your recent post asserted about four or five supposed facts, and you fail to provide evidence for a single one of them. And the majority of assertions are demonstrably false. LoL. That's roughly a 0% verifiability rate for your comment. "Fringe theory" - QfK gives no evidence. The example using "Time Cube", "I'm aware of no studies..." - well then that example is irrelevant because there ARE studies on BOTH sides of CD issue (NIST vs Jones/Harrit off the top of my head). "All studies have rejected CD" - QfK gives no evidence, AND it's demonstrably false (Jones & Harrit). "There is no doubt" - QfK gives no evidence, AND it's demonstrably false (almost 800 architect and engineer supports at AE911). "It is universally rejected" - no evidence, and demonstrably false (see AE911). In fairness, you did give one opinion which seems valid to me - "we should not use wording that implies doubt when there is none". Kudos, good point. Unfortunately, it has no relation to this situation because, in fact, there is evidence of doubt (Jones, Harrit, AE). For future contributions, please consider WP-verifiability, because 0% verifiability is probably not helpful to WP. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is not a single, peer-reviewed scientific study in favor of CDCT. Which is the exact same number for Time Cube. This is a fringe theory. Stop trying to treat it as if it is legit. It's not. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for promoting nutcase conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

So sorry Quest, but I'm afraid you're wrong again. The Jones Harrit paper is, to use your wording, a "peer reviewed scientific study in favor of CD". So your claim is 0% correct. I think that's your fourth false claim in a row. And your 8th claim in a row for which you provide no evidence. Wow, and you say CD theory is unscientific. :) Doctorhoneydew (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if all 800 were A & E's (which is by no means certain), it's still a tiny number...a drop in the bucket. And the "studies" that Jones does would be laughed out of any real scientific environment. There is no scientific debate about this...none at all. Zero. The "researchers" pushing this stuff aren't doing any science, they are pushing a conspiracy theory and cherry picking, misinterpreting and lying about evidence to back up their claims. I've said this many times, but there is no academic or scientific debate about this subject. It's a cultural phenomenon and nothing more. Scientifically speaking (or academically, mainstream media, reliable sources etc) there is no "both sides" here and it would be a mistake and POV pushing to hint that there is. RxS (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

RxS, every singe sentence of your comment is an assertion without evidence. Every single one. Given that, it's just opinion and therefore is difficult to address in a discussion based on RS and verifiability. However, you assert one semi-logical point worth addressing. That 800 AE supporters are a drop in the bucket. Therefore there is zero debate. Got it, 800 equals zero. Setting aside your odd math, even though the group is relatively small, it is on record. In combination with Jones and Harrit papers, plus presentations by AE at architectural conventions, there's evidence of some debate/dissent. Hard to quantify, but I think "some" is greater and not equal to "zero". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Jones et al. were not published in a reputable journal. That journal is a pay-to-publish rag that does not actually peer review. Also, putting your name on the AE website is not the same as scientific debate. Hell, even intelligent design can find the odd biologist to support it, but that doesn't mean it's not overwhelmingly rejected. There is no debate in the scientific community over ID or 9/11. Oreo Priest ^talk 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, there's some dissent in the architectural and engineering community as evidenced by the existence of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (See Wikipedia: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth). It would be slightly comical to make a claim in our article that NIST is universally accepted in a WP article about a group of professionals who reject NIST. Unless you're suggesting that WP articles should be self-contradictory. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. There is no academic debate on the subject. ~10 structural engineers (if these people really exist and actually reject the official story, not just being wooed by the "demands that the United States Congress pursue a truly independent investigation into the September 11 attacks") putting their name on a website is not academic debate. Look at the Discovery Institute; it managed to find several biologists, professors no less, that support Intelligent Design. There is nonetheless no academic debate on the subject. It probably is strictly speaking true that CD is not universally rejected, but it is certainly true that CD is overwhelmingly rejected, and there is no academic debate on the subject. Oreo Priest ^talk 13:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, "academic debate" is the standard now. So we've moved the relevant standard from "scientific community" to "structural engineers" to "academic debate". Okay, duly noted. So what edit are you proposing? Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is. You can find a couple crazies to say anything, or ignorant people who got their degrees with straight Cs at a McUniversity. The important thing is what experts think, and in most cases whether or not their reasoning withstands enough scrutiny to make it into a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Rough Tally Please correct me if I've misrepresented anyone, but my general sense is that the following editors support something along the lines of the Quanpole compromise language: Quantpole, Oreo Priest ("Generally is fine with me"), Arthur Rubin ("that seems reasonable"), Doctorhoneydew ("if we say 'generally' as source does"), and (I'm not positive) but possibly also WildBear and Wayne (Except for word "outside"). If I'm correct about WildBear and Wayne, that's six.

Those that seem to reject the compromise language: IHaveButt ("Bazant is giving opinion"), and QuestForKnowledge ("CD is universally rejected"), and Rxs ("there is zero debate"). That's three.

If I have placed anyone in the wrong group, please let me know. Otherwise, we may have a majority for Quantpole's compromise. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well — I think it clear that it is universally rejected among credible experts, but we don't have a reliable source, so I support the compromize language, especially if Bazant said "generally". (I supported the first revision of Quanpole's compromise, and there were two more revisions mentioned here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

AR, apologies for any confusion. Quantpole's proposal (if you add "generally", from source) is:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, concluded that the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. This explanation has been generally accepted by the structural engineering community, but some outside critics disagree and believe that the buildings collapsed through controlled demolition. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I consider this compromise as acceptable for Wikipedia at this time. I agree with Wayne and Ihaveabutt that the use of the word "outside" is not accurate or appropriate, and I would prefer to see that removed. In the interest of compromise, I am willing to accept the wording as stated. Wildbear (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I did reply to this above, but one quote from Bazant uses 'generally', the other uses 'universally', which is why I said neither originally. Quantpole (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quantpole. I follow your rationale. Unfortunately, that means Bazant has been inconsistent on the matter. Since we should try to stick to RS language, WP should probably use the one which is more accurate - i.e. "generally". I say "more accurate" because the existence of AE911Truth makes "universally" obviously false and would make the WP article inherently self-contradictory. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy. Just because the NIST report is generally accepted by the scientific community doesn't necessarily mean that CDCT isn't universally rejected. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sincere apologies, Quest, but I cannot understand that sentence. And I don't see any dichotomy, much less a false one. However, I can give you some readily available evidence that CD theory is NOT universally rejected. It's a group called Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See, since they support CD theory, then CD theory is not universally rejected. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If A is false, that doesn't mean B is true. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Quest, I follow now. Let me try to clarify the case against "universally". The reason we can't use "universally" is because it's obviously false. The existence of AE911Truth demonstrates that CD-theory is not universally rejected, and it demonstrates that NIST is not "universally" accepted. It renders "universally" self-evidently false. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

...but some outside critics disagree... No, per WP:undue. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is not a notable group nor is it a reliable source. RxS (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indisputable that some AE911 members are members of the "engineering and scientific community" so, regardless of the groups reliability, using the word "outside" presents the reader with the false implication that there are no "inside" critics. It is a blatant POV violation as it tells the reader there are NO engineers or scientists who dissent. I would point out that the peer reviewers of Bazants paper refused a request for permission to include mathematics in a refutation so minimal peer reviewed critism can not be assumed to be equivalent to an absence of critism. Wayne (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, I agree with you and WildBear that "outside" is no longer accurate (it may have been accurate when Bazant wrote it, several years ago). However, I'm not personally aware of any RS which would support dropping the word. (FYI, note that Quantpole/Bazant language is "structural engineers" not "scientific community"). But if you are aware of RS, that's a different matter. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We only need one example to invalidate using the word "outside". Kamal Obeid is a structural engineer with a masters from Berkeley. He is a vocal supporter of the possibility of CD. This source mentions him, his qualifications and his views. Wayne (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, I'm seeing your point. Plus I'm seeing that a number of AE signatures are structural engineers. If the group is relevant, than the support of their structural engineers is also relevant. Plus, it seems highly relevant to me that the number of AE signatures has increased by approx 10-20% over the course of this Bazant debate. They are not "outsiders" and their ranks are growing. I'm thinking that part of our problem here is that we're attempting to put a "static" assessment onto debate which may be too dynamic to permit that right now. Bottom line, it's probably not accurate for us to say "outsiders". Doctorhoneydew (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, Doc, cut the semantics and the drama. How about stating CD theories are rejected by an overwhelming majority of the scientific and engineering community? Does that work for you? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel it is neccessary to say CD is rejected by the community I could accept using "majority" but you cannot use "overwhelming" without evidence. I still say a statement of fact such as Doctorhoneydew's suggestion is preferable to the POV supposition you suggest. Keep in mind this article is not about conspiracy theories but a group of people so does not have the same requirement for countering their views as an article about their views would. We can afford to be more accurate with our language in this article. Wayne (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cs32en just put up a great solution to all this, makes "outsider" language unnecessary. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bazant says: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering", so referring to the "scientific community" is already a bit of interpretation of the sentence on our part. Bazant does not say "overwhelming", and there may in fact now be more structural engineers who have explicitly taken a position against the NIST explanation than structural engineers who have explicitly stated their agreement. We have no WP:RS sources that confirm this situation, however. So we are left with a references to NIST and to Bazant, who obviously have a stake in the outcome of such a debate, saying that structural engineers agree with their conclusions. Every reader must make up his or her mind whether such statements are very much convincing, given the interests involved. We should not re-interpret the statement by introducing vocabulary like "overwhelming", but otherwise the wording is not really important here. (That's why I haven't participated in this discussion in the past.)  Cs32en  21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the language that Cs32en just added to the article is by far the best solution for the various concerns raised. Most importantly, is far more accurate representation of Bazant. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nano-thermite analysis paper

I removed reference to this paper, as it is not really on topic and there are serious issues with presenting its conclusions as accept{{ed,able}} by the relevant community. It is treated in the linked World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, where it is relevant. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement on the archived AE911Truth internet site

Preliminary remark: I generally approve the changes made by 2/0 in his recent edits.

Is there a guideline on how to handle spelling errors in a quotation? I don't think that we need to point out a typographical error in the source that does not really compromise the readability of the text or the clarity of the content.

Is the quotation really pertinent to the description of the groups activities and advocacy? Most professions, architects as well as civil and structural engineers, do not regularly analyse collapses of buildings, as the curricula for the respective studies is on the behaviour of buildings within the limits of elastic (as opposed to plastic) deformations, and on identifying (and avoiding) reaching the extent of deformation at which plastic behaviour of the material occurs.  Cs32en  19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Text in quotation marks must correspond exactly to the cited text and not be used in such a way as to be misleading. This is the quote in the third sentence of #Advocacy, yes? I was checking the source because i.e. was not italicized (I think modern style guides are starting to go either way on that one) and there was a superfluous comma. Also, putting "collapsed" in quotation marks strikes me as odd, but I guess they are distinguishing "collapsed" from "were demolished".

That said, I would have no problem paraphrasing this statement or removing it; I am leaning towards the latter, as it is basically redundant with the first sentence in that section. The quoted source mentions evidence for government involvement, but the preceding sentence denying assignment of blame is better and more recently cited.

We also should have a statement somewhere on Gage's experience with controlled demolition. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume that Gage does not have any professional experience with controlled demolitions (as probably more than 99% of all architects), but I'm not sure whether any reliable source has reported this. The reason to include the quote was, if I remember correctly, that it would somehow prove that the members of the group would be dealing with issues they don't understand.

As for putting "collapsed" in quotation marks, the group actually seems to make a difference between "collapsing" and "being demolished", as they interpret "collapsing" as implying that the destruction would occur without outside interference. Making that distinction in the choice of words does not seem to matter that much in more recent statements of the group.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any statement in that section that says or implies that AE911Truth are explicitly stating that evidence would indicate government involvement.  Cs32en  21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see - that they are not Controlled Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth needs to go somewhere, I agree.

The group does not blame any particular individuals or organizations for the September 11 attacks. One of the sources for that statement disclaims any involvement with conspiracy theories. Not blaming (elements of) the government appears to be their current stance, so we are good there. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"that they are not Controlled Demolition Experts for 9/11 Truth needs to go somewhere"... I'd say that this statement is already being made in the title of the article ;-)   Cs32en  23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"experts" or "specialists"?

Bazant et al. use the term "community of specialists". Not being a native English speaker, I don't know whether changing this to "experts" does alter the meaning in a significant way. Is the wording used by Bazant somehow odd, or should we rather stick with his original description?

I do not think it matters either way. "Experts" is slightly more common terminology, but certainly not overwhelmingly so. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"that expresses" or "who express"

A Quest For Knowledge, could you either change the lead sentence to "an organization [...] that expresses reservations", or, alternatively, to "representing architects and engineers who express reservations"? Thank you.  Cs32en  08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a second look at it, I don't think that the phrase "express reservations regarding conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report" is accurate. That seems pretty watered down considering that they come right out and say they think it was a controlled demolition. From their own About page:[1]

"The World Trade Center buildings... were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives"

I checked the first 15 or so references in the article and the one cited appears to be the only way that phrases it this way. The other ones seem to be much more direct in what this organization is advocating.

For example, BBC News says:

"However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition.

"The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives

" 'Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process.' "[2]

I suggest the following:

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory."

Or if you really want the 9/11 Commission report in the lead sentence:

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, founded in 2006, is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers which rejects the conclusions reached in the 9/11 Commission Report about the September 11 attacks. Instead, it advocates that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote from the AE911Truth website is "We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47 story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives." (emphasis added) I agree that this choice of words is stronger than "expresses factual reservations". It is, however, less strong than, for example, "We are sure that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition." To illustrate the point, they do not say: "Trust us, we know what happened," but rather "Let's investigate, based on the evidence, and then reach a conclusion." (Both interpretations are obviously original research and should not appear in the article.)

I'd suggest something like "is a non-profit organization representing architects and engineers that believes sufficient evidence would exist to conclude that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosive demolition, a 9/11 conspiracy theory". If we want to include the information that their view differs from the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, we could add something to that effect, of course.

A question on the language: Is it fine to say "advocate [a statement of fact]", or is the common usage rather "advocate [a specific action/a change in behavior]"?

Additional remark: A Quest For Knowledge, I appreciate your current input at this article (the last edits/comments have been rather constructive), but I'm not sure whether the AE result was intended to make this article a kind of common playground for us to interact with each other. It's probably best if we wait for input from other editors before continuing the discussion.  Cs32en  16:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought my edit was fairly innocuous (it was purely about grammar). I didn't think you would dispute it. Yes, let's wait for further input from other editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My initial comment on your actual edit only expresses a concern about the current form of the verb "to express" in the first sentence.  Cs32en  17:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, but when you disputed it, it forced me to read the sentence 3 or 4 times. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to fix the grammar in the first sentence of the article. Please let me know if I'm mistaken and the current version is correct.  Cs32en  19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Representing architects and engineers

AE911 doesn't claim, or state, that it represents architects and engineers. In fact on its website it states in large font right in the middle of the front page that "the petition is open to everyone". Given that their number of signatories is only 1107 out of hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers they can't be said to respresent those groups. Aetylus (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Representing architects and engineers" obviously does not mean "representing all architects and engineers". But as the name of the group already indicates that it is based on the support and participation of architects and engineers (though not all of them), the information that it "represents architects and engineers" is somewhat redundant.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As if the name didn’t make it abundantly clear…

From their About Us page: “We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates.”

From their homepage: “1112 architectural and engineering professionals and 7253 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.”

It allows membership by non-experts but sets them apart. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK), 06:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AE911 allows for an individual to sign the petition if he/she is not a licensed/degreed architect or engineer, however counted in a separate total. In order to sign as an architect or engineer, you must state your license number. They are very serious about maintaining a level of credibility with their petition. —Forgott3n (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is who is counted as "architects and engineers". There are many disciplines within both professions, and there is no attempt made to distinguish between landscape engineers and structural engineers in the "separate total." And none are experts in controlled demolitions, which is what the group is advocating. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

While news sources often refer to the petition signers as "architects and engineers", the website says "architectural and engineering professionals". It does not say "structural engineers", and the article does not do so either.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of the group is Architects & Engineers, not "architectural and engineering professionals." This is exactly why "news sources" refer to the petition signers as "architects and engineers." The confusion is there because of the group. And what professional authority do you think a landscape engineer has in dealing with these questions? None, and the group makes no real attempt to distinguish between the authoritative word of either. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

External link to www.ae911truth.info

No references from reliable sources have been given that indicate that the link www.ae911truth.info would be notable. Also, per WP:EL#ADV, editors "should avoid linking to a site that [they] own, maintain, or represent".  Cs32en Talk to me  17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Though I do own and maintain the .info website concerning this group, I am not the person who initially linked to my site. That was A Quest For Knowledge on 21:49, 23 May 2009, as a check of the history of this page will confirm. It was following the referrals to the site that I found this wiki page. There are many other 9/11 Truth wiki pages that allow external links to critical websites, and the page for Architects & Engineers should be no exception. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Some other 'critical' websites have been mentioned (mostly in a trivial way) by reliable sources. Can you provide such references for the site that you want to add to the article?  Cs32en Talk to me  17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "adding" this link to the article. I'm restoring it. I have only ever restored the link to the article, as a check of the history of the site will confirm. Please stop misrepresenting what I am doing here.

You want "references"? OK - the front page of debunking911.com - "Important New Site ~ http://www.ae911truth.info addresses the misleading and deceitful conspiracy industries latest attempt at creating consumers for their products. From their blatant appeal to authority to misapplied science, ae911truth.info is a must for anyone seriously looking for truth."

From ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com: Welcome to AE911Truth.info, run by one of the finest debunkers I have encountered, Boloboffin from the Democratic Underground forums (and from the JREF forums as well).

Is that enough for you, Cs32en, to stop cutting this link out from the page it's been on for a couple of years now? Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The websites you have mentioned are not reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia policy. As we will probably need third-party opinions to resolve the matter, it would be helpful to have links to reliable sources, if they are available. I'll open up a Request for comment then. (If no sources can be found after some more days, this may indicate that such sources do not exist.)  Cs32en Talk to me  19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I could produce a reliable source that you would accept, then. The link should still be allowed to stay because it "still contain[s] information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." The sources used to dispute AE911Truth's claims are themselves knowledgeable sources. Joseph.nobles (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. The website is not a reliable source, of course, but in addition, it is not even mentioned by reliable sources, apparantly. What this part of WP:ELMAYBE says is that websites that would otherwise qualify as acceptable do not necessarily need to meet the criteria for reliable source.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It very definitely qualifies as a link to be considered, based on the knowledgeable sources quoted at the link. The very first of these is the AE911Truth website itself -- its own slideshows and website. Further information used to answer their questions are from original sources (like the Danny Jowenko videos, the NIST reports, published articles like Bazant Zhou, etc.). I derive no monetary gain and solict no money at this website, unlike the website of AE911Truth. It is a simple link to a ongoing disputation of AE911Truth claims and answers to AE911Truth's questions based on knowledgeable sources. I did not add it to this website originally and do not know the identity of the person who did. The link should stay. Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Joseph, I have just examined AE911Truth.INFO, and I want to offer some constructive suggestions. First, a little about myself. I do not know what happened to the WTC buildings, and I do not know what happened in the rest of the 9/11 matter. My desire is to ensure that what is known is recorded accurately and without bias or presumption in Wikipedia. I have no objections to a site being linked if it conforms to high standards, academically and scientifically. A counterpoint view is good to maintain a balanced view in Wikipedia articles. In my judgment, AE911Truth.INFO needs a lot of improvement before it would meet the standards that I would desire when linking to an independent site. There are many things that I could point out; I will mention just a few to provide some examples. Presumptious phrases like "exposing the lies and mistakes" should be avoided, particularly in the introduction. The term "freefall speed" is used profusely on the site, but if you want to convince scientifically-minded people that you know what you're talking about, you would be saying freefall acceleration. Overall, the site seems to be on a passionate mission to prove a point, and it shouldn't be. If your arguments are laid out in a convincing, well-researched, and scientifically valid manner, that should be all that is needed to convey your message. Don't concern yourself too much with what others are doing wrong; instead, aim to do better and set a higher standard. As it stands, I give the site a thumbs-down for linking to Wikipedia. Wildbear (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wildbear, I find some issues with the points you raise. Number one, the lies and mistakes of AE911Truth are documented on the .info site. It's not presumption when you have the evidence to back it up. Number two, the phrase "freefall speed" is taken directly from AE911Truth's own literature, as you or anyone can verify here. AE911Truth has recently corrected their front page listing of characteristics to use the much more correct term freefall acceleration, but the PowerPoint presentation still available for viewing on their site continues to use this unscientific term. In refuting AE911Truth, I must deal with the language that they use. Number three, the site seems to be on a passionate mission to prove a point? Really? And AE911Truth.org isn't? It's rather amazing to me that you fault the .info site for passionate mission and unscientific language, but cannot see that clearly demonstrated at the .org site. However, you might also be giving a thumbs-down for the AE911Truth group on Wikipedia as well, based on your criteria. If so, erase both my link and this entire article. Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of articles about organizations that are generally considered as controversial. The standard for articles in Wikipedia is notability, not accuracy. Reliable sources report on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, while they do not, to my knowledge, about the website ae911truth.info. A detailed analysis of the website ae911truth.info may be interesting and instructive, but may well constitute original research and does not address the issue of (non-)notability.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And those articles about controversial organizations have external links to material disputing them. If you succeed in removing this link, would you accept links to peer-reviewed articles like Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson's "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" and industry specialists like Brent Blanchard and his examination from an actual controlled demolition perspective? Joseph.nobles (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A further defense of these citations and endorsements: one of the websites I quoted, www.debunking911.com, is currently an external link at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Another site linked at the Wiki article, 911myths.org, also links to ae911truth.info approvingly. Yet your argument of notability would seem to exclude those links as well. If they are allowed to stand as reliable and notable links, then their endorsement of the ae911truth.info site speaks to the notability of it as well. Joseph.nobles (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding a link to a Zdeněk Bažant article would probably be o.k., as Bažant qualifies as a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy. Bažant is a recognized expert in a relevant scientific field. I don't know whether all other links in other articles are acceptable per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but this is not particularly relevant, as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Your reasoning that if a reliable source X talks about a notable source Y, which in turn has a reference to source Z, then Z would be notable, is incorrect. We all know that we are 6 phone calls away from Barack Obama, or from Horst Köhler, in my case. That doesn't make us notable, nor does it make website that we maintain notable. (I do not own or maintain any website other than my personal website.) It is also incorrect to conclude that, because site Y is linked from Wikipedia, therefore Y would be reliable. Wikipedia has links to all kinds of websites, as long as they are somehow notable, including this North Korean website.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How else do you propose a website or source become "notable"? It's linked to or used or recommended by other websites. Other notable websites here at Wikipedia link to and recommend ae911truth.info as regards the subject of this article. (And Bazant gets a "probably" in your book? Wow.) Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A Zdeněk Bažant article gets a "probably", because such articles are already contained in the references, and external links should not duplicate information that is already being referred to in the references. Websites such as www.debunking911.com and 911myths.org do not have articles on Wikipedia, so their notability is questionable, anyway. What is relevant is not their notability, but whether they are to be considered reliable sources, so that we could base our judgment on the website ae911truth.info on the information they provide. As these website are probably not notable enough to have their own articles, determining their reliability in an objective way, i.e. not relying on our personal judgments, would be very difficult, if not impossible, at present. One characteristics of reliable sources is that they generally do not have an agenda, but that they are building their reputation on factually accurate reporting.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"generally do not have an agenda" -- how unusual that you would apply this standard to material that seeks to debunk AE911Truth, but you dare not use that same criteria in judging AE911Truth itself. Doesn't that organization have an agenda? "external links should not duplicate information that is already being referred to in the references" -- then both the link to ae911truth.org AND the link to NIST should be removed, because both are duplicating information already referred to in the references. No. I think you are reaching for any argument you can to exclude this link or not, regardless of whether it would invalidate the entire rationale for having the article in the first place. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In an article about "9/11 Truth", we can use what an organization says about itself, even if not a reliable source, but we cannot use what it says about anything else, unless it is a reliable source. This does lead to bias in favor of fringe organizations with little mainstream coverage, but editors can choose to ignore some of what an organization says about itself if it's blatently false, even if no reliable source reports that it's false. The rules on external links are less specific, but, we still cannot use the web site of a debunking organization unless it's considered both notable and credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion appears to be No consensus for inclusion. Objections?  Cs32en Talk to me  00:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

And then we can start with the rationale for including this article at all. Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I never did see the Request for comment that you said you were going to start on this. Did you actually do that? Joseph.nobles (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Cs32en, you did not start a Request for comment that you said you were going to on this subject. Because of that, I assume bad faith for your removal of this link. I have further discovered your ban from editing most pages in the 9/11 conspiracy theme here at Wikipedia for playing just such legalese games as these. I repeat - the link was long a part of this page. Discussion is about removal, NOT inclusion. Do not remove this link until you fulfill your word - or consider yourself reported. Joseph.nobles (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph.nobles (talk · contribs), you have an obvious conflict of interest with regard to this issue. You are, as of this moment, the only editor that has supported the addition of the link in the discussion about it. Thus, it would be you who would have to do the extra work of filing an Request for comments. I note that you are acknowledging assuming bad faith. For your information, I am not banned from editing any page on Wikipedia, including the pages in the September 11 attacks topic area.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Adding/removing of an EL.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New reference keeps being removed without explanation

Message from 3 people carrying research here have tried to add a reference to this wiki article. No explanation for its removal has been given. Is this allowed? The reference is to some of the latest evidence cited by the organisation relating to their claims. Is there a good reason for this would no be of interst to readers of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.217.130 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My best guess is that it's the same person under 3 identities, but, even so, 2 editors gave specific reasons for the removal. (I didn't have anything to add to the reasons, so I didn't give any additional reasons.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is to a Herrit et al. article claiming that thermite particles have been found in WTC dust. It is being added to a statement that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are promoting a 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Herrit article is not a proper source for that statement. It doesn't belong there. If you want to have a discussion about controlled demolition theories of 9/11 building collapses being conspiracy theories or not, then this is not the place to do it. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for not understanding, but the reason does not appear clear to me. Both myself and a colleague have tried to add this information after being alerted to its removal yesterday. We will be creating accounts argue this point and make sure it remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.217.130 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is neither a reliable source nor relevant to the Wikipedia article. If A&E911T refers to that article, then specific text of that reference (including a (Wikipedia:)reference to the specific page of their web site) might be appropriate. The reference to the real article is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Arthur. As I have been saying, the reference is inappropriate where 94.193.217.130 and his or her companions keep placing it. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Open Physics Journal is not a reliable source? Is that what you're saying? If that is the reason. It is up to you to prove that. Your opinion is irrelevant. LEave that to readers to decide. Do you think the London Independent is reliable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.217.130 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No one has said anything about the reliability or lack thereof of the Open Physics Journal. Please stick to the discussion at hand. Joseph.nobles (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Open Physics Journal (or, at least, that article) has been found not to be a reliable source. Please see the WP:RSN archives. However, that would only be relevant to its appearance in [World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories]], not in this article.

If a reference to the OPJ article can be found on the 911aet web site, where it is stated that it is a major source for their conclusion that it was controlled demolition, then the OPJ article might be mentioned, but not as a reference or external link, but only in that context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

To quote "It is neither a reliable source". That is someone (Arthur Rubin) saying something about the reliability of the Open Physics Journal - i.e. the source of the reference. 94.193.217.130 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The reference is listed on the 911aet web site here: http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/73-technical-articles.html Rather than place a reference to a long list of links that refer to different areas of evidence, it would make more sense to include only the link referring the explosive demolition evidence.94.193.217.130 (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, although I had always had doubts as to the accuracy (different from reliability) of the source, there is a consensus that the source is not reliable for the purpose of Wikipedia. I have included sources which I know to be inaccurate, if they satisfy are reliability requirements and are not contradicted by more reliable sources. But my point is that there is a clear consensus that the source is not reliable, as Wikipedia defines it, regardless of accuracy.

The reference to the long list of links is what should be in this article, to the extent that it indicates what the organization's views are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Outdated statement

The following statement is somewhat outdated (the text on the website has been changed), and is probably rather misleading for the reader. (There is broad agreement that the collapse of the WTC building were a surprising event and included aspects that have been regarded as unprecedented. So it would not be surprising that AE911Truth would say something to this effect, and someone who reads the article may thus wonder why this particular statement has been included in the article.)

The group stated on January 1, 2007, that "the 3 high-rise buildings of the World Trade Center which 'collapsed' on 9/11 (the Twin Towers plus WTC Building #7) presented us with a body of evidence (i.e.controlled [sic] demolition) that was clearly outside the scope of our training and experience."

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not misleading for the reader. The statement is quite plain. It may not be the impression the group wants the reader to have now, which is why they changed the language without changing the date on the page. But the statement was present on the group's website for years and it is not at all misleading -- unless you mean to say that the group was misleading the reader in the first place. Is that what you meant? Joseph.nobles (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New July 30, 2010 edit to meet Wikipedia standards of WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY

The article before gave undue weight to this group. It became a soapbox for the group's claims, which are accessible here at the controlled demolition page and at the group's website. It also became a repository of links far in excess of what was needed to make points in an effort to give undue weight to this group's notability. I've edited the page down to something more neutral. Joseph.nobles (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have undone your changes. You have a conflict of interest and your edits were pointy at best.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You are the editor primarily responsible for WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. You should stop engaging in wikilawyering and start justifying every sentence you add to this article by the criteria WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Joseph.nobles (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You both have some valid points, so I will attempt to offer some input, in a spirit of arbitration. The article may be a bit oversized in proportion to the notability of the subject. However, mass deletion of properly sourced material is not appropriate in this instance, especially by someone who has already demonstrated a conflict of interest on the topic. Take it slowly, each contested item a step at a time, and discuss the reason why you feel that it should be removed or kept. Don't proceed to another item until the status of the previous item is settled. Ask for third party opinions if an agreement can not be reached. Wildbear (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)