Examine individual changes

'{{Talk header}} {{Article history|action1=PR |action1date=20:35, 16 January 2007 |action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1 |action1result=reviewed |action1oldid=101087611 |action2=GAN |action2date=2 January 2008 |action2result=not listed |action2oldid=181673861 |currentstatus=FGAN }} {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= {{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|911=yes|911-importance=low}} {{WikiProject Fire Service|class=B|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject New York City|class=B|importance=Low}} {{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=Low}} }} {{To do}} {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align: center; font-size: larger" | style="width: 80px" | [[Image:Emblem-important.svg|60px|center]] | '''This is [[WP:NOT#FORUM|not a forum]] for general discussion of {{{1|[[{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}.<br />Any such messages will be deleted.''' |} {{multidel |list= * '''Keep''', [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory)|AFD #1, 11 September 2006]]. * '''No consensus''', [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center|AFD #2, 22 September 2006]]. * '''Keep''', [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (3rd)|AFD #3, 05 January 2007]]. }} {{September 11 arbcom}} {{SubArticle|9/11 conspiracy theories}} {{Archive box| # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 1|September 2006 – October 2006]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 2|October 2006 – November 2006]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 3|December 2006 – January 2007]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 4|February 2007 – July 2007]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 5|August 2007 – December 2007]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 6|January 2008 – August 2008]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 7|September 2008 – April 2009]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 8|May 2009 – August 2009]] # [[Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 9|September 2009 – January 2011]] }} __TOC__ == Popular Mechanics == Is Popular Mechanics some sort of scientific journal? I don't understand how their analysis can be used as "proof" of anything.[[User:2CrudeDudes|2CrudeDudes]] ([[User talk:2CrudeDudes|talk]]) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC) ~Popular Mechanics is a very well respected publication in the field of engineering whether you agree with their analysis of the situation or not. [[User:TheMadcapSyd|TheMadcapSyd]] ([[User talk:TheMadcapSyd|talk]]) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC) -No it is not. It serves more like an entertainment magazine, replete with predictions of what we will be driving in the future like hovercars and such. On one hand, the article talks about peer-reviewed scientific journals and the next it is citing Popular Mechanics.... [[Special:Contributions/67.71.58.61|67.71.58.61]] ([[User talk:67.71.58.61|talk]]) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC) ::It's actually a little of both. ----[[User:DanTD|DanTD]] ([[User talk:DanTD|talk]]) 03:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC) [http://www.popularmechanics.com/ufo-central/ Popular Mechanics has a lot of stories leading you to believe in UFO's], unfortunately, I can't say that in the article because it would be [[WP:OR]], original research, and I can't find an "reliable source" ([[WP:RS]]) article debunking [[Popular Mechanics]] for the [[tabloid journalism]] that it is. [[User:Raquel Baranow|Raquel Baranow]] ([[User talk:Raquel Baranow|talk]]) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC) : It's pretty much the only journal that bothered to go to the trouble of authoritatively debunking the obvious nonsense peddled by Truthers. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC) == The Term "Conspiracy Theory" == I want to point out that this is a theory, not a conspiracy theory. Truth be told, the accepted narrative about what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It proposes that a conspiracy of foreign nationals flew planes into buildings and so forth. It is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. On the other hand, the theory about controlled demolitions isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. It is a theory about how the buildings may have come down that is different from the accepted narrative. Who may have planted the bombs / thermite / whatever there is not determined by the theory. One might say the government, or one might say it was Al Qaida. But terming this theory a "conspiracy theory" is a way to discredit it from the get go. For the record, I do not believe the theory of controlled demolitions. But slanting the theory as merely a conspiracy theory, in the negative sense, does us no favors. This is a structural problem with the article itself. A fairer article would term it a theory, and explore along the way how some people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory in the negative sense. [[Special:Contributions/202.62.73.138|202.62.73.138]] ([[User talk:202.62.73.138|talk]]) 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC) : You have that precisely the wrong way round. A group of foreign nationals conspired to fly jets into WTC - that was a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. It's not a [[conspiracy theory]] because it's factual. The controlled demolition "theory" is an arse-backwards rationalisation that starts by discounting the obvious and erects in its place a structure of ad hoc hypotheses to arrive at the pre-existing "conclusion" of malfeasance. That is a conspiracy theory in its classic sense. And it's time for the Truther community to get over it and move on. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "The Structural Engineering community rejects these theories." I don't believe this claim can be supported <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.61.181.15|173.61.181.15]] ([[User talk:173.61.181.15#top|talk]]) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> It is worth noting the obvious conflict of interest in the NIST report, and that their models were kept secret in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests. NIST's work has not been peer reviewed. Popular Mechanics bases the entire article on the NIST report. To suggest that these two organizations independently examined the evidence is misleading. It does not imply in any way that the scientific community generally accepts the standard explanation. This article should acknowledge that the scientific community has not reached consensus. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.61.181.15|173.61.181.15]] ([[User talk:173.61.181.15#top|talk]]) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> It makes little sense to claim the CD theory is generally accepted to be wrong solely on the basis of people who would have a conflict or interest in claiming otherwise. This article does not make a compelling case for the existence of a large number of scientists who independently reject the CD theory. NIST report has caused controversy among physicists and engineers. NIST has acknowledged that it is unable to explain the free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. The P M article and other articles that reject CD theories carefully ignore this piece of evidence which in itself makes a very strong case for CD. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.61.181.15|173.61.181.15]] ([[User talk:173.61.181.15#top|talk]]) 07:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> The title of this article is absurd and absolutely non factual. One thing is "controlled demolition theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. another thing is: "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition in the context of a certain conspiracy. As far as i know, the controlled demolition theorists that stick to the technical and factual analysis of the 9/11 don't analyze the "conspiracy context", they only analyze if the buildings went down by plane, controlled demolition, or whatever other technical cause. They don't analyze the facts of why, who, and when conspired to bring the buildings down. The conspiracy subject is not the subject of many controlled demolition theorists. So the article title is highly innacurate and it doesn't reflect its content that only analyzes and describes the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. Simple logic. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/109.49.178.239|109.49.178.239]] ([[User talk:109.49.178.239#top|talk]]) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Leaving aside the necessity for a conspiracy to accomplish the conjectured demolition, the reliable sources used by Wikipedia for content references call it a conspiracy theory. The reason the conspiracy enthusiasts don't analyze motivation is because isolating the controlled demolition idea on its own keeps up a pretense of serious commentary rather than conspiracy promotion, obfuscating the obvious questions of who and why. This effectively whitewashes the decidedly anti-Semitic tone of many of those who have speculated on those who are supposed to have been conspirators. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC) :: first, you analyze the facts and be open to all possibilities for a conjectured demolition or a not conjectured demolition, then, secondly, one should take a stance about a possible conspiracy. Doing it the other way around is a blatant logical fallacy and a unreliable way to conduct any investigation. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.245.69.89|85.245.69.89]] ([[User talk:85.245.69.89#top|talk]]) 09:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :::No, on Wikipedia you use a consensus of reliable sources, treating fringe views as they are viewed in mainstream media. Wikipedia is designed to preclude personal analysis, and is not a vehicle for "investigation." Wikipedia is by design not open to all possibilities. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 12:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ::::I did NOT say that Wikipedia is for personal analysis or investigation. What I DID say is that if you want to make an article about the the theory of "controlled demolition" you SHOULD NOT make an article about the theory of "controlled demolition in the context of conspiracy". They are two different things. Even if a "conspiracy" is the only possible cause of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC, in the sense that they are interconnected in space and time, they are two completely separate and different subjects, even if one leads to the other. Also note that the Article in question doesn't have a chapter about the "conspiracy" theories that its subject refers to. This article talks only about technical stuff (explosives, thermite, etc...), not conspiracies, not a single line about political or social theories of the alleged conspirators, the Article it's completely contradictory with its own title. :::::To pretend that no conspiratorial context exists concerning the postulated deliberate and pre-planned demolition of buildings full of people (after being having been hit by airplanes), and concurrent with two other attacks, is ludicrous. '''<font face="Arial">[[User:Acroterion|<font color="black">Acroterion</font>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<font color="gray">(talk)</font>]]</small></font>''' 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Every event in the course of human interaction involves conspiracy. To label something as a "conspiracy theory" is to suggest that is a fringe theory, far from proven, and probably not true. This is not the case with the demolition of the world trade center. It simply *is* a demolition. I would consider that scientific mainstream. I find it very strange the Wikipedia does not report accurately on this. There are two possibilities: they are willfully complicit in the cover-up - or they are unable to suspend trust in authority long enough to see that this was plainly a controlled demolition. At least they should knowledge the magnitude of the group of scientists pushing for truth. These are not people who normally dabble in conspiracy theory or revisionist history. The fact that so many respectable scientists are convinced that this as a demolition deserves attention. "Reality takes precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :Perhaps "tinfoil haberdashery" would be more appropriate than "conspiracy theory." "Utter delusions" possibly insults otherwise reasonable people who just need medication by associating their condition with conspiracy theorism. "Absolute error" still implies a relationship (if negative) to reality that many conspiracy theories lack. We're not going to go for 'politically correct' hogwash like "alternate facts," either. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Ian.thomson - your refusal to look at the evidence instead of tossing around insults suggests you are part of the cover-up. I mean it's pretty simple stuff - a building cannot crush itself at free fall acceleration. Free fall implies 0 resistance. I have yet to hear anyone explain how that can happen without explosives. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> ::Can I suggest that the IP editors take a look at [[WP:FRINGE]], [[WP:UNDUE]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:V]]? [[User:Boomer Vial|Boomer Vial]]^{[[User talk:Boomer Vial|Holla! We gonna ball!]]} 07:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Sure. But at the end of the day there is no ministry of truth and the individual is forced to evaluate source based on hi/her own intuition. How do we know the NYT is reliable? Because it says so in the NYT of course! I am hoping to appeal to common intuition that the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is in fact very easy to see if you just watch the video. Having convinced yourself that it was a demolition you will realize that the msm is not free. If it were, it would have reported this fact already. So the least wikipedia could do is admit that this is not a settled issue. That there is a huge number of respectable scientists speaking out against the government. That the government does not always tell the truth - that the msm is not independent. As it is, wikipedia is just part of the propaganda machine on this issue. They make it seem as tho this is a settled issue. And citing popular mechanics is so weak - that's not a peer reviewed journal. The case against cd theories revolves around one engineer - Bazant. There are many more engineers who support controlled demo theories<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|contribs]]) </small> ::Hello Mr IP editor, you caught me. I'm secretly a Jewish/Catholic/Mason patsy working for our Satan-worshiping reptilian overlords from Alpha Draconis. Now that my cover's blown, the powers that be will just have to wipe out everyone involved. You should avoid any further replies, as that will only make it easier for them to track you. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Your confounding several different theories. There are thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists who support the controlled demolition theory. These are not the same people who study reptilians etc. You are trying to taint the truth movement by associating it with other conspiracies and ignoring the fact that it is rooted in hard science <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> :You talk as though the idea is widely presented as credible by the majority of [[WP:RS|mainstream academic and journalistic sources]], which it's not. You can't pretend that it's just one author and only the NIST when all mainstream sources agree with the reality of the NIST's findings -- to do so is either [[WP:NOTHERE|dishonest]] or [[WP:CIR|insane]], hence my refusal to address you seriously. Either present [[WP:RS|professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources]] that argue against it being a conspiracy theory or quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth. [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 09:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.voltairenet.org/article194344.html http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/mempages/Margulis.html http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-09-15/911-mysterious-collapse-wtc-building-7-was-not-inside-job Just to list a few <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> No I do not talk as if a majority of mainstream sources give credibility to this idea. I'm saying there is a reason they don't. And Wikipedia is ignoring the credible people who present the demolition theory. The fact is, there are many more engineers who support the demolition theory than those who don't - if you exclude the ones who are working for the government. Mainstream news sources are not an authority on engineering issues. They are an outlet for government propaganda. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 09:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Mainstream sources do not *agree* with NIST through independent analysis. They simply *report* NIST's findings and *assume* they are correct. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://www.journalof911studies.com/wtc-destruction-an-analysis-of-peer-reviewed-technical-literature/ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/709000/Was-9-11-an-inside-job-Call-for-TRUTH-over-Building-7-collapse-on-eve-of-15th-anniversary <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> https://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth http://www.ae911truth.org/images//PDFs/Peter_Ketcham_EPN_LTE.pdf <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/2014SepLetterSzambotiJohns.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Orr <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> Good criticism of the NIST report from acclaimed scientist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7oti6KGEf4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM_l_4sJ-sY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P3_TboFltI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJy7lhVK2xE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-3FQtZnk2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zceJhfYV69M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0QEutd1Unc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WCcSHpvAJ8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4y6cweaegI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKUaxyd7x0I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxztmVmthWg <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.188.115.27|71.188.115.27]] ([[User talk:71.188.115.27#top|talk]]) 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_S5wx7_d20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6ExxYOPYNU'