Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

United States: September 11 B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Low-importance).

New York (state) B‑class Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Firefighting Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

New York City Unassessed

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

Template:Multidel

Template:September 11 arbcom

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, due to size or style considerations.

Archives

Last Para

the last paragraph seems to be written like somebody's opinion piece or an essay. i'm not contesting the factuality or fallaciy but i cant figure ot if it's a reported speech, a personal opnion or just POV text. could some one fix it? 115.240.81.188 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph has reliable sources, by the notes. It came from a published interview, apparently. And I don't consider it opinion, since it raises a lot of valid logical points (that conspiracy theorists routinely refuse to address) about how impossible it would be to plant explosives there, as the CTs most likely never visited the WTC. (I did in 1994, and the security just to reach the upper floors is extremely tight and a government ID was required just to get to the elevators) TyVulpine (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I tend to agree with the anonymous above. Besides, what is the logic behind giving the last word in this article to a professor of psychology, who dismisses the theory using some exaggerated hyperbolic argument about the amount of explosives needed, while NIST itself (nearly) proved that there is no need for explosives at all to demolish WTC towers in a way we observed it happening. lessismore (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point to using a statement from a psychologist is that people involved in a conspiracy, especially one of this magnitude, would talk. And none have. In addition, you can't have it both ways. Using a jet and a small amount of explosives to bring down a building is insane. That method leaves way too many factors to chance. Either you believe the ridiculous idea of a controlled demolition, which would require several tons of explosives, or you believe that structural steel weakened to less than 50% of its strength by heat would probably cause a building of that size to collapse. That's why so many people hate these crazy conspiracy theories. The number of things that need to go right to pull them off is astounding. Primium mobile (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propositions and hypotheses --- Main towers --- sentence is not supported by reference.

This sentence is not supported by the reference:

"A paper by Zdeněk Bažant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[2]"

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

This is a 12 page paper that is devoted to explaining a method of estimating kinetic energy from video footage. It is not an article explaining the fall of the WTC towers. It has no information about the structure. The only WTC data it shows is an estimate of the amount of energy liberated obtained by plotting the displacement of a mass over 18 seconds time. It does not explain how the energy got there. It starts assuming the energy is available.

The relevant conclusion states:

Implications and Conclusions

1. If the total �internal� energy loss during the crushing of one story �representing the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story� exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story, collapse will continue to the next story. This is the criterion of progressive collapse trigger �Eq. �5��. If it is satisfied, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone �regardless of by how much the combined strength of columns of one floor may exceed the weight of the part of the tower above that floor�. What matters is energy, not the strength, nor stiffness.

The article basically says that once you have the energy, the tower will fall to the ground by gravity alone. And that the WTC had to have a lot of energy (one order of magnitude) in order to fall as it did. This is certainly not supportive of the implied POV that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by that collapse alone would bring WTC down. Moreover the article is arguably supportive of explosive demolition. Stapler80 (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about a reason for this staged collapse?

Why was it done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.194.48 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To start the war on terror and abolish civil liberties.

Popular Mechanics

Is Popular Mechanics some sort of scientific journal? I don't understand how their analysis can be used as "proof" of anything.2CrudeDudes (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~Popular Mechanics is a very well respected publication in the field of engineering whether you agree with their analysis of the situation or not. TheMadcapSyd (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-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....

67.71.58.61 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red/Grey Chips

I added a picture of the red/grey chips that Harrit et al. found in the dust. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC). I am new to editing so please let me know if my edit followed guidelines. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

John Nevard deleted the red chip photos that Johnson had added. The photos were a significant addition to the article, and I have reversed Nevard's deletion. (I now see that Johnson made the reversal just before me, and I support his action.) Coastwise (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were a significant, probably misleading, addition to the article. The caption was certainly incorrect, but I don't see the benefit of the picture. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the picture and text as you requested. I added the adjective "alleged" before discovered, and deleted the uncited section about the iron microspheres being found the world trade center dust. In the future I will add appropriate citations because iron microspheres were found in the dust as documented by USGS.

Also, I don't understand how the word "discovered" is POV even if the article is not peer reviewed. And furthermore, I contest your argument that Bentham Publishers is not reliable or peer reviewed. There is certainly no consensus in this discussion or other discussions one way or the other.

Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closely at the image source, it's license is cc-by-nc, which is not allowable either on Commons or Wikipedia. Unless you can find a cc-by-sa release, it's got to go. I've requested deletion from Commons. Please correct the license there or provide an appropriate dispute tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:World Trade Center 9-11 Active Thermitic Red Grey Chips.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the quote by Lee Hamiltion, vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission

I have reversed Nevard's deletion of the quote and related text in the first section. He has not discussed his reasoning here, and I believe his explanation tagged to the post doesn't make sense. The same paragraph discusses the NIST report and Popular Science article (which relies in part on the report), and the remarks of Lee Hamilton, vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission are relevant to the report. Coastwise (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center applies equally here: you are placing your own interpretation on a primary source to interpret Hamilton's words. Again, you must use a reputable secondary source that interprets the statement, rather than placing a contextless quote in the article in a manner that conveys an impression that Hamilton is questioning the report, rather than simply expressing his limited understanding of the report and the fact that the investigation, like any such investigation (such as an NTSB report) is a probable surmise rather than a statement of absolute fact. Acroterion (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]