Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Richard Gage's claims

Richard Gage's claims as to what he has worked on are not reliably sourced. I think it should be qualified by the fact he claims it on his web site. People puff up their resume all the time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure either is any worse then the ocher.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a point. It's just that running with "his website states that...." is almost like we are taking his word for it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not really, we are just running with "he says this". This in no way implies its true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Once Acroterion weighs in....we'll go from there. If he agrees with you (and it appears he does, but I'd like his input on the page), I'll change it back.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

There’s no reason to doubt Gage’s statement about his experience. He’s about my age or a little older and at the time he started doing 9/11 stuff full time he had about the same amount of experience. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave it alone then. But to say that he's been "involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings" (as the article does) is pretty misleading. As a structural engineer, I can tell you (if true): that amounts to him picking a fire rated system out of the UL catalog. Doesn't mean he knows anything about the performance of buildings under such conditions. I think that needs qualification.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that I agree with, and that ought to be independently sourced. Simply being involved in the design of steel-framed buildings with applied fire protection doersn't make anyone an authority on the subject, and as you say, the first stop is the IBC table and the second stop is the UL system catalog. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What's the source for his AIA membership? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, scratch that. It's the same. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked him up.....and there is a licensed architect in California by that name.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Link?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

See: https://search.dca.ca.gov/details/600/C/19220/c75c3f00617d96f5faf0720b8ecb646f Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thats not the AIA, not does it mention them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

True. But it (at least) proves he (or someone by that name) is licensed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll look around, you have to search by chapter, and there are several AIA chapters in the bay area, assuming he's still in the area. Acroterion (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

He's not showing up as an East Bay member, and I haven't found him the the SF, San Mateo or Redwood Empire membership. [1] Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

University of Alaska Study

Wondering why it was deemed worthy of deletion, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.112.20 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A bunk study funded by 9/11 Truthers is not remotely noteworthy. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you not see the circular reasoning - if anything related to 9/11 truth is necessarily bunk, how can we examine the ideas by their merits.

Have any RS said it was "bunk"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Have any said it isn’t? Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant, it (as far as I can see) is an academic paper by reputable academics from a reputable university. So we need some reason to say it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It’s a Truther study funded by Truthers. It’s not reliable in any way. Look at the actual “study” - 100% funded by A&E. It’s also not even completed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Who funded it is irrelevant. Unless it can be shown they influenced the findings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An unfinished, unreviewed “study” run and funded by Truthers is not reliable. Sorry. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh now if it was unfinished thats different, do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The source itself says this is a draft release and are seeking comments from the public before the final release. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Then its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there any RS as to what kind of feedback they got? As a structural engineer myself, I am seeing some pretty questionable claims/calculations made.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Given it isn’t complete and has only been promoted in Truther circles, I don’t think there is any coverage. I imagine it will be ripped a new one once it is finished. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, you should send your critiques to them in that case, that's what a public comment period is for. In any case, it is a fact that AE911Truth funded the study and that the study has been completed, and that the professor has made his conclusions public. As such, given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the edit should not have been deleted since it is RS for those facts, despite it not, until being peer reviewed, counting as RS for an article about WTC7. 140.247.112.80 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

An unfinished, unpublished (anbd thus not peer reviewed) study is not RS. If you have a source for its publication please provide it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see why it wouldn't be considered RS for an article on WTC 7 but this article is about AE911, and they most definitely did fund a study that has been completed and news to that effect was reported by ktva among others (see https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests) 140.247.112.80 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Then (at the max) we could say "they have funded an as yet unpublished study by the University of Alaska".Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Active Thermitic Material Hoax Paper listed among "evidence" on website.

Its under technical articles:

https://www1.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

It is referenced in a couple of other pages about truthers, as well as the group behind the paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Inclusion here would show the "quality" of Richard Gage's so called evidence, but not sure if it's needed?

SKyle666 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bentham Science (an open publishing platform) is not a reliable source and really shouldn't be included in those other articles. -Jordgette [talk] 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. The reason it is included in those other pages is BECAUSE it proves the unreliability of the information those organizations and/or groups promote. So the question was should it be included here as well, BECAUSE it underlines the questionable provenance of A&E for Truth so called evidence. Or would it be redundant? SKyle666 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, it's a terrible idea to deliberately use unreliable sources to demonstrate the unreliability of certain propositions. Never seen that in Wikipedia, certainly, and for good reason. The way to do it is to find reliable sources saying that those propositions are false. -Jordgette [talk] 14:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree, a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good point. Thanks. But I would point out visavis that sort of thing "never on Wikipeidia" actually it is; hence my questions about the appropriateness of including it here or not. Conspiracy articles DO link to the sources, if only to prove Wiki editors aren't making it up. Or I assume that was the reasoning at the time. And who could blame them?SKyle666 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bazant article in WTC7 section

This reversion should not have been performed [2]. We already have a similar (and stronger) quote earlier in the article with a link to Bazant (under "advocacy"). It's intellectually dishonest to use the Bazant link in the WTC7 section, because (1) the section is about WTC7, which Bazant doesn't mention in the paper cited, and (2) when Bazant makes the statement about the engineering community, he's referring to the explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers. We know this explicitly, not only from the sentence itself ("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 [singular] was as follows"), but also because the paper was published before NIST's final report on WTC7 was released. It's therefore impossible to apply what he says about the engineering community to WTC7. A bigger problem is that the citation creates the impression of impropriety, as if Wikipedia is trying to sneak in an inappropriate quote to shore up the WTC7 section. I am all for using the Bazant quote, but not in this section. If there isn't a better place to put it, it should be removed from the WTC7 section, as I did prior to this reversion. Unfortunately we don't have a quote of equal strength related to WTC7. -Jordgette [talk] 23:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is a POV that using the Bazant quote there is inappropriate (and I can see the argument). Maybe this statement should be moved to another section? Perhaps the World Trade Center towers section?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As I noted, there is already a stronger statement supported by Bazant, "The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by the structural-engineering and structural-mechanics research communities," which indeed is in the source. So, if anything, the later statement (which uses "generally") weakens the first. Why not just strip it out? -Jordgette [talk] 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll redo my edit deleting the Bazant-supported passage. -Jordgette [talk] 16:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Date of formation

When was AE911T founded? The reference for the founding date of AE911T does not state that AE911T was founded in 2006...

The American architect Richard Gage's conversion came in 2006 when driving along he heard an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.

"I had to do some real soul searching and some research. And the more I discovered the more disturbed I became and realized I was looking for... the architects and the engineers."

Finding that they hadn't really entered the fray by then, Gage decided he had to act.

"It just came to me, I had to start an organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

And the corporation's articles of incorporation show that AE911T came into existence on November 13, 2007. If you have a better date then please provide a reference. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing quote

The quote "a truly independent investigation" does not appear in the cited reference (i.e., the article titled Explosive Theory). So I am providing a similar quote and a reference for that quote. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05, You have reverted my efforts to correct a quotation error. Why? Neither of the two quotes in that paragraph appear in the reference that is being cited (i.e., the article titled Explosive Theory). So I am going to delete the quotation marks. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If its not sourced we leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation 60 =

Citing a single paper by a single engineer does not prove that experts in engineering generally support NIST's work on WTC collapse. There are many problems with the Bazant paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)