Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

---

Scientific evidence about thermite used.

article : http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm It's a respectable source, which states that it has found unignited nano-thermite inside building remains. This should be added to the article. I intentionally don't place this with the consp. theories, because it's a fact now. Whatever purpose it was, that's something for the consp. theories maybe. Marminnetje (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists have previously managed to publish material in a Bentham Open journal because the journal in question did not have a proper peer review process (see the archives of Talk:7 World Trade Center and Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎), so the source isn't credible. It's still a violation of WP:UNDUE to give the conspiracy theories anything more than minimal weight in this article. Hut 8.5 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to sort through years of archives of discussion pages to find what you are talking about. You have not shown any evidence that the Bentham Open Journals do not have a proper peer review process, nor do you define what constitutes a proper or improper process. Please either reference a specific page with the discussion or repost the basic evidence for improper review. bov (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If it has Steven Jones in it, it probably isn't that reliable. Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 6#Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories and Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 6#Engineering community again contain extensive discussions of Bentham and the review process or lack thereof. Please read those discussions before reopening it here. Acroterion _(talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists? Why do you people think you have a right to put libel on these scientists? Source is reliable; it was carried by Raw Story, who is also reliable. In the terminology you folks use here, put up or shut up already. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Raw Story? Reliable? No way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Niels Holger Harrit Associate professor from Department of Chemistry [1], Copenhagen University is interviewed on TV_2_(Denmark) news, Denmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3oCallmeMads (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Article in danish [2] on the same in Politiken CallmeMads (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source and I cannot read Danish. Anyway, there are plenty of English reliable sources so there's no need to resort to foreign language articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV_2_(Denmark). Just like Wikipedia is a media and thats why the contents should be properly sourced. Just because you can't read Danish doesn't mean that Politiken is not a reliable newspaper :). No matter how little danish you can read the status of Politiken as a newspaer is unchanged. If we had to only use sources from language we understod, we couldn't make many articles here could we? CallmeMads (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

this link is chosen not as a source, but just to show you the links to plenty of reliable sources in Denmark that has written about this: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090412143451291 CallmeMads (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV2." Irrelevent. Since anyone could have uploaded the video, they could have altered it. This has been discussed numerous times on Wikipedia. Sorry, it doesn't qualify. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the mainstream peer reviewed article (from 9 scientists finding nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center) not in this Wikipedia entry or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories wikipedia entry? It's not even in the talk pages other than this conversation. What is going on Wikipedia? I have read that 'Wikipedia editors livid over new 'Active Thermitic Material' paper' and that the ruling elite of Wikipedia editors/controllers Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a “conspiracy theory”

Here are a couple of links for interest:

• VIDEO: Kevin Ryan interview 1/6 - Active Thermitic Material Discovered in dust from WTC - 6th April 2009
• VIDEO: A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust ( english subtitles ) - danish TV2 News
• THE PAPER: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, Volume 2.
• What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Has anyone else seen this video and article? It's kind of weird to think that the conspiracy theorist were right but now they have the scientific evidence to back up the explosion theories.They have found both ignited and non ignited nano-thermite and say there could have been anywhere from 10-100 tons of this in the WTC buildings to bring them down. They concluded it was not the planes that brought the buildings down but these secondary explosives that the govt swore did not exist. I wonder why we have heard nothing about this in the states but it's going all over the other countries...

• The Danish are taking this seriously like any independent news media should:
• 9/11 Media Breakthrough in Denmark

• JyllandsPosten: Researchers: Explosives in dust from WTC
• Videnskab.dk: Danish researcher: Explosive nano-material found in dust from WTC
• Videnskab.dk: Niels Harrit: Scientific evidence for old knowledge about 9/11
• Politiken: 9/11 conspiracy theories revitalised
• EkstraBladet: WTC mystery: Nano-thermite in the towers
• Ingeniøren: Research team claims to have found nano-explosive in the World Trade Center
• Kristeligt Dagblad: Dane resurrects September 11 conspiracy theory

What other decent news agencies are cerrying this story?

Other articles of interest:

• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
• The Young Turks with short entry about "Active Thermitic Material..."
• Well known "debunkers" submitted a paper for peer review and publication to Journal of Engineering Mechanics
• Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Chemist Dr. Niels H. Harrit

"911blogger"...that speaks for itself...odd...not a SINGLE news media has picked up this truly incredible finding...I mean, not even the BBC...not Reuters, not AP...none of them...Dr. Niels H. Harrit appears to have coauthored the piece with dismissed BYU professor Steven Jones...I can't find this info in any reliable source...[3]...instead, it is only found via CT websites like PrisonPlanet[4]...man, one would think that some reliable source would want to report this finding! Instead, these guys had to pay 800 bucks I suppose to get their "research" published[5]...beware a priori "scientists"....especially those that have been forced out by their universities (as has Jones) due to their wacky beliefs...it will fun watching this unravel after a proper explanation is provided.--MONGO 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable news outlets will be tripping over each other to scoop this story if there is any veracity. Why don't we wait for them to publish it? That's what WP:V requires us to do. Jehochman ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the Danish news Deseret News an American Newspaper has also reported on this. they may not have the circulation of the New york times they are a reliable source. It's interesting that that not a SINGLE News media has picked up this finding MULTIPLE entities have. I would love to see the new york times pick up this item but I don't think we have to wait for them either. Yes it is fun watching Tony0937 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that anything verifiable would immediately be picked up by major press outlets. If you want news about Podunk, you can use the Podunk Times as a source. If you want a source for events in New York City, you should not be using the Podunk Times. Jehochman ^Talk 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Deseret News qualifies...and it does report what (as they latter clarify on page two that Jones was "Essentially forced to retire"...wonder why) Jones and his buddies have done with their a priori research...so, as I tried to indicate, maybe this incredible find will soon be validated by non biased, non CT believing scientists that haven't been forced to retire. But here's the real fools gold...just think about it...the only way to cover up the use of thermite is to fly planes into the buildings...sure...that makes so much sense...lets cover up one massive conspiracy with an one that is infinitely more massive. I'm hoping that a real scientific journal will publish Dr. Niels H. Harrit and Jones's paper...now we have hope! Yup...I can see it now...there's the U.S. Government, masters of little...surely if they can coverup the manned mission to the moon, the Easter Island monoliths and Cydonia (region of Mars) they can coverup what really really really happened on 9/11.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you think that was supposed to be funny. I think it is sad. If Bentham is not a a RS you should really take it up with Reliable sources Noticeboard Tony0937 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Bentham not has passed reliable source mustard on the notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a fee based publishing system...the hope is that if an article gets in there, a reputable entity might wish to publish it...one that has credentials to worry about.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some journals depend on financing through libraries, some depend on direct subsidies. Others depend on advertising. This one is financed by those who publish there, and in this case, the fees have, according to the authors, been paid by their respective institutions. That's why it is called an open journal. Regardless of financing, any journal would be wary to publish anything that would be bogus or easy to refute, because neither libraries not other authors would pay for a journal that publishes bogus research. Please have a look a the CV of the editor-in-chief of the journal, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni. --Cs32en (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This and this entry in Reliable Sources Noticeboard are "inconclusive". The argument that it's not RS because its "a fee based publishing system" does not hold water Whether the upfront payment model corrupts peer review at open-access journals Tony0937 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya.--MONGO 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested--MONGO 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems that one of them was (Bentham is listed) Also what do you mean with the link to grey goo or are you just being tedious Tony0937 (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a start then...but still insufficient and the reasons why should be obvious. Nanotechnology used to develop thermite that would be almost undetectable...okay...but it's preposterous that it was used at the WTC...if the findings are correct there is another explantion than the one you are peddling. It would be more believable if the authors were unblemished...and they aren't. You have failed miserably in convincing me that they have anything worth reporting.--MONGO 05:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO, rather than arguing with single purpose accounts, why don't you go request some more topic bans over at WP:AE? I've had very good success there. Article talk pages page are not chatrooms, nor a venue for playing the WP:ICANTHEARYOU game. We've explained policy to these folks. If they insist on pushing paid-for-press sources and obscure local papers in order to get their CT content into Wikipedia, I think it's time to end the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm disgusted with not only the garbage being passed off as replies but the incivility and ignorance of the editors. Open access journals are generally not unreliable as it is up to the scientific community to decide, not sources that lack scientific credibility such as this. The case for Bentham is ambigious at worse. If you can't argue against an edit by using common sense and civility then you should not be replying as you only empower truthers by providing evidence that their opinion of WP editors is correct. Yes Jehochman you have had "very good success there". Not surprising considering you rarely have to prove your case to get the result you want. And yes I'm angry, because this section could have been resolved civily very quickly with the exact same results you want but instead you have been disruptive and used it as a personal playground. Wayne (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'm disgusted with not only the garbage being passed off as replies but the incivility and ignorance of the editors." Rather than indulging in the same behavior you condemn, it might be more useful to model the behavior you want to see. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried that for many months but it just didn't sink in so I felt it was time to a little more honest. In fact I trod very lightly. Instead of critisizing me for trying to get this page back on track (re: WP: policies) people should be reading what they have actually been posting and apologising. Wayne (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MONGO has suggested that the authors of the paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal should publish it in another paper, and provided a list of such papers:

Pretty speculative research...how surprising...lets see them get it published in a real journal. I got a bridge to sell ya.--MONGO 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Jones and co can maybe see if any of these are interested--MONGO 04:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the list of journals and publishers that MONGO refers to, I noticed that it actually includes Bentham Science Publishers. It also links to www.bentham.org, although other links in this section of the list are not working. --Cs32en (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hardly surprising. MONGO once reverted a quote I added claiming it was conspiracy theory ridiculousness not supported by scientific or relaible (sic) evidence, he also warned I could be banned if I tried to edit again. I had in fact cut and pasted it directly from the NIST report itself. Even after I pointed this out other editors came in to support him against me. Another instance was his reverting my changing "adjacent" to "nearby" in regards to the proximity of WTC7 to WTC1. My arguement was that adjacent was clearly wrong as WTC6 stood between them and using it implied empty space between the two buildings. He argued that "by Manhattan standards, they were adjacent" and again he got support. This is why editing 911 topics is so difficult. WP needs to be more proactive in controlling all editors of controversial articles. Wayne (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Bentham Open is that it operates more like a vanity press than like a scientific journal. It’s pay-to-publish, and rather than the editor overseeing the “peer review” process, the author basically gets to do so himself. At a cursory glance, it seems like authors pay a membership fee, but look closer: The “membership fee” is not an actual membership fee, but rather a buffer for publishing fees. [6] The editor-in-chief of the article that Jones et. al. published their paper in quit, because she didn’t even know about it and was insulted at having her name attached. (Here, let me google that for you.) — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At any rate, the actual paper does not demonstrate the presence of thermite, it only asserts the presence of iron and aluminium ash after the building collapse. Peter Grey (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The paper asserts that unexploded thermitic material has been found in the sample. This assertion may be factually wrong, of course.  Cs32en  01:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Article in www.WorldArchitectureNews.com

I suppose that this article deserves a note (which I may add at some point later if no one else does). salVNaut (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, including it would violate WP:UNDUE, and it's an opinion piece (published in their "Comment" section [7]). Hut 8.5 17:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an article that does express the views of its authors, i.e. Gage, Roberts, and Chandler, and thus needs an inline attribution. It is not a comment, although the content management system of the site apparently puts articles, including texts written by the editor of the newspaper, in a section that is somewhat inappropriately named "Comments".

Niki May Young, the editor of World Architecture News, has written about the article that "the scientific approach to Gage’s evidence is surprisingly compelling and worthy of consideration". [8] The comment from the editor of WAN makes clear that WAN actively approved the publication of the text, and most likely invited the authors to write it.

See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#The article in www.WorldArchitectureNews.com.  Cs32en  06:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a comment. The site evidently puts articles that only express personal opinions (including the personal opinios of the editor) as "comments", because they aren't backed by whatever editorial process the site has. The fact that the editor drew attention to the comment does not mean they commissioned it, or that they endorse its contents. The text in question fails WP:RS. Even if it didn't, I fail to see how it could be included in this article because of WP:UNDUE. Hut 8.5 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper article about technical aspects of the collapse

The Elements of a Great Scientific and Technical Dispute

There isn't anything there that seems useful. The article seems to indicate that those that are doing the refuting are mainstream scientists. It fails to name names and fails to make it clear that the problems in the resultant data aren't that the vast majority of scientists and engineers actually believe that a conspiracy happened to bring down the towers, but that minute details of truly minor consequences and no change to what happened are the main issues that an extreme minority of "specialists" might disagree with regarding the findings of the NIST and other independent entities.--MONGO 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"seems to indicate that those that are doing the refuting are mainstream scientists" - Niels Harrit, for example, is not a fringe scientist, and most of the others have not advocated any fringe science. Jones' research in the field of cold fusion is valid, although early statements by former co-researchers of Jones have been proven wrong. Saying that a scientist is not mainstream only because his or her views on the destruction of the World Trade Center differ from NIST's is a circular argument.  Cs32en  06:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This article exhibits qualities of superior journalism. It is impressively well-researched, technically accurate, and comprehensive. It is fair and balanced — each argument is respectfully presented from both sides, with no obvious intention of bias. It is not condescending or insulting, and it doesn't use pejorative language. It treats its readers respectfully, whomever they might be. It doesn't get too distracted with people or politics, but instead stays focused on the important issue at hand: the science of the WTC building collapses. It presents evidence and arguments without getting mired in prejudices and beliefs. This is a refreshing piece of professional journalism, with qualities which should serve as a model for Wikipedia editors. Wildbear (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree about the bias. The article was written from a single, non-neutral POV. Other than listing NIST's findings, I could not spot a single counterargument or concession, for example questioning how super thermite might have been effectively applied. It also vastly oversells the extent of the dispute in the scientific community (reminding me of those creationist messages to "teach the controversy" with evolution). I think what you mean is that the article has a flat tone and is devoid of the charged language sometimes seen in the writings of both sides, which usually gets stripped quickly here by good editors anyway. But is it me or does it read like the writers have only been exposed to Truther literature? The journalistic tone creates the illusion of objectivity, but you must admit, that article is in no way objective. It is intellectually dishonest and we would never want a WP article written from such a restricted POV. -PorkHeart (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the authors seem to be more sympathetic towards the arguments critical of NIST's findings. However, they actually list a number of arguments that support NIST's conclusions. I'm not sure charged language gets stripped quickly here, the problem starts with the label "conspiracy theories" in the titles of some articles. I wouldn't advocate writing a WP article that follows the perspective of a single newspaper article, yet this article provides some counterweight to the bias of most other texts on this topic that can be found in mainstream media. By the way, how do we actually know what scientists generally think about these issues, with so few reliable sources that have written about the opinion of scientists? Most of these sources (i.e. Bazant and NIST itself) are not independent observers, but have themselves a stake in the outcome of the dispute, and even they do not provide any further information to substantiate their judgment about the opinions of scientists.  Cs32en  08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There are very few (if any) engineering sources which dispute that the collapse was caused by fire, and the few which have bothered to comment on the validity of controlled demolition theories have dismissed them. I agree with PorkHeart that the article seems to have been written by somebody who read a load of Truther literature and decided to write an article based on it in the hope that it would be controversial. I should also point out that the Santa Barbara Independent is a local "arts and entertainment alternative press". I fail to see how we could possibly use this source in this article. Hut 8.5 11:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the authors, Jay Levin, is the founder of LA Weekly. While LA Weekly is not a science journal, of course, the author is obviously not a random somebody who happened to take an interest in the issue and felt the need to draw attention to himself. As for having read "Truther literature", Levin is writing a book about the issues, so I assume that he actually read some stuff both from NIST and its critics.  Cs32en  11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not a scientific journal, it's an "alternative weekly" that "has been the premier source for award-winning coverage of Los Angeles music, arts, film, theater, culture, concerts, [and] events". Hut 8.5 12:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The journal is "alternative" in the sense that it is not being owned by a big corporation. Not being owned by a big corporation does not make a journal "fringe" or disqualify it as a Wikipedia source.  Cs32en  12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

LA Weekly does not have a reputation for journalist accuracy; it's "alternative" in the sense that each article has the POV of the author, which the magazine does not necessarily agree with. I don't think it's fringe, but it's not reliable except with respect to facts; the separation of fact from opinion is often difficult. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Because he's writing a book, we can assume he's researching both sides with equal intellectual honesty? I don't think so. The fact that he's taking the time to write a book on alternative theories (which would only appeal to adherents of these theories, because who else would buy this book), and is invested in the idea that there exists this "great debate," means the book almost certainly wouldn't be objective. There is a difference between looking at both sides plus looking at rebuttals to the arguments of both sides, and only looking at one side's argument plus that side's view of the other side's argument. This is how this article reads. Consider these phrases: Tellingly, the critics note that the NIST report....Crucially, NIST denies that....Critical independent professionals pounce on all this....using BYU’s superb electronic microscope lab, then analyzed....Overwhelmingly, the independent professional critics accuse NIST.... (Now, which professionals would those be exactly?) Throughout the article, anyone who doesn't entertain alternative theories is a NIST defender. Anyone who challenges NIST is an independent professional. The article is a thinly veiled attempt to push one and only one POV. -PorkHeart (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

By your logic Popular Mechanics should have been writing a very different book since they were also writing about the same topic and National Geographic surely isn't targeting the right audience (which would only appeal to adherents of these theories, because who else would buy this book or watch the video).

What terms would you like for NIST Supporters and people who agree with NIST, and is the only acceptable term for anyone who challenges NIST "conspiracy theorist"? Jay Levin says “My own position on 9/11 was and remains, show me the facts and let’s see what’s there,” Maybe we all have our own viewpoint and inevitably it shows Tony0937 (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge Tony0937's point, although Popular Mechanics and National Geographic are not individuals; in approaching the topic, both organizations put their long-established reputations and businesses on the line. This makes their findings more credible than, say, Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist. (Why do Truthers and creationists feel compelled to identify their expert witnesses with both their profession and their title? No one says "Dr. Carl Sagan, an astronomer.") As for the descriptive terms, how about the vast majority of independent professionals and a small minority of independent professionals? That would be both neutral and accurate. -PorkHeart (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jay Levin, as the founder of LA Weekly, also has a reputation to lose. So we have one side characterizing all critics of NIST as loony conspiracy theories, and another side characterizing the supporters of the US government's account as defenders of NIST. Which of these two versions is more biased? As for Arthur Rubin's point about separating facts and opinions, I agree, and I wish we would do this more stricty with regard to other sources, too. Physics is the basic scientific discipline for analyzing many aspects of the topic. The various fields of engineering are actually just parts of physics, seen from a scientific perspective. Scientist will tell you physicists generally have more insight into the theoretical foundations of the field, compared to engineers. What's wrong with identifying the profession of someone that one does refer to, after all?

Last but not least: What makes you think that LA Weekly does not have a reputation for accuracy? What are your sources for other journals being more accurate?  Cs32en  22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the LA Weekly is highly accurate in its schedules of local rock clubs and its analysis of art trends. The mechanics of catastrophic high-rise collapse, perhaps not so much. Similarly, I'm sure the good Dr. physicist Jones is highly accurate in his ideas on muon-catalyzed fusion; qualitative dust analysis (which is chemistry, not physics, and certainly not particle physics) is just a bit out of his field. Of course we mustn't forget this invaluable contribution of his to the world of high-energy physics. (Call me crazy, but I think they got those marks from handling super thermite. Or was that nano-thermite? No, thermate.) Let's do the right thing and leave quoting the founder of an alternative street paper to articles on trendy SoCal musical styles. -PorkHeart (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The dust analysis is certainly both physics and chemistry. You need to know about physics to interpret the results of the spectroscopy. As for the his "invaluable contribution", read the conclusion, he doesn't say "Jesus Christ visited America". (The topic isn't really in my field of interest.) I do not support the conclusion: "not supported by big business", therefore "alternative", therefore "not accurate" and, even if maybe not outright "fringe", to be treated as such.  Cs32en  23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Rubin should be disregarded in WP because he isn't controlled by a corporation. He should be disregarded because he is not an authority in the related fields. He should be disregarded due to his intellectual dishonesty alone: NIST states there is no visual evidence for fires close to or in the core of the buildings (the buildings were not see-thru); NIST, some critics allege, could have pumped the statistics fed into the computer in order to achieve a pre-desired outcome (like looking specifically for possible thermite signatures in dust of dubious origin, or citing a single molecule of 1.3 diphenylpropane as "evidence"? No mention of similarities there); the yellow-reddish molten metal clearly seen pouring from one of the buildings (something yellow-reddish is seen coming out of the burning building; its composition cannot be determined from its visual appearance alone, a fact ignored by Rubin); Independent building professionals dismiss the NIST findings and defenders as prejudiced and irrelevant (so the observations of firefighters, who predicted at 2 PM that Building 7 would collapse, were prejudiced and irrelevant, huh?) Rubin is a dilettante in the field who uses intellectually dishonest techniques in his "journalism." WP should not quote such sources. -PorkHeart (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"He should be disregarded because he is not an authority in the related fields." -- Most news journalists are not authorities in the issues they are reporting on. We use these sources because they are independent observers, i.e. they do not have a stake in the outcome of the dispute. I don't think we should dwell on the single issues too much here, as that would digress into a discussion of substance, not sources. (I have not seen any statement that the yellow substance would not have been molten metal, so I don't see how reporting this as "molten metal" would be biased. (Note: You probably meant to write "Levin", not "Rubin".)  Cs32en  00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The "article" is an editorial by an unqualified writer; as is done in much non-journalism, it puts reality and fantasy on an equal footing. Peter Grey (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Reference 7/8: National Construction Safety Team (September 2005) http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf is offline. Please fix PDF file link. 78.55.194.88 (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed reference 7, and I'll work on the rest if time allows. Others are welcome to help; the references in this article need some work. 78.55.194.88, have you considered getting an account and helping out? Wildbear (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I'm trying to get the article ready to nominate for GA by the end of the year. All suggestions, help, questions, etc. are welcome. I've started with the mechanics of the collapses, which are now well understood. The article should be able to confidently describe what happened.--Thomas B (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should confidently present a description of what happened as evidenced by reliable sources. This includes presenting some points where information provided by reliable sources is not uniform, and it also includes giving due weight to notable descriptions that are considered fringe views according to reliable sources, while providing appropriate context for the reader where necessary.  Cs32en  20:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The conflicts that lie down that road are, to use an expression I redently learned from Joe Biden, "out of my pay grade". Where NIST or the relevant engineers (like Bazant) are unclear (or where we don't quite understand them), I think we should just remain silent. Fringe view should be left in the relevant sections and articles.--Thomas B (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)