Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

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

Failed good article nomination

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The principal issues of this article are its WP:WEIGHT problems and its lack of stability.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   There are too many weasel words, in the vein of: "Some proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have ..."

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The first paragraph of the "Overview" section has no references, and needs some.

   C. No original research:

   Judging from the references section, there is no independent source covering this general topic, which forces the article to synthesise a general picture of this conspiracy theory from individual sources, leading to WP:SYNTH concerns.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Probably yes, but cannot be thoroughly evaluated due to the concerns set out under no. 4 below.

   B. Focused:

   See no. 4 below.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Per WP:WEIGHT, a subset of WP:NPOV, even pages specifically devoted to minority views must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The article is in violation of this policy. It devotes the bulk of its text to explaining the arguments of the conspiracy theorists. By this focus and by its choice of terms, it gives the overall impression that this is a "hypothesis" subject to serious discourse by reasonable people, instead of a conspiracy theory held by no-one except a small number of adherents. Two of many examples of this are the scare quotes used when referring to the "debunking" of the theory by Skeptic, or the lead's reference to "architects and engineers, scholars, and military and government officials" as supposed adherents, which provides the theory with a semblance of respectability, even though by this reference the author just means various groups of conspiracy theorists.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The article has been heavily edited in the last few days.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article fails good article nomination. Sandstein (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, Sanderstein. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert

As a New Englander I often stand up for plain talk. The lede should start by saying this is a 9/11 conspiracy theory because that is the most important context. Additionally, I have removed edits by an IP that went against both MONGO and Thomas Basboll, two editors who seem to be on opposite sides. The IP edits were clearly against policy. I express no opinion on the substance. Those could be reincluded if sources can be found. Jehochman ^Talk 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a sentence, it's of course much better. The status quo, however, was the result of consensus that took some doing to arrange. See this archive and its happy conclusion at at the bottom. Back then, conspiracy theory was mentioned in the second sentence. So your solution is in fact an improvement today. (I think we used to have something like "It is normally pursued as part of broader conspiracy theories related to 9/11" as the second sentence). At the time, our issue with it was that it isn't actually a conspiracy theory on its own--it's part of many different conspiracy theories. I still think that part/whole problem is relevant. (It doesn't make sense to say that CDH implies a CT, for example, with this as the first sentence.) One immediate problem with the "plain style" (which I also favour in real life) is that it is more controversial and will, no doubt, be less stable.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, Arthur, he did say that backwards. You deleted "The enginner who oposse CDH are bootlickers. See Lysenko and how some scientific are bootlickers of the politicians." Actually, it's the other way around -- engineers who ARE bootlickers of the politicians oppose the CDH, but the only way we have to identify most of them is when they come out in their government-subsidized studies to support the OCT. Hmm. We really need some membership cards for the 9/11 Truth Movement. People would have to pass a spelling test.... Wowest (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source

Placing controversial statements with a citation to a blog is not correct.[1] I have checked and cannot find any other source that reports this fact. If you can find a better source, you are welcome to restore the fact, otherwise the statement must be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss differences whenever reverting my edits. [2] Jehochman ^Talk 22:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Why do you feel that sentence should be removed? Corleonebrother (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

With this edit, you have added things that will prevent the article from qualifying for good article status. Can you specify in each case who has alleged what? "Rumors began circulating." Who said the rumor? "Dan Rather said ABC." Then, cite a source. This is an extremely contentious article so we must be very specific to attribute all potentially contentious statements. Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have done as you suggested. If the problem is sourcing, please can you either find a source yourself or tag it with { {cn} }, instead of just deleting... it makes things easier. Thank you. Corleonebrother (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Clean up for next good article nomination

I have deleted a variety of unsourced statements, original research, and personal opinions and speculations from the article. Please cite sources for all controversial statements, and when saying what a documentary or magazine reported, I strongly recommend quoting a short segment. This is a very neutral way to present the information. "X said Y", where Y is an exact quotation, is easily verified and unlikely to be controversial. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement, "several documentaries have defended the controlled demolition hypothesis", which I removed,[3] needs to be cited to a source if it is re-added. Simply watching the documentaries and then characterizing them this way is a form of original research and is forbidden. Also, the external link appears to violate WP:EL because there indication that the link adds significant value to the article. Instead, the link appears to promote the resource linked to. Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is something that really annoys me about WP. If the claim has no source......FIND ONE (I assume you have a computor without parental locks). Do not delete without adding a fact tag first if you can't be bothered looking. I don't care if an edit is something I don't believe is true, I always look for a source first before deleting. I just picked 4 of your many deletions and they are problematic. [4] This was from a speech by Webster G. Tarpley on 5th November 2007 and is available on video. It took me (0.22 seconds) to find it on Google. [5] This is not a blog but a collection of clickable news stories from reliable sources. If you don’t like this source then use the RS it copied the story from. [6] This is a statement similar to “the sky is blue”. It is a combination of many sources. [7] Perfectly acceptable to keep the size of the article down. you can easily add the exact quotes if you have an hour to spare. Maybe some should be deleted but to mass delete because you dont like it is not a good idea. Wayne (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check WP:V. The burden is on the person adding material to verify it with a reliable source. The fellow you mention is an advocate, not an independent source with a reputation for fact checking. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting fringe theories. If you disagree, let's take this to mediation. Jehochman ^Talk 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So tag and check back in a week. It is arrogance to delete immediately if it's not a vandalism issue or a controversial claim as it doesn't give anyone a chance to add a ref. Wayne (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging is not correct. Unverified information should normally be removed. The only times I don't is when I am confident that a reference can be found. Given that this is a conspiracy theory topic, we should have heightened vigilance against POV pushing. Deletion of unsourced, POV statements is the right thing to do. Those adding information are obligated to provide a means of verification. If they do not, the information should be removed.Jehochman ^Talk 20:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CITE states:

"You can also add sources for material you did not write. Adding citations is an excellent way to contribute to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check for organized efforts to add citations." Dscotese (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, "The fellow you mention is an advocate..." is a strange argument against mentioning him in an article on what is arguably a "conspiracy theory." Any discussion of a conspiracy theory ought to include mention of those who advocate it, as they are the very people responsible for the interest that others may have in it.

external link

Ryan Mackey: On debunking 9/11 debunking (January 21, 2008)

I think this paper is relevant for the subject. Jesusfreund (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have only read to page 18 (of 261) and already found two false statements and several dodgy suppositions. Basically that article (based on first 18 pages) appears to be no more a RS than many nutjob conspiracy websites. I'll read the rest when I have more time but what I've found wrong so far is very sloppy work and indicative of not even having researched what he is debunking. Wayne (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You will be so good as to share these "false statements and several dodgy suppositions" with the rest of us. I've read the paper and found it a consummate piece of research. Joseph.nobles (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a "hypothesis."

If "controlled demolition" is a "hypothesis", does it not follow that the belief that bin Laden did 9/11" is also a "hypothesis"? Then, why is the wikipedia 9/11 page not describe the government 9/11 story as a "hypothesis"?

The term is inaccurate, because it suggests it's a scientific hypothesis, and I don't believe the term "controlled demolition hypothesis" has ever been widely used. The current name is also very verbose. As such, I propose moving it to Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center (conspiracy theory). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is accurate and correct terminology. "Hypothesis: noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena", that is from an English dictionary or if you prefer an American dictionary of the English language: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation". It doesn't have to be widely used. Your suggestion is no less "verbose" than you claim the current title to be and is less correct linguistically as the official theory is also a conspiracy theory. Wayne (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence defines the hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. This makes clear that the theory is not proven, and that it is a small minority view of what happened. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Theories are, by definition, unproven. In fact, the scientific method is quite clear that theories are never proven, but rather tested until no one doubts them any longer. You can only disprove theories. The lead sentence does NOT define the hypothesis as a conspiracy theory, it simply labels it. A definition would go something more like this "This theory suggests that a group of high-level individuals in the U.S. government conspired to create theses attacks." See, that is the "defining" level of detail that you ought to put there.Dscotese (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not true that the label "conspiracy theory" *makes clear that the theory is not proven*. There actually exist proven conspiracy theories in the world. The label just suggest a generically negative POV attributed by wikipedia itself.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Which is more neutral: "This is a theory." "This is a conspiracy theory."

No, to the "encyclopedia", add these two:

"this is a lie" "this is a silly lie" "this lie is believed by antisemites" "if you believe this lie, you are an antisemite"

And again, which is more neutral (note that the source for the claim about "structural engineering literature" refers only to Bazant's article, which doesn't actually refer to any other engineers' discussion of the hypothesis):

The controlled demolition hypothesis has been dismissed in the analysis of the collapse provided by Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant. Professor Bažant, who was among the first to offer a published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses...

The controlled demolition hypothesis has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature. Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was among the first to offer a published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses...

Isn't the conspiratorial nature of this hypothesis already quite plain. Is there a reason to include the fact that it contradicts the mainstream account? If so, shouldn't this be said plainly instead of using a label - especially a pejorative one like 'conspiracy theory'?

When you perform a revert, you are making the statement that what a user has contributed has no value whatsoever. This is hardly ever true. I suggest that editing a user's contributions to retain the essential facts they wished to introduce is far better than a simple revert. Dscotese (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I strongly disagree with that last statement. A revert implies that the article was better before the contribution, not necessarily that there are no grains of usable data in the contribution. (In this case, I don't think there are any grains of usable data, but truthers are generating too much heat for sensible people to see the light, if any.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Sensible" jew gods of wikipedia like Arthur Rubin, right? Holy George Orwell!

Also, I would like to comment that Wowest is using my typo of including an "N" in my edit summary as an excuse to revert it as being in bad faith. I'd appreciate an apology. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you revert because additional facts do not improve the article, you should explain why you feel that they do not improve it since, obviously, the original editor felt that they do improve it. This is part of good faith editing. Your disdain for "truthers" makes this difficult for you, I know, but to follow the good faith policy, just pretend that they are your children, bringing up facts that they think pertain, and post a comment explaining why they don't.

You didn't address my questions about the neutrality of the phrases I quoted. I don't mind if you condescend a little so I can understand your reasoning if you feel that the use of the term "conspiracy" or referring to "the structural engineering literature" instead of Bazant's paper itself is more neutral. Dscotese (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of research into Bazants paper and although published in a peer reviewed publication it was never actually peer reviewed. In fact, to date there have been no peer reviewed articles either pro or con at all so the sentence "among the first to offer a published peer reviewed hypothesis of the collapses" is incorrect. Bazants paper was written and submitted the day after 911 and based on past experience with buildings rather than any data on the WTC itself. Bazant himself says: "we are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanism but seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen". Bazant also says: "Once accurate computer simulations are carried out, various details of the failure mechanism will undoubtedly be found to differ from the simplifying hypotheses (this paper) made. Errors by a factor of 2 would not be terribly surprising". Because of errors the paper would never pass peer review and should not be presented as such. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't peer-reviewed?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you don't see the golden halo above his head? Are you CRAZY?

Apology

Arthur, I apologize for emphasizing your Freudian slip rather than your more generally erroneous statement.

You said "(remove apparently non-reliable source which doesn't support the text)"

The Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE) 
(founded in 1908) is the world's leading professional 
body for structural engineering with over 22,000 members 
in 105 countries around the world. It is a leading source 
of expertise on all structural engineering and public 
safety issues in the built environment.

http://www.istructe.org/index.asp?bhcp=1

The Structural Engineer: Journal of the Institution of
Structural Engineers is published twice monthly by 
IStructE and is a major vehicle for communication with 
members worldwide.

First published in 1923, the Journal is supplied to 
all members of IStructE and to additional subscribers 
including libraries, universities, research bodies 
and various companies. 

http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/index.asp

The referenced PDF is to page 6 of the online edition,
3 Sept. 2002 Vol. 80 No. 17
ISSN: 1466-5123
Eight pounds seventeen pence.

The quotation you deleted is a direct quotation from this
page concerning the visit of the IStructE president to
Ground Zero. 

http://www.istructe.org/thestructuralengineer/files/se/SE172002.pdf

How reliable a source are you demanding, Arthur?

May I suggest that you consider restricting your editing to articles
related to mathematics, in which you apparently have a professional
level of competence, or take more care when you venture into such 
areas as politics, sex and religion?  It's just a suggestion.

Wowest (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please attempt to remain civil.

This edit is not really good for the lead. "In making their case, they often emphasize the following facts: [...] 'They showed us many fascinating slides’". So do the aforementioned people often emphasize that some slides were shown to some people? Please don't try to make the lead into a laundry list of vague cherry-picked hearsay. Weregerbil (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a polite remark - I'd suggest all people stop using "catch" phrases while discussing 9/11 articles (I personally admit using them a lot in the past). It's natural and acceptable that each editor "cherry-picks" facts that interest him most. So in my opinion, phrases like "laundry list of vague cherry-picked hearsay" lack any meaning with regard to improvement of articles. The only thing we can read from such is a patronizing and intimidating tone and the author's will to strengthen his pov, not by arguments, but by pushing forward his "professional" image. This is unhelpful (especially when you take time to reprimand another). I'd suggest to stick to elaborated arguments based on WP:RS, WP:UNDUE.

Anyway, my thoughts on: "'They showed us many fascinating slides"; the phrase might be unfortunate but it's the second part of this sentence that was more important: "[Dr. Keith Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’ and we should discuss this phrase if it's worth being included or not. salVNaut (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

I think this version reads better than the existing short first line that says only "this is a conspiracy theory" which is already known by most.

"The controlled demolition hypothesis is a hypothesis that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. The hypothesis is also considered to be a 9/11 conspiracy theory. The most detailed statements of the hypothesis, a central theme for members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, have come from physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and author Webster Griffin Tarpley. In making their case, they often emphasize the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, which did not have a plane flown into it." bov (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing about the controlled demolition 'hypothesis' is that it is a conspiracy theory rather than a reasoned hypothesis that could be pursued scientifically to see how well it fits the facts. Do you think that having a string of words like "hypothesis is a hypothesis" in the first ten words of an article makes Wikipedia look like a well-written encyclopedia? John Nevard (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Department of redundancy department? Weregerbil (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Since we disagree on it, you'll need a reliable source to make a decision such as "The most important thing about the controlled demolition 'hypothesis' is that it is a conspiracy theory rather than a reasoned hypothesis that could be pursued scientifically..." If that is important, it should be mentioned elsewhere, but the lead should state what the hypothesis is and what verifiable evidence motivated its creators to propose it. In any case, even a cursory reading of the Steven Jones' paper suggests several areas of scientific research that could be pursued in order to defeat or support the hypothesis. Dscotese (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious bias"?

A comment about this edit. I think it is strange to say that the specification "conspiracy theory" is needed to remove bias or to make the article more neutral. I could have found it meaningful to say that it was needed for a complete information, but to say that it is required to shift the POV amounts to say that we want the negative connotation of the term to influence the bias of the article, and I think this way of editing is against the spirit of WP:NPOV.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would certainly be false and unverifiable to say that it isn't a conspiracy theory. Why shouldn't it be stated in the article? As I stated, it seems biased to me not to include the fact that it's a conspiracy theory. I'd accept multiple uses of the word "conspiracy" in the lead instead, but it would need to be multiple uses to override the implication that the theory is accepted by, well, anyone sensible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It is called "hypothesis", so it is clear that it is not accepted. To consider the expression "conspiracy theory" as a way to suggest that the theory is not "accepted" is a dirty way of expressing this fact because you are taking advantage by the fact that the term ("conspiracy theory") is ambiguous and possible derogative. If the theory is not accepted and we have source it is certainly more clean and honest to just say explicitly that it is not accepted (and eventually link the source) avoiding abiguous and possibly derogative language.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 'hypothesis' implies that it is a honest scientific attempt to put forward a complete and better explanation of a phenomenon that better fits the evidence than others previously put forward. It isn't. It's a conspiracy theory. John Nevard (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you want to express that the hypothesis is not considered plausible by the expert but we should say this in the most explicit and neutral way, not by means of derogative terminology.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"controlled demolition hypothesis conspiracy theory" is both unnecessary and ungrammatical. The grammatically correct wording would be "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" and it wouldn't last a minute in the article. WillOakland (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore (and I think this was discussed previously) the hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory. It's a feature of various conspiracy theories, and a favorite idea of the various intellectual cowards who "just ask questions" without advancing a theory. WillOakland (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says that "Journalists and experts commenting on the events as they happened speculated that the World Trade Center collapses were caused by intentionally planted explosives", and this happened before we had any scientific analysis of the collapse. Moreover we read that NIST did actually consider the hypothesis as a possibility and the conclusion was

NIST stated that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11

This shows that the hypothesis was not necessarlily pushed forward to claim cover ups by the government. Whether the hypotjesis is liked by "cospiracy theorists" or "intellectual coward" is not enough to make it a "conspiracy theory".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. NIST stated that they considered the theory. They also give reasons to absolutely reject it -- which show that their serious consideration of whether the theory was plausible cannot have taken longer than a few minutes. Pandering to conspiracy theorists does not make for actual consideration of the theory as a plausible explanation of the real facts.John Nevard (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you reword NIST according to your POV? NIST just said what is written above. Is someone saying that the theory is plausible here? No, so why do you insist that it is not plausible? The only thing to be considered here is: how is the most neutral way to speak about this hypothesis and its hystory? Certainly not by surrounding it with derogative slurs as much as we can.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for Truthers to push their novel theories of history. There is no reliable evidence that this happened; hence, it is a conspiracy theory, a fringe view that is ahistorical. Jehochman ^Talk 17:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggested wording is

• Grammatically incorrect
• Inaccurate. I would think it obvious that a conspiracy theory must describe at least one conspiracy, e.g. "The Bush administration conspired to lie about WMDs" or "The mafia conspired to kill Kennedy." The CDH does not. The CDH has appeared in peer-reviewed articles by Bazant that are not discussing a conspiracy theory, but merely refuting the CDH per se.

WillOakland (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to accurately define what the theory is: a conspiracy theory. The article should not start out by proposing the theory as something that might be true, when it is in fact a fringe view, that is universally discredited by reliable sources. Truthers will disagree with me, but those with fringe views do not get to write Wikipedia according to their beliefs. Instead, Wikipedia is based on what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Until this matter is fixed, the article will be labeled as a violation of NPOV so that readers are not misled. Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, furthermore, if this isn't a conspiracy theory because it's a feature of various conspiracy theories, then the same must hold true for the word hypothesis. So by that logic, they both go or they both stay. RxS (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an article without a title is really an option. Bazant has analyzed it in peer-reviewed work, and NIST said they were going to mention it in their WTC7 report, so why wouldn't it be an hypothesis? WillOakland (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypothesis is only part of the title, articles can be renamed quite easily. RxS (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now a conspiracy theory because of all the denials by many people who would know. Perhaps it wasn't initially a conspiracy theory. However, prominent placement of the fact that it is generally considered a conspiracy theory within the first two or three sentences is probably adequate to avoid undue weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is generally labeled as "conspiracy theory" by some sources, but this does not mean that we are allowed to label it in that way as well. Probably a lot of sources labeled Maradona as the "strongest football player ever" but we can't do the same without attribution. (It would also be important to check how "general" this labeling is between which kind of sources).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, do you have a particular objection to my last edit that puts the conspiracy theory reference later in the paragraph? WillOakland (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article starts awkwardly by quoting the theory, rather than by explaining what it is. I do not think the current formulation will be stable. Let's start an Requests for comment to get more views. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article starts by explaining exactly what the hypothesis is, because that's what the article is about. BTW, NIST explicitly refers to a "controlled demolition hypothesis" here. I don't understand why you insist on casting this as a dispute between truthers and sane people, because it isn't. But if you want to write an RFC then, as someone who wants to change the longstanding wording, you can do that. WillOakland (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that some are arguing based on their own definition of the word. The dictionary definition is:

Hypothesis
noun: a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. A hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a theory which implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

Apparently the title fits rather accurately. I'd guess that most opposition is by those who want a title that denigrates the hypothesis. Wayne (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

After the Towers collapsed the idea that they could have been destroyed by planted explosives was a way-out hypothesis that provided a very poor explanation of the attacks. Now that all the issues surrounding the attacks have been resolved, the "controlled demolition hypothesis" is not a legitimate 'tentative' hypothesis-- it's proven to be entirely implausible. John Nevard (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nist said they didn't find evidences for such hypothesis, not that they proved it to be "entirely implausible". Who provided these "proofs"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy theory? Weregerbil (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Barack Obama a Nigger?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer, it is most illuminating. Weregerbil (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that your question was just a candid request for informations?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a question directed towards discussing what I think of as important points of the issue. It was indeed a request for information on how you (the larger "you", not first person singular) view the issue. I was much informed by your answer, thank you. Weregerbil (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Pokipsy76, and Wayne makes a fairly accurate observation -- "I'd guess that most opposition is by those who want a title that denigrates the hypothesis." It's pretty transparent what's going on. The original version of the article never included the phrase "conspiracy theory." It is a hypothesis, not a theory. bov (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion about "conspiracy theory"

It's been awhile, and it looks like many of the same old issues remain. I wonder if a sentence saying "The CDH is typically dismissed as a conspiracy theory, both in the mainstream media and in the engineering community." If that were the second sentence (with necessary adjustments to avoid redundancy after that) wouldn't that satisfy everyone?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence

Weregerbil has once again given us:

According to the controlled demolition hypothesis conspiracy theory, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance

The underlined is an unhappy label, not used in any source that I am aware of. (I think Steve Clarke's recent paper in Episteme may be the most scholarly treatment of the CDH so far [8]. He uses both "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" and "controlled demolition hypothesis" but not "CDH CT".) IMO, we have to choose between:

(A) The controlled demolition hypothesis is a 9/11 conspiracy theory. It proposes that the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance.

and

(B) According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. It is broadly dismissed as a conspiracy theory, both in the mainstream media and in the engineering community.

In order to keep things calm (I hope), I will now implement version A, which is really just a stylistically improved version of Weregerbil's suggestion. I next propose a straw poll on the two version.

Straw poll (vote A or B)

• B Provides information about the content of the hypothesis first and then specificies its scientific status.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• B naturally. bov (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say B but maybe it's better in the conditional form: "According to the controlled demolition hypothesis, the World Trade Center would not have been destroyed by the planes..."?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I usually take hypotheses to state indicative not subjunctive propositions, hypothetically of course. There are exceptions, but they don't look like this case. A subjunctive hypothesis could be: "According to fire-proofing hypothesis, the WTC towers would not have collapsed if the fire-proofing had not been knocked off the structure." But the CDH says hypothesizes that "the towers were not destroyed by the impacts and fires alone".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• B is preferable as it is grammatically correct and uses terminology accepted by sources with opposing POVs. (It's no good for editors to come in here and say they personally don't like the wording even though authoritative sources are using it.) However, it is just inaccurate to say that the CDH is a conspiracy theory; it's a feature of CTs. WillOakland (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why one version -- which clearly many on here disagree with, even just on a grammatical basis -- has to be the given version that *is allowed* be on the page, despite the fact that the whole issue is in discussion. If a discussion is going on, why is the most ungrammatical and nonsensical version left on the front page, and no changes can be made? 152.131.10.133 (talk)

Because, in typical Wikipedia fashion, particular editors are claiming that the matter has been "settled" and keep reverting it. WillOakland (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not (C) According to the controlled demolition conspiracy theory, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by the planes that crashed into it as part of the September 11th attacks, nor by the fires that followed, but by explosives or other devices planted in the buildings in advance. It is broadly dismissed in the mainstream media and the engineering community. --DHeyward (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't suggest it is that it would (I think) require that the article's name be changed, and that too many changes would be needed throughout the article. A "hypothesis" is the thing NIST dismissed; it's also what many proponents call it. It is therefore useful to identify it by that name. Consider starting the intelligent design article with "According to creationism..." (I don't want to get involved in that debate, but I'd say option A here has the virtue of actually saying that critics dismiss it as the equivalent of creationism. That argument seems to be somewhat buried in the ID article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• B as modified: Instead of It is broadly dismissed as a conspiracy theory by..., it should be It is considered a conspiracy theory, and is broadly dismissed by .... I believe the sources support that it is broadly dismissed as being physically implausible, as well as being an implausible conspiracy theory. Without that modification, I weakly lean toward A. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree, but I'll have a look at the responses again. I wil then try to improve the overview section to capture this point. (These sentences should be summarizing the overview; in fact, if we do this right, we might be able to replace the overview section ... which is almost a lead itself.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• B. This argument comes down to the question if there is any scientific substance in CDH (if there is not, we should change the title also). In my opinion there is and CDH is as far the best explanation to molten metal anomaly(?), Steven Jones' work in particular[9][10] (I wonder if his work will be ever published, it was/is close to that as I keep finding out). This might be due to the fact that no one else took time to try to explain this scientifically, not due to CDH being true explanation. Any opinions on that matter? salVNaut (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Implementation

I have made a first attempt to interpret the emerging consensus. It has resulted in this version so far. Feel free to revert pending a clearer consensus. Comments are welcome.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The first peer-reviewed publication by CDH proponents in Open Civil Engineering Journal

Just a moment ago, above, I expressed my doubts about if there's ever will be a publication of this sort, and hey! here it is:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction (18 April, 2008) Open Civil Engineering Journal

Jump on it fellow editors :) salVNaut (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The title might not, but the read does indeed solidify the use of the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". salVNaut (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

PUBLICATION FEES: The publication fee details for each article published in the journal are given below:
Letters: The publication fee for each published Letter article submitted is $600.
Research Articles: The publication fee for each published Research article is $800.
Mini-Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Mini-Review article is $600.
Review Articles: The publication fee for each published Review article is $900.
http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/MSandI.htm

They paid to get their article published. --Peephole (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Which means they get paid for taking their time to review and check the articles for correctness.salVNaut (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful with statements like that because you just suggested that people on this list put 900$ above their careers and credibility as scientists. salVNaut (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)