Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : *The citations have got out of hand. The various variations of the {{cite}} template need to be used, but there seem to be a great number which are imperfectly cited. Please pick up any that simply show as a url and visit (eg) cite web to determine the most appropriate template to put inside the ref. This is reinforced by the most recent Peer Review comment about consistency. The full set of templates are at Wikipedia:Citation templates
    • The ref for In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."[101] at does not lead to the expected story
    • This article makes no reference to the only cited scientific examination of actual materials for the presence of explosive materials claimed by supporters of the controlled demolition theory. That study by Harrit et al. found the presence of unexploded nanothermite materials.
    • Copyedit : * From Peer Review One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor.
    • Expand : *Fix this reference: Griffin, David Ray in The Hidden History (will fix ref).
    • Other : *Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page
    • Examine these references and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion
This is not a forum for general discussion of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.

Popular Mechanics[edit]

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)

~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)

-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.... (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually a little of both. ----DanTD (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics has a lot of stories leading you to believe in UFO's, unfortunately, I can't say that in the article because it would be WP:OR, original research, and I can't find an "reliable source" (WP:RS) article debunking Popular Mechanics for the tabloid journalism that it is. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much the only journal that bothered to go to the trouble of authoritatively debunking the obvious nonsense peddled by Truthers. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Term "Conspiracy Theory"[edit]

Total waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't assume good faith or comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I want to point out that this is a theory, not a conspiracy theory. Truth be told, the accepted narrative about what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. It proposes that a conspiracy of foreign nationals flew planes into buildings and so forth. It is a conspiracy theory that happens to be true. On the other hand, the theory about controlled demolitions isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory. It is a theory about how the buildings may have come down that is different from the accepted narrative. Who may have planted the bombs / thermite / whatever there is not determined by the theory. One might say the government, or one might say it was Al Qaida. But terming this theory a "conspiracy theory" is a way to discredit it from the get go. For the record, I do not believe the theory of controlled demolitions. But slanting the theory as merely a conspiracy theory, in the negative sense, does us no favors. This is a structural problem with the article itself. A fairer article would term it a theory, and explore along the way how some people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory in the negative sense. (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You have that precisely the wrong way round. A group of foreign nationals conspired to fly jets into WTC - that was a conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. It's not a conspiracy theory because it's factual. The controlled demolition "theory" is an arse-backwards rationalisation that starts by discounting the obvious and erects in its place a structure of ad hoc hypotheses to arrive at the pre-existing "conclusion" of malfeasance. That is a conspiracy theory in its classic sense. And it's time for the Truther community to get over it and move on. Guy (Help!) 09:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

"The Structural Engineering community rejects these theories." I don't believe this claim can be supported — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is worth noting the obvious conflict of interest in the NIST report, and that their models were kept secret in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests. NIST's work has not been peer reviewed. Popular Mechanics bases the entire article on the NIST report. To suggest that these two organizations independently examined the evidence is misleading. It does not imply in any way that the scientific community generally accepts the standard explanation. This article should acknowledge that the scientific community has not reached consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It makes little sense to claim the CD theory is generally accepted to be wrong solely on the basis of people who would have a conflict or interest in claiming otherwise. This article does not make a compelling case for the existence of a large number of scientists who independently reject the CD theory. NIST report has caused controversy among physicists and engineers. NIST has acknowledged that it is unable to explain the free fall in the collapse of WTC 7. The P M article and other articles that reject CD theories carefully ignore this piece of evidence which in itself makes a very strong case for CD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The title of this article is absurd and absolutely non factual. One thing is "controlled demolition theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. another thing is: "controlled demolition conspiracy theory" - the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition in the context of a certain conspiracy. As far as i know, the controlled demolition theorists that stick to the technical and factual analysis of the 9/11 don't analyze the "conspiracy context", they only analyze if the buildings went down by plane, controlled demolition, or whatever other technical cause. They don't analyze the facts of why, who, and when conspired to bring the buildings down. The conspiracy subject is not the subject of many controlled demolition theorists. So the article title is highly innacurate and it doesn't reflect its content that only analyzes and describes the theory that claims (wrongly or not) that the buildings went down by a controlled demolition. Simple logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the necessity for a conspiracy to accomplish the conjectured demolition, the reliable sources used by Wikipedia for content references call it a conspiracy theory. The reason the conspiracy enthusiasts don't analyze motivation is because isolating the controlled demolition idea on its own keeps up a pretense of serious commentary rather than conspiracy promotion, obfuscating the obvious questions of who and why. This effectively whitewashes the decidedly anti-Semitic tone of many of those who have speculated on those who are supposed to have been conspirators. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
first, you analyze the facts and be open to all possibilities for a conjectured demolition or a not conjectured demolition, then, secondly, one should take a stance about a possible conspiracy. Doing it the other way around is a blatant logical fallacy and a unreliable way to conduct any investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
No, on Wikipedia you use a consensus of reliable sources, treating fringe views as they are viewed in mainstream media. Wikipedia is designed to preclude personal analysis, and is not a vehicle for "investigation." Wikipedia is by design not open to all possibilities. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I did NOT say that Wikipedia is for personal analysis or investigation. What I DID say is that if you want to make an article about the the theory of "controlled demolition" you SHOULD NOT make an article about the theory of "controlled demolition in the context of conspiracy". They are two different things. Even if a "conspiracy" is the only possible cause of a "controlled demolition" of the WTC, in the sense that they are interconnected in space and time, they are two completely separate and different subjects, even if one leads to the other. Also note that the Article in question doesn't have a chapter about the "conspiracy" theories that its subject refers to. This article talks only about technical stuff (explosives, thermite, etc...), not conspiracies, not a single line about political or social theories of the alleged conspirators, the Article it's completely contradictory with its own title.
To pretend that no conspiratorial context exists concerning the postulated deliberate and pre-planned demolition of buildings full of people (after being having been hit by airplanes), and concurrent with two other attacks, is ludicrous. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Every event in the course of human interaction involves conspiracy. To label something as a "conspiracy theory" is to suggest that is a fringe theory, far from proven, and probably not true. This is not the case with the demolition of the world trade center. It simply *is* a demolition. I would consider that scientific mainstream. I find it very strange the Wikipedia does not report accurately on this. There are two possibilities: they are willfully complicit in the cover-up - or they are unable to suspend trust in authority long enough to see that this was plainly a controlled demolition. At least they should knowledge the magnitude of the group of scientists pushing for truth. These are not people who normally dabble in conspiracy theory or revisionist history. The fact that so many respectable scientists are convinced that this as a demolition deserves attention. "Reality takes precedence over public relations for nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "tinfoil haberdashery" would be more appropriate than "conspiracy theory." "Utter delusions" possibly insults otherwise reasonable people who just need medication by associating their condition with conspiracy theorism. "Absolute error" still implies a relationship (if negative) to reality that many conspiracy theories lack. We're not going to go for 'politically correct' hogwash like "alternate facts," either. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - your refusal to look at the evidence instead of tossing around insults suggests you are part of the cover-up. I mean it's pretty simple stuff - a building cannot crush itself at free fall acceleration. Free fall implies 0 resistance. I have yet to hear anyone explain how that can happen without explosives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that the IP editors take a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure. But at the end of the day there is no ministry of truth and the individual is forced to evaluate source based on hi/her own intuition. How do we know the NYT is reliable? Because it says so in the NYT of course! I am hoping to appeal to common intuition that the WTC was brought down by demolition. That is in fact very easy to see if you just watch the video. Having convinced yourself that it was a demolition you will realize that the msm is not free. If it were, it would have reported this fact already. So the least wikipedia could do is admit that this is not a settled issue. That there is a huge number of respectable scientists speaking out against the government. That the government does not always tell the truth - that the msm is not independent. As it is, wikipedia is just part of the propaganda machine on this issue. They make it seem as tho this is a settled issue. And citing popular mechanics is so weak - that's not a peer reviewed journal. The case against cd theories revolves around one engineer - Bazant. There are many more engineers who support controlled demo theories— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hello Mr IP editor, you caught me. I'm secretly a Jewish/Catholic/Mason patsy working for our Satan-worshiping reptilian overlords from Alpha Draconis. Now that my cover's blown, the powers that be will just have to wipe out everyone involved. You should avoid any further replies, as that will only make it easier for them to track you. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your confounding several different theories. There are thousands of architects, engineers, and scientists who support the controlled demolition theory. These are not the same people who study reptilians etc. You are trying to taint the truth movement by associating it with other conspiracies and ignoring the fact that it is rooted in hard science — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You talk as though the idea is widely presented as credible by the majority of mainstream academic and journalistic sources, which it's not. You can't pretend that it's just one author and only the NIST when all mainstream sources agree with the reality of the NIST's findings -- to do so is either dishonest or insane, hence my refusal to address you seriously. Either present professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that argue against it being a conspiracy theory or quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No reliable sources, just wasting everyone's time and bandwidth

Just to list a few — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No I do not talk as if a majority of mainstream sources give credibility to this idea. I'm saying there is a reason they don't. And Wikipedia is ignoring the credible people who present the demolition theory. The fact is, there are many more engineers who support the demolition theory than those who don't - if you exclude the ones who are working for the government. Mainstream news sources are not an authority on engineering issues. They are an outlet for government propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream sources do not *agree* with NIST through independent analysis. They simply *report* NIST's findings and *assume* they are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Good criticism of the NIST report from acclaimed scientist: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely none of those are reliable sources. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 12:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

This is clear evidence that the engineering community does not generally accept the standard collapse theory. Regardless of the interviewer, these scientists and engineers have credentials. What makes A&E911 Truth an unreliable source? Wikipedia cites a paper by a single engineer Bazant as proof of its claim? what makes him a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

How is Lynn Margulis, recipient of the National Medal of Science, not worth anything? Why is Popular Mechanics more reliable than Europhysucs News? I would like to see an equivalent number of engineers/scientists outside of the government who can defend the official collapse theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Journal is not a reliable source? Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Did you even look at all these links? Who decides what is a reliable source? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to transcend the bias of mainstream sources. There is a large number of engineers/scientists who disagree with NIST's findings. This article should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand it is not WIkipedia's job to determine the truth of this theory. But they should accurately represent the nature of the movement. These sources confirm that a large number of scientists and engineers believe the CD theory. Whether or not they are correct, wikipedia should cover AE4 9 9 11 truth, Scentists for 9 11 truth. They aren't even mentioned here. You make it sound like Jones is the only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

What part of MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC OR JOURNALISTIC sources do you not understand? Those websites do not represent the mainstream engineering community -- it is either dishonest or insane to pretend the engineering community as a whole "does not generally accept" reality (i.e. the "collapse theory"). A number of the figures you cite, such as Lynn Margulis, are not engineers and that you would bother citing them gives us little reason to believe that you even know what an engineer is. That you ask if Wikipedia is a reliable source proves you have no clue what a reliable source is, even after the concept has been explained and linked for you repeatedly. That you continually refuse to even figure out reliable sources are but instead spam conspiracy theory bullshit is a sign that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, you're just here to peddle your X-Files fantasies. And yes, reliable sourcing has been explained to you: MAINSTREAM ACADEMIC OR JOURNALISTIC sources. The link has more information. Like it or not, you are advocating a conspiracy theory that Wikipedia is not going to create artificial validity for. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Mainstream sources place this subject firmly in fringe theory territory. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and the like are disregarded by their professional peers and disowned by their professional organizations. We have articles on them too. Wikipedia doesn't "transcend the bias of mainstream sources." You're in the wrong place for that, there are innumerable Internet fora where you can transcend as much as you'd like. As previously and exhaustively discussed, Europhysics News has disowned the 9/11 material and changed their policies. You have proposed nothing new. Wikipedia isn't a forum for conspiracy enthusiasts and is not a place for promotion of causes or fringe theories. Acroterion (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not attempting to present reliable sources to prove that the CD theory is true. I am presenting sources to show that the engineering community has not reached consensus. I have an issue with the following statement: "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." The citation for this is a single paper by Bazant. There is much controversy surrounding this paper and many believe it to fraudulent. Either way it does not speak for the engineering community as a whole. Also I think their is misunderstanding about the nature of allowable citations in this article. This article as it stands cites many sources which you would claim to be non-mainstream: C-span interviews with David Ray Griffan, Engineering papers by Jones. For example "Active Thermitic Material found in WTC Dust" is used as a source. These sources are used to describe the nature of the movement: who are its members and what are they saying. These points are not controversial. The fact that many professional engineers are outspokenly opposed to the NIST report is not controversial. The sources I presented are first hand statements by engineers. These sources are reliable in determining the viewpoints of these engineers just as an C-span interview with Ray Griffin is reliable in determining Griffin's viewpoint. Just as a paper published by Stephen E Jones is a reliable source for determining what Steven E Jone's view is. These papers and books as well as cites like are already used as citations in this article. These are not mainstream sources, but they are still cited in this article. You declared my C-span interview with Gage to be unreliable yet there is a C span interview with Griffin already cited here. My main point is this: "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" does not a source to back it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you tried to hide the links I provided when they are not that different to links already cited in this article suggest a conscious effort to hide the truth on this subject. I repeat "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives." IS FALSE. "Consensus" implies that (almost) everyone agrees. And yet there are thousands of dissenters, some of them quite outspoken. This article deliberately downplays and covers up this fact. Bazant seems to be just about the only non-government engineer who is willing to defend the official theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and refuses to comply or acknowledge any of the policies, or arbitrary sanctions around such highly-controversial topics. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have non-mainstream sources already cited all over this article. You have a C-span interview with David Ray Griffin. You said the C-span interview with Richard Gage is not reliable. You have the Daily Mail as a source and you declared the Daily Express to be unreliable. I want an answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

And I want a real citation for "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I just notice that Architects and Engineers for 9 11 Truth is already listed as a source for this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This article claims the engineering community has reached consensus in agreement with NIST. It does not provide a source for this or acknowledge the scale of the dissenting group of engineers and scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Given your views on "Bazant," (who co-authored the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal reviewing the extant sources), as well as you completely ignoring the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers (neither of which are government bodies) and the various academic sources cited in the article (e.g. Thomas Eagar), it's clear that no matter how many sources are provided, you will just claim that it is just that author's view while pretending that the exceptions (and questionable exceptions) found on conspiracy theorist sites represent a significant portion of the engineering community. Quit wasting everyone's time and bandwidth, you are not getting your way here. Your tendentious behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated much longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide sources for those statements. The links provided don't lead anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm describing citations already in the article!
The full citation that is already in this article for Bazant includes a co-author and is published in a peer-reviewed journal. This article already mentions the ASCE and the ISE, and cites their works. This article already cites scholars such as Thomas Eagar. Asking for a citation to prove that those citation are in the article is sheer trolling. If you are unable to access the materials cited in the article or are unable to comprehend them, that's your problem.
Stop asking stupid questions, you're not making other people look bad with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also the dissenting engineers are not "Conspiracy Theorists." They are professional engineers who have never before researched "conspiracy theories." And they are far more numerous than the engineers who defend the government theory. Neither group speaks for the majority of engineers. The majority of engineers are silent on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

They disagree with mainstream engineers and scientists, and make claims that would involve a shadowy conspiracy to execute and cover up -- they are conspiracy theorists. They do not outnumber the sources cited in peer-reviewed journals, nor the ASCE and ISE (whose jobs are to speak for the majority of legitimate engineers!), it is an insane trolling to claim that those conspiracy theorists outnumber mainstream sources -- otherwise, they would be be the mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

How exactly do distinguish a "mainstream" engineer from a non-mainstream one? lol. You have not provided sources for the ASCE, ISE claims. There is almost no literature in peer reviewed journals defending the official collapse theory. Bazant and one or two others. I sent links to at least 5 - 10 professionals who support CD theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The dissenting petition has thousands of signatures from professional architects and engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided sources for the ASCE claim. Thus your entire proof of the engineering "consensus" rests on Bazant and Eagar. Yet there are thousands of engineers who disagree. How can you claim there is a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a video of the collapse of Building 7 should appear somewhere in this article - just to give an intuitive motivation for the theory

More waste of time and bandwidth by someone who can't comprehend the idea of "mainstream" because that's not what they're here to do
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Relying on Bazant[edit]

"Allegations of controlled demolition have been found to be devoid of scientific merit by mainstream engineering scholarship." The only sources for this claim are the same papers by Bazant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You demand extensive proof of a negative, where the only people who take your thesis seriously are proponents of a conspiracy theory. Acroterion (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


As far as I know, Wikipedia is not government funded, and therefore should have no incentive to cover up the truth about the WTC collapse.

If we were do divide all the engineers into 3 categories: 1) those who support the CD theory 2) those who support the fire-induced collapse theory 3) those who don't voice an opinion - then most engineers would fall in category 3. Several thousand would fall in category 1. In category 2 we have the NIST engineers and a few others. In the controversy over whether the government is lying about 9 11, NIST's testimony is not worth anything because they are hired by the government. So it comes down to Bazant and Eagar, and maybe a few others in category 2. There are very few examples of non-government engineers defending the fire induced collapse theory. There are many examples of engineers defending the CD theory. Wikipedia distorts the situation, making it look like the CD theory is a fringe theory in the engineering community.

Anyone with two eyes can see that this was a controlled demolition. It is easy to see why the NYT and Washington Post would be afraid to report on this. But Wikipedia is based on user donations. What is holding them back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Vast majority of scientists don't offer their opinion on fringe theories. --Harizotoh9 (talk)
Sixteen years on the only people who are interested in the subject are Truthers. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC) 08:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Editors on Wikipedia have scant tolerance for proponents of fringe theories who see WIkipedia as a mutable platform for confirming their ideas that can't get traction anywhere else. You equate "don't voice an opinion" with "don't have an opinion" or with uncertainty. Sixteen years on the only people who spend time on this are committed conspiracy enthusiasts. "Anyone with two eyes can see this is a demolition" is simply an expression of confirmation bias and invalid on Wikipedia. It is unequivocally a fringe theory, and as I point out up this page, the narrow focus on engineering opinions by Truthers is a smokescreen for the fundamental reason: why was this postulated demolition done? Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
And I see that you've been blocked for beating this particular horse to death on ANI, proving my point concerning scant tolerance. Acroterion (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Open Chemical Physics Journal[edit]

Block evading waste of time and bandwidth
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What does the line "The paper contained no scientific rebuttal" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 06:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

If no one knows what it means, I am going to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

How can you not know what that means? It means that the paper completely forgot to include the science that points out how wrong its conclusions were. Do not remove it again, and do not add unsourced material to try and support this or any other conspiracy theory. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You did not have to remove my edit. I could have easily found a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs)

Yes I did have to remove it. Material that ultimately originates from conspiracy theorist groups requires coverage in higher-quality sources than a local news station's editorial failure. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand. The University of Alaska is not a conspiracy group. This has been confirmed by many news sources. How about the Daily Express? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 07:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also on the University Website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 07:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The first article you cite states "Dr. J Leroy Hulsey is funded by the group “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth”" -- AE9/11 is a conspiracy theorist group. The university's website would be affiliated. You need high-quality unaffiliated sources -- see WP:FRINGE. The Daily Express is a can't even reach up to the same level of failure as the Daily Mail, which we recently banned. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are funded by AE911. The statement of the fact that the university is conducting the study is what we're trying to source. Not the credibility of the study. Shouldn't the University's website be sufficient to verify a statement about themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 07:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not simply a statement about themselves. It's a statement that gives attention to someone who is funded by a group dedicated to promoting a conspiracy theory that contradicts all mainstream academic sources. It needs unaffiliated high-quality independent coverage that shows that wider mainstream academia thinks it is noteworthy. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

About the Neils Harrit paper - I'm not an expert on this, but as far as I know, that paper is undisputed in peer-reviewed scientific literature. This is a highly charged political issue which is probably why people refer to it as a "conspiracy theory." But generally mainstream news is not an authority on pure science. So although it may appear as a fringe theory in a sociology-political sense, it is somewhat mainstream in peer-reviewed scientific literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 07:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article, is that it confounds the science with the political implications. If you consider the science separate, it is not a conspiracy theory and not a fringe theory. Most of the scientists and engineers who support this theory are not conspiracy theorists by trade. Many of them specifically state that they do not speculate on the conspiratorial implications of the demolition theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs)

(edit conflict)No, it's not about politics, you've just been trapped in an echo chamber. Only conspiracy theorists are suggesting that the building fell for reasons other than planes hitting them. The conspiracy theory is not mainstream in scientific literature, which is why the arbitration committee has authorized uninvolved admins to hand out topic bans and even blocks as they see fit on this topic.
You're starting to sound a lot like from earlier. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say the moon landing hoax is a fringe theory. There are no scientific peer reviewed papers on that subject. To put WTC demolition in the same category is somewhat misleading - there are many peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Just a few here Until you find a good source, I would suggest removing "Allegations of controlled demolition have been found to be devoid of scientific merit by mainstream engineering scholarship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 08:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That group does not represent mainstream academia, pull your head out of your echo chamber. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers represent mainstream engineering, and they have no political agenda. You are really sounding like like from earlier, which is funny, because he was just blocked a second time after being told to stop saying the same kind of stuff you're saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Lol the "waist of bandwidth" guy? I'm not saying the kind of stuff he was saying. I've had this account. You don't have to take the group's word for it. Go to the journals themselves. Bazant doesn't represent mainstream academia either, and his paper has been shown to be fraudulent. Not saying the theory is true or false, but it is certainly not fringe in the scientific literature. This article paints it as a fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talkcontribs) 08:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

You are saying the same stuff: you are pretending that the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers do not represent mainstream academia on the matter, that conspiracy theorist groups represent an equal voice (not just a vocal fringe minority), and now you're likewise dismissing Bazant out of hand. You also can't sign your posts or indent them. You've also got remarkably comparable spelling errors. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
He was a troll. Whatever - if you insist on having a misleading article, that's your call. I'm just trying to help. You cite a vague statement from those organizations and provide a broken link as a source. Regardless, that's not a peer reviewed paper. Adrionwells (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
If Albert Eistein was ressurected and published a paper on this, you'd dismiss him as a conspiracy theorist. You've clearly made up your mind and judge scientists on their conclusions, ignoring their credentials Adrionwells (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)