Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9|
|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.|
|Current status: Former good article nominee|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|To-do list for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories:|
|This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please review the discussions if considering re-nomination:|
|Notice: In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision.|
|This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, 9/11 conspiracy theories, due to size or style considerations.|
-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....
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"
|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. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 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 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:04, 26 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:29, 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:52, 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 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:04, 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 126.96.36.199 (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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:47, 23 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:34, 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 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:54, 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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 05:11, 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:30, 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 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:46, 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 18.104.22.168 (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
"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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:25, 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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Open Chemical Physics Journal
|Block evading waste of time and bandwidth|
|The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.|
You did not have to remove my edit. I could have easily found a source http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/06/27/uaf-researcher-looks-at-causes-of-the-911-world-trade-center-attack/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs)
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 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It's also on the University Website http://ine.uaf.edu/werc/seminars/seminars/2016-2017/2016-10-7/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrionwells (talk • contribs) 07:22, 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 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs)
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 https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/ 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 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 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 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1%2C5143%2C635198488%2C00.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430003625/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060911/11conspiracy.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2010/09/10/neue-videos-911-aufgetaucht/terror-anschlaege-world-trade-center.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714061116/http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html to http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5spvzRCDS?url=http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
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.