Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.
Portal:Architecture
 Architecture Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Collapse of the World Trade Center is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to the fire service around the world. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Should you wish to make any substantial changes or additions;
  • Before making any such substantial changes, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue.
  • During any such changes, please be careful to cite reputable sources supporting them, and when submitting your edit, please include an accurate and concise description in the "Edit summary" field-box.
  • After making any such changes, please also carefully describe the reason(s) for any such changes on the discussion-page.

(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)
Good articles Collapse of the World Trade Center has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Contents

[edit] Conspiracy theory vs. Hypothesis vs. nom du jour

Whether or not to call the conspiracy theory regarding controlled demolition a conspiracy theory or not has been hashed and rehashed in changes/reverts and talk page entries here for the better part of a year. Please, enough of this. There is no consensus to change the title to anything other than conspiracy theory, and by every definition in a dictionary this theory of what caused the towers to collapse is a conspiracy theory. Attempts to change the title to conform to some anti-government political correctness in titling to prevent offense to would-be proponents of this theory are badly pushing a POV. It is blatantly clear that if there was in fact a controlled demolition of any or all of the towers, it would require government involvement above and beyond even the dizzying array of people directly involved in wiring the buildings for demolition. No less then the NIST, FBI, CIA, White House and more would all have to be in on it. This is the very definition of a conspiracy. I'm sorry if those of you who are against this titling do not like the title, but it is reality; in every respect this is a conspiracy theory. There is nothing wrong with calling water wet any more than there is anything wrong with calling this theory a conspiracy theory. It is what it is. --Durin 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. Conspiracy theory has pejorative ring to it. And since it seems we do not know what caused the collapse, if it was possibly a demolition or not, it is futile to expand beyond that. To illustrate on a argumentation level: Can you honestly say there isnt any possibility that the event was a controlled demolition while not involving a conspiracy? If there is any chance for that, *plonk* goes your previous argument about conspiracy term into the recycle bin. Your logic only applies to certain cases or not? Your argument might be used as well to keep "conspiracy" term out of this article when "hypothesis" was used before. So just plain-jane "theory" would work best. --EndurinFreedom 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removing "conspiracy" from it would be the same as removing any mention of planes from the article. Afterall, the planes, prior to impact, had nothing to do with the collapse of the buildings and they certainly were not planes after the impact, so any mention of planes is of no import. The reality here is that you can not separate conspiracy from controlled demolition. For there to have been a controlled demoltion, there absolutely *must* have been a conspiracy and a whole slew of government organizations had to have been in on it. Understand; even WTC 7 by itself, were it a controlled demolition, would have been the largest controlled demolition in history. Add on WTC 1 and WTC 2 and you have three record setting controlled demolitions on one day. And you're asserting there was just one person who did it all? Yes, I do state there is zero chance a controlled demolition could not have involved a conspiracy. I am not particularly interested in pejorative, subjective inferences being wrought from the term "conspiracy". I am interested in the definition of it. Any other view is POV pushing. You have a POV that "conspiracy" carries a negative connotation. I don't. I don't care about the connotation. I care about the reality; there is no way this could have been done without a conspiracy. Therefore, it's a conspiracy theory. --Durin 03:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
* Durin - Please, we are all adults here, lets keep the child logic out of this, removing the word plane and the word conspiracy carry very different impacts, this is why you are so contentious about the retaining of the word conspiracy (although do not let me put words into your mouth, that is an assuption or theory on my part). I am not sure why you are hung up on the fact that the buildings may have been brought down via secondary explosions (constituting a pseudo-controlled demolition) requires a massive government conspiracy. You make your point well, that this information, placed in the wrong hands could lead to very false assumptions. However, that does not mean the information should not be presented as is. There are records of police stating they thought secondary explosives were found in the building, and perhaps a van detonated a bomb in one of the basements [1]. This does in no way constitute a conspiracy theory.
As for institutions such as NIST which found that a gravitational collapse was entirely likely and decided a demolition style collapse was so unfounded as to not investigate it says something to their attempts to maintain credibility as a mainstream scientific source, but also says something about their overall objectiveness. Would a demolition style collapse be very hard for NIST to add to their models to add to the overall understanding of the events? However, I digress. My point is that you, nor I, nor many other people in this world *KNOW* what really happened. To call one idea false by claiming it could only be true via a massive, unlikeley, and in practicallity, impossible conspirasy of the highest levels of government, the most powerful people, yadda, etc, is not disimilar to how scientific ideas used to be challenged in the 1700 and 1800s. "If we can show you one way in which your idea cannot exist, we may dismiss it."
My point is, do not label the idea as a conspiracy, because just as you have so decicivly pointed out, such an event is very, very improbable. Yet, there remains factual evidence that there may have been a pseudo-controlled demolition, perhaps by a terrorist planted van in the basements, perhaps by those trixy little devils waiting in the shadows of our government, intent to rule all human kind through manipulating public opinion, or perhaps because god just decided to create explosives in the building and detonate them. There are many plausible and inplausible answers to why there appeared to be a demolitions style collapse, but to label a demolition style collapse as intertly a conspiracy theory is to ignore the evidence presented to you, and see only the facts you wish to see.
Now if you don't mind, I suggest we remove that word from the title immediatly. Infact, we had ought to remove that contentious section altogether and point the reader to a place where it may discussed in a more factual manner and not ladden with POVs and opinions (AKA the conspiracy or not argument)
P.S. you must admit, this entire article was written almost as an editorial in favor of the offical position on the events of September 11th, with little regard to any evidence which may or may not dispute such conclusions. DerwinUMD (talk • contribs) 04:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Thank you for describing my logic as "child logic". I decline to respond to the rest of your comments. --Durin 13:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Starting with the P.S., the trouble here is actually finding evidence outside the official consensus that meets Wikipedia's standards for RS. (Peer-review in the relevant fields.) Evidence suggesting controlled demolition has been so marginalized as to make it impossible to find an RS that presents it as such. (Even the vaporized steel evidence in JOM is presented without any indication that CD would explain it.) I'm willing to discuss particular examples, and hope one day to be proven wrong, but that's why the article favours the official line. Science has, on the whole, agreed to ignore CD. I do, however, think that much more can be done display the internal limits of the official explanation, based on its own evidence and statements of scope. There is, as has been noted (though at the wrong time), no wikipedic evidence for controlled demolition (though there is plenty of evidence for a belief in controlled demolition) even if, from a lay, popular or public perspective, the NIST story is very unsatisfying. Many who have tried to understand the mechanics of the collapse could be justifiably disappointed as Collin Bailey (the mainstream engineer who complained about the lack of a full collapse simulation). Lastly, while I agree that there's nothing essentially conspiriatorial about the controlled demolition hypothesis, I have not found anyone who today makes the distinction. That is, only (so-called) conspiracy theorists pursue it, the implication that it would indicate an "inside job" is taken for granted on all sides, and the (here favoured) mainstream engineering community (Bazant & Verdure) explitly define the hypothesis in those terms.--Thomas Basboll 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer my original question: Can you honestly say there isnt any possibility that the event was a controlled demolition while not involving a conspiracy? --EndurinFreedom 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did answer your original question above. IF there was a controlled demolition, there would be evidence all over the place. The fact that all of the agencies investigating the collapse of the towers not finding miles of wires, detonators, etc..etc...etc... means that those agencies would HAVE to have been involved in the cover up. Therefore, conspiracy. You can't separate these two. It would be like trying to describe the supposed Apollo moon landing conspiracy without mentioning anything about the government's involvement. The government would have to be involved here, and anywhere else you cast about on the net to look at sites regarding this "hypothesis" also includes claims of government involvement. To try to separate the government here, on this article, in the name of trying to remove the 100% accurate label "conspiracy" is POV pushing. --Durin 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, you did not answer my question. You actually avoided answering my question. Your talk about wires is an excuse. Maybe they used the existing wiring infrasturcture? QWe could keep on guessing, and talk about the details, but thats not the point here. We are talking about the factors that are UNKNOWN and how these factors are labeled. Basically: whether you want to use the Bush Administration labels (conspiracy), or generic labels (theory, hypothesis) However, if your logic is not sound, then it follows that this article isn't sound. And we have a biased article. Thanks. --EndurinFreedom 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. It is possible that the (official) terrorists rigged the building in the weeks leading up to the attacks. But it is very unlikely. In any case, we are here trying to summarize the state of human knowledge and, as far as I can tell, no human being thinks that what you are proposing is what actually happened. Certainly no well-formed body of opinion that we can report to readers.--Thomas Basboll 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is possible and completely legal for US government to set up basically any kind of operation and require complete confidentiality from anyone involved. In fact, such operations are an everyday thing, especially during these times of war or as according to Homeland Security: "Elevated risk of terrorist attack". Durin's argument fails to recognize this. In legal or operational sense, demolition wouldnt require any kind of "conspiracy", but could even be said to be textbook action. There are even memos released that mention such operations, and varying terminology is used (and no doubt varying methodology, too). Counter-intelligence, Media campaigns, "psy-ops" you name it. To verbalize, on a purely hypothetical level of course: How would a simple controlled demolition in the interest of "national security" suddenly constitute or even require "conspiracy", Durin? As far as the law goes, afaik US Mil and US intelligence agencies are free to plan and implement such operations. I am not trying to say WTC collapse in particular has anything to do with that, simply pointing out that Durins argument doesnt hold water here. We cannot let your limited viewpoint taunt the neutrality of this article. If your argument cannot withstand counterarguments, and you base the title on that argument - the title goes... --EndurinFreedom 10:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think 9/11 if perpetrated by the US intelligence community would be "legal". But even if it were, we would need someone to have made that argument. The only thing that comes close, as far as I know, is a John Cobb's argument (I think it was him) that there might have been an outside moral justification for 9/11 (I'm definitely not doing his argument justice by putting it that way). His argument, however, would imply having a moral reason to go "above the law". As far as I can tell, the CD hypothesis is only ever pursued within the framework of a CT theory (as normally understood). No one proposes it as a matter of strictly engineering or physics and this is in part because it now also carries shades of "cover up". If CD was necessary then NIST (as an agency) is not just making an honest mistake.--Thomas Basboll 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There is simply no credible scientist support this ridiculous notion -- it's not a scientific hypothesis at all, but merely a conspiracy theory. No credible sources call it a hypothesis. That's what the mainstream press calls it, so that's what we're going to call it here. Morton devonshire 18:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as quoted in this section, NIST, the single most credible source in the article, calls it a hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Early in the investigations, before the collapses were understood scientifically, many hypotheses were considered. Demolition is now a rejected hypothesis. Peter Grey 21:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I really would like someone to point me to a place in NIST report where this hypothesis is rejected with evidence provided... NIST "found no corroborating evidence" and hypothesis was dismissed. Well, others did better research and found a lot of evidence. Demolition is now a hypothesis rejected by NIST, nothing more. And... we are still waiting for results of WTC7 investigation - NIST hasn't yet spoken on that, they are investigating "hypothetical blast scenarios". Controlled demolition surely is a scientific hypothesis to be tested. SalvNaut 22:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It's rejected because there is no evidence. Reliable evidence supporting the hypothesis has not yet been found. Peter Grey 01:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
NIST in no way scientifically rejected the CD theory. It decided not to study it. And Durin, I appologize for calling your logic childish, but in my opinion, it is just dead wrong. The word conspiracy carries weight in the opinion people will form after having read this article. Wwas the word plane removed, it would have no difference what so ever in the conclusions the reader draws. Now don't get me wrong here, my goal is not to coerce the reader into a certain opinion, it is the exact opposite, it is to remove things that will cause people to draw conclusions, and let them formulate their own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DerwinUMD (talk • contribs) 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

So, what's it going to be then, eh? I think there needs to be some sort of consistency in the heading referring to "controlled demolitions". There is a nice long discussion above this that doesn't seem to reach any sort of agreement. The main article under the header points to a page described as a hypothesis. The talk page for that article has an archived debate where (apparently) the consensus was to leave the title as hypothesis. The same article also points back to this one and the 911 conpiracy theory article as the main articles. My whole basis for adjusting the heading was based on both consistency and the most visible consensus that was available. There seems to be less consensus in the discussion above and more consensus here. That is where I took my lead from in my reverts/edits. To suggest that I had not referred to the talk pages is inaccurate, and I'm not inferring that anybody did suggest that. I mainly want to state that it was referring to the talk pages that led me to make those edits and reversions, thinking that I was already following and upholding the previously reached consensus. I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but I feel that the header "Controlled demolition hypothesis (conspiracy theory)" looks sloppy, and has self inconsistency. I tried just the simple "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and I also tried "Controlled demolition theory", but they were both reverted. I am not trying to knock the word conspiracy out of it. I would also be content with either "Controlled demolition conspiracy", "Controlled demolition conspiracy theory", or even "Controlled demolition conspiracy hypothesis". My main objective was to keep the words hypothesis and theory out of the same heading. I also like to keep parenthesis out of headings where it is possible. Again, I apologise if I stepped outside the bounds of what was already agreed upon, as I was working on my best faith in the notion that I was doing the right thing. :) Umeboshi 19:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the status quo looks sloppy, but I think it's cleaner than "controlled demolition conspiracy theory". I think the title should be "controlled demolition hypothesis" and the paragraph should continue to mention its currency among conspiracy theorists. Others think it is important to inform the reader already in the title that the hypothesis is part of a conspiracy, and others don't want to grant it even the status as a "hypothesis". I also othink Umeboshi is right to propose consistency between this section and the main article it links to. I would add that if the word "conspiracy" is included in the section title, then more must be said about the conspiracy implicit in controlled demolition. I don't think the section should be expanded in that direction.--Thomas Basboll 21:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
While it seems implausible that one person, without co-conspirators, could plant demolition charges and know the timing of the hijackings, the notion of demolition can be discussed intelligently without reference to a hypothetical conspiracy. The collapse of 7 WTC, viewed from the north (undamaged) face of the building, did superficially ressemble a demolition, so raising the question at the time did not necessarily entail a conspiracy theory. Peter Grey 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The notion is so fundamentally connected with conspiracy theopries that it should be labeled as such. To do anything else would run afoul of WP:NPOV. JoshuaZ 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also an undue weight problem with labeling it without conspiracy theory. JoshuaZ 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV[2], "Let the facts speak for themselves." Do not label things as such, just cite facts and let readers come to their own conclusions. Please stop labeling things with words like "conspiracy" which derives a conclusion long before facts are presented. DerwinUMD 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the facts themselves are that this is a conspiracy theory. It is a theory that there was a conspiracy. Let's not pretend otherwise. JoshuaZ 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, you may well be right. But the facts are not speaking, you are. Let the facts say what you want to call it.
PS. if this is not solved, I propose submitting an arbitration proposal.
If it is a conspiracy, why must you label it as such for the facts to show that?DerwinUMD 17:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Um excuse me? First, for general dispute resolution procedures please see WP:DR- this is well before arbitration. Second. arbitration doesn't decide on content matters anyways. Third, you are missing the point- the facts do show that whether or not the section is labeled as that. However, labeling the section otherwise is still inaccurate and misleading. JoshuaZ 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is the only appropriate term here. In every sense, CD fits the definition and characteristics of a conspiracy theory. I agree with JoshuaZ that labeling it without conspiracy theory violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure you read the undue weight section, as it does not say that not refering to something by a label held by the main stream opinion addes undue weight. Infact, it is argueable whether or not the CD theory is even held as a CT in the main stream, but that is irrelavant. It does however say that labeling things with certain labels determining their truth value adds undue weight. In fact, the UDW states "though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth." Does the fact that this section is labeled as a conspiracy theory not seem as if it is being labeled that it is true it is only a conspiracy theory? Regardless of how you can twist those words, if something is called a conspiracy theory, its blatently implied to be false. You, by labeling this section are implying some value of truth (or lack there of). If you wish to debate the reality of the controlled demolition, this is not the place, but it IS a view held by a large majority of people as a possibility, just as a gravitational collapse is held as a possibility. Neither should have thier truth value ascerted. DerwinUMD 00:03 December 11, 2006.

[edit] What is the purpose of the article?

Is the purpose of this article to capture all aspects of this event? If so, then information provided from the official channel is no different than information provided by alternative channels. Albeit, the practical size of the article limits how much information can be contained herein and the potential number of alternative theories.

If the purpose is the capture this information, then the inclusion of alternative theories is signficant. They can be called conspiracy theories if the POV is one following the official statments or alternative if one choses a more centrist POV. In the long term, it does not matter what emotion comes from the use of a term today. There are many articles in WikiPedia which describe events where having the wrong POV resulted in someone's death. This is probably not one of those articles. Nevertheless, we have moved on and can write and read those articles without emotion. Unfortunately, in this instance, there are many emotional triggers--it is current history. Sometimes, history is a dish best served cold, to paraphrase an old quote.

It appears to me that a way of handling this is to include the majority opinions in this article, without rancor and without battling over terminology, political correctness, right-wingedness or left-wingedness. If that cannot be the case, possibly an alternative article can be created which co-links to this one so that holders of neither POV feels the need to unilaterally revise history.

Lmcelhiney 21:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please no "for and against" deadlock!

The controlled demolition section has been a perfectly balanced and informative section, with useful links for a few months now. Any attempt to get it to say that the WTC was or was not demolished will probably result in an edit war and, worse, awful prose. Let's leave it as a statement about a particular idea, mark it clearly as not in the mainstream of opinion, and let the details get sorted out outside Wikipedia. We can report the results if anything conclusive happens. (I.e., a declaration of defeat by either side -- not a declaration of victory on both.) The question of whether or not it is a hypothesis is not, of course, thereby settled.--Thomas Basboll 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia must enforce the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy to ensure we do accurate reporting. Controlled demolition at the WTC is an opinion, that has almost zero support among the worlds engineers and scientists, and is not supported by any known evidence. More than a brief sentence regarding this issue, is providing a fantasy with too much coverage.--MONGO 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back Mongo. I see you've regained your strength. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It is supported by known evidence. Evidence is presented in peer-reviewed, published papers on journalof911studies.com. Those are scholars with degree who published there. SalvNaut 19:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Going further: the evidence for the lack of controlled demolition would be not peer-reviewed NIST study, right? SalvNaut 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is not evidence that the buildings were imploded...why would they add airplanes to the situation if they intended to implode it...the level of coverup is then maginfied many times over. The journalof911studies.com is not an authoritative source.--MONGO 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
"..why would they add airplanes to the situation if they intended to implode it..." - this is completely unrelevant question (and it has good answer: Organizing bombing of WTC to be blamed on extremist would be very dangerous. Security was strengthened after 1993 attack, bombs are hard to smuggle and easy to track in USA. Would you belive that islamic extremist on their own knocked WTC towers down with bombs?). My point is that while journalof911studies.com, along with mujca.com (and Scholarsfor9/11truth, but they're reorginizing now) are not mainstream scholar organizations and they indeed represent minority views, they still are not to be neglected. Their views deserve to be noted for their scientific background. SalvNaut 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there's plenty of "evidence" for implosion; the problem with it is just that, according to NIST, it is also consistent with progressive collapse. I think Mongo believes that there can't be "evidence" against someone who didn't commit a crime. But that's of course not how it works, not in court and not in science. In both cases, there has to be a weighing of the evidence.--Thomas Basboll 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There may be circumstantial or visual evidence, but there is a definite lack of any physical evidence or proof. There can be circumstantial or visual evidence of a lot of things that aren't true. --Golbez 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is plenty of physical evidence - the sulfur in the steel is a good example. Also the barium in the dust. These are both physical evidence of CT and both are inconsistent with the NIST theory. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 21:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are circumstantial until you can find out what caused them. No one has been able to say who, when, or how high explosives were placed in 280 floors of office tower. Til then, all you have is you found a bullet in a wall - and no clue how or when it got there. Til then, all you have is circumstantial evidence. --Golbez 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it is physical evidence of conspiracy, but not of a particular person's involvement. If a bullet is found in the wall of a room where someone is supposed to have committed suicide, and they don;t have a gun, that is physical evidence that someone else was involved. There is no known explanation of where the sulfur may have naturally come from. This is physical evidence of foul play. It is not physical evidence of any particular persons involvement, however. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No it's not. You don't know when the bullet got there. Coulda been there for years. After all, the victim hadn't been shot. He had a plane flown into him. :P --Golbez 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There was also high sulfur content in the steel of the Titanic. Did this conspiracy originate at the steel mill, or does it go back even further? Toiyabe 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the problem, Toiyabe: NIST does not have an explanation for where the sulfur came from. If they said, "It was already in the steel," that would be something. But they don't do that here. I think CDers work on the assumption that if there were easy answers, we'd have them.--Thomas Basboll 22:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I never heard that before. Is it true? The point is that something physical is physical evidence. And yes, if there was some chemical in the steel of the titanic, and it is unexplained, that is physical evidence of something unexplained. Not proof, mind. But evidence. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 22:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Go to RMS Titanic and search for 'sulphur'. There's even a linked reference. In that case, it is evidence of poor quality control at the steel mill.
In this case, I don't know what it is evidence of. If there were easy answers we would have them. But just because the answers aren't easy doesn't mean somebody is hiding them. Toiyabe 23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Who said anybody was hiding anything? In the case of the towers, we have statements by one party which claims that the sulfur is evidence of explosives, and no counter statement by the other party. I don't see any scientific or academic reason not to point this out. I do see a political reason not to point it out. However, I have always argued that Wikipedia should take editorial decisions independently of local politics. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been paying much attention lately. Are we talking about the sulfur in the WTC7 steel? Toiyabe 23:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
To my knowledge it was found in samples of all the WTC buildings. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you give me a reference? Are we talking about sulfur in steel samples, at concentrations higher than normal? The only thing I've seen on this is the Barnett et. al. letter to the JOM. Toiyabe 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, what exactly is the physical evidence for the official story? The NIST story is, I think, based wholly on circumstantial and visual evidence. (The only beams they found to have experienced temperatures hot enough to weaken them, had been too hot to be explained by any fire.) The experiments they did, failed to support the official story. And even the computer models needed a little help. I'm not saying this is evidence for the contrary, I'm just trying to understand our standard of "evidence". (But all, in all, Golbez is basically saying what I said in response to Mongo.)--Thomas Basboll 22:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When in doubt (or not even if in doubt) start a revert war

The amazing number of reverts on this article needs to stop. There's a zillion opinions here, and it's leading to an insane number of reverts. Over and over and over again things are being reverted, slightly changed, reverted, modified, reverted, reworded, reverted, retitled, reverted, retitled with a modified title, reverted...ad nauseum.

This needs to stop.

Let's remain focused on the goals of this project; we are an encyclopedia. We use reliable sources, far preferably secondary sources. We maintain a neutral point of view, we are not a soapbox and we cite our facts as much as we can. Anything that goes against those goals is not in support of the project.

If you're even thinking about reverting, bring it to this talk page. The group of people who regularly come to this page are obviously in significant disagreement. This does not preclude attempting to work together in an amicable manner to achieve consensus.

I've thought it might be a good direction to go to discuss particular points of disagreement and reach some consensus, then log the results of these discussions at the top of this talk page. Not that consensus can not change (it can) but provide a reference point where we can point and say "We already discussed this and decided X. If you have something new to bring to the table, then we can re-open the consensus making process for that point. Else, we need to default to the prior consensus".

Thoughts? --Durin 16:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree This is obviously a very heated issue, with strong opinions on both sides. A neutral POV can truly set the stage to achieve consensus. This article is not a unmoderated blog and does require self-control on the part of all of us as editors. It is possible that there will be a set of facts which emerge in the future which will provide a clear vision of the truth for all. Let's all work toward that goal.

Lmcelhiney 16:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would add that neutrality and due weight are not determined by what a majority of us think, but by what the reliable sources say. Tom Harrison Talk 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And the revert warring continues

If this keeps up, I'll request a page protection. I could enact one myself, but I'm sure some of you would claim abuse of admin privs. Of course, I'm accused of that even if I didn't use them :) --Durin 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of recent reverting over the title of a section

Here's a list of the reverts that have been done over conspiracy theory/controlled demolition hypothesis section:

38 changes to the section title in 5 days. I doubt there is any among us that feel this is the right way to go about improving this article. I've placed a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have this article protected until calmer heads prevail. --Durin 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • And now the article is protected. I'd appreciate it if all parties would now, finally, come to this table and discuss things rather than continuing the revert war. --Durin 21:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balancing the controlled demolition section

Tom Harrison has added the following in attempt to establish, he says, "balance":

In spite of their failure to account for the existing data, a number of conspiracy theories are common among people unfamiliar with the technical egnineering details. Social science researchers have observed that these commonly appear after dramatic events as an emotionally satisfying way for people to deal with national trauma.

But this seems to me to make the case against CD lean so far forward as to fall over. It protests way too much. The "failure to account for existing data" makes it sound like there has been serious debate, when all there has been (as the section notes) is dismissal of the idea. The last sentence is clearly pejorative; I don't know if it is meant that way (I think Tom will say that "social science research" has established this as a "fact") but it certainly looks meanspirited. We need to find a better way of saying it, if at all. I thought the "grassy knoll" sentence was enough, and had its charm.--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are abundant citations in the literature that support it. But, let me not seem mean-spirited. We could go back to the version of 20:47, 21 November 2006, which had been stable for a while. Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That particular version does not do a decent job of summarizing the conspiracy theory, which is what this section should do and reference the appropriate subpage (which subpage to use is, of course, suffering from a revert war too. Sigh). --Durin 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Except for its title, I've been reasonably satisfied with the version Tom suggests. Expanding it is very controversial around here, but I'd be willing to make a few draft proposals.--Thomas Basboll 21:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
As a compromise version, what we had did as well as what is there now, maybe better in that is was shorter and stable. I think changing the title turned out to be a bad idea. There are conspiracy theories, and this is one. Trying to present it as something other than what it is lead to the page being locked. Maybe you think the old version is too skeptical; Others might think it's too credulous. Durin thinks it did not adequetely summarize the conspiracy theory, and I think it should not be there at all, since we already link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the template. Having agreed to include it as a compromise, I'm not really surprised that I am asked to compromise again. A good compromise might be to remove it entirely. Tom Harrison Talk 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Not really acceptable, per the due weight clause. It must and will be respresented; spin doctoring will be prevented. VigoDeutschendorf 22:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Tom, we have a article on it already. I don't know why we need more than a couple sentences on it (if we must include it at all)...mention it and there's the link. The size of that section seems to be creeping upward...you should be able to thumbnail it in 2 or three sentences. Rx StrangeLove 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
3 sentences? I would suggest those two: "The damage from the airplanes and the resulting fires, NIST argued, was more than sufficient to explain the collapses. Indeed, NIST found its own explanation of the collapses to be so convincing, that it saw no reason investigate controlled demolition in any detailed way. Nor did their investigations touch on aspects of the collapse the proponents of controlled demolition emphasize. Its computer models, for example, did not simulate the structural response of the buildings after the onset of the collapse, and it did not test for the residue of proposed demolition materials such as sulfur (from thermite)." ...Oh that was 4. SalvNaut 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You're arguing for the controlled demolition theory there, I don't see why we just can't say "Some have proposed that explosives planted prior to the event and detonated on 9/11 were the main cause of the collapse of WTC" Show them the link and off they go if they want. Rx StrangeLove 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, shouldn't we then rename the article to "Collapse of the WTC according to NIST"? SalvNaut 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the state of the main CD article, RX's idea actually not a bad suggestion. I would make a reference to critique of the NIST report though. Something like "Unconvinced by the official explanation, some have proposed that demolition charges of some kind were necessary to cause the collapse of the WTC buildings." But this would not allow the word "conspiracy" to be used in the title, nor would it occasion a link to those theories. We would need another sentence to do that.--Thomas Basboll 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you guys worked up about sulfur? First of all, thermite doesn't contain sulfur except in trace ammounts. Kerosene has lots. Jet-A has up to 0.3% sulfur by mass. Assume 0.1% as a typical value. The article states that the aircraft that hit the towers carried 40 m^3 of fuel. Jet-A has a density of 783 kg/m^3. That's 31 kg of sulfur.
Now, the Thermite article mentions Themate-TH3 which can have up to 2% sulfur, for extra incindeary effect (doesn't help it cut steel, though). 31 kg/0.02 = 1550 kg. So, it would take 1550 kg of Thermate-TH3 to equal the quantity of sulfur in the jet fuel alone. Let alone office furnishings, etc. So what if you found sulfur? The sulfur in any reasonable quantity of Thermate-TH3 would get lost in the noise. Toiyabe 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Unexplained sulfur was found in WTC7 (no plane there :), if I recall correctly. Sulfur allows thermite reaction to proceed faster with greater efficiency. Thermites mixed with sulfur are a posibility. Sulfur is mentioned because main proponents of CD hypothesis mention it (and FEMA...) SalvNaut 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There's all the explaination of the sulfur you need here [41] (pdf link at the bottom) Rx StrangeLove 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah... debunking sites. I've read it some time ago, it does not convince me. 911myths.com is a better one. SalvNaut 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Lots of red diesel in WTC7, which also has a high sulfur content. Not to mention plastics, etc. Toiyabe 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Burning diesel would put sulfur in the air (and maybe in the dust) but not in the steel, and certainly not in the steel of WTC1&2. Quite apart from the CTs, it has always bothered me that there was enough diesel in WTC7 to destroy the building. It seems like an extraordinary breach of safety regulations. Did anyone get sacked for it? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 16:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the phenomena is that you need explained. Sulfur residue is easily explained by burned petroleum products (Jet-A, diesel, plastics etc.). Sulfur in the steel (e.g. at the zone of intergranular melting) could only have been there all along or got there through a very slow process. Steel is not very permeable.
As for the diesel in WTC7, it was necessary to run the back-up generators. In less built-up areas, the tank and generators are usually placed outside of the structure. In this case the failure appeared to be in the design of the fuel delivery system. The pumps didn't shut off when a fuel line ruptured, causing large quantities of fuel to be sprayed into a well-ventilated area. The tanks themselves don't present much of a fire risk. This is discussed in Fema 403 chapter 5.
The fuel delivery system looks like a bad design, and it's quite likely that there will be changes to regulations and possibly legal action against the designers (although it may be difficult to figure out exactly who that was) after the NIST report is released. Toiyabe 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea, rename article, make disambig between two versions of events

This is a good suggestion. This named page can then be remade as a disambiguation page to guide readers to either the NIST version or the other version of the events, as each appear to be based on inconclusive evidence. VigoDeutschendorf 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Draft proposal (controlled demolition section)

(Here's a longish version. I imagine some will think it gives to much space to the hypothesis, but I hope everyone will agree that all these statements are accurate. That's why I've left out the sources. I think the first order of business is to hear if anyone disagrees with this account. Then we can discuss how much of it belongs in the article.--Thomas Basboll 22:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

On the day of the attacks, some experts were reported as saying that additional explosives were required to make the WTC buildings collapse. While these reports stopped soon after, and some of the experts retracted their statements, many people continue to believe that the collapses were caused by some form of controlled demolition.

Preparing the buildings would require extraordinary access and would be very difficult to carry out covertly. While this is taken by mainstream sources as an indication that the controlled demolition hypothesis is unrealistic, independent researchers often use it to suggest any of several conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11. That is, it is precisely because it would have taken extraordinary coordination and access to prepare the buildings for demolition that 9/11 must have been an "inside job" if the hypothesis is true. On this view, the planes were crashed into the buildings only in order to provide an ostensible cause of the collapses that could be blamed on perpertrators wholly outside the US establishment.

Prompted by inquiries from the public along these lines, NIST made clear in its final report 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, 2001." In August of 2006, NIST also posted a webpage explaining why it considers the hypothesis to be highly implausible, and addressing other related questions. The damage from the airplanes and the resulting fires, NIST argued, was more than sufficient to explain the collapses. Indeed, NIST found its own explanation of the collapses to be so convincing, that it saw no reason investigate controlled demolition in any detailed way. Nor did their investigations touch on aspects of the collapse the proponents of controlled demolition emphasize. Its computer models, for example, did not simulate the structural response of the buildings after the onset of the collapse, and it did not test for the residue of proposed demolition materials such as sulfur (from thermite). Finally, the hypothesis ever been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship, where those who do suggest it are described as "outsiders" and hypothesis itself, as in the mainstream press, is characterized as a "myth".

[edit] Comments on this draft

  • I'll start with just the first paragraph. Experts? What evidence I've seen put forth has been reporters. Reporters are not experts. If we're going to cite experts, then name them and cite the secondary sources that quoted them and their findings. Secondly, "Many people"? What evidence is there of this? Any secondary sources that point to a "many people" result from any finding? I'm not going to delve into the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs just yet. I think a heavy re-write is needed just with the first paragraph alone. --Durin 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The experts I'm referring to are the most commonly cited ones: Van Romero and Bent Lund, both explosives experts. Like I say, I left the sources out just to get the basic facts straight as a start. The 16% of Americans dentified by the Scripps-Howard poll constitutes "many people". Again, this is all a matter of sourcing. It's all in the main article that is linked to. I am assuming that the people who are editing this section are knowledgeable about the basic facts. (That's not meant to insinuate anything, just to shift us onto a firmer foundation were we all agree that what we are summarising is the knowledge that is covered in another article.)--Thomas Basboll 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
PS: The following would also be accurate,
Ronald Hamburger, a forensic engineer who would later participate in the FEMA and NIST investigations, was one of several experts who initially thought the collapses looked as though they had been caused by demolition charges. Some were quoted by the press and, while they later retracted or modified their statements, many people today believe...
but I'm not sure this level of detail is necessary or desirable.--Thomas Basboll 23:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

All is correct, and NPOV written. Very accurate report. Why shouldn't it be in the article? Undue weight? Is it indeed, given so much fuss around it? SalvNaut 00:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Larry said, "Pull it-"
That's conspiracy theory.
It was al-Qaeda.

Tom Harrison Talk 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if it rhymed...--Thomas Basboll 23:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
From their backpacks secret agents
took their tons and tons of thermite;
filled the walls with tons of thermite,
under desks and inside cupboards,
until every space was taken.

Wrapped the columns with the det cord,
counter-charged selected I-beams,
capped the charges,
left the building.
No one saw them leave or enter,
careful not to scuff the carpet.

Or, it was the secret lasers.
Lasers run by secret agents,
like the rays that hear our thinking.

Any evedience against this 
can be met with still more agents.
'til at last we're left alone 
just us and our solipsism - 
brains in vats, like in the matrix
(Which the secret agents got to
that's why sequel two was crappy.)

Tom Harrison Talk 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Are those excerpts from The diary of a lonely agent. ? :) SalvNaut 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Try! You can do it. I think all of us from now on should express ourselves in blank verse. Tom Harrison Talk 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Paradigm     shift
      occured
all he firmly belived
has fa
     ll
      en
   
a p   a r t

"Resolution" SalvNaut 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

   so
or    they
     meant
    for
   him
   to
  think
   ?

-up and down like that guy Escher. Tom Harrison Talk 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Original Research

I think very little of this can be justified by encyclopedic standards. In the first few days, there was some initial speculation, made in good faith by qualified experts, based on observations of the collapse of 7 WTC viewed from the north (undamaged) side. Note this is not evidence of demolition, merely an observation of similarities based on incomplete information. To call this a hypothesis in any meaningful sense, there would need to be a citation showing that a structural engineer or demolition expert publicly staked their professional reputation to assert that the (at least apparent) damage to 7 WTC from the attack on 1 WTC was insufficient to cause the observed effects. (I'm assuming this is about 7 WTC; 1 WTC and 2 WTC had no ressemblance to demolition at all, especially not "controlled".)

The circular reasoning that demolition implies conspiracy therefore conspiracy carried out demolition - I won't even dignify that with logical fallacy.

So, the hypothesis, in those rare cases where raised in good faith, is at best an indication of the initial lack of information in the media, and (a) unremarkable, and (b) not part of describing the collapse.

Based on Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, the article should not be trying to assemble primary sources and fabricating or justifying speculative theories. Rather, it should be sufficient to cite conclusions of qualified experts. Besides which, the conspiracy theories have their own article, so one sentence with a link should be enough to cover this topic.

Peter Grey 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is, there is no evidence that the WTC was imploded. One sentence and a link is more than enough.--MONGO 07:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Other articles with "alternative" viewpoints typically will generate more content covering the other section, than a lone sentence. Given the prevalence of the CD theory in a variety of WP:RS qualifying sources, the appropriate level of coverage here in this article should be at least one paragraph, relative to the weight of the rest of the article. F.F.McGurk 07:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The alternative viewpoint has no basis in fact...it's science fiction only, so no reason to have anything other than a sentence and a link to the POV article.--MONGO 08:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

One reason to respect alternative viewpoints, developing them at some level of detail and explaining their origin and the official response to them, is that suppressing them gives birth to needless speculation. It gives the wrong impression. At this point, this article is solidly researched and well written. The official explanation is easy to understand and does justice to the NIST report. There is no reason it should shy away from presenting a prevalent competing hypothesis, even if this hypothesis has the epistemological status of a myth (I'm not at all sure that's the case, but we don't need to settle that). Many readers will be coming to this article in part to help them assess a rumour they heard about this or that aspect of the collapses. If this article confirms the offical stonewall on demolition both in word and deed, it will undermine its credibility. Readers who have not yet made up their mind will immediately see that the article is POV. It needs to be larger than that, more generous, more confident. It needs to contain multitudes, as Whitman put it. So it should offer a sober statement of the official position on controlled demolition, and its roots in early, if mistaken, expert opinion. The hypothesis of controlled demolition, like it or not, is part of the history of our understanding of the collapses. As a historical detour, it is perfectly relevant to the topic of this article.--Thomas Basboll 08:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We have an article that discusses the alternative science fiction...and it can be found via a link from the CT section here. The reason many engneers made no comments about the CD hypothesis is because they know it's bunk. See no orginal thought, and that we are not a soapbox--MONGO 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that, given the scattered references to CD in the official literature, and the less than scattered references in the mass media, including the minor controversies at universities (BYU), reducing all this to a single sentence is less a matter of not promoting it from one soapbox than an attempt to stuff it under another.--Thomas Basboll 10:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like an excellent idea, I am glad we can agree.--MONGO 10:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
As always, yer wit's sharper than yer charm, Mongo, but just to be clear: I don't intend to let you stuff CD under your soapbox. Peace & Love in the Christmas season. Maybe we should all agree to let this page rest, in locked form, til the new year.--Thomas Basboll 11:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Now see, I said nothing about you, but you couldn't resist taking a jab at me...everytime I clearly state that there is no evidence for implosion, well, that is the usual response. I don't have a soapbox, Thomas..I have the facts. The facts are that there is zero proof of controlled demolition. The reason there isn't any proof...because there wasn't a controlled demolition...see how well that fits together and pretty much makes all attempts to expand on the fiction nothing more than soapboxing...Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--MONGO 12:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have facts but you come here and share your beliefs. So it's natural, when you share your beliefs some comments are directed at them, thus you. SalvNaut 13:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I won't try to explain. Sorry if there are any hard feelings. Merry Christmas, Mongo. I hope you do take a break. I'm looking forward to returning in the new year.--Thomas Basboll 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nah, unless told to by much higher authority, I think I'll stay and continue to remind everyone that if they don't have proof of implosion or controlled demolition, then there is no reason to start expanding on science fiction.--MONGO 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There is only one sober statement by those experts qualified to assess the hypothesis. Creating new assessments (It needs to contain multitudes) constitutes original research. The suggestion that 'the readers can't handle the truth' (If this article confirms the offic[i]al stonewall on demolition) is not helpful and defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see WP as just any encyclopedia. WP is different because it grows in response to the curiosity (backed up by effort) of its readers/editors. Since, we are not talking about whether a claim is true or false, but whether or not a set of true claims should be included (with an eye to "balance"), a concern for what best serves the reader is not out of place. I think a single sentence would be less informative than necessary (though the idea that this section should be as uninformative as possible is of course wholly absurd.)--Thomas Basboll 11:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I really hate to start a fire here, but it seems that this point is slipping away from the discussion, and really has been either accepted entierly or utterly rejected. There remains evidence unexplained by the official story that is well explained by the CD hypothesis. IE, the orange liquid pouring out of the towers, the large amount of molten (that means melted) metal (which is almost certainly iron) under WTC 1,2 and 7 which remained for weeks, the semitric collapse of 7, and the loud booms and seismic readings which do not corellate(sp?) with the initiation of colapse, but which occur a few seconds prior to. Now, I am not asking for any of these to be strung together, but you must at least admit that the current official story does not account for these things. Perhaps one day it will, but until it does, is see a very strong need for this page to present a theory which would account for those facts. In the end, those facts had ought to be presented on this page. Perhaps not under even the CD section, but under another section, perhaps entitled "Officially Unexplained Phenomenea" or whatever you all would feel appropriate.

To sumarize and reiterate, if those things happened (molten metal at the bases, orange metal pouring out) they should be included and the facts surrounding them explained HERE on the collapse page, regardles of any implications that you may or may not like that they make. DerwinUMD 07:00 December 12, 2006. (UTC)

The molten metal has, as I recall, been confirmed (but not explained) by NIST. I think it should simply go into the description of the collapses, like much of the other stuff you describe. But I think we should wait until this other issue settles, and the page is unlocked. Just source it as safely inside the mainstream as possible, so that it's not just "[feature] was reported..." etc.--Thomas Basboll 12:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There remains evidence unexplained by the official story None of this so-called evidence is in any way inconsistent with buildings that (a) were on fire and (b) had been compromised with respect to their structural integrity, and no other conclusions have been drawn by qualified experts. It can be part of description, of course. Peter Grey 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say so? Actually it is inconsistent. Fires didn't burn with temperatures high enough to have melted metal. The devil is in the details. Our opinions doesn't matter. Let's stick to the fact that a group of scholars, physycians, engineers have their scientific opinons on this matter.SalvNaut 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A common characteristic among proponents of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is an insistence that fires did not burn hot enough to melt steel. Reality; the fires did not have to burn hot enough to melt steel to cause the collapse of otherwise greatly compromised buildings. Related, conspiracy theorists like to point out that no other steel structure has collapsed from fire. This is disputed, but assuming it's true...so what? The WTC towers did not collapse from fire alone. Fire was a contributing factor, as was major damage to all three towers that suffered total collapse, as was varying standards of fire proofing on structural steel, as was the original design of the buildings. Buildings do not collapse from *one* factor alone. Attempts to isolate fire as a collapse mechanism are falsely based. --Durin 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never said fires had to melt steel. But something did melt it. And it wasn't fire. According to many studies made by NIST(except computer simulation) fires were not hotter than 700C and almost nowhere reached over 250C and nowhere were over 615 longer than 15min (paint study), steel loses 40% in 600C, building safety factors are 2.5/3 minimum for full load. Building was empty. The later point you mention is made by CD proponents to validate more the need for another investigation.SalvNaut 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
There never was a need for the metal to melt, all that was needed was enough heat to make the trusses bend. The rest of the equation was solved by gravity.--MONGO 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Scholars and physicians do not have scientific opinions on this matter. Peter Grey 14:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
But there WAS molten metal flowing in the rubble and weeks after, and molten metal sparkling from the tower!!! pfff... Please don't forget arguments as fast as you hear them. Jones, Greening, Ryan have scientific opinion of what what the cause of all of this. NIST for example has no opinion about molten metal in the rubble... (they stated it's irrelevant) SalvNaut 20:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Molten metal existing in the rubble weeks after the fact is impossible unless there was an active, strong heat source. NIST found no molten metal ANYWHERE, either in liquid form or re-solidified form. Jones, et. al. can have all the opinions they want about molten metal, but the fact is there was none. Barring a reliable source noting the presence of liquid or solidified molten metal, such arguments lack merit. --Durin 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read Molten metal section of Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center and check sources.SalvNaut 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, love the article about how the trash haulers removed "molten steel beams" from the site. Dem New Yorkers are tough boys. Or maybe whoever was editing that aricle don't know jack about reliable sources. Toiyabe 23:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You seem not to have checked all of the sources. Please discuss sources on the appropriate talk page then.SalvNaut 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To Thomas Basboll: NIST reports describe "molten material" not metal. Proponents of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory take this as proof of molten metal, but that is not what NIST said.
  • To DerwinUMD: In any large catastrophe there will always be elements that can not be readily explained. RMS Titanic, Hindenberg, Attack on Pearl Harbor...any such major catastrophe has this problem (and all of the ones I noted are old catastrophes that still have unexplained elements). That a theory might seem to fit the mysterious elements does not lend credence to the theory. It remains a theory. Quoting Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". We do not conduct speculation here. Theories that remain unconfirmed are not verifiable.
  • Proponents here of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory insist on trying to separate the mechanism of the collapse from the preconditions that would have to be present for that mechanism to have happened. You can't do that. It would be like attempting to discuss the Johnstown Flood without any mention of South Fork Dam, or the Levee failures in Greater New Orleans, 2005 without any mention of Hurricane Katrina. The controlled demolition conspiracy theory mechanism is inextricable from its preconditions; you have to have the preconditions in order for the mechanism to have occurred. Yet, the preconditions are pure speculation lacking any verifiable proof.
  • Thus, the conspiracy theory by itself fails any sense of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It can not be verified. Thus, next up as a metric for inclusion is whether the conspiracy theory is notable or not, and can its notability be verified. I'll side-step that discussion and, for the sake of discussion, assume that it is. That being the case, a minimal summary of the conspiracy theory (or theories) here with a link to the relevant main page(s) is appropriate. The long "summary" posted above as a proposed replacement is greatly at odds with that. --Durin 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (arbitrary section break to ease navigation)

I don't think I understand the last part of this remark, but I think opponents of CD forget the logical hiearchy of the CD hypothesis. After all, they begin [it begins] by questioning whether the building could theoretically have collapsed globally as a result of the damage that was localized to the impact floors (as NIST also describes it). Only after suggesting that explosives would have been necessary, do they identify "evidence" of them (so-called squibs, eye-witness reports, etc.), asking, "What else would we expect to see if these were controlled demolitions?" They then find some things which, if they had been absent, would have counted against their hypothesis. But the basic argument about how the structure could possibly have offered so little resistance remains the strongest. I would love for this article to one day defeat that argument with a detailed description of the structural response of the lower part of the building. Sadly, we have only Bazant and Verdure's very simplified "order of magnitude" calculation. And we have no reliable source that explains that actual collapse in greater detail, as far as I know. (I'll take that wikibreak starting tomorrow.)--Thomas Basboll 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • We have ample reliable sources discussing in great detail the collapse sequence of WTC 1 and WTC 2. The report on WTC 7 is not yet complete. The logical hierarchy of the controlled demolition conspiracy theory does not begin with the collapse sequence. It begins with the prerequisites required for it to have happened. Again, you can't separate the controlled demolition conspiracy theory collapse mechanism from the prerequisites anymore than you can separate the Levee failures in Greater New Orleans, 2005 from Hurricane Katrina. --Durin 17:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
But this is simply not right. There is no detail about what happened after the collapses initiated (see the limitations section of this article). The following roughly 16 seconds are the object of the CD account, while the object (the "collapse sequence") of the NIST report is the everything that happens before that.--Thomas Basboll 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And another attempt to separate the controlled demolition conspiracy theory from it's prerequisites? The controlled demolition conspiracy theory isn't about 16 seconds in time any more than the levee failures in New Orleans are simply about some water getting through them. --Durin 18:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
What initiated the collapse is important and central to this article. The vast, essentially unanimous consensus of reliable sources, structural engineers, and experts concur with NIST. The best you can come up with for supporting CD is Bent Lund and Van Romero, who quickly retracted his statements? In my sandbox, I have begun assembling a list of organizations involved in the recovery efforts at the WTC site, and those that were consulted and involved with the BPS and the NIST investigation. I could start adding individual names... Organizations such as the International Code Council are reviewing the NIST final report [42] and had things to say such as "NIST and its subcontractors on the quality and thoroughness of the reports. The level of effort, complexity of the issues, organization and presentation, thoroughness and professionalism associated with and exhibited by the reports is commendable and well represents to others in the U.S. and the world the technical and management capabilities and expertise of the U.S. public and private sectors". (source: George, Ron (June 2005) "Still a Need to Clear the Language Between US. and Canandian Codes", Consulting-Specifying Engineer, Vol. 37 Issue 6, p17) To give as much space as we currently have to CD violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I suggest cutting the section and just providing a "see also" link. --Aude (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely, one sentence at most and give them the link. A see also link would work as well. Rx StrangeLove 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Aude's statement of the consensus is of course very accurate and not in dispute. Lund and Romero were not presented to refute the consensus, but were the specific reference of "the experts" who initially thought explosives were involved. It answers the question (which a curious reader might have) of how the idea arose in the first place. I'm arguing for including NIST's rejection of the controlled demolition hypothesis explicitly in the article, because I think this is information a reader will want. Likewise, some indication of the basis for that rejection would be helpful. Like the pancake theory and the truss theory (but different in many other ways) the CD hypothesis does not need to be true or better than the NIST account in order to be included.--Thomas Basboll 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Aude's proposal of adding some of the names of individuals supporting the work of NIST would be a good idea. Then adding the critics of NIST after that. This way the article would become a dialogue between the two sides of this story as Wikipedia recommends. Without that, it really just reads like a NIST press release. --WillingToFight 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with WillingTo Fight.
Durin - I believe you misread my statements, unless of course you are arguing that those details should be left out only because they could have been caused by a CD. Regardless of the conclusion the reader may draw, they were still part of the collapse (the motlen metal, the seismic readings, etc.). I am not asking you to label it as "evidence of a CD." That is not what these facts are. They are just facts, plain and simple, and I am aruging only for their inclusion in this article, separate from the mention of the CD hypothesis.
You seem to argue that inclusion of such facts away from the CD hypothesis would be like mentioning NO flood w/o Katrina. Perhaps I have misunderstood you (and I am almost positive I have) but that would appear more as if you are pointing to these facts (FACTS I remind you; sources pending inclusion in the article) and saying they could only be said in the same sentence as a CD. This of course, is not the case, despite the fact that most of these things have not been acounted for in a gravitational collapse which grants weight to their usage in the CD hypothesis, that in no way implies they could not be explained by a gravitational collapse at some point. Regardless of the conclusions facts may further or hinder, the facts are what this site is about. Leave the editorializing to the media. DerwinUMD 18:32 December 12, 2006. (UTC)
I too agree with both WilllingToFight and DerwinUMD. There many critics of NIST, not only those who support CD.SalvNaut 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Above, Durin says that "the controlled demolition conspiracy theory isn't about 16 seconds in time", and must also take into account various preconditions. This is true mainly because of the words "conspiracy theory". That may be an argument for leaving it as "hypothesis". After all, the CD hypothesis is precisely about those 16 seconds. It attempts to establish that there must have been explosives in the building, and uses the behaviour of the buildings from the onset of the collapses to their completion as primary evidence. (It goes a bit further, of course: the 15-25 seconds mentioned by NIST are not irrelevant, nor are the physical properties of the Pile.) The CD hypothesis thus becomes a source of questions for the NIST account; and these questions do not yet have answers. Many potential readers (including upwards of 16% of the American population, it would seem) have these questions, and it would be helpful to note, plainly and directly, that they remain unanswered by official investigations. Reader's should not have to go to another article where the lack of answers is immediately filled with an account of all the speculation that has followed them. When I began working on this article, that was my very simple question: "What exactly does the official investigation say happened to the structure underneath the impact zones?" As I discovered, it really says very little beyond "was crushed by" and "offered little resistance against" the "enormous weight" of the floors above. Bazant and Verdure are a little more specific. That said, as others have argued above, it may not be necessary to deal with this issue in the CD section. And anyone who wants to put the CD hypothesis "to rest" is advised to develop a section on the structural response of the lower floors (I will in the new year).--Thomas Basboll 12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's very reasonable idea. Thomas, have you possibly got some proposals for other sources (other than NIST's "little resistance" and Bazant&Verdue)? I know that there was a critique by Cherepanov and a rebbutal by B&V, and that itself should be sufficient to writing the section, but maybe you are aware of some other papers, disputes, ideas? SalvNaut 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, only B&V count as an RS on this. I don't think Cherepanov can be cited for this purpose. In any case, I propose starting a section after "collapse mechanism" called "structural response", with perhaps a main link to a (new) article on progressive collapse. There may be some popular explanations. But the goal should be to describe how that "rigid box" under the impact zone came apart.--Thomas Basboll 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency of WikiPedia.

Is it possible that we should step back from this, clearly divided, issue for a moment and look at the goal of "style" or consistency throughout WikiPedia?

Can anyone argue against the fact that there are alternate theories associated with the John F. Kennedy assassination[43] and the article Kennedy_assassination_theories?

At the time of that event, had it existed, [WikiPedia]] would have been rife with edits and reverts just as it is now with this article. In the colder, clearer light that time provides, those articles have a solid clarity of statement.

Is this JFK model a good template for not just this current article, but all future "conspiracy theory" articles?

Lmcelhiney 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It's possible. I went down similar thought experiment pathways, but hadn't had time yet to delve into various topics that have associated conspiracy theories to see how it was handled there. That said, I'm not sure that is the best direction to go necessarily. That something else is done in X way on Wikipedia does not mean X way is correct. --Durin 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I did a quick scan of a bunch of relatively well-known and/or currently questionable events:
Korean_Air_Flight_KAL-007
Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations
Area_51
Malcolm_X#Assassination
Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Allegations_of_conspiracy
Lee_Harvey_Oswald
Robert_F._Kennedy_assassination
J._Edgar_Hoover
Vincent_Foster
Ron_Brown_(U.S._politician)
Ken_Lay#Death
Anna_Politkovskaya
Alexander_Litvinenko#Illness_and_poisoning
Oklahoma_City_bombing
Roswell_UFO_incident

It appears that things settle down, eventually.

Lmcelhiney 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to resolve current dispute

Having thought about it some more, I would like to suggest the following solution to this editing dispute. Under the heading "conspiracy theories", we add this text:

There is today a widespread belief among the public that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition, not by the effects of the airplanes alone. This hypothesis has been rejected by both NIST and the engineering community, and is pursued mainly as part of larger conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11.

We source this to the Scripps-Howard poll, NIST, and Bazant and Verdure. And provide links to the CD article and the CT article.

But a few other things need to be done as well in order to ensure that this article is not simply written from the POV of the engineering establishment, which, arguably, has its reputation at stake, no matter how you slice it. I propose the following:

  1. A section must be added about the structural response after collapse initiation. While engineers shy away from this (or aren't interested), inquiring minds do want to know.
  2. The question of whether or not the buildings had been designed for this kind of event must be dealt with a bit more cantankerously. Here, it seems to me, the profession may easily have something very ordinary to hide, and there is no reason simply to take its word for it. NCSTAR1-1, p. 70-1 is very sketchy on this, but it does manage to contradict Leslie Robertson's public comments about the speed of the imagined aircraft (which are nonetheless uncritcally included here, despite his obvious conflict of interest).
  3. We need to be more forthcoming about how controversial the original ASCE investigation was (cf. Bill Manning's "half-baked farce") and what it took to get the NIST investigation off the ground.
  4. We need to rework the first two sections about the building design to present the basis of the widely reported surprise that was felt in the engineering community, i.e., that buildings like this were not supposed to behave that way, even under these circumstances. That is, this angle needs to be moved up from the "unprecedented" section and elaborated. What is it about steel-frame buildings in general, and the WTC in particular, that made collapse so "unthinkable"?

I am aware that these four points are among those raised by proponents of CD. But I think they are of much more general interest. Doing it this way will allow the CD POV to make a useful contribution to the article simply by imposing a bit of skepticism. With that, I will take a much needed wikibreak and see you all next year. Happy editing and Happy New Year's.--Thomas Basboll 22:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal regarding CT section

I agree for the most part with T. Basboll's suggestion for the CT section of this article. I think it would be dishonest to say that the CD theory is entierly rejected (via comparing it to the JKF theory) or by using a tone almost mocking the idea. I think what is there of the idea needs to be presented, short, sweet, and provided a link to both the conspiracy theory page and the controlled demo collapse page. DerwinUMD 21:19 December 12, 2006

[edit] Proposal regarding the rest of the article

I agree with Thomas here as well. This article would do well to read back and forth between what almost seems like a book review of the NIST report and some discenting opinion. The four changes he proposed seem to do a good job. I hope that under this section people may submit more proposals of oposition view points (with at least reference to the source). DerwinUMD 21:19 December 12, 2006

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7ECollapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center_b02c.html"