Misplaced Pages

Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:54, 30 August 2011 editArthur Rubin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers130,168 edits →so many issues, so much time: copyedit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:58, 21 November 2024 edit undoSlatersteven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers73,220 edits →Petition to Congress as updated by AI: we are not a message baord.Tag: Manual revert 
(349 intermediate revisions by 70 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm}}
{{WikiProject September 11, 2001|class=start|importance=}}
{{Notice|'''Sources''' for the article can be found at ].}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|911=yes|911-importance=}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 2 |counter = 3
|algo = old(35d) |algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Notice|'''Sources''' for the article can be found at ].}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
== Fifth Estate, number of links ==

There are three links supporting the statement that Richard Gage was interviewed for a ''Fifth Estate'' program. The first is directly to video of the program, and text beneath the video window says that Gage is in the program. That makes the first sufficient for this support, and the other two links can be dropped. ] (]) 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:Out of curiosity why are links being dropped from the article? Misplaced Pages is not finished, such links can serve as references for future research. Culling existing links could lead to ] as seems to have happened with the ZDF source above. Please refer to alternate techniques for minimizing ]. A more worthwhile use of time might be to ensure that the links are mirrored for future reference. Best, ] (]) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::If you'd like to discuss why links are being discussed, please use the discussion section above where we talked about it for quite a while. This section is about two redundant links to support the innocuous statement that Gage was interviewed for a ''Fifth Estate'' program. ] (]) 17:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:::If you are concerned about the amount of visible ref links you can use the techniques outlined in ], if you wish to add other supporting or summarizing sources you are free to do that in the same go. Sources represent a considerable investment of time and effort of a number of editors to find, discuss and ultimately find consensus to include, doubly so so for an article like this. If there are other concerns than visible links then it is not apparent to me from the section above. ] (]) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree with Unomi on this. We shouldn't be removing links just because they are redundant; although it is appropriate to remove them if they do not support the associated text. Links help to establish notability, and extra links provide a backup if an existing link goes dead. Where notability exists, we should record and document it (without going into every minor detail), so that it can be weighed when considering mention of the topic in other articles. Retaining links helps serve this purpose. ] (]) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::Does the fact of Richard Gage being interviewed for the ''Fifth Estate'' program need to be verified by three links? Is there anyone so argumentative in denying this simple fact as to require three links to verify this as a fact? ] (]) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::Yes. There are indeed editors who would argue for multiple sources to indicate that an event or interview deserves mention. Furthermore, I would venture that a large number of improvements to wikipedia are made by editors who read through existing sources and add more information from them, considering that I would find it unfortunate to remove relevant sources. I propose that the sources that were previously considered relevant to the article but removed for purely aesthetic reasons are reinstated and massaged per ] or alternatively, a ] page is created as a repository. ] (]) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::OK, stop saying ] to me. I've read it. What I'm doing here is right along the lines of that page. Here's a quote from that page: "A rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is enough, two begins to look untidy, and more than three is definitely clutter." That's been my rule of thumb from the beginning. If we need a Sources page, I'll be happy to build it and contribute to it. But most of these articles are repetitive - read them and you'll see what I'm talking about. Sources reporting on novelty usually are. They rely on press releases from the group. The really good ones are being retained. For you to come in after we'd talked about this up above and established consensus for reworking this article is all well and good, but I think you really need to review everything we've been doing before coming down hard on me. I've removed a link attacking Richard Gage. I've found alternate links with the same information for dead links. Judge me on the totality of what I've done here. ] (]) 18:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::And there already is an ] in the archives. I thought I had seen that there. Nothing is being lost here. ] (]) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::I truly apologize for coming across as coming down hard on you, it was not my intention though on rereading my comments I can sympathize with that perception. Editors come and go, different perspectives are brought to bear and changes based on varying interpretations of policy are proposed, that is the nature of wikipedia and a source of its dynamism. My only concern is with the removal of research material, especially from sources where we can point to previous consensus for inclusion. I did not intend to imply that you were setting the article up for gutting or otherwise undermining the article intentionally, merely commenting on the wider value of sources. I agree completely that the number of reflinks are distracting, but I find grouping them together to be a superior and more forward looking solution. As an example, while the first link for the line you mention does indeed fulfill the task of sourcing ''this'' line, the 2 other sources have a plethora of additional information that might be useful later, sourced to an RS or at least a notable commentator. Apologies for not noticing the archive of sources, mea culpa, in the light of that my major objections are rendered moot, apart from the lack of visibility of those sources to the casual editor. ] (]) 19:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::Actually, as you can see from that discussion page, the number of sources played a critical role in the discussion for including various elements of the article. I will also note that this particular source list is incomplete and deals with only one small issue. ] (]) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::I've started the Source page that you suggested. I took the incomplete list of sources I had linked and added all links (but the one we all agreed was an attack) to the chart. The list still doesn't have all sources in the article, and I didn't know enough about all of the articles to fill the charts out completely. However, I'm sure my work will get checked and we can complete the Source page over time. ] (]) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
{{od}} That, my friend, was beautiful, thank you! ]]] 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

== FBI letter - ]? ==

Are we not giving the FBI letter undue weight by mentioning it? the letter. It's an acknowledgement. It's also had just about no mainstream news coverage. Does it really match the spin put on it by the Santa Barbara Independent article? The article is written by Jay Levin, who appears to be a supporter of AE (). that no one outside the truth movement is paying attention to the letter. I suggest its removal.] (]) 05:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:We cannot engage in ] when assessing the report about this letter. There is no indication that the factual information carried in the source would be wrong, and we do not mention any commentary that the news magazine may have included in the article. Furthermore, any conclusion that the content would be ] would need to be based on an assessment that the information would be undue ''in relation to other content'' of the article. However, a number of other pieces of information are not widely reported either. Certainly, the article is not too long by our agreed standards. The ] demand that there must be multiple sources on a given subject so that the subject may be covered in its ''own article''. There are no such conditions with regard to the content of existing articles. As the content is not relevant with regard to ] or other such criteria, and there does not seem to exist a policy-based reason for its removal, I am going to restore it to the article.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 20:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Original research applies to actually published article content, not to conversations on the talkpage. (Discussions of due-ness and source reliability would be impossible on your interpretation - there is no RS list of what is RS, or what topics are notable, for example). At the most here, you have to attribute this interpretation of the letter to Jay Leven. It's a remarkable claim, and requires rather better sourcing than a couple of obscure media outlets quoting the same non-specialist journalist. He's the founder of an alternative entertainment magazine, not an FBI expert. ] (]) 23:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
:::The writer of the article reports about the letter sent by Michael Heimbach, and we have a primary source that indicates that the report is accurate. The article contains a quote from Heimbach's letter; I can't see how this quote would amount to an opinion that needs to be attributed to the author. If you think that we need to attribute the content to the source in-line, I'd be open to adjusting the article accordingly. There are no clear-cut policy guidelines for in-line attribution of sources of factual statements, but it's ok as long as we don't clutter articles with in-line attributions.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:::P.S. Using the term "original research", I did not mean to refer to your assessment of the source, but to your interpretation of what Michael Heimbach would have expressed in his letter.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 00:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
::::Jay Levin's report clearly gives a spin and a weight to the letter from the FBI that is his own. He is treating it as evidence that the FBI genuinely intend to investigate, and as evidence that the FBI genuinely give credence to the material they received, and that, therefore, it has at least some merit. In his words "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This is his interpretation of the letter. You call my "intepretation" original research, but this is a misunderstanding of the principles of OR on wikipedia. There is pointing out the bleeding obvious (it's an acknowledgement of receipt letter, which surely you're not disputing) which is not OR, and then there is showing how a secondary source interprets a primary source to provide a meaning that quite plausibly would be rejected by others. It's about keeping undue and extreme minority view material out, not putting OR in. Here's a simple question: where does the letter actually say it will look at Gage's material specifically?
:::::::: ''"As with all cases, the FBI will continue to examine the 9/11 investigation from every angle, utilizing all leads available"
:::::::: ''"The case agents in charge of the investigation will undoubtedly review all relevant material before reaching an unbiased decision"''.
::::Neither of these two phrases says the FBI consider Gage's work relevant, or that it in particular merits scrutiny. There's a sentence in between which says
:::::::: ''"Mr Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis."''
:::: "Interesting" might just as well mean "bollocks" ("interesting" is a very common codeword in academia, at least), and "backed up by thorough research and analysis" is also true of '']''. Which (''pace'' Dan Brown fans) is a work considered by experts to be bollocks. Note how the first and third cited sentences painfully fail to make a direct inclusive connection with the second. To treat the importance that Levin gives to this letter (and it's ''only'' Levin, an entertainment journalist, and his friend McKenzie, a journalist of apparently no note at all) as a simple statement of fact is not plausible (Which on wikipedia does matter. Editors do have to pass judgement on what counts as RS, and what is opinion and what is verified fact). But '''more than that''', there appears to be no other source remotely reliable that treats such an interpretation of the letter (or indeed mentions the letter) as meaning what Levin thinks it means. Given that his spin is that "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny", this is not what we would expect. We should expect there to be multiple sources independent of the truth movement. It's a bit like finding an obscure science article where someone claims to have disproved relativity. If they had, there should be more noise than that. I'm for keeping the whole thing out, which is not original research; it's preserving the value of the encyclopaedia. Why should we give any weight at all to what this non-expert Levin says, and says in a couple of really obscure places (one of which is a free newspaper specialising in entertainment)? If it were the FBI themselves, or NYT, or more than a few journalists, that would be another matter.] (]) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::I tend to agree that the letter shouldn't really be used here. The letter exists on its own; it's not really connected to anything. Further, the letter says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research". The theory is what he's saying is backed, not "the group's analysis" - and I think saying that theory == group's analysis is a bit misleading. I find using this letter in this capacity is misleading in general, as it seems to be saying that someone at the FBI also validates the claims. Anyway, a third editor (aside from myself and VsevolodKrolikov) seems to be against the use of the letter. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::I'd agree that the source reports on the letter in a way that is based on an interpretation that may be more favorable towards AE911Truth's theory or analysis than other possible interpretations. However, I do not share your view that the letter is a "receipt letter" and that, therefore, any interpretation should consistently follows the least favorable variant. Of course, the letter is a receipt letter. However, including a phrase such as "backed by thorough research and analysis" is not, in my view, what one would expect in a formal letter of receipt. In addition, while "interesting theory" may be used as irony, that form of usage would be odd in an FBI letter. All news sources present factual content in a way that also incorporates some interpretation. The Wall Street Journal and Le Monde will present things in different ways. So what we would need to check is (a) is there evidence that the source would have a bad track record with regard to the accuracy of its factual statements, (b) is the interpretation that may be associated with the content outside of what we can see as a plausible interpretation of the information, (c) if there is doubt, is there a way to present the information in a way that it based on the factual information as much as possible. I do not see evidence of (a) being true, I do not find the interpretation to be implausible, and I have adjusted the content of the article, so that it reflects the factual information contained in the source (as well as in the primary source).&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::: Cs32en, I'm not putting a spin on anything, because I'm not saying my alternative reading is correct, merely that it is more than reasonable. Instead, I'm showing that Levin puts a distinct POV spin on the letter - which you now agree, when you say he interprets it in a favourable light. Your points (a) and (b) need work. A reliable source is not a reliable source in its essence. RS exists in context. People who are experts in one area are not experts in all. I see Levin has no established track record at all in covering the FBI or security issues. Furthermore, the outlets are so minor that they are far from ideal in providing us with RS on national political and security events, and by no stretch can their articles be presumed to represent considered opinion in the way that major outlets sometimes can. Is the Santa Barbara Independent of the same stature as Le Monde? No. Local papers are often the best RS for local news, but this topic is not local. So there are big question marks over point a. Point b appears to conflate two issues - is the interpretation the single plausible one (ie a statement of fact) and is the interpretation actually implausible. The first one we answer by comparing the primary and secondary sources, and we all agree that Levin's interpretation is not the only plausible one. The second one we can answer by seeing if anyone else repeats the claim that the FBI think Gage's theory is substantiated enough to merit investigation. After all, it's a hell of a claim, and we'd expect some other coverage, and in more serious RS. But there appears to be nothing. Nada. No one else gives this extraordinary claim credence. So why should we give it any weight at all by including it? ] (]) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::The claim that the letter written by Michael Heimbach says that Gage "presents an interesting theory, backed up by thorough research and analysis" is not extraordinary; in fact, the primary source confirms that claim. Thus, the claim is not extraordinary, and we do not need multiple sources to corroborate the information. There are many pieces of information on Misplaced Pages that are reported by a single source. To invalidate the interpretation given by a source, it would not suffice to show that an alternative interpretation would be more reasonable, but it would instead be necessary to demonstrate that the interpretation given by the source would be implausible. Many news items are not written by experts, nor by journalists who specialize in a specific topic. While such assessments may carry some weight when deciding how much weight to give to different views in those cases in which multiple reliable sources present events differently, I don't think that we can invalidate a source just because the writer is a journalist, and not an expert in the relevant field at the same time.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::::: If you don't think that implying the FBI thinks AE9/11's case has merit is implying something extraordinary, then I'll respectfully, but also categorically, disagree. There is no reliable evidence that the FBI takes Gage at all seriously. Gage is a conspiracy theorist. Even your own source admits mainstream journalism won't credit Gage with anything. It's true that Levin faithfully quotes from the letter, but that is not enough. It's ''why'' he quotes from it that matters - why he thinks the letter is significant (and thus why we should include it in the article). He only gives the letter any significance because he believes it means "AE911’s core evidence deserves-and will get-FBI scrutiny". This reflects a seriously fringe point of view, expressed by someone with no apparent expertise in FBI operations, and it is not expressed by anyone else remotely qualifying for RS. It's very important not to go cherry picking within a source to prove a case. You can't cite Levin's giving the letter weight but pretend the reason he gives it weight isn't also there. It's not how to handle sources. It's important we reflect the balance of RS faithfully (including what is due and undue for inclusion), and not go rummaging around to see what we can find to put forward a certain point of view. If you can find RS evidence that the FBI actually spent or plans to spend notable resources (manpower etc.) investigating Gage's claim, I'd be all for inclusion. These two Levin articles are not enough for what you're trying to imply.] (]) 03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: This discussion has gone back and forth for a while, so perhaps it needs another opinion to help reach resolution. Levin has written much good material in this area; but the first time I read his interpretation of the FBI letter, it caught my attention as an eyebrow-raiser. I saw it as likely stretching the FBI's meaning a bit farther than they intended. I agree with VsevolodKrolikov and HelloAnnyong in that including this item in this article may be giving it more weight than it deserves. And I agree with VsevolodKrolikov's stated conditions for appropriate inclusion (RS documentation of FBI spending or planning to spend resources investigating the issues brought to their attention.) I prefer to see Misplaced Pages stick to less dubious interpretations when selecting reliably sourced material for inclusion. ] (]) 04:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::As the item is now removed from the article, the discussion is already closed for practical purposes, in my view. There is no reason not to discuss the views further, however, as it may clarify the interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. (For the purpose of formally closing a discussion, however, an uninvolved administrator would be needed to review the arguments and close the section.)&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 20:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

== Not a group of Engineers and Architects ==

An english-italian journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo) was listed as an engineer under this group’s list of engineers and architects, when he is neither an architect nor an engineer. He was listed under the name “Massimo dell’Affidabilitá”, italian for “top (maximum) of the credibility” (see picture). His credentials were never verified, and he stayed in that list until he himself admitted that he did this to prove the credibility of this group. Should this get a new section, or under which section could it go? The sources are, of course, in italian.] 16:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
edit
here's the picture, sorry.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z78Sur1T1lY/Rv1SkTnbTGI/AAAAAAAAATc/yayFU_vw9nM/s1600-h/max1.jpg <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There is, of course, the whole "Mike Rotch" story, that i can find nowhere on this article... i guess this will need a separate section then... i'll be working on it] 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:How can we be sure this is not a hoax? As far as I see, no reliable source has reported on this. With regard to the list, the current font type looks quite different, so this may be something that has happened several years ago, if it's indeed true.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an article by the debunker and a saved screenshot, plus independent sources. And the "Mike Rotch" thing was spread through several "truth" movements like Scholars for 9/11 and PatriotsQuestions. I'm writing the part and there are of course sources.] 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:Please keep in mind that you need to use ], if you intend to add content to the article.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to ask if a screenshot of a youtube video like this
http://bp2.blogger.com/_ebKDfm0h1oI/SHHhf8AcEVI/AAAAAAAACrQ/h2IgjWjsWyQ/s1600-h/richard-Gage-hardfire-WithBoxes.jpg
where Gage explains the physics of the WTC collapse using cardboard boxes is usable, as an example of the scientific methods used by the leader of this movement.] 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

:The image is of low quality, and the copyright situation is unclear.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, i can of course easily get one of higher quality, that was just an example, and a screenshot of a video someone put on youtube and that isn’t about copyrighted content should not have any copyright issue. The original video has no copyright claims, so a picture of it should have no problems.] 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, I didn’t see the previous comment. Yes, said blog is a blog of a journalist who is writing about matters he’s competent in, has published books etc, and it has been used a reliable source already on WP.] 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

== Criticism and sourcing ==

First off, per ], having a separate Criticism section is sort of being deprecated in favor of embedding responses within the rest of the prose. But beyond that, Arthur Rubin is correct in that the entire section is poorly sourced: two blogspot posts and the AE911 site? Not good enough, especially for an article that's this contentious. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"

:Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo), aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.

:I'm therefore reverting your edit, since in this case it's a well-known professional journalist. Also, how is a link to a page of the website belonging to the very association being discussed in the article a problem?

:] 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:Incorporated the section in the article, avoiding a specific "criticisms" section as requested. Since the only source of the claim that these "architects and engineers" are subject to verification comes from the website itself, and since the members have turned out to be fantasy characters in more than one occasion, this explanation is due. It's properly sourced according to guidelines, and a waybackmachine link to a page of the organization itself is present. Please avoid edit warring over properly sourced claims and even a link to the webpage of the organization itself.] 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::Really? Can you back up that claim of "professional journalist and hoax debunker"? Aside from running a blog, what has this guy done that's notable/reliable enough to qualify him as a reliable source? — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::"Well-known professional journalist" does not appear in ]. Can you (Idonthavetimeforthiscarp) tell me where it appears?
:::And the fact that the fake name was entered into the site by Attivissimo is ]. You could note that the name was on the site from the archive, but a ] has to report it was fake. — ] ] 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

:::@Arthur Rubin
:::http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F
:::Sorry, i maybe mixed up some stuff. The blog entries also claim that it was him to subscribe under that name, i'll add the same source after the waybackmachine link

:::@HelloAnnyong
:::well i should look up for recordings of TV programs... if you are interested, he has a radio program on the swiss radio in italian, writes for Wired Italy, has been in several hoax-related tv programs in Italy. He published hoax related books and is currently producing "moonscape", a documentary on the moon landing.
:::For instance check this link
:::http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
:::It's the Italian Police (Polizia di Stato) website, and they refer to him regarding hoaxes and precisely 9/11 (bufala, pl. bufale in italian means "hoax/hoaxes"). If you really need it i can dig up all the information, but i am not sure why you are not "assuming good faith".
:::] 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Assuming good faith does not give you carte blanche to add whatever you want to the article, particularly on controversial articles. The RSE article you linked to allows for some "professional researchers", but I'm not sure that this guy qualifies. Anyway, I've opened a thread on RSN about this; you can see it at ]. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

::::"Hoax debunker" is not a profession. It may be a job, and it may be a way to earn a living. So, ] does not apply here, and the content needs to be removed.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I will add back the contents, since i clearly wrote that he is a journalist. Please avoid trying to push some personal agenda on wikipedia] 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

:Idonthavetimeforthiscarp, please refrain from adding content against consensus.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

== Claims to Mainstream Consensus Do Not Stand Up to Scrutiny ==

In the Section 'Advocacy', under '7 World Trade Center', the last paragraph begins 'The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST' and a reference is given to a paper by Zdeněk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure (2007) which states: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows ". (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure). However, this bald assertion has no basis in fact. There have been very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of the collapse of any of the three towers on 9/11. Of those few which support the official account, all of them were authored by Zdeněk P. Bažant, together with a handful of collaborators. This does not amount to any kind of consensus. The first such paper was written just two days after the attacks, when evidence was scant and no one could reliably claim to know what had happened: yet claimed exactly that. That first paper was also rushed to publication within 6 months and is most unlikely to have been adequately peer reviewed, if at all. Subsequent papers have been attempts to support the conclusions of the original paper. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed papers whatsoever which claim to explain the collapse of WTC 7 ( was not subject to the usual peer-review process).

There is clearly no consensus among 'the community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally', either in favour of the conclusions of NIST or the alternative controlled demolition hypothesis. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are composed of nearly 1,500 such experts but there is no comparable independent body opposing their claims. NIST and FEMA are government agencies and do not represent the scientific community at large.


== University of Alaska Study ==
] (]) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Wondering why it was deemed worthy of deletion, thanks. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:A bunk study funded by 9/11 Truthers is not remotely noteworthy. '''] ]''' 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:: Do you not see the circular reasoning - if anything related to 9/11 truth is necessarily bunk, how can we examine the ideas by their merits. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Have any RS said it was "bunk"?] (]) 14:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::Have any said it isn’t? '''] ]''' 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::Irrelevant, it (as far as I can see) is an academic paper by reputable academics from a reputable university. So we need some reason to say it is not.] (]) 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::It’s a Truther study funded by Truthers. It’s not reliable in any way. Look at the actual “study” - 100% funded by . It’s also not even completed. '''] ]''' 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::Who funded it is irrelevant. Unless it can be shown they influenced the findings.] (]) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::An unfinished, unreviewed “study” run and funded by Truthers is not reliable. Sorry. '''] ]''' 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::Ahh now if it was unfinished thats different, do you have a source for this?] (]) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::The source itself says this is a draft release and are seeking comments from the public before the final release. <b>]</b> (]) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Then its not RS.] (]) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Is there any RS as to what kind of feedback they got? As a structural engineer myself, I am seeing some pretty questionable claims/calculations made.] (]) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Given it isn’t complete and has only been promoted in Truther circles, I don’t think there is any coverage. I imagine it will be ripped a new one once it is finished. '''] ]''' 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Rja13ww33, you should send your critiques to them in that case, that's what a public comment period is for. In any case, it is a fact that AE911Truth funded the study and that the study has been completed, and that the professor has made his conclusions public. As such, given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the edit should not have been deleted since it is RS for those facts, despite it not, until being peer reviewed, counting as RS for an article about WTC7. ] (]) 18:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::An unfinished, unpublished (anbd thus not peer reviewed) study is not RS. If you have a source for its publication please provide it.] (]) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I can see why it wouldn't be considered RS for an article on WTC 7 but this article is about AE911, and they most definitely did fund a study that has been completed and news to that effect was reported by ktva among others (see https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests) ] (]) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Then (at the max) we could say "they have funded an as yet unpublished study by the University of Alaska".] (]) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Using "Truther" as a pejorative and a reason for exclusion shows that Misplaced Pages is a bunk organization, as far as I have experienced.
] (]) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
:Being a delusional nutjob who repeatedly tries to force delusional-nutjob nonsense not backed by reliable sources into articles is a reason for exclusion. ] </small>]] 19:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The academic paper is here https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 or the pdf directly https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf . The article is as I can see finished but not published in a peer reviewed journal and could be included with that statement. The positive thing if it was included in this article is that any specific criticism towards the methodology could be directed towards the study itself and that would be very interesting. Simply excluding a 125 page 4 year engineering study from a reputable university by just calling it "delusional-nutjob nonsense" is more un-scientific than including it and discussing it. Excluding something based on namecalling is not how science works IMHO, and it is an unfortunate example of the weakness of Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:If it has not been peer-reviewed I doubt its an RS.] (]) 13:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::Completely independently of it not being recognized by any reliable source, it is delusional nutjob nonsense. The study ''most certainly'' did not rule out that the collapse was due to fire. At best, and this is being very generous, it raised doubts about the ''one'' initiation mechanism that NIST proposed out of many possible mechanisms. The study is a failure of logic and an utter failure to do proper science. At worst it is completely fraudulent. ] </small>]] 14:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree of course that for it to be RS it would have to be peer reviewed. Until it is, it is up to anyone who reads it to judge the quality of it, while I'm an academic I'm not a structural engineer, few of us are, which means of course that I have limited capability of critiquing it. However, I think it's not completely correct to not mention it, for what it is. I have only read the abstract that states that "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on
9/11, " I find that at least interesting, I need to read the whole thing of course. I'm pretty new to Misplaced Pages so I don't understand what all the criteria for including a paper is. Is it a prerequisite that any study mentioned has to be peer reviewed? IMHO the fact that there is a study done, paid by A&E that further evaluates the collapse is in my view at least worth to mention in the context of the group. Maybe the study itself needs its own Misplaced Pages page so that it can be critiqued that way. ] (]) 14:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:] and ] means we should not include anything that goes against the expert consensus unless RS report it as significant.] (]) 14:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you for explaining. So I guess that would mean that a peer reviewed article that is published should be included regardless of if it goes against "consensus", (as the publication and peer review process itself is what deems it significant) but if it is not peer reviewed it should not even be mentioned until it is? Could it have been mentioned in the non peer reviewed state if it would have confirmed the fire collapse hypothesis? Just trying to understand the system here. ] (]) 15:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


Also, would it be different if the article was about the WTC7 collapse, I mean this article is about the group A&E - So the fact that they payed to have a study done is a different context than what the study says in the context of discussing the collapse itself. If you get what I mean. ] (]) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:Per ], your theory doesn't belong in the article. Further, I've reverted your other changes, such as changing it to "Some experts" (which is a ]) and "it has been claimed". The statements are well sourced, so changing the tone of the article isn't acceptable here. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
:It applies to all 9/11 articles...and more broadly, all articles on any topic that has a fringe minority in dissent (e.g. ], ], ] etc. If Time or Newsweek did an article on the UAF study, then that would be sufficient for mention. Also, if a notable structural engineer such as ] made a statement about the study, that would also be sufficient. I only mentioned the conclusion of the study to try to break through to you that regardless of one's expertise, it is clearly not a proper scientific conclusion or even a logical conclusion. It was an overreaching and sensationalized conclusion geared toward engaging the 9/11 demolition-believer community, not the structural engineering community...which is why it could never pass peer review in the literature. ] </small>]] 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


Third update, sorry for that, but In the paper itself, two external Peer Reviewers are listed on page iii : EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D, Chartered Consulting Engineer, Analytical Service Company and Robert Korol, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, McMaster University ] (]) 17:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:That is perhaps the most well-written summary describing a particular significant problem within the article that I have seen written yet. Misplaced Pages should refrain from making assertions about a worldwide community based on the writings of a single dubious source (Bažant and Verdure). The claim should either be given better sourcing (broader and more well-researched), or removed. I am not aware of any significant research having been conducted by any entity to substantiate that particular claim. ] (]) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
:That's not how peer review works. Proper peer review is where a publisher or professional organization chooses independent, blind (secret) expert referees to evaluate the work. That Hulsey or AE911Truth chose their own "peer reviewers" (which of course were friendly/sympathetic parties) speaks to the total lack of scientific ethics and process in this study. ] </small>]] 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::I agree that the anon's theory has no place in the article, and the assertion that 911AE really has "architects" and "engineers" should be considered unusable, per ]. However, Wildbear ''might'' have a point, except that Bažant and Verdure is not at all a "dubious source". I would ask him to provide a '''real''' source with a different opinion about engineering consensus, and that information might also be included in the article. — ] ] 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
::And it's worth noting that (after nearly 2 years) this article still apparently isn't referenced (let alone published) in a single ASCE Journal article. (Be it Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Journal of Structural Engineering, or whatever.)] (]) 18:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::The problem for all perspectives on the issue is that there have been few (or no) professional studies to determine statistically what the "community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" actually thinks about the issue. I don't question the structural engineering credentials of the authors of the paper. For purposes of this discussion, it is only the "generally accepted" assertion which I intended to have the word "dubious" apply. I used the word "dubious" because the authors didn't provide any information to support the assertion; no references and no indication that any surveys had been conducted. The need for better sourcing, which all would find well substantiated and agreeable, still remains. As has been stated in these pages before, if a claim is truly notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find multiple high-quality sources to support it. ] (]) 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


No that's not how peer review works, (I have gone through the process myself many times.) However it's two other academics in the field who put their stamp of approval on the study. It would be interesting to know if Husley et al have sent it in to some journal for review/publishing and what the feedback was. My personal opinion is that it's always better to take things out into the light to be discussed than censoring. I think that would make Misplaced Pages better. (But this is not the place to discuss my personal opinion of course.) It's always good to be sceptical, however the trick is to have an open-minded scepticism. Even though there's so much politics involved in this issue. Are any of you peers by the way? (I mean structural engineers.) ] (]) 01:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I really didn't want to get involved in editing Misplaced Pages articles, but I now have a proper login, so I can respond to the remarks in this discussion section, which I started. First, I'm baffled as to what is meant by my 'theory'. My attempted ammendments to the article were simply to remove contentious and unproven sweeping generalisations which claimed that a scientific consensus existed, refuting the position of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, when it is very clear that there is no such consensus, whatever a handful of individuals may say. I have not attempted to advance any 'theory' of my own (I don't have one), unless the simple observation that there is no consensus is taken to be a 'theory'! (Perhaps we need to reach a consensus that there is no consensus on whether there is a consensus?).
:Yes, I am a structural engineer. And I agree with the others that you need to find RS treatment/publishing for this paper. As I said above, I cannot find where this appears anywhere in any ASCE Journal.] (]) 02:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:And I am an architect. Please note that we try to avoid making statements based on the implied or perceived authority of individual editors - after all me don't know who anybody else really is. The possession of basic professional credentials does not lend special credibility.
:Drawing from the rigorous standards surrounding medical research subjects on Misplaced Pages, the mere existence of an article in a journal is not inherently significant. If an article is widely cited in other academic scholarship, that is taken as a standard indicating notability.
:Put more simply, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


When RS mention this in connection with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth so can we.] (]) 08:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Just to make it abundantly clear, I refer readers to the of Bažant and Verdure (2007) which appeared in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics (October 2008). A number of qualified engineers take issue with Bažant's paper and he replies to the criticisms. Whether you regard his replies as being adequate is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that the paper has attracted critical comment and does not represent a consensus view. There is also a which supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, thereby refuting Bažant, published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit et al, 2009): the nine authors are all professional engineers and scientists. In view of these facts, the contention that Bažant represents a consensus view is outrageous nonsense. I do not denigrate Bažant's contributions, but his is only one view among many. However, I do find it extraordinary that the main article makes no mention whatsoever of the paper by Harrit et al: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.


Thank you all for taking time to clarify these things. As I said, I'm quite new to the whole wiki process, so this has been very interesting to me on several levels. I just saw an interview with Hulsey on the channel 3D forensics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM&t=7s), where he said that now that he is retired he is planning to write and publish some papers based on the report - which sounds like a good thing so they can go through the peer review process. It's good to have high standards on what to include, I'm not arguing with that in any way. I also agree that mere publication is not a guarantee significance. I have published papers which were totally insignificant :) However it should at least guarantee they uphold some kind of scientific quality. I'm sorry I missed that you are a structural engineer Rja13ww13, I should have seen it in the posts above.
My own view (as an applied mathematician with numerous publications in peer reviewed international journals) is that Bažant has presented an interesting but inconclusive mathematical model attempting to account for the dynamics of the collapse of the twin towers. Like any mathematical model, its fit with reality depends crucially on the parameters provided to the model. Bažant has not adequately justified the values of these parameters or every aspect of his model, in my opinion or the opinion of several other qualified commentators. His model remains interesting, but its plausibility as a true account of the collapse of the twin towers remains in dispute within the scientific community. For comparison, one may create a mathematical model of a unicorn, but this does not prove that unicorns exist.
I still think that the fact that the group has funded a 4 year study by an accredited university on the collapse of wtc7 could be included in the article about the group. I also believe if we accuse Prof. Em. Hulsey of being a sellout nutjob, this has to be based on the same standards of proof for that statement. Like Acroterion wrote "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof".
The group apparently has sought corrections through official channels to the NIST report, which now has led to them suing NIST for not fulfilling the Data Quality Act. However you look at the request for corrections themselves it explains what the group is doing. Suing NIST partly based on this report is quite significant information about the group's activity. Well, again thank you all for keeping this last part of the conversation civilized. It's going to be interesting to see what published papers if any come out of this process. All the best, ] (]) 09:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:Spoiler alert, there won't be anything, because he ruined the study by gearing it toward continued fundraising from a group of amateur believers, rather than scientists. But you're right, I have no reliable source supporting that opinion, so neither does it have a chance in hell of being in Misplaced Pages articles. ] </small>]] 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:Just a FYI for you: with a topic that is considered pretty FRINGE....it <b>is</b> a challenge to find RS covering aspects of it. A JFK assassination CT (for example) is pretty easy to find (due to the countless books, movies, etc about them). But the fine details of the wilder stuff is hard.] (]) 18:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
:Rja13ww33, yeah I understand. I read the Hulsey report now. To me as a non-engineering academic (I'm in cognitive neuroscience) it seemed to make some logical claims, but it was also a hard read for someone not in the field so I'm ill equipped to claim to have an informed standpoint so to speak. I also read the request for corrections and clarifications on the NIST report and again, it seemed logical and raised some valid questions. (https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf) I guess we'll know after a few years as this lawsuit will probably be long winded. What's your take on their critique on the NIST report? Do the questions make sense from a structural engineering standpoint as you see it? From my philosophical standpoint, questioning things is always good although the level of 'goodness' is modulated by the quality of the questions ;P ] (]) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
::Well keep in mind the policy NOTFORUM (i.e. we are not supposed to get into personal opinions on article talk pages)....but I will say (keeping in the spirit of that): I would be interested in seeing RS treatment of this study. The impact calculation (to name one thing) seemed pretty odd. To say the stiffness at the point of impact was that low is a big question mark for me. I feel there are other problems with it as well. But in any case, this demonstrates one of the reasons we require RS here.] (]) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


== Citation 60 ===
What is not in dispute (one of the few facts on which there is now a general consensus) is that the collapse of WTC 7 proceeded at free fall acceleration for over 2 seconds after onset (this is admitted in the final NIST report). This may explain why there are no peer reviewed papers whatsoever which even attempt to account for the collapse of this building. Bažant's model is utterly incapable of accounting for this and he has never attempted to apply it to WTC 7. The official NIST report originally rejected the free fall claim in its initial draft, but the final report was forced to acknowledge the truth of this fact following criticism of erroneous calculations in the draft.
Citing a single paper by a single engineer does not prove that experts in engineering generally support NIST's work on WTC collapse. There are many problems with the Bazant paper <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In case you didn't notice, it's more than one source. And really the Bazant statement is probably sufficient given the fact that after nearly 20 years, the Truthers cannot point to a single published statement purporting to represent a large number of structural engineers that show they have any doubt whatsoever about the so-called official explanation. (The 30 or so structural engineers who signed Richard Gage's on-line petition not withstanding.) And on a personal level (as a structural engineer myself), I haven't heard a word of dissent.] (]) 03:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


==Husley==
In summary, I have shown that there is no consensus among the general scientific or engineering community regarding the mechanism of collapse of any of the three towers destroyed on 9/11. The official reports are disputed, as are the very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Regardless of whether the study is "bunk" it is related to the Ae911 truth movement and therefor worthy of being in this article. Isn't this article supposed to be about the activities of Ae911truth? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:] brings up some good points. We need to keep in mind that Bazant's first paper was what is called a "rapid communication" and was described by it's own authors as ''a simplified approximate analysis... may be in error by a level of magnitude.'' The paper has been updated four times since it's publication due to problems other engineers had with his analysis. Also, Bazant is not peer reviewed in the way editors here believe, the peer review was limited to the mathematics Bazant uses, not the analysis itself. His maths do work but he often uses the wrong equations. For example he uses load safety parameters for a standard highrise in 1968 rather than the over engineered specs the WTC used which can result in significant errors (I have not read the latest version so this may have been corrected). The only way to prove Bazant's theory (or NIST's conclusions) is to document and analyse the debris field, but unfortunately NIST allowed the debris to be cleared so Bazant's paper remains only a theory, not a proven fact. ] (]) 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
:Can you provide reliable sources that discuss the study in context? That's the problem, the existence of the report isn't the issue, it's whether anybody has discussed it in journalistic or academic sources. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 03:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
::As ] is a new editor I will remind him that the 9/11 articles are not edited by academics and as editors must not allow edits, even if factual or relevant, that give credibility to conspiracy theories, the phraseology tends to be beyond what sources support. As wording is determined by consensus such problems unfortunately are common and hard to correct. ] (]) 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement should remain. It is well sourced to experts in the field, and published by a mainstream journal. There is no reliable source counteracting this claim. ] (]) 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) This Sage Journal; Alternatives: Global Local, Political refers to and and discusses the study at least to some extent in the context of alternative views to the mainstream 9/11 narrative in the published article "9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0304375419898334 ] (]) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:The abstract's statement of "A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity." appears to be a rehash of Truther arguments. "IR" is International Relations, which has nothing to do with the architectural and engineering community, about which, in principle, this article concerns itself. Having not been able to read the full paper, I can't tell what basis or background is involved, but I can't see where anybody outside the Truther community has taken it seriously. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


== so many issues, so much time == == Extent of acceptance ==


I see that an editor has edited the description of the level of professional acceptance of fringe conspiracy theories to attempt to water down the level of rejection by professional A/E communities of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of note is the recent Spike Jones controversy, in which Jones started out both-sidesing with AE 9/11 against serious academic sources. It hasn't gone well . None of these media sources take the position of AE 9/11 seriously, even if Lee did, and he ended up backtracking. They also point out the overall conspiratist mindset that has moved on to Covid conspiracies. See older accounts of professional rejection of AE9/11 . While "universal" may not be the best word, it is a reasonable approximation of the level of acceptance among the ''millions'' of architects and engineers in the U.S. versus the ''thousands'' of of alleged conspiracy devotees. After all, just because some doctors prescribe unproven or harmful treatments and have attracted a vocal following doesn't mean that there is a significant level of acceptance in the medical community for such actions - this is no different. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is a mess.
:So do any professional bodies support "truthism"?] (]) 12:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Rather than an informative article on the nature of this organization, I come upon an incoherent collection of badly strewn together sources, many of then tangentially related to the topic or mere mentions, many others primary sources. It presents the organization out of context and without a deeper exploration of its reasons to exists. It has too much sources that make it hard to read, but an examination of sources demonstrates that they are tangential or borderline original research, at times even synthetic - some are even presented as supportive when they are critical. There is some peacocking going on etc.
::None that I've found, at least in North America. Certainly not the ASCE or AIA. This is where "universally" might be overbroad, since I wouldn't be surprised if some professional organization somewhere endorsed Truther arguments, but in view of Billyshiverstick's first change, which clearly sought to provide credibility, I reinstated it for now. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:::Then maybe say that "The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by all structural-engineering and structural-mechanics professional bodies"?] (]) 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
::::That's certainly more specific, as long as AE9/11 isn't a "professional body." '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::It seems to be more of an advocacy group.] (]) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::That is highly charitable of you! It's like calling Joel Osteen's prosperity-gospel megachurch an advocacy group for Jesus. I mean, when they say "thousands of architects and engineers" are they counting the six landscape architects? How about the students and interns, or the fire alarm technician, or the dentist? Do the opinions of hundreds of electrical and chemical engineers move the needle in a professional sense?] </small>]] 19:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Furthermore, the last time I looked at it, a grand total of about 30 something structural engineers had signed Mr. Gage's on-line petition. By the way, the verification techniques used to prove if the petition signers are who they say the are.....leave much to be desired (IMHO). Not a RS at all.] (]) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
::::::::One thing I've never understood is the accounting and verification behind the list. I know of one colleague who signed up in 2001 because he thought they were legitimately looking for investigation rather than promoting conspiracy theories - he is no longer on the list, but I don't know how many others never tried to be removed, or how many really understood what they were signing up for, or if they did, whether they still buy what they're selling. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 22:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::Their "verification" process (at least when I checked into it years ago) is basically just to ask the person if they are who they say they are. (In other words, I could tell them I am President Obama and they wouldn't know the difference.) It's not like applying for a license/NCEES record. (I.e. send them transcripts, employment verification forms, etc, etc.)] (]) 22:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


== This article is utterly biased ==
Perhaps the worse offending area is "advocacy", which either duplicates information elsewhere available, unneeded as there is plenty to wikilink to, or coatracks positions that are not notable or relevant in other articles to mention them here. While an encyclopedic overview of the focus of any organization is what we are for, this focus should be made in a way that is encyclopedic, and recognizes the fact that it is a web-available, not paper, encyclopedia, and in a way that doesn't comprise our integrity as an NPOV endeavor. Coatracking is ] to include information that would be harder to include in other articles. We shouldn't allow it. --] (]) 23:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
{{hat|Close discussion to keep OP out of AE territory}}
This article is clearly biased in support of the ludicrous official version of the 9/11 facts. Reading the article it seems that the AE911 organization is comprised of just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and hippies, without acknowledging that there are more than 3600 architects and engineers that don't buy the official explanation of what is obviously a controlled demolition. Has this article been edited by the CIA? <span style="text-shadow:#333333 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
:Source? ] (]) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
::Yes, we'll need a reliable source stating that more than 3600 architects and engineers don't buy the official explanation. If you look at that list, you'll find that a tiny number of the world's electrical/software/mechanical/chemical/naval engineers, plus some architects and architecture students and interns, plus fire-alarm technicians and landscape architects, etc., signed a vague petition at some point over the past 15 years, which is quite different from what you claimed. ] </small>]] 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


{{Collapse top|title=Forum-type post with typical false claims and arguments from incredulity}}
:The article on ] duplicates a lot of information that can be found in ], which duplicates information of ]. The sections titled "Advocacy" describes the positions taken by the group. As it is one of the larger and more prominent groups within the ], it is not surprising that some of these positions are also described on that page, as well as in the articles ] and ].&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 23:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Has it ever dawned on you that in the past century the steel frame of a building has never collapsed due to fires? It never happened before 9/11 and never happened again after. Same goes for planes that magically disappear or turn into dust. During a century of plane accidents, the engines have always been found along with parts of the fuselage. Only during 9/11 four planes and three buildings completely disappeared, except a passport of the hijackers that survived the fires and magically was ejected from the plane. That’s an insult to people’s intelligence. As to the number of supporters of the organization, the following is just one of many references <span style="text-shadow:#333333 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
::Oh so because other articles are possibly a mess (I haven't checked) it means this one too has to be a mess? I find that argument unconvincing.--] (]) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}
:::Thank you for NOT checking the other articles ;-) The articles are not a mess. Having some information included in more than one article is a common and accepted situation on Misplaced Pages. In addition, I would suggest that you point out which particular content is duplicated, in your view. You are very likely overestimating the amount of such content.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I did an edit and removed those templates, but you reverted it. I have restored them. If you restore the previous version, the templates remain. This article shouldn't extensively discuss the different claims this organization makes, just provide an overview of them. I am also restoring tags that still remain as issues.--] (]) 23:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) ::::Your source isn't a RS. And several collapses of steel frame buildings have happened due to fire. Most recently with the Plasco Building in Iran. (Thank God it happened in Iran....otherwise the Truthers would be saying this was arranged by US Intel.)] (]) 18:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::The Plasco building wasn't made of steel but concrete; it didn't fall at freefall speed; it collapsed on its side (not in a perfectly symmetrical fashion) and most of the debris didn't turn into fine dust like with the three buldings from 9/11. The Plasco building collapse happended as expected and doesn't violate the laws of physics. Your example proves absolutely nothing in regards to my arguments. The fact that my previuos post has been tagged with "false claims", which are indeed undisputable, proves my point. <span style="text-shadow:#333333 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 05:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I tend to agree with Cerejota on <s>many</s> ''some'' of the detailed changes, but ze shouldn't re-make major revisions without consensus. (For example, the fact that "the mainstream scientific and engineering community has generally <s>ridiculed</s> ''rejected'' the position taken by the group" should be in the lede.) — ] ] 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::Assuming you are right (and you aren't).....you do know that concrete performs far better in fire than steel right? (Concrete cover is better than pretty much any coating you can find. Look in the UL catalog some time....assuming you know what that is.) As far as the speed of the collapse, looks pretty close to free fall to me. (Once it got going.) Of course, this is a organization that urged President ] to investigate the "possible use of explosives" in the Plasco building coming down. You are talking to a structural engineer here. I'm not buying any of this crap without some RS.] (]) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::::At risk of feeding forum posts: Unprotected steel frame buildings collapse in fires on practically a daily basis. That's why building codes limit the height of unprotected steel construction - it's crap in a fire. It doesn't burn, but that's about all that can be said. A protected steel frame building (protection is required for a building of any significant height) , whose fireproofing is compromised by aircraft impacts is in deep trouble, and intact fireproofing is rated for no more than three hours, so the fire had better be extinguished expeditiously. The notion that steel framed buildings are invulnerable is a myth promulgated by the Truther community. And your study was funded by 9/11 Truth and arrived at the desired outcome, and is not regarded as especially credible by anyone else. In any case it only examined WTC 7, not WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 has been a hobbyhorse of the Truther community, since it didn't have airplanes crashing into it, only large chunks of WTC 1 fell on it, which apparently makes a difference somehow. The idea that FDNY was in on the conspiracy and chose not to fight the fire in an empty, badly damaged building, for hours and hours, after losing more than 300 personnel, so that WTC 7 would be destroyed, ''on purpose'', is part of the supposed conspiracy. That's what Truthers are pushing. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 23:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::I never mentioned the FDNY - proof of high-rises made of steel, not concrete or bricks, that collapsed due to fires? I want facts, not chatter. You are just avoiding answering my questions; for example ] can be jettisoned out of the "plane" when it impacted the towers and survived the ensuing fires. Regardless of who funded the study, physics cannot be disproven. For a building to fall at free-fall speed, it takes a controlled demolition; Newton's laws of motion are at the basis of physics and cannot be violated. <span style="text-shadow:#333333 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;">]</span>] 05:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
::::And see ]. The notion that the WTC was unique is a good example of ] and ] (limiting the choice to ''tall'' steel buildings). '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}

Latest revision as of 13:58, 21 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Sources for the article can be found at this subpage.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconUnited States: September 11 Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001.


University of Alaska Study

Wondering why it was deemed worthy of deletion, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.112.20 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A bunk study funded by 9/11 Truthers is not remotely noteworthy. Toa Nidhiki05 14:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you not see the circular reasoning - if anything related to 9/11 truth is necessarily bunk, how can we examine the ideas by their merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Have any RS said it was "bunk"?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Have any said it isn’t? Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant, it (as far as I can see) is an academic paper by reputable academics from a reputable university. So we need some reason to say it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It’s a Truther study funded by Truthers. It’s not reliable in any way. Look at the actual “study” - 100% funded by A&E. It’s also not even completed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Who funded it is irrelevant. Unless it can be shown they influenced the findings.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
An unfinished, unreviewed “study” run and funded by Truthers is not reliable. Sorry. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Ahh now if it was unfinished thats different, do you have a source for this?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The source itself says this is a draft release and are seeking comments from the public before the final release. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Then its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Is there any RS as to what kind of feedback they got? As a structural engineer myself, I am seeing some pretty questionable claims/calculations made.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Given it isn’t complete and has only been promoted in Truther circles, I don’t think there is any coverage. I imagine it will be ripped a new one once it is finished. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, you should send your critiques to them in that case, that's what a public comment period is for. In any case, it is a fact that AE911Truth funded the study and that the study has been completed, and that the professor has made his conclusions public. As such, given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the edit should not have been deleted since it is RS for those facts, despite it not, until being peer reviewed, counting as RS for an article about WTC7. 140.247.112.80 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
An unfinished, unpublished (anbd thus not peer reviewed) study is not RS. If you have a source for its publication please provide it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I can see why it wouldn't be considered RS for an article on WTC 7 but this article is about AE911, and they most definitely did fund a study that has been completed and news to that effect was reported by ktva among others (see https://www.ktva.com/story/41015153/fire-did-not-cause-world-trade-center-building-7-collapse-uaf-study-suggests) 140.247.112.80 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Then (at the max) we could say "they have funded an as yet unpublished study by the University of Alaska".Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Using "Truther" as a pejorative and a reason for exclusion shows that Misplaced Pages is a bunk organization, as far as I have experienced. Mark19651965 (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Being a delusional nutjob who repeatedly tries to force delusional-nutjob nonsense not backed by reliable sources into articles is a reason for exclusion. -Jordgette 19:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The academic paper is here https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 or the pdf directly https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf . The article is as I can see finished but not published in a peer reviewed journal and could be included with that statement. The positive thing if it was included in this article is that any specific criticism towards the methodology could be directed towards the study itself and that would be very interesting. Simply excluding a 125 page 4 year engineering study from a reputable university by just calling it "delusional-nutjob nonsense" is more un-scientific than including it and discussing it. Excluding something based on namecalling is not how science works IMHO, and it is an unfortunate example of the weakness of Misplaced Pages. Creglim (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If it has not been peer-reviewed I doubt its an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Completely independently of it not being recognized by any reliable source, it is delusional nutjob nonsense. The study most certainly did not rule out that the collapse was due to fire. At best, and this is being very generous, it raised doubts about the one initiation mechanism that NIST proposed out of many possible mechanisms. The study is a failure of logic and an utter failure to do proper science. At worst it is completely fraudulent. -Jordgette 14:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree of course that for it to be RS it would have to be peer reviewed. Until it is, it is up to anyone who reads it to judge the quality of it, while I'm an academic I'm not a structural engineer, few of us are, which means of course that I have limited capability of critiquing it. However, I think it's not completely correct to not mention it, for what it is. I have only read the abstract that states that "The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, " I find that at least interesting, I need to read the whole thing of course. I'm pretty new to Misplaced Pages so I don't understand what all the criteria for including a paper is. Is it a prerequisite that any study mentioned has to be peer reviewed? IMHO the fact that there is a study done, paid by A&E that further evaluates the collapse is in my view at least worth to mention in the context of the group. Maybe the study itself needs its own Misplaced Pages page so that it can be critiqued that way. Creglim (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

wpp:fringe and wp:undue means we should not include anything that goes against the expert consensus unless RS report it as significant.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see, thank you for explaining. So I guess that would mean that a peer reviewed article that is published should be included regardless of if it goes against "consensus", (as the publication and peer review process itself is what deems it significant) but if it is not peer reviewed it should not even be mentioned until it is? Could it have been mentioned in the non peer reviewed state if it would have confirmed the fire collapse hypothesis? Just trying to understand the system here. Creglim (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, would it be different if the article was about the WTC7 collapse, I mean this article is about the group A&E - So the fact that they payed to have a study done is a different context than what the study says in the context of discussing the collapse itself. If you get what I mean. Creglim (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It applies to all 9/11 articles...and more broadly, all articles on any topic that has a fringe minority in dissent (e.g. evolution, perpetual motion, gravity etc. If Time or Newsweek did an article on the UAF study, then that would be sufficient for mention. Also, if a notable structural engineer such as Guy Nordenson made a statement about the study, that would also be sufficient. I only mentioned the conclusion of the study to try to break through to you that regardless of one's expertise, it is clearly not a proper scientific conclusion or even a logical conclusion. It was an overreaching and sensationalized conclusion geared toward engaging the 9/11 demolition-believer community, not the structural engineering community...which is why it could never pass peer review in the literature. -Jordgette 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Third update, sorry for that, but In the paper itself, two external Peer Reviewers are listed on page iii : EXTERNAL PEER REVIEWERS Gregory Szuladzinski, Ph.D, Chartered Consulting Engineer, Analytical Service Company and Robert Korol, Ph.D, Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering, McMaster University Creglim (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not how peer review works. Proper peer review is where a publisher or professional organization chooses independent, blind (secret) expert referees to evaluate the work. That Hulsey or AE911Truth chose their own "peer reviewers" (which of course were friendly/sympathetic parties) speaks to the total lack of scientific ethics and process in this study. -Jordgette 17:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
And it's worth noting that (after nearly 2 years) this article still apparently isn't referenced (let alone published) in a single ASCE Journal article. (Be it Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Journal of Structural Engineering, or whatever.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No that's not how peer review works, (I have gone through the process myself many times.) However it's two other academics in the field who put their stamp of approval on the study. It would be interesting to know if Husley et al have sent it in to some journal for review/publishing and what the feedback was. My personal opinion is that it's always better to take things out into the light to be discussed than censoring. I think that would make Misplaced Pages better. (But this is not the place to discuss my personal opinion of course.) It's always good to be sceptical, however the trick is to have an open-minded scepticism. Even though there's so much politics involved in this issue. Are any of you peers by the way? (I mean structural engineers.) Creglim (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I am a structural engineer. And I agree with the others that you need to find RS treatment/publishing for this paper. As I said above, I cannot find where this appears anywhere in any ASCE Journal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
And I am an architect. Please note that we try to avoid making statements based on the implied or perceived authority of individual editors - after all me don't know who anybody else really is. The possession of basic professional credentials does not lend special credibility.
Drawing from the rigorous standards surrounding medical research subjects on Misplaced Pages, the mere existence of an article in a journal is not inherently significant. If an article is widely cited in other academic scholarship, that is taken as a standard indicating notability.
Put more simply, extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. Acroterion (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

When RS mention this in connection with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking time to clarify these things. As I said, I'm quite new to the whole wiki process, so this has been very interesting to me on several levels. I just saw an interview with Hulsey on the channel 3D forensics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXYpqJvjekM&t=7s), where he said that now that he is retired he is planning to write and publish some papers based on the report - which sounds like a good thing so they can go through the peer review process. It's good to have high standards on what to include, I'm not arguing with that in any way. I also agree that mere publication is not a guarantee significance. I have published papers which were totally insignificant :) However it should at least guarantee they uphold some kind of scientific quality. I'm sorry I missed that you are a structural engineer Rja13ww13, I should have seen it in the posts above. I still think that the fact that the group has funded a 4 year study by an accredited university on the collapse of wtc7 could be included in the article about the group. I also believe if we accuse Prof. Em. Hulsey of being a sellout nutjob, this has to be based on the same standards of proof for that statement. Like Acroterion wrote "extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof". The group apparently has sought corrections through official channels to the NIST report, which now has led to them suing NIST for not fulfilling the Data Quality Act. However you look at the request for corrections themselves it explains what the group is doing. Suing NIST partly based on this report is quite significant information about the group's activity. Well, again thank you all for keeping this last part of the conversation civilized. It's going to be interesting to see what published papers if any come out of this process. All the best, Creglim (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Spoiler alert, there won't be anything, because he ruined the study by gearing it toward continued fundraising from a group of amateur believers, rather than scientists. But you're right, I have no reliable source supporting that opinion, so neither does it have a chance in hell of being in Misplaced Pages articles. -Jordgette 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a FYI for you: with a topic that is considered pretty FRINGE....it is a challenge to find RS covering aspects of it. A JFK assassination CT (for example) is pretty easy to find (due to the countless books, movies, etc about them). But the fine details of the wilder stuff is hard.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Rja13ww33, yeah I understand. I read the Hulsey report now. To me as a non-engineering academic (I'm in cognitive neuroscience) it seemed to make some logical claims, but it was also a hard read for someone not in the field so I'm ill equipped to claim to have an informed standpoint so to speak. I also read the request for corrections and clarifications on the NIST report and again, it seemed logical and raised some valid questions. (https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf) I guess we'll know after a few years as this lawsuit will probably be long winded. What's your take on their critique on the NIST report? Do the questions make sense from a structural engineering standpoint as you see it? From my philosophical standpoint, questioning things is always good although the level of 'goodness' is modulated by the quality of the questions ;P Creglim (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Well keep in mind the policy NOTFORUM (i.e. we are not supposed to get into personal opinions on article talk pages)....but I will say (keeping in the spirit of that): I would be interested in seeing RS treatment of this study. The impact calculation (to name one thing) seemed pretty odd. To say the stiffness at the point of impact was that low is a big question mark for me. I feel there are other problems with it as well. But in any case, this demonstrates one of the reasons we require RS here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation 60 =

Citing a single paper by a single engineer does not prove that experts in engineering generally support NIST's work on WTC collapse. There are many problems with the Bazant paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, it's more than one source. And really the Bazant statement is probably sufficient given the fact that after nearly 20 years, the Truthers cannot point to a single published statement purporting to represent a large number of structural engineers that show they have any doubt whatsoever about the so-called official explanation. (The 30 or so structural engineers who signed Richard Gage's on-line petition not withstanding.) And on a personal level (as a structural engineer myself), I haven't heard a word of dissent.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Husley

Regardless of whether the study is "bunk" it is related to the Ae911 truth movement and therefor worthy of being in this article. Isn't this article supposed to be about the activities of Ae911truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.191.229 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that discuss the study in context? That's the problem, the existence of the report isn't the issue, it's whether anybody has discussed it in journalistic or academic sources. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This Sage Journal; Alternatives: Global Local, Political refers to and and discusses the study at least to some extent in the context of alternative views to the mainstream 9/11 narrative in the published article "9/11 Truth and the Silence of the IR Discipline" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0304375419898334 Creglim (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The abstract's statement of "A survey of the 9/11 truth literature reveals that the official 9/11 narrative cannot be supported at multiple levels. Two planes did not bring down three towers in New York. There is no hard evidence that Muslims were responsible for 9/11 other than in a patsy capacity." appears to be a rehash of Truther arguments. "IR" is International Relations, which has nothing to do with the architectural and engineering community, about which, in principle, this article concerns itself. Having not been able to read the full paper, I can't tell what basis or background is involved, but I can't see where anybody outside the Truther community has taken it seriously. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Extent of acceptance

I see that an editor has edited the description of the level of professional acceptance of fringe conspiracy theories to attempt to water down the level of rejection by professional A/E communities of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Of note is the recent Spike Jones controversy, in which Jones started out both-sidesing with AE 9/11 against serious academic sources. It hasn't gone well . None of these media sources take the position of AE 9/11 seriously, even if Lee did, and he ended up backtracking. They also point out the overall conspiratist mindset that has moved on to Covid conspiracies. See older accounts of professional rejection of AE9/11 . While "universal" may not be the best word, it is a reasonable approximation of the level of acceptance among the millions of architects and engineers in the U.S. versus the thousands of of alleged conspiracy devotees. After all, just because some doctors prescribe unproven or harmful treatments and have attracted a vocal following doesn't mean that there is a significant level of acceptance in the medical community for such actions - this is no different. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So do any professional bodies support "truthism"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
None that I've found, at least in North America. Certainly not the ASCE or AIA. This is where "universally" might be overbroad, since I wouldn't be surprised if some professional organization somewhere endorsed Truther arguments, but in view of Billyshiverstick's first change, which clearly sought to provide credibility, I reinstated it for now. Acroterion (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Then maybe say that "The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by all structural-engineering and structural-mechanics professional bodies"?Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That's certainly more specific, as long as AE9/11 isn't a "professional body." Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be more of an advocacy group.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That is highly charitable of you! It's like calling Joel Osteen's prosperity-gospel megachurch an advocacy group for Jesus. I mean, when they say "thousands of architects and engineers" are they counting the six landscape architects? How about the students and interns, or the fire alarm technician, or the dentist? Do the opinions of hundreds of electrical and chemical engineers move the needle in a professional sense?-Jordgette 19:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Furthermore, the last time I looked at it, a grand total of about 30 something structural engineers had signed Mr. Gage's on-line petition. By the way, the verification techniques used to prove if the petition signers are who they say the are.....leave much to be desired (IMHO). Not a RS at all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
One thing I've never understood is the accounting and verification behind the list. I know of one colleague who signed up in 2001 because he thought they were legitimately looking for investigation rather than promoting conspiracy theories - he is no longer on the list, but I don't know how many others never tried to be removed, or how many really understood what they were signing up for, or if they did, whether they still buy what they're selling. Acroterion (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Their "verification" process (at least when I checked into it years ago) is basically just to ask the person if they are who they say they are. (In other words, I could tell them I am President Obama and they wouldn't know the difference.) It's not like applying for a license/NCEES record. (I.e. send them transcripts, employment verification forms, etc, etc.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is utterly biased

Close discussion to keep OP out of AE territory
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article is clearly biased in support of the ludicrous official version of the 9/11 facts. Reading the article it seems that the AE911 organization is comprised of just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and hippies, without acknowledging that there are more than 3600 architects and engineers that don't buy the official explanation of what is obviously a controlled demolition. Has this article been edited by the CIA? Itemirus (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we'll need a reliable source stating that more than 3600 architects and engineers don't buy the official explanation. If you look at that list, you'll find that a tiny number of the world's electrical/software/mechanical/chemical/naval engineers, plus some architects and architecture students and interns, plus fire-alarm technicians and landscape architects, etc., signed a vague petition at some point over the past 15 years, which is quite different from what you claimed. -Jordgette 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Forum-type post with typical false claims and arguments from incredulity
Has it ever dawned on you that in the past century the steel frame of a building has never collapsed due to fires? It never happened before 9/11 and never happened again after. Same goes for planes that magically disappear or turn into dust. During a century of plane accidents, the engines have always been found along with parts of the fuselage. Only during 9/11 four planes and three buildings completely disappeared, except a passport of the hijackers that survived the fires and magically was ejected from the plane. That’s an insult to people’s intelligence. As to the number of supporters of the organization, the following is just one of many references Itemirus (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Your source isn't a RS. And several collapses of steel frame buildings have happened due to fire. Most recently with the Plasco Building in Iran. (Thank God it happened in Iran....otherwise the Truthers would be saying this was arranged by US Intel.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The Plasco building wasn't made of steel but concrete; it didn't fall at freefall speed; it collapsed on its side (not in a perfectly symmetrical fashion) and most of the debris didn't turn into fine dust like with the three buldings from 9/11. The Plasco building collapse happended as expected and doesn't violate the laws of physics. Your example proves absolutely nothing in regards to my arguments. The fact that my previuos post has been tagged with "false claims", which are indeed undisputable, proves my point. Itemirus (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Assuming you are right (and you aren't).....you do know that concrete performs far better in fire than steel right? (Concrete cover is better than pretty much any coating you can find. Look in the UL catalog some time....assuming you know what that is.) As far as the speed of the collapse, looks pretty close to free fall to me. (Once it got going.) Of course, this is a organization that urged President Hassan Rouhani to investigate the "possible use of explosives" in the Plasco building coming down. You are talking to a structural engineer here. I'm not buying any of this crap without some RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
At risk of feeding forum posts: Unprotected steel frame buildings collapse in fires on practically a daily basis. That's why building codes limit the height of unprotected steel construction - it's crap in a fire. It doesn't burn, but that's about all that can be said. A protected steel frame building (protection is required for a building of any significant height) , whose fireproofing is compromised by aircraft impacts is in deep trouble, and intact fireproofing is rated for no more than three hours, so the fire had better be extinguished expeditiously. The notion that steel framed buildings are invulnerable is a myth promulgated by the Truther community. And your study was funded by 9/11 Truth and arrived at the desired outcome, and is not regarded as especially credible by anyone else. In any case it only examined WTC 7, not WTC 1 and 2. WTC 7 has been a hobbyhorse of the Truther community, since it didn't have airplanes crashing into it, only large chunks of WTC 1 fell on it, which apparently makes a difference somehow. The idea that FDNY was in on the conspiracy and chose not to fight the fire in an empty, badly damaged building, for hours and hours, after losing more than 300 personnel, so that WTC 7 would be destroyed, on purpose, is part of the supposed conspiracy. That's what Truthers are pushing. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I never mentioned the FDNY - proof of high-rises made of steel, not concrete or bricks, that collapsed due to fires? I want facts, not chatter. You are just avoiding answering my questions; for example explain how a passport can be jettisoned out of the "plane" when it impacted the towers and survived the ensuing fires. Regardless of who funded the study, physics cannot be disproven. For a building to fall at free-fall speed, it takes a controlled demolition; Newton's laws of motion are at the basis of physics and cannot be violated. Itemirus (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
And see Edifício Wilton Paes de Almeida. The notion that the WTC was unique is a good example of fallacy of insufficient sample and cherry picking (limiting the choice to tall steel buildings). Acroterion (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories: