Misplaced Pages

Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony0937 (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 22 April 2009 (→Scientific evidence about thermite used.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:43, 22 April 2009 by Tony0937 (talk | contribs) (→Scientific evidence about thermite used.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
Former good articleCollapse of the World Trade Center was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
February 1, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:WikiProject September 11Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArchitecture Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York (state) High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFirefighting High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Misplaced Pages! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:September 11 arbcom

Archive
Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Scientific evidence about thermite used.

article : http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm It's a respectable source, which states that it has found unignited nano-thermite inside building remains. This should be added to the article. I intentionally don't place this with the consp. theories, because it's a fact now. Whatever purpose it was, that's something for the consp. theories maybe. Marminnetje (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists have previously managed to publish material in a Bentham Open journal because the journal in question did not have a proper peer review process (see the archives of Talk:7 World Trade Center and Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center‎), so the source isn't credible. It's still a violation of WP:UNDUE to give the conspiracy theories anything more than minimal weight in this article. Hut 8.5 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No one is going to sort through years of archives of discussion pages to find what you are talking about. You have not shown any evidence that the Bentham Open Journals do not have a proper peer review process, nor do you define what constitutes a proper or improper process. Please either reference a specific page with the discussion or repost the basic evidence for improper review. bov (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If it has Steven Jones in it, it probably isn't that reliable. Soxwon (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 6#Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories and Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/Archive 6#Engineering community again contain extensive discussions of Bentham and the review process or lack thereof. Please read those discussions before reopening it here. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists? Why do you people think you have a right to put libel on these scientists? Source is reliable; it was carried by Raw Story, who is also reliable. In the terminology you folks use here, put up or shut up already. Huntdowntheconpiracists (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Raw Story? Reliable? No way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Niels Holger Harrit Associate professor from Department of Chemistry , Copenhagen University is interviewed on TV_2_(Denmark) news, Denmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3oCallmeMads (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Article in danish on the same in Politiken CallmeMads (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source and I cannot read Danish. Anyway, there are plenty of English reliable sources so there's no need to resort to foreign language articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV_2_(Denmark). Just like Misplaced Pages is a media and thats why the contents should be properly sourced. Just because you can't read Danish doesn't mean that Politiken is not a reliable newspaper :). No matter how little danish you can read the status of Politiken as a newspaer is unchanged. If we had to only use sources from language we understod, we couldn't make many articles here could we? CallmeMads (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
this link is chosen not as a source, but just to show you the links to plenty of reliable sources in Denmark that has written about this: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090412143451291 CallmeMads (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
"No but YouTube is just a media, the source is TV2." Irrelevent. Since anyone could have uploaded the video, they could have altered it. This has been discussed numerous times on Misplaced Pages. Sorry, it doesn't qualify. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth is the mainstream peer reviewed article (from 9 scientists finding nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center) not in this Misplaced Pages entry or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories wikipedia entry? It's not even in the talk pages other than this conversation. What is going on Misplaced Pages? I have read that 'Misplaced Pages editors livid over new 'Active Thermitic Material' paper' and that the ruling elite of Misplaced Pages editors/controllers Misplaced Pages renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a “conspiracy theory”

Here are a couple of links for interest:

Has anyone else seen this video and article? It's kind of weird to think that the conspiracy theorist were right but now they have the scientific evidence to back up the explosion theories.They have found both ignited and non ignited nano-thermite and say there could have been anywhere from 10-100 tons of this in the WTC buildings to bring them down. They concluded it was not the planes that brought the buildings down but these secondary explosives that the govt swore did not exist. I wonder why we have heard nothing about this in the states but it's going all over the other countries...

What other decent news agencies are cerrying this story?

Other articles of interest:

"911blogger"...that speaks for itself...odd...not a SINGLE news media has picked up this truly incredible finding...I mean, not even the BBC...not Reuters, not AP...none of them...Dr. Niels H. Harrit appears to have coauthored the piece with dismissed BYU professor Steven Jones...I can't find this info in any reliable source......instead, it is only found via CT websites like PrisonPlanet...man, one would think that some reliable source would want to report this finding! Instead, these guys had to pay 800 bucks I suppose to get their "research" published...beware a priori "scientists"....especially those that have been forced out by their universities (as has Jones) due to their wacky beliefs...it will fun watching this unravel after a proper explanation is provided.--MONGO 01:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reliable news outlets will be tripping over each other to scoop this story if there is any veracity. Why don't we wait for them to publish it? That's what WP:V requires us to do. Jehochman 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition to the Danish news Deseret News an American Newspaper has also reported on this. they may not have the circulation of the New york times they are a reliable source. It's interesting that that not a SINGLE News media has picked up this finding MULTIPLE entities have. I would love to see the new york times pick up this item but I don't think we have to wait for them either. Yes it is fun watching Tony0937 (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I assure you that anything verifiable would immediately be picked up by major press outlets. If you want news about Podunk, you can use the Podunk Times as a source. If you want a source for events in New York City, you should not be using the Podunk Times. Jehochman 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Deseret News qualifies...and it does report what (as they latter clarify on page two that Jones was "Essentially forced to retire"...wonder why) Jones and his buddies have done with their a priori research...so, as I tried to indicate, maybe this incredible find will soon be validated by non biased, non CT believing scientists that haven't been forced to retire. But here's the real fools gold...just think about it...the only way to cover up the use of thermite is to fly planes into the buildings...sure...that makes so much sense...lets cover up one massive conspiracy with an one that is infinitely more massive. I'm hoping that a real scientific journal will publish Dr. Niels H. Harrit and Jones's paper...now we have hope! Yup...I can see it now...there's the U.S. Government, masters of little...surely if they can coverup the manned mission to the moon, the Easter Island monoliths and Cydonia (region of Mars) they can coverup what really really really happened on 9/11.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I suppose you think that was supposed to be funny. I think it is sad. If Bentham is not a a RS you should really take it up with Reliable sources Noticeboard Tony0937 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Bentham not has passed reliable source mustard on the notice board. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a fee based publishing system...the hope is that if an article gets in there, a reputable entity might wish to publish it...one that has credentials to worry about.--MONGO 03:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Some journals depend on financing through libraries, some depend on direct subsidies. Others depend on advertising. This one is financed by those who publish there, and in this case, the fees have, according to the authors, been paid by their respective institutions. That's why it is called an open journal. Regardless of financing, any journal would be wary to publish anything that would be bogus or easy to refute, because neither libraries not other authors would pay for a journal that publishes bogus research. Please have a look a the CV of the editor-in-chief of the journal, Prof. Marie-Paule Pileni. --Cs32en (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
"inconclusive". The argument that it's not RS because its "a fee based publishing system" does not hold water Tony0937 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories: