Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MONGO (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 21 July 2006 (→Conspiracy Theories, current draft proposal: NPA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Collapse of the World Trade Center has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

At the risk of stirring things up again,

I'd like to suggest rewriting the "conspiracy theory" section. First, the title is a bit misleading since no conspiracy is described. Surely, "individuals who disagree with the findings of U.S. Government engineers" are not by definition conspiracy theorists. Second, it's a pretty clunky piece of a prose; the language seems to have suffered greatly under the strain of the discussion here, and the grasping for a covering term for "the group of individuals" (?) and a source to attribute it to is virtually contortionist. Third, the "main article" that is linked to describes a specific hypothesis that is not even touched on here. Lastly, I find the controlled demolition hypothesis to be of interest in understanding the WTC collapses independent of the conspiracy theories with which it is apparently invariably associated with. After all, part of learning how the buildings collapsed includes understanding the possible alternative mechanisms. CD could obviously have done the job. What is interesting about the WTC collapses is that it may not have been necessary. Thinking that issue through should be possible without wondering whether you're a rebel or crazy or both. So I suggest the following edit to replace the conspiracy theory section, which proceeds from the "alternative hypothesis" legitimized by NIST itself. I've provided non-conspiriatorial sources, and I can of course put in external links in the actual article.

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center towers

The NIST study "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) However, NIST did not analyze the actual pattern of the WTC's collapse; the scope of the investigations was limited to the events leading up to the collapse: "The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST) Also, the NIST report did not provide computer visualizations of the complete collapse their global models of the towers, which would normally provide engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence (NCE). Finally, the study did not include the collapse of Building 7. Defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that it better explains the actual progress of the collapse (which, again, was not described by the NIST report) even if NIST provides a plausible mechanism for its initiation.

Any thoughts? I'll let it stand here for a week and then make the edit if there are no objections or suggestions.

--Thomas Basboll 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object: The draft you presented may carry a notion of POV in favor of the conspiracy theorists. The paragraph lists "shortcomings" of the NIST report and nothing else, leaving the reader with the idea that there was a sinister plot behind the tragedy. Also, the present paragraph serves to introduce the reader to a new topic. The main article you list can elaborate on the topic without assistance from this article. In other words, the status quo is good enough. --physicq210 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Objection noted. Here are some thoughts: I think "limitations of scope" would be more accurate than "shortcomings". I suppose this limitation of the NIST report could be included somewhere else in the article, but it seems to be most relevant here. If we did move that information elsewhere, however, we would be left with:

The NIST study "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) Defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis nonetheless argue that it better explains the actual progress of the collapse, which was not described by the NIST report (see above at ), even if NIST provides a plausible mechanism for its initiation.

Moving along ... since the NIST report is central to this topic, I don't see how introducing its own "alternative hypothesis" is a "new topic" - it is an alternative hypothesis to explain the title event of this article, i.e., the collapse of the WTC towers. The main article link is not mine, it is status quo. My draft simply summarises that article on the ground that has been established in this one, i.e., the NIST report. The CD hypothesis is not a sinister theory in and of itself, it as an alternative hypothesis that has been officially rejected; it is part of the official report. What must be understood (and what many readers, like me, will be trying to understand when they look this article up) is how the airplane impact + damage was able to accomplish what controlled demolition, according to the (status quo's) "government engineers", did not. I don't see the harm in quoting NIST's mention of the alternative for someone who is perhaps specifically wondering about CD. --Thomas Basboll 21:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to you introducing the summary. The problem is how you put out the summary to conform to WP:NPOV guidelines. Good start though. I congratulate you for at discussing your potential edits (unlike some in the past). --physicq210 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Physicq, here's my new suggestion then.

New Draft to Replace "Conspiracy Theories" section with two other sections.

Limitations of the NIST study

While the NIST report is the most comprehensive study of the collapse of the World Trade Center to date, it is limited in a number of ways. First, it did not analyze the actual progress of the WTC's collapses, limiting the scope of the investigations to "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST) Accordingly, the NIST report did not provide computer visualizations of the complete collapse of their global models of the towers, which would normally provide engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence of the actual progressive collapse (NCE). Finally, the study did not include the collapse of Building 7.

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center towers

The NIST study "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) Defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis nonetheless argue that it better explains the actual progress of the collapse, which was not described by the NIST report (see "Limitations"), even if NIST provides a plausible mechanism for its initiation. Supporters of this hypothesis constitute a minority in the relevant fields (primarily physics and engineering).

I'm aware of the meaning of NPOV, and I think that these are in full compliance. But feel free to point out potential oversights.--Thomas Basboll 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering where you got the impression that "computer visualizations of the complete collapse of their global models of the towers would normally provide engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence of the actual progressive collapse". Do you have a source that says that such "computer visualizations" (presumably an animation?) are normally (or ever) used for testing hypotheses in the context of structural collapse? Toiyabe 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The idea originally came to me from the simulation of the collapse of a bucket wheel reclaimer by a company called Sydac using something called ADAMS, which you can read about it here (PDF: ):

Like the NIST report, it does a finite element analysis that tries out various loading until collapse begins.

Unlike the NIST report, "The mechanism was then allowed to collapse under gravitational forces."

The Sydac ADAMS report explains why: "Comparing independent results from a finite element analysis of the structure with the results of the initial static analysis validated the model. Comparisons of the simulated and final collapsed states provided evidence that the correct failure mode had been identified." It also says: "By matching simulated collapse results for various initial fault conditions, with the final state of the actual equipment, the most likely initial fault was identified. Investigation effort was then focused in this area to confirm the failure initiator."

But this idea of simulating collapses and comparing with "the actual equipment", was applied to the WTC case in an by Dave Parker in the New Civil Engineer (NCE).

NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations.

University of Manchester (UK) professor of structural engineering Colin Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural response. "NIST should really show the visualisations, otherwise the opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any errors in the modelling will be lost," he said.

And they then asked NIST about it, who even said they'd consider it. I'll find the exact reference if you like.--Thomas Basboll 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, I found the NCE story: Dave Parker "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation", New Civil Engineer, 6 October 2005" (I think this link will work: )

PPS, the Sydac simulation has an html version here: .--Thomas Basboll 23:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting case, but certainly not normal. The WTC towers include many more elements than the mining equipment in the report you linked to, about the same number as a single floor truss out of ~80 in each of the 110 floors of each tower, not to mention columns and other structural elements. Add in the greater uncertainties in loading (file cabinets, office furniture, people etc) and the limited knowledge of the specifics of the fire and it becomes a more difficult problem by several orders of magnitude. And the uncertainties would be also be greater by several orders of magnitude.

So I guess it's OK to say that Colin Baily, a Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Manchester recommended that NIST perform such an analysis, but it is wrong to say that such an analysis is normal or imply that it is easy. Toiyabe 23:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your input. I propose rewriting that sentence to read: "Accordingly, the NIST report did not provide visualizations of the complete collapse of the computer models of the two towers, even though this might have provided engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence of the actual progressive collapse (NCE)."

As an aside, it would satisfy a good deal of my curiosity to see the models they did have (in the NIST report) elaborated to go all the way down to the ground (I understand they didn't even make their models that "global") and then subjected to "collapse initiation". This even if the model had to simplify some things. All models are simplifications - that goes for the Sydac bucket retainer as well. As long as the video evidence is analysed in like terms at various stages (to be compared with the progress of the simulation at the same stages), and the distribution of wreckage in the final state is mapped and simplified accordingly, there should be no (insurmountable) problem.--Thomas Basboll 00:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

NIST did not publish a global static model, and it doesn't appear that they developed one. So they couldn't make that model dynamic and "take it all the way to the ground". What they did develop is quasistatic models (no inertial effects, only load-related and thermal deformation) for specific sub-systems of interest.

The article from the New Civil Engineer is pretty misleading IMHO. Throughout the article it implys (at least the way I read it) that NIST does have a "visualization" but is refusing to share it, although NIST says they never developed one. Your proposed addition also seems (to me at least) to imply that. I would prefer something like the following:

"NIST did not develop a global dynamic model of the collapse of the WTC towers, only static models of specific subsystems. Some engineers belive that a comparison of an animated sequence of the collapse derived from a global dynamic model to the video evidence of the collapse would greatly increase our understanding of the failure mechanisisms(NCE)."

Personally, I think in your aside you are vastly underestimating the difficulties of a dynamic simulation of such a complex mechanisism. I'd be interested to see how Professors Colin Bailey and Roger Plank proposed doing that. Toiyabe 16:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Just came back here and read Toiyabe's suggested text, which I really like. I thought at least part of the NIST model was dynamic and was subjected to simulated loading. I still think that's (at least partly) right. In any case, with that info properly sourced to the part of the NIST report that describes the models, I think this would be a nice addition to the proposed "limitations" section.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Conspiracy Theories", add two new sections (Draft)

Here's my suggestion at this stage. We remove the section on conspiracy theories, and replace it with these two:

Limitations of the NIST study

While the NIST report is the most comprehensive study of the collapse of the World Trade Center to date, it is limited in a number of ways. First, it did not analyze the actual progress of the WTC's collapses, limiting the scope of the investigations to "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST) Accordingly, the NIST report did not provide visualizations of the complete collapse of the computer models of the two towers, even though this might have provided engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence of the actual progressive collapse (). Finally, the study of Building 7 is not yet complete.

Controlled Demolition Hypothesis

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories#World Trade Center towers

The NIST study "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) This alternative hypothesis, however, was primarily intended to explain the structural response of the lower floors, especially the completeness and rapid progression of the collapse. Its defenders therefore maintain that NIST found no evidence to support the controlled demolition hypothesis only because they were not looking at aspects of the collapse that would yield such evidence (see "Limitations").

Looking forward to hearing your comments.--Thomas Basboll 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No...too POV.--MONGO 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Misleading selection of facts. --Mmx1 04:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo and Mmx1, with all due respect: since the edits I'm proposing have taken some real effort to produce, I'd appreciate an argument for these dismissals. Which of the two proposed sections are too POV, in what sense are they POV, and is there something that could be done to make them less so? Perhaps you could specify the POV from which they seem to be written.

How are the facts I've selected misleading? I.e., what falsehoods do they lead one to believe?

In both cases, surely there are ways of improving the passages rather than just dismissing them. Given the really odd looking "Conspiracy Theories" section as it stands, surely this is at least something of an improvement? My point of departure has been that the "main article" link is poorly related to the text in this section. That's what I've tried to fix by situating the part of the CTs that pertains to the WTC collapse (not 9/11 in general) in the space left open by the NIST report and for which it has been criticized in the mainstream engineering community (NCE). (For more of my take on this, see my arguments above at "At the risk...")--Thomas Basboll 06:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, stating that there are limitations about the NIST and FEMA reports is POV. This is because they didn't examine the possibility of alternative theories since there was no evidence that supported it. Their job, primarily was to explain how the collapse happened, not how it might have happened, and in this I believe they are correct. Secondly, controlled demolition is not a hypothesis, and it's not even a theory...it is nothing more than an opinion. It is not supported by the scientific community and not a single reputable engineer anywhere has published a single paper regarding proof of controlled demolition.--MONGO 07:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I'm puzzled, are you saying that identifying the limitations of a report by quoting it's own statement of them is POV? The limitations with respect to visualization were criticized by NIST's own scientific community at a conference it hosted, and it publicly acknowledged that criticism (that's from Parker's NCE piece).

Moreover, NIST calls CD an "alternative hypothesis" in their official report (a part I've also quoted). But what do you mean by "hypothesis"? Most people would say "it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis", since a hypothesis is a much less corroborated element of science than a theory. I will grant that it is also an opinion that some people hold. But I have not presented it here as a fact or even a claim. I have presented it as a hypothesis to be tested. Thus "defenders of the hypothesis" are not necessarily defending the claim that CD brought down the WTC but rather the need to investigate that possibility. Part of their argument is that NIST, as you also say, did not really look into that possibility.

Finally, let me say that I see CD as a kind of baseline mechanism that certainly could bring down the WTC in a manner consistent with how it looked, at least on video, and in its final state as evidenced by photos, satelite imagery, arial photos, i.e., the material that NIST looked at. NIST identified a potentially equally destructive mechanism (impact damage, weakening by fire, collapse initiation), but they did not explore the sufficiency of that mechanism to cause a complete progressive collapse of the whole structure. That's what Prof. Bailey (who is not a conspiracy theorist) pointed out: he would have liked to see what their proposed mechanism would do to the WTC in theory (and in greater detail) and then compare it with what actually happened (i.e., the actual "structural response" of the building).

Best,--Thomas Basboll 08:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, you believe that the U.S. Government is culpable?--MONGO 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh?--Thomas Basboll 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas please let's avoid expressing our personal belief on the facts: what metter here are not our belief or opinions, what matter are just sources of informations, criteria to accept them and way to express these informations.--Pokipsy76 08:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The rules here on the talk pages are a bit looser, right Pokipsy? Mongo just asked me for a personal opinion that didn't seem relevant. And I didn't answer. Mongo "believes" NIST was correct in limiting their study, but that my effort to get these limits into the article are wrongheaded, because POV. My views on CD (as, say, a baseline mechanism, not to be proved but to be matched in destructive force by the final explanation) actually state my curiosity rather than my belief. The article, as it stands, does not satisfy my curiosity. Reading the NIST report went a long way to rectify that because it at least mentions explosives but it then, like I say, stops short of settling the matter of the actual collapse sequence (the roughly 16 seconds after initiation).

Anyway, I take it the discussion pages are the place to try out ideas and beliefs, and the article are the place to put the factual information we discover. Right now, I've contributed as series of well-documented official facts that we need to get somehow into the article in order to make it more informative.--Thomas Basboll 08:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it may be misleading to offer both the FEMA (and NOVA/Eagar) and NIST accounts of the progressive collapse. NIST's mechanism would not start a floor-pancaking but rather a column failure. So the NOVA animation, for example, does not fill in the account after NIST's "collapse initiation", though I imagine many people still think so. There are perfectly good scientific accounts that are consistent with NIST report out there (I'll get the reference shortly), but they also stop short of actually modelling the progressing collapse. They are very much a "how could it have happened" rather than "how did it happen".--Thomas Basboll 08:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but what is the hypothesis, and do you or do you not think that the U.S. Government was involved. There was also the situation with airplanes hitting them of course.--MONGO 08:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. The CD hypothesis does not deny the airplane impacts. Sometimes, for the sake of argument, it even grants them to be sufficient (along with fire) to initiate collapse. It's the behaviour of the 70+ stories of cold steel underneath the impacts that are at issue, as I understand it, and as am trying to represent it here.

The CD hypothesis, in so far as it pertains to the structural collapse of the WTC and not 9/11 in general, proposes only that there were explosives in the building. There are a number of different ideas about what kind and how they were distributed. Depending on which phenomena you want to account for, and the level of abstraction (i.e., are you trying to explain particular puffs of smoke or just the speed and thoroughness of the collapse), various suggestions have been made. Like the "who dunnit" question, it's a out of my league at this point. And this article certainly doesn't need details of that kind to muddle the issue. It would be a bit like going into great detail about al-Qaida training and financing, I'd think.--Thomas Basboll 09:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Controlled demolition is a bunch of rubbish...not one person of reputable merit has published a single paper in any respected journal that controlled demolition occured. You're in the wrong article and I suggest you take that nonsense over to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.--MONGO 10:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a sense, I'm trying to get the refutation of CD into this article without pitching it from a POV, a clear example of which seems to be yours. The way to do that is to quote the cool assessment of the NIST report and then make a reference to the minority view it rejects (for balance). As the article stands, the reader will not find NIST's explicit rejection of CD anywhere in the article. On this point, there is nothing wrong with 9/11 conspiracy theories article. So I don't see why I should try to make changes over there.

I think my proposal (and certainly the section on limitations) works even if CD is untrue. I don't think the idea that it is "rubbish" would pass either the stylistic or NPOV guidelines at WP.--Thomas Basboll 10:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The CD stuff cannot be reliably sourced since it has never been published in any reputable journal related to examining the issue from a peer reviewed and scientific position. We do not publish original research here.--MONGO 10:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas, You will never win with mongo - his unfailing belief in NIST is faith based. If you so much as point out a misspelling or incorrect grammar he pulls out an objectection from his lucky-bag of abuse. He'll call you a conspiracy theorist, declare you NPOV or his favourite, NPA. This article is his personal kitty-litter and he won't stand to see it defiled with fact or information. Seabhcán 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything you have commented on about me, a.) has nothing to do with making the article better, b.) is a personal attack. It amazes me that you can't see that.--MONGO 11:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just informing the newby of the special rules that apply to this talk page.Seabhcán 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thomas - you should also note the unusual meaning of Original Research used here: It means anything Mongo disagrees with. Seabhcán 11:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So what's next? Tell him I'm some top secret federal operative on some special mission to spread lies?--MONGO 11:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Mongo - I don't doubt that you 'spread lies', as you put it, in your spare time. Seabhcán 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you state that you don't doubt I spread lies...nice...--MONGO 11:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, the evidence for CD at present has no reliable source, certainly not one that is comparable to the sources behind NIST's column failure theory, which provides the substance of this article.

But the dismissal of CD does have a reliable source: NIST, which I have provided.--Thomas Basboll 11:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I.e.: I am not suggesting anything like the publication of original research, but rather the simple reporting of the official conclusions of the NIST study, its own statement of scope, and some criticism levied at it at a conference it hosted, by a perfectly reputable peer, reported in a perfectly reputable engineering trade magazine.--Thomas Basboll 11:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the left...you lost me...you want to show how CD wasn't looked at by NIST? Why would we do that?--MONGO 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm with ya on the left, but nope: I simply want NIST's conclusion that there is no evidence for CD to be cited in the article. I also want it to be noted that NIST did not model the 16 seconds of each collapse after they were initiated.

Here's a different suggestion:

"Conspiracy Theories" (New Draft)

The World Trade Center was one of the major technical systems that failed as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although no major studies of the collapses had ever proposed such hypotheses, the NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) This conclusion may have been a response to the widespread use of the term "controlled demolition" in the popular media to describe the disaster. In one case, a demolitions expert was misquoted as proposing explosives planted in the building as the initiator of the collapse. In his correction, he clarified that it only "looked like" controlled demolition. (Alb. Journal on Van Romero.)

Despite the NIST report's conclusions, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and is a staple of 9/11 conspiracy theories, along with the failure of other social and technical systems, including those of the air defenses and the intelligence community.

I'm no Bertrand Russell, but you can't tell me that isn't better prose, and more informative, than what we've got there now.--Thomas Basboll 11:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Limitations of the NIST study" (draft of proposed new section)

Independent of what we do with the conspiracy theories/CD hypothesis, here are my best thoughts on the text of a new section as of today:

While the NIST report is the most comprehensive study of the collapse of the World Trade Center to date, it is limited in a number of ways. First, it did not analyze the progress of the WTC's collapses through to the conclusion, limiting the scope of the investigations to "the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST) That is, the total progressive collapse of the building in an estimated 16 seconds has to date not been simulated. Accordingly, the NIST report did not provide visualizations of the complete collapse of the computer models of the two towers, even though this might have provided engineers with a way of testing the hypothesized collapse mechanism against the video evidence of the actual progressive collapse, as critics noted (). Finally, the study of Building 7 is not yet complete.

Comments on above proposals

This is the sort of information I had been looking for when I looked this article up.--Thomas Basboll 12:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that these sections would be a major improvement to the article. No fair and reasonable person could label this as anything but NPOV and informative. Seabhcán 13:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and Back Thomas up completely. EyesAllMine 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not see anything new in this discussin. Leaving aside the problems with sourcing, and original research by synthesis, the proposal gives undue weight to a fringe theory. We have a link to the conspiracy theories in the template, and we have a section with a paragraph and links pointing the reader to the main article, and to references. To my mind that is already excessive coverage. We should certainly not expand it further. Tom Harrison 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is "undue weight" maybe we can solve the problem expanding the informations about the "majoruty view" so much to make the weights are adequate.--Pokipsy76 14:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would note that there is nothing new in the accusation of "original research by synthesis" and this illdefined term has been used to knock down every reasonable suggestion. Taken to this Wahhabist extreme there is very little on this page, or infact on the whole of wikipedia, that would survive. By definition, any quotation from NIST give it "undue weight" and "synthesis", because any given quote or fact is mentioned only once in the 10,000 pages. But of course, Tom, you have no intention of applying this fanaticism uniformly. You wish only to remove statement from NIST that you feal they should not have made. I think this style of protest against an agency of your government would be more fruitful if you addressed it directly to NIST and ont on Misplaced Pages. Write them a letter. Seabhcán 14:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If these sections were added they would represent only about 5-10% of the article. How small would they have to be before they didn't have "undue weight"? Seabhcán 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see a necessity in changing the status quo. Even the 9/11 article doesn't have this "Limitations of the NIST study" thing or the summary of conspiracy theories. If we start now, will we soon have to do it on every article related to terrorist attacks? --physicq210 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to have a "Limitations of the NIST Study" section without a section on the NIST study itself. Toiyabe 17:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought the rest of the article was on the NIST study. Seabhcán 17:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe put a "NIST Analysis" (including last five paragraphs of current "Collapse of the two towers" section) and a new "Limitations of NIST Analysis" sub-sections in the "Collapse of the two towers" section? Toiyabe 17:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea.--Thomas Basboll 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Physicq, I think the status quo on the CT section is awful. Here's what it says:

Some people doubt the mainstream account of September 11th and say there has been a cover-up. This group of individuals, called "A New Generation of Conspiracy Theorists" by New York Metro, disagree with the findings of U.S. Government engineers and accounts published in mainstream media sources, and raise questions they say are not adequately answered in the official 9/11 Commission Report.

Here's what it could say (at a comparable level of brevity):

The NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) Nonetheless, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition hypothesis is a staple of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Keeping the heading and the link to the main article the same, this is surely better than status quo. It doesn't have to be new, just a better, more informative, way of establishing the link to the CT article.--Thomas Basboll 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom H., the limitations section is not primarily about fringe theories at all. The most important reason to include it is probably that non-fringe engineers (like Bailey) would have liked to see the model collapse completely. But it is also important to note that the NIST report marks a transission from the "pancake collapse" image (and animation) of the buildings' "structural response" to, in effect, no image of that response, except "catastrophic failure" or something like that. We need the limitations section to avoid a natural misunderstanding, namely, that the NIST-collapse initation mechanism progresses by transforming itself into essentially the NOVA/Eagar proposal. NIST, as far as I can tell, actually refuted that proposal and put nothing in its place.--Thomas Basboll 20:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you mention that the status quo is "awful," but didn't say how it is awful. Please elaborate on how it is "awful." --physicq210 21:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, my reasons for not liking the status quo are right at the top of this archive now, immediately under "At the risk...".--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As the article is now, the conspiracy theories section has a breif mention and a link to the subpage and that is plenty. This is not the place to go around trying to POV push unproven and unreferencable things. If the simple fact that not one engineer of merit has ever published a single article in a respected journal about controlled demolition or these "alternative theories" isn't enough for the POV pushers of nonsense to understand, then I don't know what else to say. Unless you have some way to properly reference this information, then it simply has no reason to be here.--MONGO 22:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not unproven that NIST found no evidence for controlled demolition. It can be easily referenced to the NIST report. Nor is it POV to include, in the section linking to the conspiracy theories about the WTC collapse, the hypothesis that pertains specifically to the collapses, namely, controlled demolition, which is not mentioned that section now. (In fact, the title should by "controlled demolition hypothesis".) The remainder of my proposal just rephrases and better sources the opposition of the NIST reports conclusion with the CTers, i.e., as the status quo puts it, "disagree with the findings of U.S. Government engineers and accounts published in mainstream media sources" (the second half of which - the media - is a red herring). Finally, the links I propose in the text is much more informative way of referencing "the group of individuals" that the section gestures at. This group, and those individuals, is easily identifiable in the WP articles I link to. Your admirable aim of not "pushing" controlled demolition seems to be overwhelming the more basic mission of providing informative content. Please note that I'm not introducing the conspiracy theories into this article (they are already there), I am improving the two sentences that deal with them.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories, another draft

I don't think the following text to replace the body of the "conspiracy theory" section can be considered a "POV push of unproven and unreferencable things":

The NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) Nonetheless, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition hypothesis is a staple of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I think that MONGO's point that "not one engineer of merit has ever published a single article in a respected journal about controlled demolition or these alternative theories" could also reasonably be added. Again, anyone who has been faced with the task of evaluating the CD hypothesis will want this sort of information: (a) NIST explicitly rejects it (with page references), (b) no one in mainstream engineering defends it, (c) an identifiable group of people, represented in WP, still pursues the hypothesis (with links to WP articles).--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If Mongo's point ("not one engineer of merit has ever published a single article in a respected journal about controlled demolition or these alternative theories") were to be added it would need a source. If there is a source for this, I'd be happy to see it added. Seabhcán 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead, demostrate one paper that has been properly peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.--MONGO 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to believe that this is not "a respected journal", if you can provide a source for this statement:

Research in Political Economy, Vol 23, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, published by Elsevier Science publications (Science Direct link).

Also, many engineers have come out in support of CT, however it is your contention that these people are not 'of merit'. You will need to source that claim. That can't be hard, now can it? Seabhcán 10:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The first linking abstract discusses that the hijackers were not on the planes essentially, so right off the bat, this looks simply to be unreliable. What engineers have come out in support, compared to the tens of thousands who haven't or have never bothered to because they have no proof of controlled demolition.--MONGO 10:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Jeff King of MIT. Can you source a claim that he is not of Merit? Seabhcán 10:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the statement, "The controlled demolition hypothesis has not been proposed in mainstream engineering scholarship," needs a source. It can stand til it falls since it is easily refuted with the reference. The above is obviously not such scholarship.--Thomas Basboll 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Agreed. Seabhcán 10:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said nothing has ever been published by a reputable source...see WP:RS.--MONGO 10:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, MONGO, I'm a bit stupid today - perhaps you can explain which part of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources applies to Research in Political Economy? Is Elsevier not a good publisher? Seabhcán 10:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the publisher...it appears to be a collection of chapters in a book titled "Research in Political Economy"...correct me if I am mistaken. Does that mean, since we are discussing simply chapters in a book, that this somehow equates with appearing at the very least in an issue of the magazine Discover, but wouldn't it be more of a reliable reference if it was from a real journal related to the situation, as in an engineering journal?--MONGO 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My question isn't whether you think its bad or not, its (first), seeing that you linked it above which part of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources says its unreputable? (Second) Can you provide a source for your claim that "no reputable Engineer..." and third, What is wrong with Jeff King from MIT, and can you show a reputable source saying he is without merit? Seabhcán 10:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I missed Jeff King...where is that listed...is it in another discussion further up? Can you demostrate a reputable enginner that has published anything anywhere that would fit the criteria for inclusion under WP policy? You ask me to prove a negative, when your chore of demostrating that there has indeed been a reputable engineer who has indeed published evidence of controlled demolition in a reliable source, should be much easier, since we both know that even if this has happened, it has only happened in one or two instances...show me the published information that has been properly vetted.--MONGO 11:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, if your statement is to be included it will need a source. Or do you suggest that all negative statements can be included unsourced? If so I propose including the statement "No reputable journal has ever supported the belief that the World trade center was not made of cheese" Seabhcán 11:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if your statements are to included they will need a source...demostrate a single reputable engineer who has published evidence of controlled demolition in a reputable scientific journal...let's see you demodstrate that. You can't demostrate that...let's see you provide refutation of this simple point. The reason? Because controlled demolition didn't happen, outside some people opinions. I looked up Jeff King...nothing of his has been published regarding contolled demolition on 9/11...all I see is him talking with 9/11 conspiracy theorists on google videos, which, interestingly enough, can most easily be linked through conspiracy theory websites, which are not peer reviewed. I'm sick of your snide commentary, very sick of it.--MONGO 11:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, quit trying to change the subject. I DONT propose including anything about 'reputable engineers'. YOU DO propose including unsourced negative statements. I object to that. Seabhcán 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment above that CD needs to be reputably referenced, I didn't once say that I want the comment: "there has never been a reputable engineer who has published that controlled demolition happened on 9/11 in any reputable source." I was only discussing what can and cannot qualify based on policy.--MONGO 11:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this point a bit moot given the material I'm trying to introduce? I was under the impression that a consensus had been reached that "reputable source" in this article ultimately means "respected by the mainstream engineering community" or something on that order. Hence my use of mainly NIST and NCE as source.--Thomas Basboll 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My recollection is that you want to say that NIST didn't find any evidence of controlled demolition becuase they didn't look for any...correct me if I am mistaken.--MONGO 11:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm a dynamic and open minded guy, so I've given in on that (actually, I wanted to say that those who pursue the CD hypothesis have suggested that, but the source probably wouldn't pass here). Here's exactly what I "want to say", i.e., change the CT section to say:

Conspiracy Theories, current draft proposal

The NIST report states that it "found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." (NIST) Indeed, the controlled demolition hypothesis had not been proposed in mainstream engineering scholarship prior to the publication of the report, and has not been suggested since. Nonetheless, the collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition hypothesis is an important element in many 9/11 conspiracy theories.

That's my suggestion for the text. My opinions about CD, of course, aren't at issue.--Thomas Basboll 12:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just found a source that allows the following improvement:

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001." This clarification was added to Part III and the executive summary of the final report in "consideration of public comments" that had been made to an earlier draft . Indeed, the controlled demolition hypothesis had not been proposed in mainstream engineering scholarship prior to the publication of the report, and has not been suggested in such scholarship since. Nonetheless, it remains a concern for some members of the public. The collapse of the World Trade Center has become a central issue in the 9/11 truth movement and the controlled demolition hypothesis is an important element in many 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Let's concentrate on this for now. I'll make the edits early next week and then move on to the limitations question.--Thomas Basboll 12:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They will probably be reverted.--MONGO 12:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted by whom? If the person is you what's the need to speak impersonally? If it is not you why don't you let those people say themself what they think rather than speaking for them.--Pokipsy76 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On what basis? Seabhcán 12:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the linking in of the 9/11 "Truth movement" which by title alone is complete POV and because he still is using the terminology of hypothesis in his summary, when it isn't that, it's simply unreliably referenced opinions that have yet to be published by a single reputable source that would properly review the material before presenting it in their journal. Seabhcan, you do understand that I have seen no evidence yet of a single reliable source regarding controlled demolition. As fas as I am concerned, if the only way Jeff King can get his opinion heard is via the consipracy theory channels, then he obviously doesn't have anything credible to say, aside from his opinion.--MONGO 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, may as well air those reason now, and propose an alternative formulation. For example, there seems to me to be no reason to prefer reverting over erasing everything but the last sentence--mostly on stylistic grounds. (The New York Magazine could even kept as the source of that sentence.) I think reverting, now that that option is on the table, could only be done in bad faith.--Thomas Basboll 12:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? If I find your edit to be POV and not reliably sourced, then it has no reason to stand.--MONGO 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you refuse to explain your reasoning? Please see WP:OWN Seabhcán 13:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, Can you explain, as a completely separate point, why you object to using NIST's own word, "hypothesis", to talk about controlled demolition in this context.--Thomas Basboll 13:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I cannot explain why the "term" was used...I suppose they're simply trying to find a non-insulting term perhaps. You're seemingly wishing to think they called it a hypothesis as the CD had some basis in fact, when it doesn't. Other government reports about the plane that hit the Pentagon "vaporizing" (as was stated in federal reports, has also been taken out of context. Let's not do word play in some attempt to bring substance to something that has no substance.--MONGO 13:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. We aren't using "hypothesis" in the same way. As I understand the word, hypotheses are not based in fact but derived from appearances and subsequently tested against facts and accomodated (or not) by theory. But you get me thinking. Maybe applying the "mainstream engineering" standard, CD is not a hypothesis, since it does not follow from appearances as perceived by mainstream/NIST engineers. Still, if we leave in your qualification that mainstream engineers do not hold it in high regard, I don't think there would be a misunderstanding. I think we're entitled to use the word "hypothesis" as loosely as NIST, don't you? Anything else would be word games, right?--Thomas Basboll 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Maybe NIST used the term "Hypotesis" because NIST wanted to use a neutral point of view wording like wikipedia should do?

2) What's the relevance in giving your personal interpretation about what people are "wishing to think"?

3) How citing NIST can be viewed as "word game"?

--Pokipsy76 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on past experience, I am concerned that this change will be used to legitimize fringe theories, or will result in false information being added to the article. There's already a link in the template to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and that is enough. Tom Harrison 13:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you say a bit about what you imagine might happen? I simply don't see how an even stronger dismissal of controlled demolition than is in the article now, could have the effects you are concerned about.--Thomas Basboll 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's up to you and other editors to avoid that a change could be used in that way, it's not a reason to reject a valid change.--Pokipsy76 14:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't allow violations of reliable sources to stand...there are no reliable sources for controlled demolition.--MONGO 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I think we've reached the same old impass again. Mongo doesn't want anything changed, Tom is afraid of changing anything and MMX1 (which stands for "Mini-Me of Mongo X1") will chime in any moment now with a WP:NPA warning. Seabhcán 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA--MONGO 14:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)