World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed January 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This is not a forum for general discussion of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted.

Template:Multidel

Template:September 11 arbcom

Archives

September 2006 – October 2006 October 2006 – November 2006 December 2006 – January 2007 February 2007 – July 2007 August 2007 – December 2007 January 2008 – August 2008

To say that NIST represents the Engineering community is incorrect. I represents only a small fraction of the community as a whole. There is no poll of the community and we have justification for assuming anything about the larger body of engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.111.14 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites several reliable sources for the statement that the CDH is rejected by engineers, and you haven't provided any references which say otherwise. The engineers who have spoken in favour of the CDH represent a small minority. Hut 8.5 19:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The demolition proponents have responded to NIST in a detailed letter. The letter has now been posted in numerous locations.[1][2][3] It makes no sense to remove the positions of demolition proponents from the page claiming to be about the demolition theory. Please do not remove this letter. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that these sources are now "unreliable" is clearly grasping at straws as a rationale for not allowing the sentence to be added. These sites -- 911blogger.com, 911truth.org, stj911.org -- are all over wikipedia on the 9/11 pages. Since when did they suddenly become unreliable? bov (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're not reliable. I think we've been allowing some slack for messages apparently from and claiming to be from a source reliable among truthers. I'm not sure it's in keeping with Wikipedia policies, but I'm willing to let it stay in the CDH article, with some corrections. It should not be in a non-fringe article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that defenders of the official theory on here are trying to hide or bury the challenges to it made by the actual people this article claims to be about, with handwaving about "reliability" and "truthers". The exact same article is posted all over the internet, so the assumption that somehow all these blogs faked this letter, yet none of the 18 authors has noticed or commented, is pretty much as fringe conspiracy theory as it gets. It's like the rightwingers who attack gays and then turn out to be gay themselves . . . Also, tacking the sentence that includes this info onto a long-winded paragraph about the official report, and removing it's date, is another time-honored wikipedia tactic to obfuscate awareness. bov (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating that users Hut and Arthur Rubin continue to delete the DATE from a single sentence about the NIST submission comments by demolition proponents. They have no basis for removing it except the need to hide the relevance of it. See here. bov (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain the relevance of the date. I don't see it, other than the date being after that of the draft report, and recent enough that no one outside the truth movement would have looked at it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time reading this article and tried to figure out what was meant by the engineering community. I came to the conclusion that this community equals Zdeněk Bažant (with the possible addition of 9/11 Commission). Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No - it refers to engineers as a collective body. Hut 8.5 15:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be more citations in the introductory chapter, in that case. Imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilkkah (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there something wrong with the references we have? Bear in mind that the introduction is meant to summarise the rest of the article, and anything sourced in another part of the article doesn't need to be sourced again in the introduction. Hut 8.5 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a WP reader I was quite confused and had to spend a lot of time finding out what was meant by the engineering community. Basically it just links to Bažant paper (in the first chapter). Could be a good idea to elaborate what is meant by the engineering community (imho, again). Didn't mean anything was wrong with the references, just wanted to see more of those [n] in the first chapter. Ilkkah (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bazant paper is the reference cited for the information, it's not a link to improve the reader's understanding. I suppose we could link to Scientific community or Scientific consensus. Hut 8.5 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not reader's understanding. Then I missed the point of WP. I thought it was about reader's understanding of things. Ilkkah (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've missed the point. It's so the reader can verify the information in the article, not for the reader's understanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has to be both (yes I checked this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference :-) ... OK, my initial question was trollish, sorry about it. I wanted to understand the engineering community comment, and after considerable research I think I can see why it's there. So I'm not complaining because the comment is there (a couple of days ago I wasn't agreeing on it that much, but maybe I have changed my views a bit), I just wished some more backing/explaining/references for it. Ilkkah (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can all wish for better references. The problem is that, as the mainstream engineering community generally thinks this theory (or theories) has (or have) been discredited, they're not writing about it any more. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the term to Scientific community. If necessary I can add two more references to that sentence. Hut 8.5 08:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't link it to the scientific community because they are fence sitting on the subject. I think what Ilkkah is talking about is that using the term engineering community should require more than one cite especially as that one couldn't pass a peer review. I suggest citing at least two peer reviewed papers to prove the term is correctly used. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the diagonally cut steel girder mentioned on this page. This image has been floating around the internet for some time and it has not been explained. (http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2006/06/341239.jpg) How did the steel girder get cut at a diagonal angle. The official NIST explanation says the building collapse began with one column. If this girder was not cut by clean up crews then how was it cut, the collapsing building would not have cut it in such a fasion. This potentially crucial piece of evidence needs to be on this page and it needs to be fully explained. 68.229.87.128 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to add information to Wikipedia articles you need to have references for your claims, can you provide some? I can't see anything in the report saying that only one column failed, can you provide a specific reference for that as well? Hut 8.5 20:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused, 68. The NIST report says that building 7 fell because one vertical failed, followed by others. However, the NIST report also says that the two people who were rescued from building 7 after the initial explosions there were rescued after one of the towers fell. The newscasts of their rescue were broadcast before the towers fell. Also, Bazant claims that "the engineering community" agrees with the OTC. However, the real engineering community, as a whole, appears to be just as unconscious as the rest of the population, so Bazant is just spouting baseless propaganda. Neither Bazant nor NIST should be regarded as a reliable souce. We should change the attribution to something more explicit, such as "Bazant claims that the engineering community rejects everything but the official conspiracy theory." FEMA seems to be slightly more reliable.

You will note, however, the recently melted metal around the edges of the cut. Most of the columns were hastily shipped to China and melted down, but some pieces were retained for various reasons. For the ones for which the recently molten metal was recovered, however, it has been shown to be mostly iron with traces of aluminum, sulfur, potassium and manganese, but no chromium, so it comes from some source other than the column itself. Wowest (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA? Reliable? And NIST report clearly stated that the debris from WTC 7 was made available to researchers. If they weren't actually looked at, it must mean the researchers didn't see the need. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that speculations on the meaning of a contextless photo on the internet are reliable, but a world-renowned engineer writing in a peer reviewed journal or a 10,000 page report produced by hundreds of experts aren't? We have no idea who took this photo, where or when it was taken, or what it is depicting. Including the picture with this information would be pure original research. Hut 8.5 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This crops up on Wikipedia whenever brainwashing is involved. We have something called mind-control cults. These groups claim to be religions. They have some fairly predictable, but strange beliefs. You can expect, right off the bat that the leader of the group has a unique relationship with God. Maybe he IS God. One guy claimed to be "greater than God," and another, "greater than or equal to God." Some of the members -- or casualties -- got to be that way because they participated in the "sacrament" of LSD in the leader's presence. Some learned to "pray" or "meditate" in a certain way that deprived them of their ability to criticize what they were told. The biggest issue, here, is the practice -- the hypnotic drugs or unwitting self-hypnotic "meditation" or "prayer."

So, some of these groups got together and bribed experts in the relatively small community of scholars of sociology of religion. They got to go to special conferences, all expenses paid. They got consulting fees. Nothing was stated explicitly, but there were certain expectations, which were met. Suddenly "New Religious Movements" were good and special, even if they were neither new nor religious. However, when someone gets deprogrammed from the practice (not always possible), then they recognize that they believed something they were told with no real proof. Maybe they had an astonishing "religious" experience, but that does not make the explanation they were given true, and they have no proof that the leader really was the Lord.

So, who are the main suspects here? Al Queda and several domestic and/or foreign organizations. Is NIST funded by one of the principal suspects? Yes. In fact, it's subordinate to the Bush White House. Can we believe what it says? Maybe. We can certainly extend tentative suspension of disbelief to some of what NIST has to say, but when it contradicts known facts, we have to be suspicious.

Bezant? He says things he has no way of knowing. Is he intentionally lying when he talks about the "community of engineers?" We have no way of knowing that, and he is an expert, but when over 500 lesser experts disagree with him, we have to evaluate what he says objectively. In that context, we really should say "according to Bazant, the community of engineers rejects...." It's about HONESTY.Wowest (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are arguing for has no place in Wikipedia. Wild conspiracy theories can't be used to evaluate the credibility of sources, and the sources in question pass WP:RS with flying colours. The federal government isn't considered a "suspect" by anyone except fringe theorists and our article must reflect this per WP:UNDUE. Even if we take the claims of expert support from the CD supporters at face value they don't represent anything more than a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of experts in the fields in question. This is still original synthesis to advance a viewpoint. Hut 8.5 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the explosions are concentrated? If the explosions were caused by the pressure, they should be at the same time at all the windows in the same floor, instead they are always in single points, and sometimes in the same vertical line and also sometime in the central vertical line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.149.53.223 (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, kinda new, where should I add these links: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html They seem relevant, but I'm not sure where they would go. Thanks Soxwon (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could put them in an external link section or cite them as references somewhere. There is an article on the collapse of the World Trade Center, they might be better off there. Hut 8.5 19:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add them as references, but it didn't seem right, I think the external link is what I was looking for. Thank you Soxwon (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is a problem with this article specifically, but I posted this on some other articles relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories and thought it might be helpful here.

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt think a conspiracy theory page was a reliable source anyway since its not based on factOttawa4ever (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Engineers were in fact initially surprised by the collapses[18][19][20] and at least one considered explosives as a possible explanation.[21] " I think this line leaves the impression that engineers were surprised by the collapses after the planes struck, when, I believe, the articles themselves expressed surprise at 9/11 generally. Additionally, we should be clear that when we say that engineers considered explosives as an explanation, they considered the explanation and found it to be absurd. Bonewah (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much agreed, Also source [21] is from 8 days after 9/11. It would seem to be pretty unrealistic that an engineer could accurately assess accuraetly the event in that short of time Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aude compiled a list of engineers' statements about the collapse in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 here, most of them don't indicate surprise that the towers fell. I agree this ought to be removed. Hut 8.5 20:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other day I went to the library to look for a pic of the diagonally cut beam (mentioned above), for which I've done a little research on. Supposedly the pic was once a part of the "Here is New York: A Democracy of Photographs" exhibit documenting 9/11. While looking at the 1000 pics in the book I realized something is wrong here: Where is the remains of the Twin Towers, all the broken glass, toilet seats, desks, etc.? Obviously something caused the entire Twin Towers to disintigrate into a cloud of dust leaving a tiny debris pile. The following paragraph from this article begs the question: What kind of bomb was used?

Additionally, the production and expansion of the enormous dust clouds that covered Manhattan after the collapses has also been taken as an indication of an additional source of energy, such as explosives. Some proponents suggest that the energy required for this expansion alone (ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials) exceeded the gravitational energy available by 9.7 × 1012 J to 4.2 × 1013 J.[43][65] This corresponds to extra energy of about 2000 to 10000 tons of TNT, or 40 to 200 times the yield of the most powerful conventional bomb. NIST attributes these clouds to the ejection of air from compressed parts of the building.[22]

Emphasis added to the last sentence. Like, duh, obviously an unconventional bomb was used. A brief perusal of the archives shows someone suggested there musta been some kinda powerful mini-bomb (more powerful than TNT but NOT radioactive) involved. Maybe it's time to revisit this idea!? Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like, duh. The numbers in [43][65] could be off by a factor of 10^7 or more, as can easily be seen by looking at the formulas in the reference you're quoting (even if you don't specify it here), noting that it used EPA estimates of the particle size, and conspiracist estimates of the amount of debris missing, and then speculative conspiracist estimates of the binding energy of the debris. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how C3 or thermite compares to TNT. Seems like whoseover built the Twin Towers knows how many tons of concrete & steel was used. Compared to how much was hauled away. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a Thermobaric Bomb was used to bring down the Twin Towers. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]