Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center and New Zealand Council of Trade Unions: Difference between pages

Revision as of 13:25, 15 September 2006

Revision as of 20:14, 23 April 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox Union|<!-- Please include all unused fields for future use. See [[template talk:Infobox Union]] for usage. -->

{{controversial3}}{{GA}}{{facfailed}}{{talkheader}}

|name= NZCTU

{| class="infobox" width="270px"

|country= [[New Zealand]]

|-

|affiliation= [[International Trade Union Confederation|ITUC]], [[Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD|TUAC]]

!align="center"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

|members= 300,000

----

|full_name= New Zealand Council of Trade Unions

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive1|Archive 1]]

|native_name=

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive2|Archive 2]]

|image= [[Image:NZCTU logo.png|175px]]

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive3|Archive 3]]

|founded= [[1987]]

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive4|Archive 4]]

|current=

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive5|Archive 5]]

|head=

[[Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/archive6|Archive 6]]<br>

|dissolved_date=

|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

|dissolved_state=

----

|merged_into=

|office= [[Wellington]], New Zealand

|people= [[Ross Wilson (NZCTU)|Ross Wilson]], president <br> [[Carol Beaumont]], secretary

|website= [http://www.union.org.nz/ www.union.org.nz]

|footnotes=

}}

The '''New Zealand Council of Trade Unions''' (NZCTU) is a [[national trade union center]] in [[New Zealand]]. The NZCTU represents 300,000 workers, and is the largest trade union organization in the country.

== The proper format sigh (1 WTC or WTC 1) ==

It was formed in [[1987]] by the merger of the New Zealand Federation of Labour (NZFL) and the Combined State Unions (CSU). The NZCTU is often linked to the [[New Zealand Labour Party|Labour Party]]. While there is no formal link between the two, many unions are formally affiliated to the Labour Party. Furthermore, the Secretary of the NZCTU speaks at the annual conference of the Labour Party.

Hi Golbez, sorry about moving those numbers around in 1 WTC/WTC 1. I was going to ask if there had been any discussion about that. NIST uses the other convention, but I don't mind standing corrected on this. I've probably just grown to used to the other form.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 09:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The NZCTU is affiliated with the [[International Trade Union Confederation]].

==Past Presidents==

== Early attempts to understand the collapses ==

*1987 - 1999 - [[Ken Douglas]]

*1999 - Present - [[Ross Wilson]]

==References==

I dont think the title of that is acurate, epsecially it is recently that the conpiracy theories have gained popularity. [[User:Raemie|Raemie]] 10:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

*{{cite book

| year = 2005

| title = Trade Unions of the World

| editor = [[International Centre for Trade Union Rights|ICTUR]] et al,

| edition = 6th

| publisher = John Harper Publishing

| ___location = London, UK

| id = ISBN 0-9543811-5-7

}}

==External links==

:The consensus that has been reached on this article is that the best explanation for/description of the WTC collapses is the one that the mainstream engineering community has arrived at. The popularity of the controlled demolition hypothesis does not make it a "recent" attempt to understand the collapses; indeed, it has no currency in the engineering literature. It has, however, been briefly considered by the NIST investigation and dismissed. If the conspiracy theorists are right, then that may one day be acknowledged by engineers. If that happens, the relevant parts of the article will be shifted around. Controlled demolition will move up into the "collapse mechanism" section, and sagging floors will move down into the "earlier attempts" section. The trouble, in short, is that controlled demolition is not '''currently''' being considered as a solution to the engineering riddle of the collapses. (Engineers see the riddle as largely solved.) The best we can do is say that it '''has been''' considered.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 11:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

* [http://www.union.org.nz/ NZCTU] official site.

==As if it is undeniable truth==

{{organized labour portal}}

''The combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse. The impacts severed load bearing columns and dislodged fireproofing from the structural steel. Heat from the fires then gradually weakened the structures, causing the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bow inwards. The towers collapsed abruptly when the perimeter walls finally buckled. Once the collapse was initiated, the enormous weight of the portion of the towers above the impact areas overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the structures beneath them. Total collapse was then inevitable.''

[[Category:New Zealand Council of Trade Unions]]

[[Category:International Trade Union Confederation]]

[[Category:Politics of New Zealand]]

[[Category:Trade unions of New Zealand]]

{{Oceania-trade-union-stub}}

While this statement may one day be proven correct, it certainly has *not* been proven correct yet. Nor has the above statement actually been proven correct in any reasonably logical form by any person. Until evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (the very doubt which, btw, grows deeper and larger each day amoung the populace), this statement should *NOT* be stated as if it is undeniable truth. At the very least, a "offical speculation suggests ... " Alma Entity 08.30.06

{{NZ-org-stub}}

:This depends on what you mean by "proven". I have not been able to find one dissenting opinion in the mainstream engineering literature. On the contrary, Bazant and Verdure (forthcoming) write: "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 ... " what the NIST report described, and essentially what this summary says (Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press, pdf here [http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf].) That is, the account provided in this article is the "generally accepted" account, which has not yet even been criticized by "the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering." That's as close to "proven" as an encyclopedia article can get. Don't get me wrong, I think the engineering community has done a terrible job of proving "beyond a reasonable doubt ... '''among the populace'''" that their collapse mechanism is the right one. (See the section on the limitations of the NIST study.) I think they should engage with the "outsiders" in painstaking detail. But the mechanical aspects of the collapse cannot be any better "proven" than what can win consensus among engineers. If a paper is ever published (in a comparable journal) that explicitly dissents from Bazant's assessment of the consensus, well, then we can talk about moderating the language. It is the undeni''ed'' truth at this point. Though not, of course, undeniable. The consensus among editors of this article, at least at this point, is to base the account on mainstream engineering sources. This is not "official speculation", it is "scientific consensus".--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 07:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

::The trouble with basing the article on 'Mainstream' engineering sources is that it accepts the publishing constraints under which those sources, journals typically, operate. To publish an article on 9/11 that accepts or proposes a theory which contravenes the 'accepted' view seriously risks running into circulation problems if competing journals don't follow suit. It's an 'Emporers New Clothes' scenario. I would suggest that the article be renamed 'Accepted thoeries of the collapse...' and also that it references, or at least has links to, alternative theories. Aridol 30 August 2006

:::There's a slippery slope there. All articles could be called "accepted theories of...", and all sciences are subject to conservative academic publishing outlets. There definitely needs to be an article called "Collapse of the World Trade Center", and the only way to make it serious is to grant that, for all its shortcomings and constraints, mainstream engineering science provides us with the best possible explanation. Until the engineering community is won over, there is no way to present the alternatives. It is too difficult to separate lay opinion from relevant & qualified alternatives if we look outside the peer-community of engineers. At this point, there is the "earlier attempts" section, which even includes controlled demolition (perhaps the most alternative of serious alternatives). These might be expanded a little to acknowledge the history of differing views. But we can't start calling the current consensus into doubt in an encyclopedia article. That fight must be taken elsewhere.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 12:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::I accept your statement on the inclusion of 'accepted' in the title. It would certainly establish a precedent. However, I would take issue with the view that mainstream engineering science provides the 'best possible explanation'. In my view it provides the 'most acceptable' explanation where acceptability is defined by what's 'comfortable' with the populace and therefore with mainstream engineering science, specifically providing a solution that does not involve the implication of a conspiracy or 'inside job'. To simplify the point, the accepted solution is that which can explain the collapse of three steel framed structures without the need for controlled demolition, because absent a conspiracy, a controlled demolition following the impacts explains the collapse better than any of the 'accepted' theories. For the mainstream community, acknowledgement of a conspiracy is a non-starter and therefore rules out a range of alternative theories. Aridol 31st August 2006

:::::The stress should be put on "possible", not "best", where the possibilities are conditioned by exactly the issues you mention. However, in science there is at least a tension between physical principles and popular "comfort". (In the popular media, for example, the collapses just needed to be represented by a vague computer simulation.) It took about four years for engineers to agree on the specific solution. While I agree that anything that implied conspiracy was probably a non-starter for them, they were not just going to accept any "comfortable" theory. So even if NIST's theory doesn't satisfy us, it is the best ''possible'' theory. I think there is an interesting story in all this about how mainstream engineers dealt with what they saw on TV, who took it up and tried to explain it, what the range of opinion was, how it was settled. Especially interesting is how consciously the demolition hypothesis was dismissed at different stages. A very interesting struggle in its own right. But this article is written, as it were, by the winners. It's one of the spoils?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::::::I think we have a consensus Tom. I agree especially on the more philosophical point regarding the manner in which a solution was found and more to the point the variety of external pressures that played a part in the process. Engineering, as well as being a scientific discipline, is also a career path. I wonder whether the specifics can be attuned to existing theories of the philosophy of science. Aridol 30 August 2006

:::::::The statement that "the combined effects of the airplane impacts and subsequent fires caused the buildings to collapse" is incomplete. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I Secondary explosions did occur] and it did factor into the collapse of the towers. This statement needs to reflect objective reality. To say that the secondary explosions played no part in the collapse of the towers is not reality; the only questions is the extent that secondary explosions played. --[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

== Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation ==

Please read this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html It's very informative. [[User:87.118.100.99|87.118.100.99]] 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

:It is of mostly historical interest today, however. The NIST report (2005) rejects the essential elements of this explanation: the perimeter walls bowed inwards (pulled in by sagging floors) rather than outwards (released by the joists). Also, the pancaking floor failure account has been superceded by a column failure account. See [[Collapse of the World Trade Center]] for more info and refs.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

New NIST article for you guys. NIST to launch controlled demolition probe on WTC 7. [http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm] [[User:SkeenaR|SkeenaR]] 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Videos of the collapse clearly present it as starting at the floors affecting by the jet collision. To believe that detonated implosions took place, one must presume the hijackers were able to successfully aim for a floor that had already been pre-rigged AND that they had been told about, OR that the explosives were hurriedly implanted AFTER the collision. The videos (& the sounds in them) clearly show floors falling into the floors below them - something that does NOT happen with planned demolitions. Even after the main mass hits the ground (an event that cannot be timed exactly visually because of the dust), spires of about a dozen storeys of the outside skeleton stand for several seconds afterwards - also not typical of controlled demolitions. While the collapses resembled controlled demolitions in some ways, they also differed from them significantly - including the time it took to fall. The outward explosions (quite small) that do occur several floors below the descending "stack" are easily accounted for by loose concrete debris falling faster on the inside with enough force upon collision with other layers of concrete flooring to explode the windows out - and also by the compression of the air in advance of the falling stack --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

>>''"one must presume the hijackers were able to successfully aim for a floor"''

:Computers can be programmed. Assuming the attack was an inside job, those benefiting would never rely on a group of poorly trained outsiders to necessarily properly steer the plane into a critical target.

::One does not "presume" if he is smart - they could either program planes to hit what was needed or reprogram demolition scheme after the hit (no neeed to implant!! - just reorder the "go off" times). Eiher way is not at all complicated using today's technology.

>>''"The videos (& the sounds in them) clearly show floors falling into the floors below them - something that does NOT happen with planned demolitions."''

:I think that's about how buildings fall. They wouldn't have the plane hit halfway up and then start the demolition from the bottom -- they would be immediately exposed that way.

::Why ppl use such stupid rhetoric? It wasn't supposed to look like "controlled demolition". Towers were supposed to collapse and destroy all the evidence - that's all. First cut the columns at the right place - then after it starts to collapse blow off everything else in the right manner.

>>''"spires of about a dozen storeys of the outside skeleton stand for several seconds afterwards - also not typical of controlled demolitions."''

:Entire buildings don't make it to the ground after a controlled demolition at times -- many things happen with those events. But focusing on details of some demolitions doesn't disprove it in this case. There are many features beyond the visual details you are talking about as well which support demolition, as shown [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.html here].[[User:Bov|bov]] 14:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I suppose spires were left standing because no explosive were planted below those dozen storeys, only above. The core was "hardcore" :) and it stood for some time. I would even say that this is argument FOR the demolition!! If it stood even after half of the building fell on it then why would it collapse at all?! [[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]]

It is the nature of conspiracy theories that any evidence there is, is evidence for the theory. If there is no evidence, that is evidence for the cover-up. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 00:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:It's the nature of theories that they remain theories until disproven.--[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Is the nature of science that any evidence there is, is an evidence for the theory. Although the correct theory might not be known, only hipothesies exist. It's the nature of scientist to look through all the evidence and confront it with theory. NIST didn't do it (investigate the CD hypothesis). It's the nature of perpertators to destroy evidence! (steel from WTC, FBI tapes). And there are so many reasons (or strange coincidences if you preffer Tom) to doubt official theory, yet there is no strong evidence to support it. Where is the link to AL-Quaida(more than Osama video)? Why the money for the attacks wasn't tracked to the source! (this is the most important part of such investigation!) Why NIST report is incoherent and contradicts itself? Their paint study had shown that 157 out of 160 pieces of steel they investigated never reached temp.>250C and that NONE of the steel was more hot than 625C for >=15minutes (and probably was never close to it)? ([http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf check for yourself]) Why they didn't study the collapse itself? What was with WTC7 and WTC6 (strange white cloud)? NORAD standdown, war-games, Pentagon got hit, how there was no air defense? United 93 shot down, steel from WTC quickly destroyed(!), no black boxes were found, yet someone says they were (yet Ali passport found, van with Koran found...), operation Able Danger, some guy form FBI destroys data... ah.. molten metal... For more reasons go look [http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 here] or watch Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes.

:I don't know what kind of conspiracy there was. Goverment, CIA, foreign intelligence - who knows?! But given so many question marks there just MUST be another ivestigation. Why? Why some ppl prefer to close their eyes shut and preffer everything is OK? Why you trust so much ppl that have so much power over you? What is wrong with demanding another ivestigation? Look, USA started 2 wars because of 9/11 - it is a BIG deal. --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:*in science, speculations remain speculations - until they have some degree of confirmation, have predictive power, a wide degree on explanatory power, and gain acceptance within the scientific community - at which point they are ''promoted'' to theory status --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Agreed on that - part of scientific community starts to turn their heads towards these theories. Let's see what happens next - in the meantime we can call for an investigation, because the danger of "let's just forget about it" exist. That is no good. 9/11 should be explained precisely without doubt. --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the conspiracy theory is that the entire building was pre-rigged, and wired - unknown to anyone who would have told us about it by now. This plan was conveyed to the hijackers in some way. Then, the wires survived the crash & fires, and none (or hardly any) of the prerigged explosives went off prematurely. Then the demolition began starting with the impacted floors, & the computers proceeded to detonate floors with expert timing just in advance of the falling stack - with the only visible evidence being a few smallish puffs of dust ahead of the stack & an enormous cloud above it. Some also seem to maintain that the computer was also able to detonate the floors above the impact. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 02:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:How about we take it one fact at a time?--[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 03:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Pre-rigging: Unusual Evacuations & Power-Downs in the WTC Prior To 9/11[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=security+shutdown++WTC+prior+911&btnG=Search]. Who would told us about that? Those 5 (or so ) people who probably were wireing? Maybe they are afraid for their lives, maybe the were from another country.

:Why you think the plan was conveyed to hijackers? What for? Their job was to hijack planes, thats all (maybe it wasn't them who flight the planes - remote control?). What wires had to survive? - radio activation. Have you seen cutter charges? Have a look [http://www.explosive911analysis.com/ here] (link fixed) on the bottom of the page.

:Do you know what a bomb fuse is? This is the part that makes sure nothing goes off prematurely (maybe something did go off - would you notice?)

:Cutter charges are quite small and might be very well attached to a columns. Charges could have been radio-checked for being OK. Then demolition program would do the rest - with fine enough timing (to make it look a bit messy) - no prob. for CPU. As I said probably those above had to be detonated too (if there were any - plane remote control excludes it) to destroy evidence.

:You keep asking questions. I don't know answers either - I just use my imagination and knowledge. But all of it doesn't matter. Why don't you start asking [http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 questions] that ppl from 911 Truth movement ask and demand another investigation? Those questions need to be answered not yours.

:You can't disprove conspiracy by showing it isn't possible because it is - it has happened in the past, many cover-up operations were conducted by intelligence all over the world, nothing unusual about it. --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 22:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Secondary Explosions and Controlled Demolition==

For the love of objective reality, the section on controlled demolition needs to be updated. It is clear that secondary explosions helped cause the collapse of the WTC. Secondary explosions were widely reported by first responders and workers at the World Trade Center. Why is this allowed to be referenced as a conspiracy theory, when the evidence of that day clearly shows secondary explosions?

:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I Video of Firefights reacting to a secondary explosion... note the loud boom that causes the Firefighers to jump and make comments.]

:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqdrUMfax8I Police officials tell MSNBC reporter of explosive devices found at WTC]

:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVYAPhhMKqw Firefighter tells of eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions]

:[http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BD9051054B939EB3 Here's someone's play list, with links to many clips that give evidence of secondary explosions]

I suggest we remove the link to the conspiracy theory page for this section, and add evidence of secondary explosions. I then suggest that we make it very clear that secondary explosions helped lead to the collapse of the WTC. --[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 16:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This section says, "<i>Controlled demolition has never been suggested in mainstream engineering scholarship.</i>" Is this objective? Should the wiki reference the MSM? Lack of reporting is evidence of nothing. I believe this line should be removed.

--[[User:Slipgrid|Slipgrid]] 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here but I've read up quite a bit of this talk page. I would think that the first responder testimony would support the section on secondary explosions. All of those firefighter quotes are reputably sourced, yes? I say we put them in. Let's hear it for objective reality.

[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 05:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Stop using sockpuppets, it's obvious you're all the same person. "Objective reality" is a rare enough phrase, and to have it used by this person on their second edit? This is getting childish. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 05:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you get a checkuser done instead of smearing three people? [[User:SkeenaR|SkeenaR]] 06:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:They aren't doing anything wrong; a checkuser is only for abusive users. That doesn't mean I can't call out their incorrect statements and opinions. Anyway, I've clearly gotten to wrapped up in this, so I'll withdraw from all the associated discussions. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 07:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::Golbez, it's almost impossible to not either start yelling or start insulting when we have to deal with this stuff.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I say something wrong? I'm not the same person as anyone. I read thru a lot of this talk pages and I've seen firefighter quotes that say there were explosions and bombs in the twin towers. I was just agreeing with Slipgrid, I think there should be a mention of this in the article. [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 16:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

::It's funny how you write like him, too. --[[User:Mmx1|Mmx1]] 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anyone, I'm just me. What do you guys think about adding some firefighter quotes about explosions?[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:Why would we want to do that?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

While it may be a bit unsatisfying, we have to keep in mind that a WP article does not refer directly to "objective reality". It has to refer to current state of human knowledge, i.e., the expert consensus, such as it is. It has so far not been possible to convince the experts that the testimony of these witnesses or the puffs of smoke in the videos are suggestive of anything other than a gravity-driven, total progressive collapse, caused by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires. This may lower our opinion of the experts, but there is no way to step outside this framework in writing a WP article. Evidence for controlled demolition can only be introduced with reference to mainstream engineering opinion. That's why the section looks as it does. With the new NIST FAQ, this alternative hypothesis is fleshed out much better. The only other community of peers that talks about controlled demolition is, of course, the conspiracy theorists. That's why the link is there.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't firefighters experts? [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 18:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

:A firefighter is an expert at putting fires out, not determining their causes, or the causes of related effects. Articles about famous fires don't report the testimony of firefighters unless a statement has been selected by the fire investigators. In this case, the investigators determined that some of the eye-witnesses misinterpreted the effects of the collapses as their causes.

:One suggestion for how to deal with this constructively would be to improve the section on the physical features of the collapses, '''drawing on the NIST report''' to produce a more detailed description of what they looked and sounded like. That description can then be suitably balanced to include all the relevant evidence and testimony.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 18:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fabulous idea, Thomas. [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:You might quote someone else's description of the collapse. Constructing our own description would be original research. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] ^{[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]} 00:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::Summarising NIST's would not.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Has NIST done an itemized summary, or would we have to read through and create our own? Gosh, NIST is like 10,000 pages![[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Dewaseling ==

Why cannot we deweasel the expression

:''the idea has remained in circulation and the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has been described as the "[[grassy knoll]]" of a new generation of [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]''

who "has been described" refers to according to the writer? Who is doing the description?--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:The "new generation" phrase originally modified conspiracy theories in general, not 9/11 conspiracy theories. It is not true that WTC demolition is new to 9/11 theories; it was there from the beginning. Moreover, it also not entirely true to say that 9/11 belongs to a new generation. Many old-school CT'ers, from JFK and OKC, are also involved here. As for the speaker of the "grassy knoll" analogy: NY magazine reports the association, but there are many comparisons of this kind out there. The reference clearly provides the source. NY magazine is a good source for "has been described", but it is odd to say that (only) NY magazine has made the comparison.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 07:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::So who is "describing"? We have to be more specific since [[weasel words]] must be [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|avoided]] in wikipedia.--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 11:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure "has been described" is weaseling. But I think I get your point. How about just making the claim stronger: "the rapid collapse of the World Trade Center has become the "[[grassy knoll]]" of [[9/11 conspiracy theories]]''".--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 15:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::::"Has been described" belongs to the "It has been said/suggested/noticed/decided/stated..." entry in the [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#examples|list of weasel expression to be avoided]] in wikipedia. Your suggested change would violate [[NPOV]]: you can't express a point of view like it was the truth, you must specify that it is a POV *AND* you must specify who has that POV.--[[User:Pokipsy76|Pokipsy76]] 22:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"the rapid collapse" makes it sound like there was only one of them, not three. Also, the rapid collapse(s) may be the grassy knoll of the controlled demolition theories, but not the many other conspiracy theories about 9/11. [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 20:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:OK. The rapid collapses of the three WTC buildings. Now, no analogy is perfect but I would say that the WTC "demolition" is to 9/11 what the grassy knoll "second shooter" is to JFK. That is, you don't have to believe that shots were fired from the grassy knoll to believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, but it is a common thing to include in such a theory. Time magazine recently confirmed the analogy, by the way.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 21:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So the WTC fires would be like the "magic bullet"?

:Well, I think suggestions like "pancake collapse" or "truss failure" would clearly count as "magic bullets". The current MB (according to conspiracy theorists) is column failure. Just as the JFK MB had to explain a lot of holes (too many, the C-theory goes) column failure has to explain too many different collapses (three).--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that there were collapses (plural), not a collapse (singular)?

[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

: I certainly agree that there were three collapses. But "the collapse of the World Trade Center" can be discussed as a single event so no change in the article title is necessary.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 09:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can three events be discussed as if they were a single event? I understand that multiple events can be given a collective title. "The World Series" is a collection of 4-7 baseball games. So we can refer to "the series" meaning all of those games. But it would never do to call the series "a game". It isn't a game, it's at least 4 games. Simlilarly, we oculd give the collapses a collective title, but "collapse" could not be it.

Is changing the title of an article a big deal? I suggest "9/11 Skyscraper Collapses"[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It think it's a bit more like saying "The [[U.S. First Army]] is a field army of the United States Army." I.e., the collapse Seven World Trade Center was the third collapse in the collapse of the World Trade Center (though I would never recommoned that formulation specifically). In some cases (game/series) there will be different categories available, in other others (army/army) there will not. The difference is a matter of convention.

Yes, changing the name of the article will be inconvenient and confusing, since it is currently a well-established link both within and outside WP. Changing the articles title as you suggest would be like changing the title of [[1977 World Series]] to "1977 Major League Baseball champion series games". Not untrue, just unusual. "The Collapse of the World Trade Center" has a conventional meaning that identifies the topic precisely. Nobody thinks it happened in an instant, or is led to think so by the article. That's my humble opinion anyway.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::With all due respect, many people have all sorts of misinformation about WTC, including the notion that all 7 of the buildings collapsed upon being struck by aircraft. Your army analogy is not apt, IMO. The U.S. First Army is a division of the THe U.S. Army - a part of the whole. Thus, we could refer to the collapse of floor 98 as being a part of a whole building collapse. But referring to 3 distinct building failures in the singular would be akin to saying "in 1943 the U.S. Army fought the Germans at the Western front in France, and at the Eastern front in Poland". It would confuse the reader and not inform him that it was mostly the Russians fighing in Poland. Similarly, the current article title is plain false.

::As to the baseball analogy, I think a better analogy to the present situation would be to assume that they named it wrong to begin with. Say they had titled it "the championship game" even though it was a series of games. Referring to "The 1977 championship game" would be confusing, because people would not know which of the games you meant. Non-baseball fans would incorrectly assume it was a single game.

[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 15:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::I doubt if there is a perfect and concise title for the subject. "Collapse" would usually refer to an individual building (particularly since the various buildings were destroyed by different mechanisms: WTC 1 was struck by a plane, WTC 7 wasn't, etc.), but since the complex as a whole was destroyed as a single event, collapse can be a suitable term. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 15:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the courts found the destruction of the twin towers to be two events for insurance purposes. If there is a consensus that the current title is the best one, I'll drop this. On the other hand, if a better title can be found, and people only question the convienience of changing it, then I say would should change it.

"9/11 skyscraper collapses"

"Collapses at the world trade center"

"9/11 building collapses"

[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

==NIST Internal Consistancy==

I'd like to include some quotes about pancaking, since that is a heading. Here, NIST advances the pancake theory:

"When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." [http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y]

But here, they specifically denounce it:

"NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, . . ." [http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]

I don't want to make NIST look bad, so perhaps it's best just to ignore this?? [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:It appears to be referring to two phenomena: the structural failure in the fire zone, where several floors likely buckled in concert, and the progressive collapse of the undamaged floors below the fire zone. (Or possibly mixing a technical and non-technical meaning of "[[Pancake (disambiguation)|pancaking]]".) Hopefully there's a reference where they spelled that out properly. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 22:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, Peter. I think they are saying that pancaking is an explanation for what the CT's call "squibs", but saying that no pancaking occured in the actual collapsing of the buildings. In other words, they are two unrelated things. NIST endorses pancaking, just not to explain the overall collapse, just the dust ejections. I haven't found any NIST passages that explain it, but we can keep looking.[[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 00:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::Added the NIST quotes [[User:Zarcon|Zarcon]] 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== Controlled demolition of 7 WTC? ==

I added the following info, which got almost instantly deleted:

:One indication that twin towers did not collapse through [[controlled demolition]] is that they collapsed from the top down. In the third building that collapsed, [[7 WTC]], however, the explosion that led to the collapse took place at the bottom in a manner that is consistent with controlled demolition. Since this building housed several government agencies that alledgedly knew about the attacks, there is speculation that the building was proposely demolished to erase evidence.

The reason given for the deletion was that it was unsourced. Of course the first bit hardly needs to be sourced because the recordings show it. But that is just the core of a statement by a demolition expert I heard talk about this on tv. Can't I use something that was said on tv because it cannot be checked? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

*''Which'' demolition expert? Some random person, unnamed, speaking on television does not an expert make. Dan Rather speculated on the day of the incidents that it appeared to be controlled demolition. Lots of conspiracy theorists rooted on that as 'proof' of a controlled demolition. Of course, Dan Rather isn't a demolitions expert in any respect. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I've found a source, the [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complottheorie%C3%ABn_over_de_terroristische_aanslagen_op_11_september_2001 Dutch Wikipedia]. next you'll be telling me I cant use Dutch sources. :) Actually, I've been wondering about that. Do sources for a Wikipedia have to be in the same language, even on the English Wikipedia, which isn't quite exclusively used by native English speakers? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 19:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

*There has been considerable debate here on this talk page regarding supposed controlled demolition of WTC 7. I'm not going to re-open that can of worms. See the archives section at the top of this page if you're interested in reading all of it. The outcome of it is that barring presention of significant proof that the building was destroyed through controlled demolition or that such a theory is notable, references to it are not going to last long in this article. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

::At this point, since the official explanation is so thin, there's is very little for the demolition hypothesis to attach itself to. (Has anyone checked whether engineers have taken a crack at WTC 7 in the scientific journals? My searches for WTC should probably have hit on them, but I wasn't specifically looking for it.) One thing that demolition theorists are good at, however, is describing what the collapses ''looked like'' in detail. I suggest you devote some time to improving the physical description in the WTC 7 section.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 20:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

*[[7 WTC]] describes the engineering investigations in more detail. It was damaged by the impacts and especially the collapse of [[1 WTC]] (which, of course, negates the whole "controlled" demolition nonsense with respect to 1 WTC). [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 21:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

:The tv show I saw stated that surprisingly few controlled demolition experts were asked to look at the images, so they asked the leading Dutch expert, Danny Jowenko. The latter said the collapse of the twin towers couldn't possibly have been controlled demolition because it happened from the top down and the fire would have set off some of the explosives long before the actual collapse. But when he saw the collapse of 7WTC (for the first time) he instantly said that ''was'' a controlled demolition beyond any doubt (also notice that the centre collapses first, a strong telltale sign - it's too 'neat'). He was surprised when he heard that happened on the same day and speculated that a team of about 30 experts working fast might just pull it off. But only then did he hear there was a fire going on in the building and started doubting again. About the debris falling on the building - how likely is it that that would have caused such a neat collapse starting at the bottom? (But that is ''my'' observation, for what that's worth.)

:Googling [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=danny+jowenko+controlled+demolition+expert&btnG=Search danny jowenko controlled demolition expert] gives some useful links. Most in Dutch, but also some in English. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 10:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::Just because it looks like something, doesn't prove that it is something. There is no proof of controlled demolition...frankly, it's preposterous.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Some of us think its preposterous that the building fell down on its own, for no reason, as the US Government claims. This would be the first case in history of a suicidal building. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The Earth looks flat. It's a telltale sign that the Earth indeed is flat. The Earth looks exactly the way it would look if it were flat. There must be a Dutch person somewhere who sort of agrees with this. How likely is it that the Earth would look flat but not be flat? It's just too 'neat' that it should look flat but not be flat. All this official "spherical Earth" nonsense is just a government plot. [[User:Weregerbil|Weregerbil]] 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Its a good example, but you should remember that it was traditionally the state and the church which maintained the dogma of the 'flat earth', and this dispite the fact that the Greeks had measured the earth's radius thousands of years earlier. The church hid this information and promoted 'flat earth' for its own reasons. It was infact a conspiracy. Then some independent researchers point out that it was impossible. One named Galileo became particularly famous, but was punished with arrest for speaking out. Today the US gov tells us all kinds of fancy tales about the way the world goes around while punishing independent researchers who point out its impossibility. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 11:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Yes, the U.S. Government goes around "punishing" independent researchers...that's why folks like Alex Jones and Dylan Avery (the producer of loosechange) are actually not free, but have stand-ins pretending to be them (under U.S. governement control of course)...both these guys are actually down in GITMO...yep, they're there along with all the others that have exposed the truth about controlled demolition.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::The remark about it looking too neat was my observation and you may ignore that. Not, however, the observations of an expert. Who else are we to trust? And how many demolition experts were asked? Any sources on that? The tv show ('Zembla', by the way) claimed that hardly any were asked, which seems a bit odd, to say the least. As to whether Jowenko is an expert, on [http://www.blasterexchange.com/directory/category.php?cat=1&sub=13&style=text this site] his company is named as one of a handful, most of which are North Amercan, so it seems to be an internationally respected company. Credibility of the sources is always an issue. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 11:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:A slightly more detailed retelling of what was told on the show can be read at http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/sharebook/205173323. And indeed Zembla has managed to cause questions being asked in Dutch parliament before, so maybe that will happen again. Point is, though, that they're not some nutters trying to prove something. Even Dutch parliament take them seriously. They do proper research and actually debunked most of the 'conspiracy theories' (odd term that), including much of what was said in the [[Loose Change (video)|Loose Change]] documentary.

:One interresting question remains, though. Can I use a Wikipedia in one language as a source for another? The Dutch Wikipedia has much more in-detail and better organised information on this. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 11:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::I believe in theory, yes, but: The Dutch version of "[[9/11 conspiracy theories]]" may not be the most credible source, except for [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] itself, and casual remarks, even from experts, are not necessarily expert opinions, particularly if they were not aware at the time of the extent of damage to 7 WTC. Non-English sources would likely be held to a higher standard of reliability. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::As for WTC1&2 - this guy wasn't familiar with Jones's work I suppose. His argument about explosives blowing up in 300C is irrelevant. [[Thermite]] has to be ignited with very hig temperatures (magnesium fuses are used), so fire factor wouldn't be a problem. Keeping explosives in place would be. Well,I've heard there were some strange redecorations in offices of the Towers according to some who worked there... (911 Mysteries movie on Google Video) --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Another point he made was that setting the required explosives for such a large building (on all floors!) would have been a major undertaking (I assume he meant that holes would have to be drilled to place them). Doing so would have required months of work and hiding it in such a busy building would have been nigh impossible. Anyway that's not so relevant there. The main thing is that he instantly recognised the collapse of 7WTC as a well done professional job. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Exactly - If you are interested in ''posibilities'' please watch 9/11 Mysteries. Some strange drilling and working took place before 9/11. A guy who worked there said he couldn't stand all thos noises (drilling too). --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 13:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::*"A guy". Who? Quoted where? Anyone else make such claims? Of the thousands of people who worked in WTC 7, was there anyone else who made such a claim? What about the 250,000 people per day that spent time in WTC 1 and 2? Any of them see anything? "A guy" just makes this an extreme fringe statement, and an uncitable one at that. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::His name is mentioned there - I am sorry, I don't recall it. There were also other statements from other people. Please, I am providing you with what I've seen on the video - nothing more. You can watch it or move to my talk page and we may discuss it further. --[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 13:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, i did my homework.Guy's name is Scott Forbes, he's a senior database administrator of Fiduciary Trust. It's in the 3rd part of the video, he speaks twice (4min and 21min).--[[User:SalvNaut|SalvNaut]] 13:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::*...and later felt doubt about that statement. Sorry, I'm not impressed. To conclude, instantly, that it was controlled demolition based on a single piece of evidence (video from one angle) is wholly improper from any scientific analytical standpoint. If this 'expert' had reviewed the voluminous evidence that is available and ''then'' concluded it was a controlled demolition, that would have some significance. Concluding it was a controlled demolition (and worse, later recanting to a degree) after watching a single video is crackpottery.

::*Also, referencing another language Wikipedia is wrong. See [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] where it says "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source". Also, tertiary sources (which encyclopedias are) should generally be avoided. If the Dutch article on Wikipedia has sources to back up claims (especially secondary sources), then let's see them here. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Jowenko had doubts about the idea that the charges were set ''on that same day'' when he heard there was a fire, not about it being a professional job. I've watched many demolition films (I love them, and I suppose I'm not the only one) and it also caught my eye that the building sagged in the middle first, a distinct feature of controlled demolition (making sure the collapse has the least impact on the surroundings). It looks like it was done too professionally to cover it up. But I'm no expert and any discussions between us about what is plausible are no reliable source. In the Zembla documentary they said that hardly any demolition experts were asked to investigate it. (That in itself is suspicious, by the way.) So they looked one up. How many ''demolition'' experts have investigated the evidence? They're the best source for any info here. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 13:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::*I stand by my original statement that anyone who concludes the building was brought down through controlled demolition based on a single piece of evidence, that of video from one angle, is engaging in crackpottery. If that's the best evidence that can be trotted forth to prop up the notion that it was intentionally demolished, then it's uncitable. It's just one person's opinion, and whether he is regarded as an expert or not, the nature of his conclusion is falsely based. Regardless, we're not here to discuss whether the building was intentionally demolished. If you can find reputable sources noting a complex investigation that concludes the possibility of controlled demolition, then use it. Else, it's just a wild guess. --[[User:Durin|Durin]] 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:About Wikipedia using itself as a source, I'm not sure if that is applicable here because it's the Dutch Wikipedia, which is a different encyclopedia. But it ''is'' a '''tertiary source ''', which is a bad idea. Note, though, that that page also says '''primary sources ''' ("a source very close to the situation you are writing about") are unreliable. Such as the US government researching accusations directed at the US government. That would be like asking the Chinese government to investigate human rights in China. I'd say that anyone from the US is also too close to the source to not be biased (which could go either way by the way). The best source would be '''secondary''', such as a UN investigation. Or else by a neutral country (which?). Or an expert form another country, such as Jowenko. And the site I linked to is an indication that his company is held in high esteem internationally. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 13:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::This fellow from the Netherlands may think it looks like controlled demolition, but that doesn't mean it is. The building sustained damage, how much is unclear, but many buildings in the area sustained damage. If the building collapsed from damage and fires, how was it supposed to look like when it collapsed? Is a ''natural collapse'' going to look any different than one caused by controlled demolition? For what it's worth. The ''god'' of thermate (not thermite) is on administrative leave from BYU due to the preposterousness of his jargon...see his [[Steven E. Jones|article]] and check out the links for yourselves.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Natural building collapses [http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/docs/taiwan_six.jpg look like this]. Note how when these buildings fall, they don't turn to dust. 'This fellow' is a demolition expert. His opinion is notable. Mongo's opinion is not. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I see, so some earthquake movements (which are side to side by the way as well as up and down) happened to topple over a few small buildings in some third world countries that don't have sound structural foundations and that is supposed to be how steel frame buildings collapse when they are subject to damage and fires? Thos buildings don't appear to have suffered from fires...but since we're throwing some links around..here's a few for you.[http://www.911myths.com/][http://www.debunking911.com/][http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Sorry Mongo, those links have nothing to do with the topic at hand. You might as well link to [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=70834483145677471 Loose Chan] to try and prove your point. And you also show your ignorance of the world by saying Taiwan is 'some third world country'. It certainly isn't! Ha ha. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Nothing readily identified where the buildings images were from, but they don't appear to be very substantial buildings, so they definitely looked third world to me. I can't see that they are steel framed so your comparative analogy is worthless.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 17:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::You must have missed the name of the link "Taiwan_six.jpg". Do you mind if I ask whether you have actually been to a 'third-world' country? You many think these buildings are insubstantial, yet they were strong enough to survive an disaster in relatively one piece, whereas the WTC building completely disentrigrated into dust. Do you imagine there is some property of steel which would cause a building to crumble to dust when it begins to fall? [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 17:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I did actually miss the link as I was looking at the images, which have no labels of course, and nothing discussing when, where or what is believed to have caused their collapse...and your point is what then? Where they built with trusses? Are they "skyscrapers"? Are they toppled from earthquakes? You do realize that earthquakes would make buildings behave differently than what controlled demolition would do. [http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html#Fell%20in%20convenient%20pile? Looking at this image of WTC7]...I don't see a pile of dust...I see lots of steel and other items besides dust. Do you have any proof that there was any controlled demolition at the WTC site? Patiently, I have waited for proof, but for some odd reason, no one has ever provided any. Maybe the proof is "hidden" since, as you stated above the "US gov tells us all kinds of fancy tales about the way the world goes around while punishing independent researchers who point out its impossibility"...I guess the real truthseekers are all at GITMO by now.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::Not entirely clear, but it seems the comments by Danny Jowenko were 1) not intended as professional opinions and 2) made without knowledge of the damage to 7 WTC. 7 WTC was undamaged from the North side; the ''South side'', however, had a number of fires and a huge gash across the lowest 10 storeys from debris from 1 WTC. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Its funny then that NIST has been unable to offer an explaination of the collapse. Five years after the collapse is is still an official mystery. That alone is surely unique in the history of structural engineering. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Funny, perhaps, but not suspicious for a structurally-compromised building. In any event, the article (as of 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)) already reflects this. [[User:Peter Grey|Peter Grey]] 17:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

:I believe the big question is if a building like that could collapse at all just because of a fire. It shouldn't, so if an explanation is not found (or even sought?) then there must be something fishy going on. What that is (and who the fish is, so to say), is a different matter, by the way. I mean, if an (independent) investigation is not done (or allowed) then that could be sloppiness (maybe distraction by the big collapses next door). If it is intentional and the US government is covering something up, then that doesn't mean they set the charges. And if they did, which part of it? Alas, the less people know, the more they are willing to jump to conclusions. But if an acknowledged expert gives an opinion about something few independent experts have given one, then that is worth a mention. Who are we to double guess experts? [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a common misconception that the burden of proof lies with the conspiracy theorists. ("I have waited for proof but it never comes..." etc.) For the purposes of this article, it seems to me, the CT POV is very useful in so far at it forces us not to fill in holes in the official story that remain open (or give the appearance that such holes are not there). The CTs, at least in this article, serve mainly as a source of (sometimes intense) skepticism. Together we can easily discipline it, and this will only improve the article. Indeed, it already has. CTs raise some good questions, even if not all of their questions are equally good. More generally, nothing we know about 9/11 would justify punishing the perpetrators (interestingly, as many non-CTers have also pointed out, we also don't have enough evidence to punish Bin Laden, the Taliban, or the Iraqi population.) But that isn't the issue. The question is: is there enough evidence to formally '''accuse''' members of the Bush adminstration (not presume their guilt, mind you) and then begin a criminal investigation. It is in the course of this investigation and trial that the proof would turn up and be made public. Alternatively, is there enough evidence to begin an "independent" investigation in the sense of one that takes the Pentagon, the CIA, the Whitehouse, and individuals working for them, as not necessarily trustworthy witnesses to their own activities? My point is this: the proof isn't yet available; according to CT'ers this is because at least some of it is under the jurisdiction of people who ought to be prime suspects. It all depends on the claim being made, of course. But I really don't think "the absence of evidence" (much less "proof") can rightfully be invoked here. IMHO.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 10:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:The conspiract theorists are the ones who are claiming something that is not mainstream, is not official, is not supported by the press, is not supported by the known evidence. Their burden is to refute the majority points, but you expect the majority point to refute the conspiracy theories? CT's raise only eyebrows, not our educational standard and endorsement of further CT nonsense is only going to make this article look like it was written by fools.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::No, actually I think the whole debunking approach is silly. I don't think the mainstream should refute the claims of CTers (nor should this article). It should acknowledge its lack of answers to '''some''' of the questions the CTers raise, that is all. It is the raised eyebrows of CT'ers that should (in some cases) motivate us to bring the official account up to the educational standards we claim to have. This article should provide factual answers where they are available, even when those answers happen to meet CT'ers half way.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 10:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. CTers believe that the overwhelming amount of circumstancial evidence (also in the case of the WTC collapses) renders suspect the apparently total lack of interest, on the part of official investigators, commissioners and mainstream journal[ist]s, in searching for physical evidence for alternative hypotheses. It is this lack of curiosity in the mainstream that concerns them. Not so much the strength of their own convictions.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::I suppose they haven't looked into other theories since the evidence doesn't support an investigation in that direction.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::That argument might apply in the case of engineers, i.e., in so far as CT'ers are disappointed in ''their'' lack of curiosity, since they have a particular, expert basis to evaluate the evidence, which may be considered superior to that of most CT'ers. But it is a different matter with journalists, since they are supposed to ask questions on behalf of their audience, and cannot be expected on the face of it to know more about structural engineering. As it turns out, they have failed to inquire into this to the satisfaction of, at this point, about a third of the American people. Journalists seem simply to have swallowed the official story on the collapses, rather than wondering whether or not it makes sense.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 10:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Thomas, I think you sum up the situation very well. I would add that from the point of view of a criminal investigation (not the topic of this article in any way) the demolition evidence is quite weak, and anyone who has experience with the legal system would know that it could be shot down in court very quickly. However, there is other interesting evidence which the brief FBI investigation turned up. They followed the money trail back from the hijackers to Pakistani ISI chief General Ahmad, who wired $100k on Sept 10th. Where was Gen. Ahmad on 9/11/01? 1600 Pennsylvania Av. When Thomas Keen, chair of the 9/11 Commission was asked why his report didn't mention the money trail, he said that such small amounts are unimportant. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 10:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::You got a fact based news report that summarizes that or did you get it from [http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html] global research?--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Ah, nevermind...the facts are in 'cause it's also on prisonplanet.[http://www.prisonplanet.com/cover_up_or_complicity.html]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Everything is documented on [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ cooperativeresearch.org] and everything there is sourced from mainstream newpapers only.[[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 10:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Any way we can see those mainstream newspaper accounts without having to go through that website? I personally do find the issue interesting, but don't feel like surfing around through that website looking for the specifics of these details you have presented.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Of course, no one is forcing you to educate yourself :-) [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 10:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::I can't help it...I'm jus a 'merican...let me know when you track down those reliable sources that will meet [[WP:V]]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Here are some links for you: [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a010100saeedreleased Saeed released], [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a0summer01mahmoodcalls contacts ISI chief], [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a090401mahmoodvisit who visits washington]. [http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1600#a100701mahmoodreplaced Chief is removed from office]. Here's a key quote from the [[Times of India]] ''"A direct link between the ISI and the WTC attack could have enormous repercussions. The US cannot but suspect whether or not there were other senior Pakistani Army commanders who were in the know of things. Evidence of a larger conspiracy could shake US confidence in Pakistan’s ability to participate in the anti-terrorism coalition."'' (Times of India, 10/9/2001)[[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Okay, but how does all that tie into U.S. involvement? Where are your direct links...I see a few footnotes, but nothing that can be cited as any real evidence. This guy Mahmud Ahmad doesn't even google to a single relaible source.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Do you mean General Ahmad, former head of ISI? Here's some google hits [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ISI+%22Gen.+Ahmad%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 (Google News Archive)]. As for US involvement, besides the fact that the guy who paid for 9/11 was in Washington on 9/11 meeting with the head of the CIA and others? You should read some background on the ISI and CIA connections. They are basically the same organisation. [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks...ISI and CIA the "same"...that will make for some interesting reading. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/09/wpak09.xml "The CIA was extremely mistrustful of the ISI under Gen Ahmad"]--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your "should" do "your" own "research", and "quit" trying "to" dismiss "what" I "say" using "quotation" marks, "mongo". [[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 13:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::::[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html (Guardian)] This article sums it up nicely.[[User:Seabhcan|Self-Described Seabhcán]] 13:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:This whole discussion has an aura of two opposing sides getting their point through. If there is such a thing going on in reality, then the article might mention it, but for the rest it should just give facts (and experts opinions) as they are, irrespective of whether they support the claims (or lack thereof) of either camp. Ascribing certain claims to 'conspiracy theorists' is nonsense. They should be ascribed to whichever person or organisation made them and at most place them in a certain camp if that suggests bias (in which case it might even be better to ignore them). My point is that Danny Jowenko is an expert who can be assumed to be neutral.

:Btw, 'conspiracy theory' is an odd term. Of course there was a conspiracy (how else could one organise such a thing?), the question is whether the US government was in on it. I beieve that in the US it is customary to use the term 'conspiracy' specifically for that, but if that is a specific US thing it should not be used here (especially if it is used to make them look like a bunch of nutters, but I'm not sure if the usage in the US implies that). Another reason not to speak of conspiracy theories or theorists and just give the facts, irrespective of what they might mean. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::Since the article is discussing an event that happened in the U.S., why wouldn;t we use common language that is used in the U.S.? This, of course would be the opposite if we were discussing an article in another country, if indeed they don't use the term ''conspiracy theory''. When Danny Jowenko gets his research published by a reliable third party source, then we can read it and determine if that source is qualifying under policy, namely [[WP:V]].--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::Just so we're on the same page, Mongo. What is the "reliable third party source" that the current WTC7 section is based on? And just for good order: who are the corresponding first and second parties?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 11:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Look at the article...you are the one who did most of the rearraigning so the sources were ones you kept. I just looked them over, and if we're going to get into an argument about whether the NIST is a reliable source, then I think we can end the discussion.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 11:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Not so fast. (BTW, I don't recall working on the WTC7 section.) NIST is reliable, we agree. But the section also uses a letter to JOM (presumably not peer-reviewed), and a somewhat poetic description of a "wounded" building from the press. I asked especially because the impressionism of that first description might well be tempered with (wasn't it?) Dan Rather's "looked just like a controlled demolition" (approx.) remark or, more recently, Jowenko's expert assessment in the Dutch press. Now, we could of course insist that Rather first get his views published in a "reliable third party source". But then we've go to clear the journalism and editorializing out of this section as it stands. This would leave us with a very provisional hypothesis. (That's actually the direction I'm leaning in.)--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 11:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::What hypothesis is that, Thomas? You want to insert the opinion of some fellow from Europe who has never studied the materials or even the site of the suspected demolition and also the comments by Dan Rather that he said it looked like controlled demolition...I don't see what their opinions has to do with building a fact based encyclopedia. Jowneko's expert assessment? Assessments rendered from afar hardly seem expert to me.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::Jowenko is looking at the same thing Rather looked at (at the same distance from the image on his screen I would imagine). Rather, in turn, is as good a source as whoever said the building had been "wounded" by the fall of the other towers. Since I can get you to agree that neither Rather nor Jowenko belong in the article, I'm trying to establish the standard that would remove also the NYT news service remark and the Barrett et al. letter. This would cut the article back to a tentative hypothesis about fires causing key columns to fail. It could then be augmented with NIST's more recent interest in possible "blasts" (and I take it they are looking for something other than explosives to cause them.) Since absolutely nothing approaching a conclusive explanation has been suggested by anyone (other than CT'ers perhaps, ;-) ) this section should not be filled with speculative detail.--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 12:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::I have no problem with trimming details that ae speculative, so long as you don't end up trimming those that don't jive with any bias you may or may not have.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 12:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Looked like a controlled demolition" is worthless. If I dress in a brown sack and "look like a potato", that does not make me a potato, and similes have no place in an encyclopedia. Until someone can tell who planted explosives in 270 floors of office tower, the whole theory is just as worthless. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 12:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:Ah, but Jowenko did not use a simile. He said, "This is controlled demolition." That could be a metaphor, of course, (e.g., "Juliet is the sun"). But somehow I don't think that captures his meaning. On the other hand, what ''is'' your take on the use of metaphors in an encyclopedia, e.g., the "wounded" building "suffered mightily"?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 12:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

::The term was simile, not metaphor, and I was more referring to the Dan Rather quote mostly. Also, Loose Change is chock full of similes, probably ten for every actual cited fact it offers. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

:::LC is beyond the pale as a source for this article, isn't it?--[[User:Thomas Basboll|Thomas Basboll]] 13:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

== New film / deletion vote ==

Please vote at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth]]. [[User:Badagnani|Badagnani]] 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)