Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories
Start
This is a subarticle of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page; I took this information from there. Once the VfD is over, if this article remains then the sections copied to this article should be excised from the original article and this whole page should be summarized briefly there.
Demolition opinions
Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in before: below was what I wrote)
I would like to add something that I haven't seen yet in all info about 9/11. A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko http://www.jowenko.nl/) stated on TV in the Dutch Zembla Documentary "Het complot van 11 september" ("The 9/11 Conspiracy") (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/index.php/aflevering?aflID=3273161&md5=94816f8b6e5deee5d511a372b7ff6f23) of September 10th 2006 That it was obviously that "no explosives could have been used on the WTC". He gives two reasons for this:
- the WTC collapse goes from top to bottom: no controlled collapse ever has been done like that: explosives are always put at the bottom so the building collapses from its own inertia.
- Since both towers collapse from top to bottom this means there had to be explosives at all floors, top to bottom, that would have been detonated in order (starting at top working down to bottom). This is not possible because there was a fire on the floors hit; if there were any explosives in the building, they would have just burned. And, more important: every explosive uses a detonator. Those detonators would have exploded way before because they go off at a temperature of 320 degrees celsius; hence no explosives could have used.
The video Loose_Change_(video) shows enlarged puffs of smoke coming out the WTC towers some 30 floors below the collapse and states that this is evidence of explosives. However, as Jowenko concludes, these were bolts and parts of the steel construction popping out because of the enormous strain by the collapse. This collaborates with the remarks made by firemen in the 9/11_(film): "Bolt by bolt started popping out".
His opinion was double checked (as shown in the Zembla documentary) by a team from the TU Delft TU (Technical University) of Delft and they came to the same conclusion based on their calculations.
- The most common response to this is that the WTC was by no means an "ordinary" demolition. Steven Jones, I think, has argued that if thermate was used it would not be set off by the fires (and would have had to be encased anyway to focus their effects on the steel, so it would not simply have burned off). Obviously I don't know if he's right about that. In any case, it looked to me like Jowenko was saying that it was certainly not demolition like he would do it in the light of day. Shady characters involved in a conspiracy to make it look like something other than a demolition might do it differently, I would think.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Ok, Well, I can add then that to rig both WTC's in that way, would have been something that would have been done at the time of construction, which seems to me as something ridiculous because that would mean that the complot would data back to the early 70's? If it was not done at construction there would be another problem: according to Jowenko, the amount of wiring to do such a job (regardless of the kind of explosives) would be enormous (months). The wiring would have to be done also where it would not be obvious. Also: this means that at all floors (top-down) they would have to had people pretending to do construction work over a (long) period of time...
- I'm not quite sure we're understanding each other here. Demolition experts who have talked about this have said the WTC collapses looked nothing like anything they would have arranged. But they've also got much better working conditions: plenty of time and free access to an empty building. Conspiracy theorists think the demolitions were carried out in a covert military operation of some kind. Instead of placing a minimum amount of charges in optimal positions, they may have had to settle for excessive amounts of explosives whereever they could conveniently hide them without being discovered. This would explain the visually explosive nature of the collapses and enormous amount of damage to surrounding buildings (that controlled demolitions try to avoid). The main issue is not how the explosives were planted, but whether they were necessary to bring on a collapse at all. If the official engineers are right, what we saw is exactly what one would expect to see an hour after an airplane hit the building. The controlled demolition hypothesis depends on the falsity of that claim, not on the truth of claims about who, how, when, and where the explosives were planted. I don't know of any conspiracy theorists who claim to have answers to those questions.--Thomas Basboll 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
WTC Building 7 Collapse
In the same Documentary as mentioned above, they took a look at the collapse of WTC Building 7. According to Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, the collapse of that building "definately looks like a controlled blast". He comes to this conclusion because the building collapses from the bottom, a trademark for controlled demolition.
Jowenko can not explain the fact that the building collapsed on the same day, and is surprised it did, because according to him it would take a team of 30 to 40 people to do this in the given timeframe (the building was on fire for 4 hours). However, he leaves out the option it was rigged before that.
- Yes, Jowenko's reaction here is very interesting. If this was controlled demolition, then it looks like whoever did it was less careful to make it look like something else. Actually, when he was told about the fires he seemed so completely puzzled that I concluded that the building must have been rigged before hand. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Exactly: Given the tennants of that building (among them the CIA I understand), it makes more sense that they would rig it in case of an catastrophic event: that way they would make sure no confidential/secret information would leak! Some firemen might otherwise stumble over highly classified information. Also: why would 'they' take the time and effort to make the WTC collapse look like a catastrophic event, but not do the same with building 7? As Jowenko said it has all the trademarks of a controlled demolition! He thought it was unlikely - but not impossible - to rig it in 4 hours, even in a burning building. So it migth have been a hasty job... (this is off course speculation) Personaly (also not relevant for Wikipedia), I find it more plausible that the WTC 7 collapse was controlled demolition (for reasons stated above) And the WTC collapse was just that: a catastrophic event, not demolition.
At this stage, this interview might be briefly mentioned, but, like I say, I hope someone follows up on it and gets a more detailed analysis, preferably in writing, out of him.--Thomas Basboll 19:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hgoor 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) The whole documentary is still online and I would not be surprised (since it was also subtitled for the hearing impaired) if there is a complete written out version. But it is in Dutch and would need to be translated...
Citation
I removed the [citation needed] tag from the first sentence because obviously no citation is needed, since this page is explaining precisely what the Controlled-Demolition Theory is. If that doesn't make sense, please state your reason(s) here. Thanks! Mujinga 00:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Who says that's what it is? Tom Harrison Talk 00:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- For me it is clear that this article is explaining (or 'saying' to use your word) what the theory is. I dont really understand your objection, perhaps if I give an example I can make myself clear. Let's take the article about The Queen of England, which states as its first sentence:
- Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor; born 21 April 1926) is the Queen of 16 independent sovereign states known as the Commonwealth Realms.
- There is no need to give a citation here to 'prove' that the Queen really is the Queen, since the article is about her. That is the proof in itself. Thus, and I hope you follow my logic, there is no need to give a citation for the Controlled Demolition Theory in an article which explicates what that theory is. Hope that helps! Mujinga 00:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- One difference is that there are reliable sources about the Queen. What are the reliable sources who say that there is a controlled demolition theory, and what that theory is? Tom Harrison Talk 00:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Issues
There are multiple problems with the citations on this page, and some other things that need revising.
First paragraph
- This would suggest that a great deal of planning went into the attacks and that many people were involved.
- This needs a cite, otherwise it should be removed. It's original research if a proper source can't be found.
- Agreed, I removed this sentence Mujinga 10:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Molten metal
- He says when the mixture was poured, the molten aluminum remained silvery, not orange (with the exception of rougue embers).
- The fact that the tests were done in 5 inch steel cups needs to be added in order to give a proper indication of methodology
Ejected debris
- A calculation of ejection speed needed for girders to land so far away is used as an argument for explosives blowing up inside.[19]
- Unless there's another source for this, it needs to be removed. The cite contains no calculations, only numbers going up and down as an indicator moves up and down an illustration of the building.
- Section removed Rx StrangeLove 03:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Section restored. I've added link to calculations (http://911speakout.org/CollapseCalcs.zip).
- Please don't rush with removals. I am not sure if editors are working on this article or still on the same section on 9/11 conspiracy theories. --SalvNaut 08:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Molecular and Chemical Support for Demolition
- Recently, Professor Steven Jones conducted molecular analyses to ascertain the presence of explosive residues on steel samples from Ground Zero and in the released dust[23]
- The link for the cite is broken, other than that link there is no other source for the claim/results of the tests he is said to have conducted. The whole section should be removed unless another source is found.
- Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Section restored - link fixed. --SalvNaut 08:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted somewhere that "he was placed on paid leave while his university reviewed the scientific basis of his work in this area" (from the Wikipedia article) in order to give readers the proper prospective on his authority, and give them some motivation to investigate his professional ability to make these claims.
Pulverization
- Software engineer Jim Hoffman suggests that gravity alone exerts too little energy to explain the pulverization of non-metallic building contents into fine powder, or to explain the pyroclastic flow-like cloud of dust which billowed down the streets of lower Manhattan in all directions.[26]
- This quote comes from an outdated version of his work. The latest version has the majority of the material removed. If he won't stand behind it, we should not include it. (From his page: This paper is currently under development, taking into consideration critiques by various reviewers) The whole section needs to be removed.
- Section removed Rx StrangeLove 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The government has yet to produce the Cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or Flight recorder (FDR) from the WTC attack.
- Two men who worked extensively in the wreckage of the World Trade Center claim they helped federal agents find three of the four "black boxes" from the jetliners
- This is blue sky at this point. Nicholas DeMasi can't be found or will not talk about it, regardless of the fact that he added the story in a self-published book put out by a charity group. I was asked to take federal agents around the site to search for the black boxes from the planes (and they found 3 of them, unbelievable). Mike Bellone wasn't even on the search, but saw what he took to be black boxes. He also has been criticized for his handling of TRAC finances and for wearing an official uniform when he's only an honorary fireman. We shouldn't be repeating bad reporting.
Symmetry and Squibs
- They argue that while a possible theory is that the 7 WTC squibs simply result from the floors collapsing, the time between the events is much too rapid to be due to gravitational acceleration.[5]
- This link is broken. Since much of this section rests on this cite, it needs to be pared down substantially. In addition, that link is used as a cite in 4 or 5 other places on the page. It either needs to be replaced or some of the foundation material needs to be removed.
A lot more of the supporting material in this article is unscientific or just pure assertion but we can leave that to another time. Rx StrangeLove 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Sources to get familiar with?
Dr. Greening
Editors of this article may want to have a look at these papers by Dr. Greening. Have a look here and find Dr.Greening papers(his bio is here). This scientist does not agree with controlled demolition theory. He wrote a couple of interesting papers. This one, might be of particular interest WTC Thermite. He agrees that thermite reactions were the reason for WTC collpase(!) but he finds different reasons for them (reactions) to occurr! One citation from his paper:
- "Simply put, thermite-induced reactions were largely responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers on that terrible September day in New York City – but the fatal damage was not from deliberately planted thermite charges. Molten aluminum was the culprit, and the true terrorist!"
He also argues that glow seen moments before collapse is oxygen tank from Boeing.
My opinnion: I'm not sure if what he writes is correct but at least he observed the same strange evidence that Jones did! And he tries to explain it - big thanks for that.
Those are primary sources, so according to Wiki policies we should give just an overview of his work, right? --SalvNaut 22:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Prof. Torero
This professor from Edinburgh made an extensive study about fires and buildings collapsing with relation to WTC7. He even set on fire some 24-storey high tower. He did not find any explanation for WTC7 collapse because of fires. His paper can be found here. His work is reported in UK newspapers, so there are scond sources. --SalvNaut 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Moved here
This page has been moved from Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) - you can find some archives there and older ones at the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the Controlled Demolition section.
Phrasing criticistm
Hey Rx StrangeLove, you've added criticism to the section "Ejected debris". This is great, we need this, but: The sentence you've added begins: "However, critics point out... ". I propose no to formulate sentences using "point out", but rather using "claim". We won't be able to check every fact, (and we shouldn't because it's WP:OR) so we should phrase sentences with care.
Well, then if you read the FEMA report on Bankers Trust Building, you can find on the page 4:
- "A column section from WTC2 was embedded into north edge of the floor slab of the 29th floor [...] several sections of exterior column trees [..]".
Coulumn section was not from aluminium, nor were exterior column trees. Still, I don't know how they were ejected. --SalvNaut 10:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Moving Building 7?
Interesting idea to move building 7, but I'm not sure I understand the reasoning. Anyone want to explain it?--Thomas Basboll 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Errors in Refs and Content
It seems that people are so excited to revert any changes of their precious labels of "conspiracy theorists" that they happily revert to wrong information which was previously corrected -- the current link to Jones' paper goes to a BYU page where it is no longer located, and Judy Wood is no longer a '9/11 scholar' but has already been outed as "no-plane" advocate attacking Jones with Morgan Reynolds. Her paper was disputed throughout the scholars community for its errors and should not be linked to. But those whose main goal in life is to shackle anyone questioning the (Bush appointed) NIST findings with the branding of 'conspiracy theorists' don't actually seem to have an interest in the CONTENT of the article . . . Locewtus 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy theorists
I agree with Locewtus. Controlled demolition is not a conspiracy theory, it is a hypothesis to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center. While the article ought to mention its important role in 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is prejudicial to call those who defend this hypothesis conspiracy theorists at every (or even any) turn.--Thomas Basboll 08:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree.--SalvNaut 18:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
basic idea of the hypothesis and its very existence
In order to avoid repeating all the controversies that we have on other 9/11-related pages, I want to suggest that we organise sections in part by the quality of their sources.
So, for example, the existence of the theory and its basic idea (which Tom harrison wants to have a citation for already in the lead) can be established in the hypothesis section (at the start of the article) with reference exclusively to NIST, Bazant and Verdure, (perhaps Cherepanov who also uses it as a foil, but for a different effect), and, I would add, Sunder's remark in New York Magazine (I think) that he had read Steven Jones' paper, was "sympathetic", but that it was not consistent with the facts as he knew them. That would also occasion a reference to Jones' paper (in the Scott and Griffin volume), of course, which, I would argue, is the standard reference for a presentation of the hypothesis.--Thomas Basboll 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic
This article is unencyclopedic. See what Wikipedia is not as I find this article to be a soapboxing repository and POV push of complete nonsense.--MONGO 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- We're on the case, Mongo. Check back in a couple of weeks. I think it's getting better. But it'd be great if you could offer some suggestions as to how to make it more encyclopedic. At least the first section, if I do say so myself, is absolutely killer encyclophonic, friend.--Thomas Basboll 21:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think deletion instead of using the article as a platform to push the conspiracy theory nonsense is the way to go. At what point does the fact that Steven Jones's radical views have resulted in having him put on admin leave get mentioned? Instead, all that is mentioned is his work...seems a bit misleading to not make it clear that it is precisely this work that has him in hot water, don't you think?--MONGO 21:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)