Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Not a group of Engineers and Architects

An english-italian journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo) was listed as an engineer under this group’s list of engineers and architects, when he is neither an architect nor an engineer. He was listed under the name “Massimo dell’Affidabilitá”, italian for “top (maximum) of the credibility” (see picture). His credentials were never verified, and he stayed in that list until he himself admitted that he did this to prove the credibility of this group. Should this get a new section, or under which section could it go? The sources are, of course, in italian.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) edit here's the picture, sorry. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_z78Sur1T1lY/Rv1SkTnbTGI/AAAAAAAAATc/yayFU_vw9nM/s1600-h/max1.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idonthavetimeforthiscarp (talk • contribs) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is, of course, the whole "Mike Rotch" story, that i can find nowhere on this article... i guess this will need a separate section then... i'll be working on itIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

How can we be sure this is not a hoax? As far as I see, no reliable source has reported on this. With regard to the list, the current font type looks quite different, so this may be something that has happened several years ago, if it's indeed true.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There's an article by the debunker and a saved screenshot, plus independent sources. And the "Mike Rotch" thing was spread through several "truth" movements like Scholars for 9/11 and PatriotsQuestions. I'm writing the part and there are of course sources.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that you need to use reliable sources, if you intend to add content to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to ask if a screenshot of a youtube video like this http://bp2.blogger.com/_ebKDfm0h1oI/SHHhf8AcEVI/AAAAAAAACrQ/h2IgjWjsWyQ/s1600-h/richard-Gage-hardfire-WithBoxes.jpg where Gage explains the physics of the WTC collapse using cardboard boxes is usable, as an example of the scientific methods used by the leader of this movement.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 21:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is of low quality, and the copyright situation is unclear.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, i can of course easily get one of higher quality, that was just an example, and a screenshot of a video someone put on youtube and that isn’t about copyrighted content should not have any copyright issue. The original video has no copyright claims, so a picture of it should have no problems.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 22:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, I didn’t see the previous comment. Yes, said blog is a blog of a journalist who is writing about matters he’s competent in, has published books etc, and it has been used a reliable source already on WP.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 22:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism and sourcing

First off, per WP:CRIT, having a separate Criticism section is sort of being deprecated in favor of embedding responses within the rest of the prose. But beyond that, Arthur Rubin is correct in that the entire section is poorly sourced: two blogspot posts and the AE911 site? Not good enough, especially for an article that's this contentious. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Citing from the guidelines: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable"
Undicisettembre is a weblog held by a known professional journalist and hoax debunker (Paolo Attivissimo), aided by professionals (engineers, pilots, firefighters, etc, as you can see from the blog description). The journalist in question has a debunking program on swiss radio and published several books regarding hoaxes. He's the main italian speaking journalist on the matter, and is present on the main italian and swiss networks when talking about hoaxes.
I'm therefore reverting your edit, since in this case it's a well-known professional journalist. Also, how is a link to a page of the website belonging to the very association being discussed in the article a problem?
Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Incorporated the section in the article, avoiding a specific "criticisms" section as requested. Since the only source of the claim that these "architects and engineers" are subject to verification comes from the website itself, and since the members have turned out to be fantasy characters in more than one occasion, this explanation is due. It's properly sourced according to guidelines, and a waybackmachine link to a page of the organization itself is present. Please avoid edit warring over properly sourced claims and even a link to the webpage of the organization itself.Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 15:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Really? Can you back up that claim of "professional journalist and hoax debunker"? Aside from running a blog, what has this guy done that's notable/reliable enough to qualify him as a reliable source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Well-known professional journalist" does not appear in WP:SPS. Can you (Idonthavetimeforthiscarp) tell me where it appears?
And the fact that the fake name was entered into the site by Attivissimo is WP:SYNTHESIS. You could note that the name was on the site from the archive, but a reliable source has to report it was fake. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
@Arthur Rubin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F
Sorry, i maybe mixed up some stuff. The blog entries also claim that it was him to subscribe under that name, i'll add the same source after the waybackmachine link
@HelloAnnyong
well i should look up for recordings of TV programs... if you are interested, he has a radio program on the swiss radio in italian, writes for Wired Italy, has been in several hoax-related tv programs in Italy. He published hoax related books and is currently producing "moonscape", a documentary on the moon landing.
For instance check this link
http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
It's the Italian Police (Polizia di Stato) website, and they refer to him regarding hoaxes and precisely 9/11 (bufala, pl. bufale in italian means "hoax/hoaxes"). If you really need it i can dig up all the information, but i am not sure why you are not "assuming good faith".
Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Assuming good faith does not give you carte blanche to add whatever you want to the article, particularly on controversial articles. The RSE article you linked to allows for some "professional researchers", but I'm not sure that this guy qualifies. Anyway, I've opened a thread on RSN about this; you can see it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Italian hoax debunker on AE9/11?. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
"Hoax debunker" is not a profession. It may be a job, and it may be a way to earn a living. So, WP:SPS does not apply here, and the content needs to be removed.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I will add back the contents, since i clearly wrote that he is a journalist. Please avoid trying to push some personal agenda on wikipediaIdonthavetimeforthiscarp 16:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Idonthavetimeforthiscarp, please refrain from adding content against consensus.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

so many issues, so much time

This article is a mess. Rather than an informative article on the nature of this organization, I come upon an incoherent collection of badly strewn together sources, many of then tangentially related to the topic or mere mentions, many others primary sources. It presents the organization out of context and without a deeper exploration of its reasons to exists. It has too much sources that make it hard to read, but an examination of sources demonstrates that they are tangential or borderline original research, at times even synthetic - some are even presented as supportive when they are critical. There is some peacocking going on etc.

Perhaps the worse offending area is "advocacy", which either duplicates information elsewhere available, unneeded as there is plenty to wikilink to, or coatracks positions that are not notable or relevant in other articles to mention them here. While an encyclopedic overview of the focus of any organization is what we are for, this focus should be made in a way that is encyclopedic, and recognizes the fact that it is a web-available, not paper, encyclopedia, and in a way that doesn't comprise our integrity as an NPOV endeavor. Coatracking is gaming the consensus system to include information that would be harder to include in other articles. We shouldn't allow it. --Cerejota (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article on PETA duplicates a lot of information that can be found in Animal rights movement, which duplicates information of Animal rights. The sections titled "Advocacy" describes the positions taken by the group. As it is one of the larger and more prominent groups within the 9/11 truth movement, it is not surprising that some of these positions are also described on that page, as well as in the articles 9/11 conspiracy theories and World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh so because other articles are possibly a mess (I haven't checked) it means this one too has to be a mess? I find that argument unconvincing.--Cerejota (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for NOT checking the other articles ;-) The articles are not a mess. Having some information included in more than one article is a common and accepted situation on Wikipedia. In addition, I would suggest that you point out which particular content is duplicated, in your view. You are very likely overestimating the amount of such content.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I did an edit and removed those templates, but you reverted it. I have restored them. If you restore the previous version, the templates remain. This article shouldn't extensively discuss the different claims this organization makes, just provide an overview of them. I am also restoring tags that still remain as issues.--Cerejota (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Cerejota on many some of the detailed changes, but ze shouldn't re-make major revisions without consensus. (For example, the fact that "the mainstream scientific and engineering community has generally ridiculed rejected the position taken by the group" should be in the lede.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ther eis no need for consensus for tags. I tagged and explained the tags. Cs32en questioned the tags, so I fixed the issues the tags addressed. He doesn't like the changes, so he reverts. But doesn't revert the tags. This is either/or: either we fix the problems, or we tag the problems, but the problems are there.--Cerejota (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, my editing doesn't make it obvious to Cs32en what the issues are, so I have to turn them into a puree and spoon-feed them to him like baby food:
  1. The section duplicates information available on the other 9/11 conspiracy articles, in particular the specific theories this groups puts forward are explained (and attributed) there. There is no need to go into those details here, as the much simpler version I edited shows, it makes for a succinct, NPOV presentation of the groups goals, and prominently links to the appropriate articles on the topic. The goal of this article is to show what this organization is about, not provide it with a platform for its advocacy (aka WP:COATRACK). What they advocate is indeed notable, but belongs in the article about those things.
  2. I tagged the section with info on the founder with a disputed tag, as it reads like a hagiography of the subject. It should be re-written to a neutral or should be tagged.
  3. The aritcle in general needs a lot of cleaning up, for example, Gage is mentioned too much for an article on the group.
  4. Criticism of the group, beyond of general criticism of what the group supports, is lacking. I can live with the general for now, but this article is not about the general stuff. This is also a duplication issue.

In general, if you look at my edit, you will see why it is a way improved version of the article, succinct, balanced, informational, and encyclopedic. THe original version was a messy coat rack with no direction and a wall-of-text feeling.--Cerejota (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have notified Cerejota of the Arbitration Enforcement decision concerning articles in the September 11 attacks area. [1] I hope that Cerejota will reflect on his conduct, and, as a result, will revert his bold edit. Cerejota may of course add a reasonable amount of appropriate tags to the article. I'm fully willing to participate in a discussion about the arguments brought forward by Cerejota, in accordance with the established practice of WP:BRD. This implies, however, that any bold edits are reverted before the discussion takes place. BRD is neither B-D nor B-R-R-D.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Cs32en is tossing the baby with the bath water. Some of the edits by Cerejota are just fine. Edit warring over everything (instead of working with the edit) and opening an AE instead of discussing particulars are exactly what you shouldn't be doing. Dispute resolution is pretty much impossible when jumping straight to AE.Cptnono (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Some of Cerejota's edits may indeed be fine. However, blanking large parts of the article is not the appropriate way to discuss these changes. And BRD says that a discussion takes place after restoring the status quo ante, while Cerejota claims that he does not need to obtain consensus for his edits to take effect immediately. The fact that Cerejota may have a point with regard to some of the concerns that he expresses does not give him the right to ignore our policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
As this graphic flowchart shows, the previous consensus is simply the starting point of a BRD cycle, which is generally not gone back to in a BRD cycle. In this particular case, defending the previous consensus without any argument is breaking the BRD process. Cs32en is keeping us from improving the encyclopedia while refusing to participate in a discussion of substance of the content (in fact, even saying the edits are correct!). Since consensus can change, Cs32n is creating a bureaucratic encumberment to improvement, choosing to play deaf.--Cerejota (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Focus on the content, not the editor. I have stated the reasons for the edit, in different ways and depths, yet all you have are empty protests and WP:DTTR overload. Also, I question your characterization as "blanking". Blanking is total removal of material, something I have not done - I suggest you strike that through as a show of good faith, pruning to address specific COATRACK issue is not blanking, under any definition of the word. Also, BRD doesn't say anything about status quo ante, as I will illustrate. Now, again, do you have anything of substance to comment about the edits? Or is your objection solely based on you not liking how the edit was done? --Cerejota (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Cerejota, both WP:BRD and the very chart that you have posted here are clear and unambiguous about the issue: If your bold edit is being reverted, then you should take the issue to the talk page. This does not mean: "If your bold edit is being reverted, then re-revert and then take it to the talk page." I will address the content related issues as soon as you agree to follow the guidelines that apply to the situation at hand.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
A note on the content of Cerejota's proposals: The issues that you, Cerejota, are bringing up have been discussed already on this talk page (#1, #3, and #4 explicitly, and #2 implicitly, as part of discussions that focused on other issues), and the consensus that emerged from these discussions is that the article conforms with the respective policies and guidelines. Of course, as you correctly say, consensus may change, and of course things may have been overlooked by the editors who have discussed here on this page. You, however, would have to achieve a new consensus to make the changes to the article that you are trying to achieve.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a language thing, english not being our primary language, but to me "If your bold edit is being reverted, then you should take the issue to the talk" in particular "being reverted" does implies multiple reversions. In any case, before putting the edits, I explained then in the talk page. You are still not providing any substantive commentary, and the only editor reverting me is yourself. I suggest you provide a better explanation than "that's the way it always has been". Also, you have a serious misunderstanding about BRD that you should seek uninvolved help in fixing. In particular, read WP:BOLD itself. --Cerejota (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have nothing of substance to say about the edit, why not leave it there, and see if some other editor reverts it and explains the reversion? That is how consensus changes, generally.--Cerejota (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"If your bold edit is being reverted" means that the edit is being reverted once. It does not mean that the edit is being reverted and then restored. I'm at a loss as to why this may be unclear to you.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted Cerejota's edit in large part, while retaining some very minor fixes and the tags until some agreement over how to deal with issues raised can be forged. I think there may be some unnecessary internal duplication, but it doesn't warrant the slash and burn those edits represented. Tiamuttalk 19:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is just delaying the inevitable. I have tagged the sections again with the issues. This approach is not productive: the section basically repeats in detail what two other articles cover, and does so in a manner not consistent with the inclusion of this information elsewhere. It needs to be shortened (not necessarily the version I proposed, but certainly something in that style) to simply provide and overview (not a detailed view) of the positions this organization has. These views are not unique to the organization, so there is no need to explain them in detail - that is basically a coatrack. What I am seeing is a hilarious situation were editors say they agree with the edits but are reverting brcuase it is "too radical a cut" - that makes absolutely no sense to me, either we improve the encyclopedia, or we don't, and if my edit improves the encyclopedia, no matter how radical, it should be done. That's how the join rolls...--Cerejota (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of investigation section

While the RfC continues, lets not make the perfect be the enemy of the good, so I edited the section to eliminate superfluous coat-rack detail, make it more internally coherent (ie no need to name the group, as this article is about the group, or repeat Gage's full name as it is mentioned further up the article). This is a significant improvement, but there is no substitute to the perfect, which is the RfC version.--Cerejota (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Intervening edits during an ongoing RfC are likely to complicate the discussion, as it becomes unclear who is referring to which version of the text in a given comment. If there is an urgent need to change a part of the text, please discuss the proposed change on the talk page. I have restored the status quo ante, pending the discussion at the RfC.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Cerejota (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources that might help expand article

RfC: Advocacy section at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

After a period of discussion, no one has objected to a new version of the "advocacy" section on substantive grounds, only allegations that the change is too radical from previous consensus. Since consensus can change this is attempt to break the unproductive stalemate and engage substantive debate rather than WP:OWNy argument. Is the current version or the proposed version better?--Cerejota (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the proposed version:


Note: This proposal has been discussed previously. See the section "so many issues, so much time" above.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Obviously support this version, as per my reasons already stated.--Cerejota (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cerejota's proposed change represents a major deletion of sourced material. The article, including the content of this section, has been discussed multiple times at this talk page, and the consensus that has emerged from these discussions does not support the large changes that Cerejota intends to make. Minor changes have been done all the time, and I would encourage Cerejota to focus on more specific revisions, instead of proposing outright deletion of large parts of the text.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain yourself, please? I find the proposed edit resolves issues of duplication and coatracking. Do you feel such issues are not present? Why?--Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The article presents the positions taken by the organization that it describes. It's an advocacy group, so it is not surprising that much of the article is about the specific positions that the group puts forward. There are, of course, some position that can be found in other articles as well. The group is one of the more prominent groups within the 9/11 Truth movement, and many other people in that movement share some of the group's views. Therefore, there is an overlap between the description of the positions of the group and the positions of the movement as a whole. But Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not support all those positions that have been put forward by various parts of the 9/11 Truth movement, so we cannot just refer to that article in order to describe the group's position. There is no problem of coatracking either, as all the information related to the September 11 attacks in this article is based on specific information about the group. In addition, per WP:FRINGE, we need to add the (sometimes more general) statements by mainstream sources on the issues raised by the group. This is neither duplication nor coatracking, it provides the necessary context, per the relevant project guideline.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In what way does the proposed version doesn't achieve the same goal, with a more succinct language and less duplication?--Cerejota (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal actually omits information that has been reported on by multiple reliable sources, while at the same time retaining information that has been reported on by a few sources only. It's unclear whether that imbalance in your proposal is due to an oversight on your part, or due to your personal preferences. Apart from that, your proposal would represent a major deletion of relevant information, as I have already explained.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not being an expert, or taking a position on the view of the organisation, but I prefer the longer version. This article should be primarily about this organisation. Yes, certainly necessary to refer to the official position and the views of other architects/organisations, but the primary content of this section should major on the position of these guys. I'm not seeing coatracking - the one sentence about them not supporting other conspiracy theories (that it was the work of the Bush Administration, the Illuminati etc) seems appropriate. I'm wondering if in fact it would be better to have the section titled "Position of organisation", rather than "advocacy", which in UK english means 'speaking on behalf of someone', not 'advancing a position', or the meaning it is appeared to intend here 'the position taken'. I'm wondering if it would also be helpful to pull some of the rebuttal material out to another section - 'Official response' or some such. Apologies if this has already been discussed and rejected. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

tag removal

I have reverted the tag removal as the issues have not been addressed, there are issues in the entire article, as specified above, and this tag was placed by another user to replace a number of other templates.--Cerejota (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, another user has replaced "a number of other templates" that you had added before, in this edit.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and the replacement was an admin action, which you reverted and I restored. Perhaps I should have imitated certain editors, and should have gone to AE instead of discussing it in talk page?--Cerejota (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Excess navboxes?

There's {{911ct}}, {{Conspiracy theories}} and {{September 11 attacks}} at the bottom. I suggest that the general {{Conspiracy theories}} is not needed here and has no compelling reason to be here - 9/11 isn't even mentioned in it, and the conspiracy theory aspect is sufficiently covered by {{911ct}} - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed - anyone who's particularly fond of it could restore it of course - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims to Mainstream Consensus Do Not Stand Up to Scrutiny

In the Section 'Advocacy', under '7 World Trade Center', the last paragraph begins 'The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST' and a reference is given to a paper by Zdeněk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure (2007) which states: "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 as follows [...]". (continues with a four-part scenario of progressive structural failure). However, this bald assertion has no basis in fact. There have been very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject of the collapse of any of the three towers on 9/11. Of those few which support the official account, all of them were authored by Zdeněk P. Bažant, together with a handful of collaborators. This does not amount to any kind of consensus. The first such paper was written just two days after the attacks, when evidence was scant and no one could reliably claim to know what had happened: yet the paper by Zdeněk P. Bažant & Yong Zhou claimed exactly that. That first paper was also rushed to publication within 6 months and is most unlikely to have been adequately peer reviewed, if at all. Subsequent papers have been attempts to support the conclusions of the original paper. Furthermore, there have been no peer-reviewed papers whatsoever which claim to explain the collapse of WTC 7 (NIST NCSTAR 1a was not subject to the usual peer-review process).

There is clearly no consensus among 'the community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally', either in favour of the conclusions of NIST or the alternative controlled demolition hypothesis. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth are composed of nearly 1,500 such experts but there is no comparable independent body opposing their claims. NIST and FEMA are government agencies and do not represent the scientific community at large.

217.207.157.114 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SYN, your theory doesn't belong in the article. Further, I've reverted your other changes, such as changing it to "Some experts" (which is a weasel word) and "it has been claimed". The statements are well sourced, so changing the tone of the article isn't acceptable here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That is perhaps the most well-written summary describing a particular significant problem within the article that I have seen written yet. Wikipedia should refrain from making assertions about a worldwide community based on the writings of a single dubious source (Bažant and Verdure). The claim should either be given better sourcing (broader and more well-researched), or removed. I am not aware of any significant research having been conducted by any entity to substantiate that particular claim. Wildbear (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the anon's theory has no place in the article, and the assertion that 911AE really has "architects" and "engineers" should be considered unusable, per WP:BLPSELF. However, Wildbear might have a point, except that Bažant and Verdure is not at all a "dubious source". I would ask him to provide a real source with a different opinion about engineering consensus, and that information might also be included in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem for all perspectives on the issue is that there have been few (or no) professional studies to determine statistically what the "community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" actually thinks about the issue. I don't question the structural engineering credentials of the authors of the paper. For purposes of this discussion, it is only the "generally accepted" assertion which I intended to have the word "dubious" apply. I used the word "dubious" because the authors didn't provide any information to support the assertion; no references and no indication that any surveys had been conducted. The need for better sourcing, which all would find well substantiated and agreeable, still remains. As has been stated in these pages before, if a claim is truly notable, it shouldn't be difficult to find multiple high-quality sources to support it. Wildbear (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I really didn't want to get involved in editing Wikipedia articles, but I now have a proper login, so I can respond to the remarks in this discussion section, which I started. First, I'm baffled as to what is meant by my 'theory'. My attempted ammendments to the article were simply to remove contentious and unproven sweeping generalisations which claimed that a scientific consensus existed, refuting the position of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, when it is very clear that there is no such consensus, whatever a handful of individuals may say. I have not attempted to advance any 'theory' of my own (I don't have one), unless the simple observation that there is no consensus is taken to be a 'theory'! (Perhaps we need to reach a consensus that there is no consensus on whether there is a consensus?).

Just to make it abundantly clear, I refer readers to the discussion of Bažant and Verdure (2007) which appeared in the ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics (October 2008). A number of qualified engineers take issue with Bažant's paper and he replies to the criticisms. Whether you regard his replies as being adequate is a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that the paper has attracted critical comment and does not represent a consensus view. There is also a peer reviewed paper which supports the controlled demolition hypothesis, thereby refuting Bažant, published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal (Harrit et al, 2009): the nine authors are all professional engineers and scientists. In view of these facts, the contention that Bažant represents a consensus view is outrageous nonsense. I do not denigrate Bažant's contributions, but his is only one view among many. However, I do find it extraordinary that the main article makes no mention whatsoever of the paper by Harrit et al: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

My own view (as an applied mathematician with numerous publications in peer reviewed international journals) is that Bažant has presented an interesting but inconclusive mathematical model attempting to account for the dynamics of the collapse of the twin towers. Like any mathematical model, its fit with reality depends crucially on the parameters provided to the model. Bažant has not adequately justified the values of these parameters or every aspect of his model, in my opinion or the opinion of several other qualified commentators. His model remains interesting, but its plausibility as a true account of the collapse of the twin towers remains in dispute within the scientific community. For comparison, one may create a mathematical model of a unicorn, but this does not prove that unicorns exist.

What is not in dispute (one of the few facts on which there is now a general consensus) is that the collapse of WTC 7 proceeded at free fall acceleration for over 2 seconds after onset (this is admitted in the final NIST report). This may explain why there are no peer reviewed papers whatsoever which even attempt to account for the collapse of this building. Bažant's model is utterly incapable of accounting for this and he has never attempted to apply it to WTC 7. The official NIST report originally rejected the free fall claim in its initial draft, but the final report was forced to acknowledge the truth of this fact following criticism of erroneous calculations in the draft.

In summary, I have shown that there is no consensus among the general scientific or engineering community regarding the mechanism of collapse of any of the three towers destroyed on 9/11. The official reports are disputed, as are the very few peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sonmi 451 brings up some good points. We need to keep in mind that Bazant's first paper was what is called a "rapid communication" and was described by it's own authors as a simplified approximate analysis...[which] may be in error by a level of magnitude. The paper has been updated four times since it's publication due to problems other engineers had with his analysis. Also, Bazant is not peer reviewed in the way editors here believe, the peer review was limited to the mathematics Bazant uses, not the analysis itself. His maths do work but he often uses the wrong equations. For example he uses load safety parameters for a standard highrise in 1968 rather than the over engineered specs the WTC used which can result in significant errors (I have not read the latest version so this may have been corrected). The only way to prove Bazant's theory (or NIST's conclusions) is to document and analyse the debris field, but unfortunately NIST allowed the debris to be cleared so Bazant's paper remains only a theory, not a proven fact. Wayne (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As Sonmi 451 is a new editor I will remind him that the 9/11 articles are not edited by academics and as editors must not allow edits, even if factual or relevant, that give credibility to conspiracy theories, the phraseology tends to be beyond what sources support. As wording is determined by consensus such problems unfortunately are common and hard to correct. Wayne (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement should remain. It is well sourced to experts in the field, and published by a mainstream journal. There is no reliable source counteracting this claim. Polequant (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I refer Polequant to the discussion papers referenced above, published in the Journal of the American Society of Civil Engineers, which are highly critical of Bazant's papers. I also refer him to the peer-reviewed paper by Harrit et al. These all show absolutely irrefutably that there is no scientific consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
1. Bažant is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. Gourley, a chemical engineer, and Szuladzinski, a specialist in homeland security, are not even in the same field thus qualifying for a WP:WEIGHT of zero on the subject.
2. Steve Jones paper (aka Harrit et al.) is not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
3. The scientific consensus irrefutably supports Bažant and the NIST.
Thanks for playing. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, Jones is not a reliable source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
And actually James Gourley is a patent attorney. [2][3] -Jordgette [talk] 21:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ

I've started a discussion for a FAQ for 9-11 Conspiracy web pages.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction Edit, and New Information Added

I have renamed the introductory mention of "explosive demolition" to "controlled demolition", and changed the reference link from "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories" to "Building_implosion", because it is neither accurate, proper, nor correct to generally characterize the controlled, explosive demolition of buildings as a "conspiracy theory", when in reality an entire legitimate industry exists to perform such services for the construction and development communities. Directly linking readers who are curious as to the meaning of "explosive demolition" or "controlled demolition" to an article about "conspiracy theories" instead of "Building_implosion" is not only innacurate, but absolutely dishonest, and clearly crosses the line into the realm of POV.

I have also moved all criticism of AE9/11Truth into its own section in order to consolidate it, and make the article flow more smoothly, as the repetition of very similar criticisms, sprinkled throughout the otherwise neutral descriptions of the activities and policies of this organization made the article read more like a POV hit piece than an objective encyclopedic analysis.

I have added a paragraph mentioning the launching of a "Third Light Beam" into the New York City night skyline in 2010, and an additional paragraph on the release of another 2 hour documentary by the group in 2011.

I have also made a few minor edits in order to improve clarity and/or general readability.

Sorry - Forgot to sign. Am doing it now 72.215.148.50 (talk)

Try a sequence of smaller edits, if you want to add this content and we'll go the WP:BRD route. TippyGoomba (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

The sentence at the end of the second paragraph is misleading according to the references given. The statement "the scientific and engineering community has generally rejected the position taken by the group[6]" does not appear in the source. Rather, the source states that the general scientific community has accepted another explanation. No judgement whatsoever was made on the "position taken by the group". I recommend rewording this phrase to state:

the scientific and engineering community has not generally accepted the position taken by the group[6]

Following this, when the article states: "several NIST-independent analyses published in peer-reviewed scientific journals provide evidence arguing against the 'blast hypothesis'.[7][8][9]" it is not well referenced. It needs to either be changed, or better references should be found. Source number 7 is a weekly newspaper, not a peer-reviewed journal and it also does not describe any peer-reviewed articles independently agreeing with NIST, so is not a source for this statement. Source number 8 seems independent upon a short inspection. Source number 9 seemed legit to me at first, until I used Google and found that head author Therese P. McAllister works at NIST "From 2002-2008, she was the Co-Leader for the Structural Fire Response and Collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation." Second author Fahim Sadek works there as well! "Dr. Sadek led the project 'Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis' as part of the NIST investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings." And certainly third author John Gross is not independent! "Dr. Gross was awarded the Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2005 and Special Act Award in 2008 for his contributions to the World Trade Center failure investigation." So we are left with only one valid source, yet the sentence says "several". Because I am not aware of any other papers, I suggest changing this phrase to: "a NIST-independent analysis published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal provides evidence arguing against the 'blast hypothesis'.[8]"

Therefore the entire change would be:

Despite their petition to Congress bearing the signature of over 2000 architectural and engineering professionals, the scientific and engineering community has not generally accepted the position taken by the group,[6] and a NIST-independent analysis published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal provides evidence arguing against the "blast hypothesis".[8]

Smitty121981 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think these are well-intentioned changes but ultimately inappropriate. The weekly magazine is a secondary source and is necessary to establish that the material should be included in the first place. I see no particular indication that it is unreliable. I'm not sure why you reject the paper by McAllister et al on the grounds that she works at NIST - who else is going to write up NIST's findings? The paper was published in what seems to be a peer-reviewed journal, so I see no reason to exclude it. I've reverted your edits per WP:BRD, step 2. I kept the "not generally accepted" wording in place, as that seems like a reasonable change. The "several NIST-independent" wording probably comes from the MetroActive source:
"NIST, supported by a number of independent building and explosives professionals who are critical of AE911, also stands behind its theory that the impact of the upper floors crushed the lower ones."
The sentence in the lede seems like a reasonable summary of this statement in the article. I think the next step is to determine whether or not MetroActive is a reliable source. I'm guessing it is, based on its Wikipedia article, but I could be wrong. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I accept MetroActive as a reliable source, however I do not accept that it supports the statement in the article. The MetroActive quote you gave just talks about professionals who are critical of AE911 - it says nothing at all about them publishing these critiques in peer-reviewed scientific journals, as the wiki article currently claims. This is quite a substantial difference! As for the McAllister paper, again, yes this is a reliable source by wikipedia standards, and again, it does not support the current sentence in the wiki article. I see absolutely no way that you can rationally argue that this paper was a "NIST-independent analysis" when the first 3 authors not only worked at NIST at the time of writing, but all three actually had key leadership roles in the NIST WTC investigation itself!
Therefore we are left with only three options: The easy route proposed by myself earlier, where we change the sentence to be singular rather than plural. The hard route, to totally rewrite the sentence to reflect the current sources. And the long route, to scour the internet for another source(s) that actually verifies the statement. Are you up to doing either of the latter? If not, I'd like to make my change. Thanks! Smitty121981 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
ArtifexMayhem's edits may have made this moot, but to clarify, we don't need to verify MetroActive's sources, MetroActive is supposed to verify the facts for us. The two sources published by NIST are the primary sources (the reports themselves), and the source for the statement is MetroActive, which, if reliable, is presumptively accurate unless in conflict with another reliable source. I get the impression that NIST is summarizing the work of independent contractors who independently verified their results in the papers that you removed, but I could be wrong.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed all but the first sentence per WP:SYNTH. The text in question made it seem like there is some debate in the engineering community when there is none. The NIST reports are the mainstream account of what happened. AE911's views are WP:FRINGE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you clarify why this is WP:SYNTH? It seemed like an accurate summary of the sole secondary source placed in the appropriate context here. If anything the current wording is more in line with the fringe position. The closest thing I see to a fringe position in the text you removed was "Despite their petition to Congress bearing the signature of over 2000 architectural and engineering professionals, the scientific and engineering community has not generally accepted the position taken by the group", since that's a non-sequitur and makes it sound as if Congress has some ability to make engineers agree with them. I think that probably needs to be toned down a bit, but overall the removed section was I think important in framing how this group is perceived. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Removing the sentence works for me! It was synthesis because it took the "several NIST-independent" from the MetroActive source and combined it with the "independent peer-reviewed paper" by Bazant, and the "peer-reviewed" paper by McAllister, and synthesized the incorrect conclusion that there are "several NIST-independent peer-reviewed papers..."
However I disagree with ArtifexMayhem that there is "no debate" on the subject. One excellent example of engineers debating the topic is the back and forth between James Gourley and Zdenek Bazant, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics in 2007. Smitty121981 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's what he meant, we could easily just change the wording. That said, it says that there were "several NIST-independent analyses published in peer-reviewed scientific journals". That doesn't mean that the publication was independent of NIST, just that the analysis was independent of NIST and that it was published in peer-reviewed journals. I don't see anything in the MetroActive source talking about where the analyses were published, though, so that particular wording is probably inaccurate.
I think it may be a little naive of you to suggest that this is not a fringe topic, though. There is no mainstream debate on this topic, that's for sure. I really do think the lede should reflect that these people are not really taken seriously. I doubt it will be difficult to find reliable sources to this effect, or to craft a new sentence from the MetroActive source. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 15:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Like I said before, you are more than welcome to find batter sources for the current wording, or to reword it to reflect the current sources. However, until such an occurrence, I support ArtifexMayhem's solution. And sure, that would have been naive to suggest that this doesn't qualify as fringe, had that actually been what I said. Please don't put words in my mouth - I made a clear statement backed by a reference, nothing more. Smitty121981 (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the sentence primarily per WP:SYNTH, but it could have also been removed per the WP:GEVAL (a.k.a., giving "equal validity" can create a false balance) section of WP:NPOV, which states in part, "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship", or removed per WP:V generally. There are no reliable sources that show the "blast hypothesis" has any mainstream support. In fact — per the sources provided, and contrary to the unsourced claim that "the scientific and engineering community has not generally accepted the position taken by the group" — the universally accepted explanation of collapse (among those qualified to comment on the matter) is the one given by the NIST. Similarly the statement that "NIST-independent analyses published in peer-reviewed scientific journals provide evidence arguing against the "blast hypothesis" infers that (1) the NIST is not "independent" and therefore cannot be trusted (no non-primary sources support this claim), and (2) that there is evidence for the "blast hypothesis" (also not supported by non-primary sources). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm... Looking at the MetroActive source a bit more closely, I found this quote:

Newman acknowledges that NIST's response that it sees "no need" to test dust for any form of thermite won't satisfy critics, and adds: "We don't try to debate or argue with these folks because they have their opinions and what they believe is evidence, but to us it is counterproductive to engage in debate.

"We'd rather let the body of evidence we presented stand on its own merits. We feel this is a very good piece of work—in many ways pushing investigations way beyond what's gone before. Our work is to help strengthen buildings, and proof of the validity of our research is that most all our recommendations for changing building codes have been accepted by the international organization that models building codes. That wouldn't have happened if they doubted our findings."

So I'm going to have to agree with your assessment here. That said, I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that evidence provided by non-NIST sources is a valid consideration, since this organization is apparently devoted to critiquing NIST's report. Saying that NIST-independent contractors agreed with NIST is not saying that NIST is not is somehow biased. It's also bizarre to think that because there's evidence against the blast hypothesis that a statement to that effect implies that there is evidence for it.
Honestly, I'm mainly concerned that the way it is now, the article doesn't reflect the fact that no one agrees with these guys. Maybe we could salvage something from the above quoted statement, or poke around looking for a source to determine if there's been any coverage of any explicit response. It seems like at least this one NIST guy has explicitly said that they haven't responded to this petition or whatever because the AE9/11 folks aren't providing any actual evidence to justify further investigation. There's almost certainly a reliable source out there to at least support inclusing of a statement similar to the "Their position has not generally been accepted by [engineers/the engineering community/etc]." 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 12:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I share your concerns that this article does not reflect the fact that the conspiracy theories supported by this group are just, well, conspiracy theories. The article is currently just a soapbox of the views of Richard Gage, and is rife with his beliefs presented has if they had any merit outside of the "truth movement" e.g., "free fall". It's not that the groups positions have not been generally accepted, it's that they have been universally rejected by the community of professionals that are qualified to comment. Cutting out all of the "fan cruft" cited to primary sources might be a good place to start. It's almost alway better to cut from an article such as this than it is to add "debunking." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the article is now lacking an opposing viewpoint, and I will gladly accept any properly referenced NPOV statements. However, ArtifexMayhem, your comments here in the talk section are "rife" with personal bias not backed by any sources and I will be watching this article closely. I will remind you now of what it says on the WP:FRINGE page to which you linked me: "a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." Smitty121981 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi 0x0077BE, you said "There's almost certainly a reliable source out there to at least support inclusing of a statement similar to the 'Their position has not generally been accepted by [engineers/the engineering community/etc].'" and I agree that this should be included. In fact, this statement is still in the article, just farther down (third paragraph of 'advocacy'), and the excellent reference given for the statement is currently #43 (Bazant). I will support you adding a statement such as this to the opening of the article, as long as NPOV is maintained. Smitty121981 (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Painting in France

What does this story have to do with a AE911?. It's like saying an ostrich was seen burying her head in the sand so we should not look past the official explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.232.222 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

'False' claims

Throughout the article the words 'false claims' keep appearing repeatedly. Also the statement "the organization claims X but it has been proven Y" appears every few lines as if this article was intended to inform readers that this particular organization and their claims are irrelevant. Furthermore, these said proofs are from media opinion pieces which in turn found their assertion on one or two people who are opposed to the organization in question. Such opinion wars are common with any organization that takes an unpopular stand and the article must ideally reflect this fact along with all the quoted 'proofs'.

1. The points and counterpoints need not be presented here as this is an article about the organization and not the veracity of their claims.
2. The 'false-ness' of their claims have not been indisputably proven by any major organization other than the ones that are in some way related to the US government; which the organization is opposed to.
3. Many sections use turns of phrase and wording intended to ridicule this particular organizations claim. This particular content along with proofs maybe added as a separate section (if needed)
4. The "near free-fall collapse was disproved by a member of the organization" statement appears three times in the article which appears to be un-necessary. A single mention would be sufficient for the purposes of the article.

In interest of neutrality, this article needs a rewrite where 'false' claims are turned over to 'claims' or 'disputed claims' at best. I made some edits in the lead section but all the sections seem to have been thoroughly doctored via a concentrated effort. It might be best if this article is shortened down to a level where it speaks only about the organization and the "claimed-countered" argument is left for another article. Scalebelow (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

............................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.61.214 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"all the sections seem to have been thoroughly doctored via a concentrated effort"

Haha! Funny guy. You haven't been around here too long, have you? Par for the course for Wikipedia.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please help me.

You state in your 2nd paragraph. 'Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" '

Yet when I look at the reference I cannot find any mention of the word "demands". What I do find is a desire for a new investigation due to work done by the group.

Your use of the word "demands" is highly suspect. It is a loaded word to disparage the work of this group. You are supposed to be fair. Please help me find where this word is in reference 5 or please remove it.

Thank you. Claustro123 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Thank you.

Claustro123 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Promoting conspiracy theories

The "Advocacy" section makes it clear that the controlled demolition claims are a conspiracy theory (including linking to the main World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article). The lead is expected to consist of a summary of the article's important contents (WP:LEAD). When I added a clear sentence about the promotion of conspiracy theories to the lead, I used a source that was already in the article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm) but this was reverted claiming that this was not explicit enough. Here are other potential sources:

—PaleoNeonate – 12:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Thanks for your effort, it's probably best to obtain consensus here, your input is welcome including your assessment of additional sources like the above. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
These are solid sources supporting the "conspiracy theory" description, good enough for the lede. What's the problem? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

and the lead is completely lacking in the very important context that this group and the beliefs they promote and spread are by all measures a fringe group spreading debunked conspiracy theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It's understated how much on the fringe this group is in the engineering community. The point is made with regards to architects, but not engineers. (In particular: structural.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
They're so fringe they're not even part of the engineering community. They don't go to conferences, or present papers, and their members are largely just people who have the name "engineeer" in their degrees, regardless of how minor or unrelated they are to the subject. There's Computer software engineers in there for instance. The group is trying to make it look like 911 Truth is has mainstream support, when it doesn't. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I think that this is an extension of the Salem Hypothesis. See Engineers and terrorists and Engineers and terrorists, part 2 and Why do so many terrorists have engineering degrees? for some interesting theories on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the connection. The point is how little support Richard Gage's beliefs have in the engineering community (especially the structural engineering community) and you are giving links to articles that give anecdotal evidence about how some engineers believe in creationism or join terrorist groups. (In one of the very articles you cite it explains why some engineers wind up being terrorists saying: "Another possible explanation would be that engineers possess technical skills and architectural know-how that makes them attractive recruits for terrorist organizations.") Not sure what you are trying to say here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
What I am saying is that you will find few or no structural engineers or mechanical engineers who are "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" -- they know better -- but you might find some electronics of software engineers. Likewise with claims that cell phones cause cancer; few electronics or medical device engineers, some structural or hydraulics engineers. In general, such conspiracy theories have tiny support among engineers who are outside of relevant fields, and even tinier support among engineers who have degrees in relevant fields. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Definitely beef up the coverage of their status as nutters in the lede. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
As a long-time editor of this article, I can tell you that it was largely written by a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who - I believe - is no longer active on Wikipedia. We did our best to try to keep the article WP:NPOV, but it was difficult and time-consuming. Now that things have apparently died down, you guys might do a better job writing the article. It's still on my watchlist after all these years. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There appears to be consensus to mention it in the lead; 67.220.13.71 did but the sentence appeared broken so I copy-edited then added a extra source with quote. Thanks all, —PaleoNeonate – 00:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Promoting scientific critique

Hi all!

This wiki page is all about architects and engineer for truth - right? They criticise the official reports like NIST reports - right? Their work has forced NIST to admit that WTC7 was in free fall speed acceleration in about 2,25 seconds - right? Their work shows several deficits in NIST report - right ? They are very astonished that NIST does not reveal their modelling calculations at all to the public to be able to check the facts of the model. They are more astonished by NIST saying that telling (revealing their calculations) their version of the collapse "would jeopardize public safety" - without any explaining why(sic) millions of architects and structural engineers are omitted to make better buildings from the knowledge of NIST obviously life saving findings. So it is a MUST to be able to show that there is current professional criticue against NIST reports - right ? Wiki (and the people doing hard job here) is not the place to promote s.e.n.s.o.r.s.h.i.p. - rigth? => There must be a way to show what are their (ae911truth) main points to show critique to the NIST reports - and we already know that the critique has been valid (like the free fall argument correction later admitted and accepted by NIST). => to show their main point is to have a link in this Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth -page to their most comprehensive paper for everyone interested to evaluate by themselves. Something else would be pure censorship and would harm WIKIPEDIA known as a reliable source for scientific information and debate. MR Mik-kiss MSc Business, BSc Social psychology, Former R@D engineer in NOKIA corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

it might help if you actually made an edit proposal.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Their work has changed the profession in that structural engineers now think much more about progressive collapse than they once did. But this was a unique set of circumstances. In any case, I agree with the other editor, this is lacking a clear proposal.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is to be proposed here. Is it for the AE911 document to be listed in the main 9/11 or WTC collapse articles? If so, then I must point out that AE911 is a fringe theory, as has been well-established in this page's archives. I don't trust the OP's premise that much, as the argument is basically "If you don't include this AE911 report as a critique against the NIST report, it must be censorship!" It's one thing that the fringe theory is notable. But it can't be accepted as fact, because the "sources" used to back up this conspiracy theory are unreliable, self-published or otherwise dubious. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion information

wibble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The website ae911truth.org does not need a wikipedia page associated with it. If you want information related to ae911truth.org then go to that webpage. If you want contrary information, than go to a website that shows contrary information, or create your own website like for example "debunk911myths.org". This is not an article or an encyclopedia entry. This is an opinion piece that shows blatant bias. It does not matter if you disagree with the information on ae911truth.org, wikipedia is not a debate or forums website. I do not mind some bias, but this article has too much. Furthermore the page spends most of its time discussing a guy named "Richard Gage" which I believe to be wholly irrelevant. A biography page on Gage could be created, but too much time is spent talking about him.

Information that discusses the official 9/11 story, and also discusses contrary opinions, and even contrary opinions to those opinions can be found on: wiki/September_11_attacks and wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories. Anything on this page, that is also discussed on those two pages makes this page duplicate information. A short section on ae911truth.org could be necessary on the 9/11_conspiracy_theories page. But a wikipedia page of its own is not necessary.

Problem example: "Their theories lack support among the relevant professional communities." Source? If you make a claim, it has to come from somewhere. A substantial portion of the page is written in this way.

Rewritten: "Many professionals agree and disagree with parts or all of the theories on ae911truth.org. Some professionals do not speak their opinion, but many topics have been debated over the years".

This is not a perfect rewrite, but it accomplishes three things: 1) It shows that not all architects agree with the content of ae911truth.org. 2) It shows little bias. 3) The word 'theories' sounds like a derogatory word in the way that it is used. Not all of the information of ae911truth.org is theories, some of it is information, ideas, opinions, emotional responses, etc.

Conclusion: I am not associated in anyway with ae911truth.org. I just wanted to read some information from the website, and this wikipedia page was at the top of google and I am disappointed with the authour(s) and the poor quality of this article. Wikipedia is not a platform to bash websites, I believe this page was written for the sole purpose of discrediting ae911truth.org, which is against wikipedia guidelines and standards. There is nothing wrong with discussing both sides of the argument. the problem is how the content is presented.

This page should be removed, as I do not think that it meets wikipedias community guidelines. After a substantial edit, I think it could be added back, but I still think the content would end up being a duplicate of the other wikipedia pages mentioned earlier.

Extra information to help the author(s) rephrase the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Nationalism_and_racialism Read this section and note the writing style. The topic is looked upon with more than just disdain from my society, but it talks about the information without showing two contrary sides. "This is how they thought" "This is what they thought" "This is what people think today". What you don't read is "Nazism is a terrible idea, nobody likes it, and anyone who thinks of those ideals should be disciplined". "This is what 9/11 truthers believe" "This is what people who believe the official story say". The readers of the article need to come to their own opinions and conclusions! We do not tell them what to believe, we only present the information! This is telling the readers what to believe: "Their theories lack support". Tectonic plate theory lacked support, it was outright laughed at, but today everybod... Most people agree that the tectonic plates are real. "Many professionals disagree with the information on ae911truth.org" This still is not perfect, but the point is to show that a contrary side exists and to encourage people to look at both sides of the argument. The point is not to discredit the website.

I am writing this to help the author(s)! I am not here to slander, or argue or hurt. I may be interested in discussing this further, but this page has a long way to go before its of the quality to be on wikipedia, and I do not have the time to edit or do research nor access to documents and research. Thank you for your time. 65.255.181.151 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias User "A_Quest_For_Knowledge" forwarded me to "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" I am forwarding that user to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias This page does not mean the community standards and guidelines. This is not an article it is a biased opinion piece. "The Wikipedia project strives for a neutral point of view in its coverage of subjects" This page does not have a neutral point of view. Furthermore, where did I say that I was marking it for deletion because "I don't like it" I marked it for deletion because the page is written so poorly it is not redeemable and needs to be merged with other pages or renamed to Biography on Richard Gage. 65.255.181.151 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The above post claims that the article shows the bias of specific editors who disagree with the controlled demolition claims. The reality is that it's a fringe conspiracy theory and that reliable sources describe it as such. For that reason, Wikipedia also does, reflecting reliable souces. —PaleoNeonate – 21:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding: while quote mining from policy seems convenient, a better reading will show that articles need not be neutral. Neutrality (WP:NPOV) is reflecting the reliable sources (WP:RS), which may have their own bias. We also have the WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI policies. —PaleoNeonate – 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Their theories DO lack support among the relevant professional communities. The burden is on them, not the other way around. ASCE has never released a statement in support of this. And their journals have all been supportive of the official conclusions. A lack of support is (thus) demonstrated that way. There is probably more than one way to say that. But those are the facts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Lastly, the reason this article exists is because of the notability of the topic and of the org (including enough coverage in reliable sources). It would thus be unlikely for a proper WP:AfD discussion to result in deletion. —PaleoNeonate – 03:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


The rules are the rules. It is not quote mining, avoid bias when and if you can. In this case, you can very much avoid bias. If the editors of "Nazism" can avoid bias, certainly you can too! Wikipedia is not a place for telling people how to think. Present information, present facts. Leave the opinion to the reader.

"and that reliable sources describe it as such" It is your opinion, that these sources are reliable, let the readers decide for themselves what they think is or is not reliable. People in the talk section or history section have already questioned the incorrect use of some of the sources that have been used.

As I stated, I don't mind some bias, but this page is blatantly biased, and makes claims that have no sources. This page should only stick to details of what ae911truth.org is about and their goals and achievements, some of its history, maybe some contrary facts, and no more. If you want an opinion piece, create your own website, and put your opinion on there!

Someone in the history section stated "This isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories", the website is literally a "conspiracy theory website" by your definition (presumably). If this isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories, then this is also not the place to promote non-conspiracy theories otherwise the editors are hypocrites! No better than the conspiracy theorists themselves. If the topic of the article is to discredit the website, then the article title should change to properly reflect that. If the evidence is really black and white, that the official story is wholly correct without error, than why do so many people believe the contrary? I believe the Bible is wholly correct without error. It has around 15000 extant sources while Pythagoras has about three extant sources and is accepted as fact (I accept it as fact as well). I do not force my beliefs down peoples throats, and neither should you. Your goal (I presume) to warn people about ae911truth.org would be better achieved by presenting the facts fairly, and as non-biased as you can and letting the reader come to their own conclusions! This article would never be accepted in an encyclopedia, or a university level essay/paper.

PaleoNeonate, I can even quote you from your own page "we use reliable sources from relevant fields, not editor opinions, as basis for article content". This article has editor opinion written all over it! It is possible to talk about both sides of an argument and still have a neutral point of view. Spending the entirety of the article discrediting ae911truth.org is simply off topic.
"the reason this article exists is because of the notability of the topic and of the org" "notability of topic"? This article is a duplicate of many others under that argument, and the other articles do a much better job of presenting the information. "notability of the organization", is simply not grounds for creating an article. Under that argument, you're just repeating the same information that the reader can gather from that website.
"The burden is on them" No it is not. That is not how the peer-review system works. A 911 truther could create their own wikipedia page, and make the same claim but change it for their side, and use the same argument. "Their theories lack support among the relevant professional communities" this is not a fact, it is an opinion. I am only talking within the scope of the article, outside knowledge is not accepted. If you're going to claim that their theories lack support, you need a source. It's not even worth you arguing this, just change it to anything non-biased but still says the same thing. I guess my point really is: Whats so bad about just saying "It's debatable", and moving forwards.

65.255.181.151 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the various organizations in the field are aware of this and have not shown a bit of support for it tells you all you need to know. Has ASCE's journals published one thing in support of this? No. The opposite actually. About the closest they've come to that is a response to one of Bazant's papers by someone with irrelevant degrees. (And they basically laughed at the guy.) There is nothing debatable about it. It has no support virtually anywhere in the profession and that is a fact. Richard Gage's on-line petition has a grand total of around 30 structural engineers who have signed out of the tens of thousands who practice. (And all we have that even those people are who they say they are is the organization's word.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research"" Well, if what you say is true, then put a source to it and even doing that, you still are not complying with wikipedia's fundamental principle of having a neutral point of view. Many structural engineers are too busy running their business, to bother wasting their time in something mediocre as this. Furthermore, just because ASCE doesn't publish an article does not mean that there is not any argument for it. Most researchers probably avoid the 9/11 topic, because it is quite complicated, much evidence has been destroyed, or is not in a condition where verifiable research can be done. I did not come here to argue for or against 9/11 theories, but to insist that this non-compliance to the NPOV guidelines is absolutely disgusting.65.255.181.151 (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
The lead should be a summary of the article (WP:LEAD) and does not necessarily need sources if so. Please see the sources in the article. It's also possible to refer to one of those sources in the lead, but it's not a requirement. —PaleoNeonate – 06:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
"The burden is on them" No it is not. That is not how the peer-review system works. A 911 truther could create their own wikipedia page, and make the same claim but change it for their side, and use the same argument. This article previously lacked oversight and was indeed biased in favor of the conspiracy theory. If another such article was made, it would be considered a WP:POVFORK. As for peer review, Wikipedia is not the place for papers or research, only a reference encyclopedia (WP:NOTJOURNAL). —PaleoNeonate – 06:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a better way to phrase it is something like: no professional engineering organization has voiced any support for these theories.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
We need some sources to back it up. We also need something a bit more indepth in the body, the lead is a summery of the article, not a headline.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
In the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement article, it says in the intro: "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering.[17]" If the source is acceptable, maybe that is the way to put it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Not in this context, we need a source explicitly supporting the line (and as I said it should not be in the lead without some wider discussion in the body). That source talks about the wider moment, not A&E for 9/11.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
A source does not actually fix the line, it needs to be re-written to avoid bias or removed. In-fact, rather than re-adding the line after someone removes it (I have never removed it btw), it should stay removed, until it is fixed. The consensus among viewers seems to agree that the line does not work as it is now. As a side-note, it is against wikipedia policy to remove "{ { npov}}" from the main article until an agreement is made in the talk page or the sections that break wikipedia policy is fixed.
65.255.181.151 (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell most people do not have an issue with the line, and if it is sourced then we can have it, without a rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
We should have a way to communicate that these theories are completely unaccepted by the relevant professions. Granted the line as it stands needs to be sourced (or perhaps put differently), but this point should be made.Rja13ww33 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The point is irrelevant to the articles topic. Some of the sources that were added do not even support the line. One of the sources says "generally" not "completely". source [7] doesn't even exist, and should be removed. Source [8] mentions nothing of the sort. 65.255.181.151 (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
It is cited to as magazine article that was online, this proves it exists [[4]].Slatersteven (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Saying "generally" is enough to demonstrate it "lack[s] support" which is what the article says.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"...the relevant professional communities"

Who are the relevant professional communities? The sources quoted do not support the weight of this statement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fibretokyo (talk • contribs) 11:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ASCE for one. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics article cited is by ASCE. And they have consistently taken the stance in all their Journals that the controlled demo theory is nonsense. To quote from one of the sources: "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 as follows..."Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
https://xkcd.com/966/ :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

So how many are structural engineers? Not many.

In the article it says this: "By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed the petition." While that number may be impressive to some (out of the 1-2 million arch. and engineers in the USA), only about 30 or so of these people are structural engineers. (At least the last time I looked at the on-line petition.) A lot of people that have signed this petition are in irrelevant disciplines (like electrical). That's an important distinction to make that should be included.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes by that term it means anyone who says they are and people who are not. This si the list to check before you get an engineer! Dont use anyone on that list!--Apemonkey1 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is deeply flawed

Conspiracy theory soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[51] The appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remained intact."

This quote, with sources linking to two private studies, is a good example of why this 'article' sucks so much: it's extremely biased.

The structure of this article goes likes this: give a slightly condescending account of what AE for 9/11 thinks (for no good reason is it only Gage that gets to voice his opinions, not the thousands of others) and then give a mostly completely false account of why what Gage said isn't the truth, and what the official story says.

This article is written from the position that many AE is a bad source, doesn't speak the truth and the official story is right.

Completely insane and as I said in my edits: the reason why Wikipedia cannot be trusted.

I would like to have debate with one of you just to stick it to your beliefs.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

there are 4 sources in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, four sources that really don't have any merit. So those sources cannot be used.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics has no merit? Interesting. As a engineer who has bought selected articles published by them in the past, I'd be curious as to what you think does have merit. In any case, ASCE's Engineering Journals are credible. Richard Gage's opinion as a architect (and the tiny minority he represents) isn't. Truthers that have shown up on these pages have yet to find a single credible source that there is even a significant underground in the profession that believes this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
No, we're not going to debate you. Talkpages aren't fora for general discussion. The ASCE, the Council of Higher Education, the Deseret News and Diverse Issues in Higher Education are all reputable sources. Wikipedia isn't a forum for the promotion of fringe theories, and by design isn't tolerant of conspiracy theory promotion. You're at the wrong website, I think. Acroterion (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Let me give you an overview of the above

1. A refusal to engage in debate, signifying a complete lack of confidence in the evidence, but more likely, arrogance.

2. The argument that an argument can only be even considered valid if a lot of people share it. Which is a logical fallacy.

3. Involving a source which I wasn't talking about at all (ASCE). Which is a straw man argument, another logical fallacy.

4. The defense of a source, Deseret News from Utah which is 1) very unknown, 2) after reading it, kind of biased and 3) not a credible source on the topic of 9/11.

5. The defense of a source, the Chronicle of Higher Education, which is behind a pay-wall and so cannot be read by anyone except subscribers of the website.

6. The defense of a source, a private study, which repeats the original statement (in the source listing) without any substance of itself.

7. The defense of a source, Diverse Issues in Higher Education, which isn't actually functioning anymore.

8. The assumption that the 9/11 truth movement has no credible sources, even though we have thousands of architects and engineers who back it.

9. The assumption that fringe theories are bad. Which they don't have to be at all, another logical fallacy.

10. The admission that Wikipedia isn't designed to 'promote conspiracy theories'. Suggesting that 'conspiracy theories' all fall under the same category, which isn't true at all. This also suggests that all conspiracy theories are inherently bad, which attacks the idea, not the arguments, another logical fallacy.

Also Mr Rja13ww33, I am wondering how you can be an engineer, look into the evidence with an open mind (this is an assumption) and come out supporting the official story.

I have done what you asked of me (started a talk section to debate), but if you refuse to cooperate beyond this point, I am afraid I am actually in the right here and should be able to edit however I please once I have comfortably provided the necessary evidence for it.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Then you will get a block, please do not attempt this. Seewp:v wp:rs wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Saw that one coming from about a mile away. How could you be an engineer….. You guys all say the same thing. I’ve debated you people in the past and it is a total waste of time. Before long, you will be telling me I am CIA/not a engineer (you’ve already started that one)/don’t have an open mind, or so on. There must be a factory that turns you guys out. But the rules here are straight forward. And even if the rules here were not, like most Truthers, chances are you don’t have the nuts and bolts knowledge to debate this (no pun intended). And yes, Richard Gage’s crew constitutes a tiny minority in the profession. (Really, I wouldn’t even call it that.)
Either cough up a source that says this has significant support in the profession or get another hobby.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow, so much ad hominem and logical fallacies. "Either cough up a source that says this has significant support in the profession or get another hobby." You have the burden of proof, I don't, since you guys made the original statement. I suggest you cough them up first.

In any case, let me just run you by an argument which you cannot debunk.

First a pre-condition: the Towers fell in free fall. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzmcbulCI98

Why this is a problem: I think you know why, but I will tell you too.

If I punched a stone wall really hard, my hand would hurt, and maybe break. Why? Because the wall hits my hand back as well!

This is called Newton's Third Law of Motion: for every reaction, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Now let us apply this law to 9/11.

NIST got 20 million dollars of taxpayers' money to investigate why the Towers collapsed. They investigated only until the Towers' collapse began, and pretty much said: "Well the collapse wasn't stopped so we didn't feel the need to calculate."

Besides this dodging of the original mission, this is the same as saying: "When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the video images show that the US navy was quickly overwhelmed, so we didn't feel the need to find out why it happened."

Their explanation of what caused the initial collapse is total bonkers, but I am not going to get into that now.

Let's just assume that we took the top section of the Towers, and we made them collapse onto the lower section.

What would happen? Well the lower section would push against the top section, crushing up both sections in the process, until all the energy was dissipated and the system comes to a rest.

The lower section, being considerably bigger, would come out victorious of course.

Now what the official story says, is that the lower section didn't push back at all.

What they say, is that all the energy in the system was used to make the top of the building move downward.

What they say, is that if I punch a stone wall, I would punch straight through the wall.

I will let you decide if that sounds reasonable or not.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the same ol' free fall argument. Like I said: factory produced/recycled. The lower section would be "victorious"? Because it is bigger? I'm completely impressed with your buckling calculation. :) Don't have a clue do you?
And yeah, the onus is on you to find a credible source for the claim this has support in the engineering community. After nearly 18 years, it's nowhere to be found.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay so you didn't actually engage in debate, you just called my irrefutable argument stupid. Seems like I won. Seems like I can edit.

Oh and you can't just put an unbased claim and proceed to tell the one correctly pointing out that it's an unbased claim to provide evidence to the contrary. You provide a statement without evidence, I point it out, you say that's not right, you have the onus.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Irrefutable? A small mass falling on a bigger one? lol My advise to you is to buy a AISC steel manual and do some studying. While your at it, a text book in buckling would help. (You don't even know enough to take advantage of the type of buckling involved.....you can't even name it. Yeah, you really won pal.) Like I said: no nuts and bolts here. Richard Gage himself tried to model this is a cardboard box falling on another cardboard box. That gives one an idea of who we are dealing with here.
We have provided the evidence: ASCE's Journals are credible....Richard Gage isn't.
Instead of talking about things of which you have no clue.....how about find this magic source that has these secret meetings of engineers who suspect this was a controlled demo?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Again no direct response at all, just ad hominem and nonsense. I will start editing.Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you look up what the meaning of ad hominem is. Pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about (and the fact this group has no credibility)is not a ad hominem....it's the truth. And any you can bet your edits will be watched closely.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clip on username: please sign your postings with ~~~~ and indent responses per WP:THREAD. This makes the discussion easier to follow. clpo13(talk) 20:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

'Discussion'Clip on username (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-Published YouTube videos

See subject line. They are not acceptable sources. If you want to quote NIST, find a credible source doing so. Also, don't add your interpretation based on your reading/viewing of a unreliable source. Real simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In trying to track down the claims in the video, I can't find an acceptable (read: reliable and secondary) source for this claim. The YouTube description link contains a shortened link (which I can't link since it's blacklisted here) that at one point redirected to this statement, purportedly by Patrick Gallagher, director of NIST. I haven't been able to find this document from NIST itself to support its authenticity, and searching for the terms "finding regarding public safety information" nist 9/11 only brings up conspiracy forums and blog posts. clpo13(talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Also not a valid source, but this discussion may provide some insight into the nature of the withheld data referred to in Special:Diff/896000333. And there's this. I think we have a good explanation as to why no reliable sources discuss this topic. clpo13(talk) 23:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment:I think one of the people in that blog hit the nail on the head: no matter what, the Truthers are going to take issue with it. It's also important to point out (as likely the only engineer here I feel I must): modeling failure (and heat transfer) isn't an exact science anyway. But if you study the layout of WTC 7, the issues become apparent pretty quick. Not calling it a flawed design....but someone would really have to twist my arm off to stamp that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Gage's claims

Richard Gage's claims as to what he has worked on are not reliably sourced. I think it should be qualified by the fact he claims it on his web site. People puff up their resume all the time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure either is any worse then the ocher.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
That's a point. It's just that running with "his website states that...." is almost like we are taking his word for it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Not really, we are just running with "he says this". This in no way implies its true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Once Acroterion weighs in....we'll go from there. If he agrees with you (and it appears he does, but I'd like his input on the page), I'll change it back.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There’s no reason to doubt Gage’s statement about his experience. He’s about my age or a little older and at the time he started doing 9/11 stuff full time he had about the same amount of experience. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will leave it alone then. But to say that he's been "involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings" (as the article does) is pretty misleading. As a structural engineer, I can tell you (if true): that amounts to him picking a fire rated system out of the UL catalog. Doesn't mean he knows anything about the performance of buildings under such conditions. I think that needs qualification.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that I agree with, and that ought to be independently sourced. Simply being involved in the design of steel-framed buildings with applied fire protection doersn't make anyone an authority on the subject, and as you say, the first stop is the IBC table and the second stop is the UL system catalog. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What's the source for his AIA membership? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, scratch that. It's the same. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I looked him up.....and there is a licensed architect in California by that name.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Link?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
See: https://search.dca.ca.gov/details/600/C/19220/c75c3f00617d96f5faf0720b8ecb646f Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thats not the AIA, not does it mention them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
True. But it (at least) proves he (or someone by that name) is licensed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll look around, you have to search by chapter, and there are several AIA chapters in the bay area, assuming he's still in the area. Acroterion (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
He's not showing up as an East Bay member, and I haven't found him the the SF, San Mateo or Redwood Empire membership. [5] Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Active Thermitic Material Hoax Paper listed among "evidence" on website.

Its under technical articles:

https://www1.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

It is referenced in a couple of other pages about truthers, as well as the group behind the paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers

Inclusion here would show the "quality" of Richard Gage's so called evidence, but not sure if it's needed?

SKyle666 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Bentham Science (an open publishing platform) is not a reliable source and really shouldn't be included in those other articles. -Jordgette [talk] 14:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


I think you misunderstood. The reason it is included in those other pages is BECAUSE it proves the unreliability of the information those organizations and/or groups promote. So the question was should it be included here as well, BECAUSE it underlines the questionable provenance of A&E for Truth so called evidence. Or would it be redundant? SKyle666 (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia, it's a terrible idea to deliberately use unreliable sources to demonstrate the unreliability of certain propositions. Never seen that in Wikipedia, certainly, and for good reason. The way to do it is to find reliable sources saying that those propositions are false. -Jordgette [talk] 14:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Tend to agree, a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that's a good point. Thanks. But I would point out visavis that sort of thing "never on Wikipeidia" actually it is; hence my questions about the appropriateness of including it here or not. Conspiracy articles DO link to the sources, if only to prove Wiki editors aren't making it up. Or I assume that was the reasoning at the time. And who could blame them?SKyle666 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Bazant article in WTC7 section

This reversion should not have been performed [6]. We already have a similar (and stronger) quote earlier in the article with a link to Bazant (under "advocacy"). It's intellectually dishonest to use the Bazant link in the WTC7 section, because (1) the section is about WTC7, which Bazant doesn't mention in the paper cited, and (2) when Bazant makes the statement about the engineering community, he's referring to the explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers. We know this explicitly, not only from the sentence itself ("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 [singular] was as follows"), but also because the paper was published before NIST's final report on WTC7 was released. It's therefore impossible to apply what he says about the engineering community to WTC7. A bigger problem is that the citation creates the impression of impropriety, as if Wikipedia is trying to sneak in an inappropriate quote to shore up the WTC7 section. I am all for using the Bazant quote, but not in this section. If there isn't a better place to put it, it should be removed from the WTC7 section, as I did prior to this reversion. Unfortunately we don't have a quote of equal strength related to WTC7. -Jordgette [talk] 23:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess there is a POV that using the Bazant quote there is inappropriate (and I can see the argument). Maybe this statement should be moved to another section? Perhaps the World Trade Center towers section?Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
As I noted, there is already a stronger statement supported by Bazant, "The NIST explanations of the collapses are universally accepted by the structural-engineering and structural-mechanics research communities," which indeed is in the source. So, if anything, the later statement (which uses "generally") weakens the first. Why not just strip it out? -Jordgette [talk] 14:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I'll redo my edit deleting the Bazant-supported passage. -Jordgette [talk] 16:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Date of formation

When was AE911T founded? The reference for the founding date of AE911T does not state that AE911T was founded in 2006...

The American architect Richard Gage's conversion came in 2006 when driving along he heard an independent radio station interviewing the theologian David Ray Griffin.

"I had to do some real soul searching and some research. And the more I discovered the more disturbed I became and realized I was looking for... the architects and the engineers."

Finding that they hadn't really entered the fray by then, Gage decided he had to act.

"It just came to me, I had to start an organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth."

And the corporation's articles of incorporation show that AE911T came into existence on November 13, 2007. If you have a better date then please provide a reference. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing quote

The quote "a truly independent investigation" does not appear in the cited reference (i.e., the article titled Explosive Theory). So I am providing a similar quote and a reference for that quote. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05, You have reverted my efforts to correct a quotation error. Why? Neither of the two quotes in that paragraph appear in the reference that is being cited (i.e., the article titled Explosive Theory). So I am going to delete the quotation marks. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

If its not sourced we leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
  1. ^ Beam, Christopher (April 8, 2009). "Heated Controversy". Slate. Retrieved May 23, 2009.
  2. ^ Reuters (November 8, 2008). "Arquitectos estadounidenses piden a Obama que reabra la investigación sobre el 11-S". Retrieved May 27, 2009. Aseguran que las Torres Gemelas no fueron derribadas por el choque de los aviones. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Press agency report. Translation: "They argue that the Twin Towers were not destroyed by the impact of the planes.")
  3. ^ Lachapelle, Judith (May 1, 2010). "Le "mystère" de la Tour 7". La Presse. Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  4. ^ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (June 30, 2009). "Architect to Speak in D.C. on 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction". PRNewswire-USNewswire. Retrieved July 3, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ "Corrections". National Post. April 28, 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2009. [dead link]
  6. ^ Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (June 30, 2009). "Architect to Speak in D.C. on 9/11 World Trade Center Destruction" (PDF). Retrieved July 3, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Kay, Jonathan (May 16, 2011). "This is my destiny". Maclean's. Retrieved June 12, 2011.
  8. ^ "Jonesy & Amanda Jamcast". WSFM 107.1. November 19, 2009. Retrieved November 19, 2009. [dead link]
  9. ^ "Terrorist attack or controlled demolition?". Television New Zealand. November 27, 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2009.
  10. ^ Trembath, Brendan (August 22, 2008). "Sept 11 building downed by fire, not explosives: inquiry". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved May 25, 2009.
  11. ^ Eric Lipton (August 22, 2008). "Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says". New York Times. {{cite news}}: More than one of |work= and |journal= specified (help)
  12. ^ Levin, Jay; McKenzie, Tom (September 9, 2009). "Explosive Theory". metroactive. Retrieved September 9, 2009.
  13. ^ Pope, Justin (August 6, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved August 27, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth/Archive_3&oldid=1175312673"