On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:18:55 -0800, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Gee! We almost agree!
Damn! Must re-read looking for points of disagreement... ;-)
Perhaps we don't even need to get into the
"parts of the theory". If
their primary theory makes no sense at all it follows that what is
derived from that also makes no sense.
Oh yes, I'm all for that.
So, now we come back to the controlled demolition hypothesis for the
WTC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_colla…
How should we handle that, do you think? My strong preference here
would be to keep it short and to the point: a theory advanced by Steve
Jones, unsupported by any peer-reviewed evidence, not accepted by the
mainstream, beloved of the conspiracy theorists. We might justifiably
link to the very detailed rebuttal of his hypothesis by Blanchard, and
possibly even discuss it as having offered a prosaic explanation for
the questions raised by Jones, if we can find a reliable source that
identifies it as doing so. I can't find any reliable sources
attesting to the accuracy or validity of the controlled demolition
hypothesis, and that is something which indicates that we should
employ great care in documenting it.
Seems to me that we should start by removing:
* Multiple news reports of what Steve Jones said (it's not in dispute)
* YouTube videos of the collapse (OR, not sources, copyright issues)
* All links to 9/11 conspiracy websites masquerading as sources
Right now what I see in that article is the two sides duking it out
and in the process elevating the hypothesis far beyond any objectively
provable merit it might have. Again, this hypothesis has never, as
far as I can tell, been published in a reputable peer-reviewed
journal.
I just read through the article. It's not easy going. I understand
that such a prose style is typical in a much disputed article.
I agree with keeping it short. The "Overview" seems particularly prone
to being unreadable. It could probably be scrapped if everything said
there is included elsewhere in the article. The "History" section
should probably be limited to describing where this theory cane from,
and probably does not need to be as long as it is.
The head part of the "Claims" section seems to be relatively clear.
The sections about the fire theory and molten metal seem to be talking
about a completely different theory. At least the other subsections of
Claims seem to have some relevance.
As for 7WTC my own theory would be to favour something like what
happened at the [[Hope Slide]] where the collapse of the mountain into a
valley rode up on the opposite side of the valley to bring down a
section of the mountain there.
If I wanted to take the time to work on it I'm sure that I could find
much more to trim.
Ec