On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:18:55 -0800, Ray Saintonge saintonge@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_collap...
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.
A good quote from Sen. Moynihan: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. So let's get the opinion out and leave the facts :-)
Guy (JzG)