Support 911Blogger


Wikipedia revision on controlled demolition article needed

Many people use Wikipedia to give them at least an overview of a topic.

Unfortunately, it appears the current Wikipedia entry regarding the controlled demolition theory is seriously out of date.

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

An effort is needed regarding planning and execution, and this effort may take several months to obtain results.

The effort needs to be:
Reasonable
Thoughtful
Coordinated
Persistent

Here is my proposal:

I am NOT calling for active attempts to submit revisions to Wikipedia at this time.

Planning and discussion must occur first.

A small group of persons should be responsible for the effort.

First, corrections and omissions need to be identified within the structure of the existing Wikipedia entry.

(It is not reasonable to expect they will create a brand new entry or category.)

Second, a person or committee chair who is familiar with the Wikipedia entry edit process would begin the formal revision process.

Each attempt at revision must be documented.

Each time Wikipedia's authority (i.e. article moderator) removes or changes the edit must be documented.

If the Wikipedia authority persists in resisting legitimate modifications and/or inclusions of properly cited information within the rules of Wikipedia, an organized effort must occur to elevate this according the the rules of the Wikipedia community.

If this appeals process fails, other means of calling for a fair representation of new information must be pursued.

Here are my initial observations regarding the Wikipedia entry as of 9-24-10

1) No mention (with citations) of the results of findings published in peer reviewed journals, such as

http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/
and
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

2) No mention (with citation) of there being over 1200 licensed architects and engineers calling for a new investigation.

3) No mention of the specific counter-arguments (with citations) to main stream "experts" that were described and explored in the recent National Press Club AE911Truth press conference.

For example, it seems there should be a comment about David Chandler's You Tube posting that explains the basic physics (Newton's Law) that rebuts the Wikipedia text:

"The NIST report provides an analysis of the structural response of the building only up to the point where collapse begins, and asserts that the enormous kinetic energy transferred by the falling part of the building makes progressive collapse inevitable once an initial collapse occurs. A paper by Zdenek Bazant indicates that once collapse began, the kinetic energy imparted by a falling upper section onto the floor below was an order of magnitude greater than that which the lower section could support.[6] "

Also, the Wikipedia article makes no mention of the need for significant energy required to pulverize all concrete and destroy core columns.
(The potential energy was insufficient to cause essentially free fall collapse + pulverization.)

4)There is no comment on symmetrical collapse in the face of asymmetrical damage.

5)There is no comment regarding the NIST admission that free fall did occur at WTC7, nor that the onset of free fall was very sudden.

Additional items (topics and planning)

Additional topic items that should be covered in the article:

NIST refuses to release their computer model of WTC 7 fire induced "collapse", stating it would jeopardize national security.

Planning items:

It may be helpful to hire a "Wikipedia consultant" with a successful track record of modifying entries on other topics.

Someone needs to be responsible for long-term monitoring of this Wikipedia topic once updated, for example checking it every 2 weeks.

Caution is advised

I advise caution regarding discussion of Wikipedia article editing off of the Wikipedia site; particularly 9/11 articles. See WP:CANVASS. I'm not suggesting that your suggestions don't have merit; I'm just cautioning that some Wikipedia editors (with sanctions clout) may look unfavorably on discussions announced or enacted off of the Wikipedia site. 9/11 is a very touchy issue there, as you will be aware if you have been watching the proceedings for some length of time.

Sixteen tips for becoming a respected wikipedian

http://searchengineland.com/the-art-of-seo-for-wikipedia-16-tips-to-gain...

These tips will help you become an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community so that the edits don’t end up getting reverted and the entries that you contribute don’t end up getting nuked.

Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for original thought but where you aggregate the facts and consolidate what has already been published elsewhere. It is a place where you can contribute to those facts and assemble them into a rational article.