WTC Policy: Physics Forums Global Guidelines

  • Thread starter Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the classification of WTC conspiracy theories within the Physics Forums guidelines, distinguishing them from personal physical theories. While some argue that the idea of explosives being used does not contradict physics, it is primarily seen as a political issue rather than a scientific one. Moderation aims to maintain scientific quality, and the presence of unreasonable proponents complicates civil discourse on the topic. There is a call for clearer guidelines regarding WTC conspiracy discussions to prevent chaos and ensure that the forum remains focused on credible scientific dialogue. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards viewing these theories as lacking scientific support and falling into the realm of crackpottery.
jostpuur
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
19
The comments about crackpottery in Physics Forums Global Guidelines seem to deal mostly with the personal physical theories, and not conspiracy theories. But this thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=177337 seems to indicate, that you do have some kind of policy conserning this.

The WTC conspiracy isn't really scientific crackpottery, but political instead. By this I mean, that even though some specific claims made by the conspiracy theorists are not very convincing, the big idea that explosives were used to bring buildings down, does not contradict laws of physics, it contradicts certain political atmoshpere.

Since the purpose of moderation is primarily to maintain certain scientifical quality in discussions (and to have some control over behaviour of the PF members), it is not obvious that conspiracy theories should be banned. In any case, if you have a well defined policy conserning WTC conspiracy, it could be mentioned in the global guidelines as well for clarity. It is easier to find it there than from years old threads.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We have tried time and again to moderate such discussions, but the fact is that WTC conspiracy theories are not only lacking good evidence, they also attract every crackpot on the net. Frankly, it was impossible to allow any discussion because many of those who promote the idea are unreasonable, and apparently incapable of having civil discussions [forgive the pun].

In fact it is so bad that I am closing this thread to avoid chumming the water. This discussion is all it would take for the thread to spiral out of control.
 
Last edited:
jostpuur said:
The WTC conspiracy isn't really scientific crackpottery, but political instead. By this I mean, that even though some specific claims made by the conspiracy theorists are not very convincing, the big idea that explosives were used to bring buildings down, does not contradict laws of physics, it contradicts certain political atmoshpere.
Ivan already locked this, but just to put a finer point on it, the use of explosives at the WTC does contradict the laws of physics and the scientific method in general, as the evidence available does not support/directly contradicts the assertions. It is scientific crackpottery.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Back
Top