Censoring Dornicke for his reasonable request is illustrative of your weak argument. I suggest flagging this article as biased or controversial. As Dornicke correctly points out, one man's quote is not illustrative of the entire engineering community. Even the title speaks to the inherent bias of this article. Reasonable skeptics can appreciate the logic presented above. Those without the facility of critical thought can cling to their beliefs, but it has no place here. Censoring him for engaging you politely on this talk page only serves to further highlight your biases. 

 At a certain point, Wikipedia will jump the shark and join the dustbin of irrelevant infotainment media. The demarcation point will vary from individual to individual, but as the process continues the probability of you meeting it will also increase. Perhaps even those who have censored Dornicke may find themselves on the other side of that line at some future juncture. 

 It is for the above reasons that we operate within the bounds of logic when discussing. No matter how firmly attached some editors may be  to the 9/11 narrative, the use of logic and rational dialogue must remain sacrosanct. 

  As it stands Wikipedia's policies are an arbitrary set of rules which are applied where it suits senior editor's opinions. It is nothing new for me to say this; It is written across the web and known to most who have examined talk pages. Editors can comfort themselves within their circle of believers, but elsewhere a consensus is forming about the arbitrary nature of Wikipedia's rules.  

 By selfishly clinging to your beliefs and by discarding rational dialogue, you not only retard the growth of this resource, but you also threaten to destroy it.