Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Revert of The Devil's Advocate's changes

I'm reverting all of these new changes, and sorry but I'm not going through and spending an hour extracting the one or two changes that may have improved the article. In the first change, there were several unhelpful edits plus the creation of a grammatical mistake. In the last edit, there was a non-controversial wording change that was reminiscent of the conflict that occurred last week and resulted in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will be reminded one last time about WP:ARB911. -Jordgette [talk] 00:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not get offended at me for moving your comment. It just did not pertain to my objections to Tom's revert in any way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, I must say I am very livid at what you have done here. The only grammatical mistake I can see in the first edit was something that did not even remotely require you to undo the entire change (the simple insertion of a single word in the intro would suffice). In fact, the only thing you appear to object to that would have required a revert concerned only the last two edits. What do you consider an unhelpful edit in the first change by the way? Was there something helpful about the article waxing poetic about the beauty of the new building 7's park without any citation to even back it up?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Further the changes I made to the section on the conspiracy theories were responding to three issues. The word "found no evidence supporting" should not have been followed with "because" and this was a grammatical error overlooked over the former wording was inserted. I also added the word "pattern" to "window breakage" because that is what NIST was referring to, and simply mentioning breakage can create the misleading impression that there was no window breakage. The only change in that sentence not concerning those two issues was the change to the words "would have resulted" that was a response to a different issue. That separate issue is also why I changed the wording of "because it is" to "NIST considered it" and that is the insertions of absolute statements on matters that are not absolute. NIST's word on whether it is likely that thermite could have been brought into the building is not enough to state it as fact, that is not an issue concerning NIST's area of expertise. Generally we should avoid absolute statements, especially in a case like this where the claim is coming from a source that did not actually explain its reasoning. Similarly the terms "would have resulted" implies that the window breakage pattern predicted by NIST's simulations were definite. Even if they were pretty close to reality, it is not appropriate to describe it as though said simulation perfectly conforms to reality. Additionally, NIST's own wording in the study uses "what would be expected" in describing its observations of the window breakage pattern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not encouraging that coming right off a block for edit warring, you begin again where you left off, rewording things to make controlled demolition seem less implusible. I've restored the paragraph on the conspiracy theories. Please get consensus on the talk page for any significant changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I'm beginning to think we need an article that goes into the details of the studies done (by the NIST, etc). Something that would help explain the more technical aspects of the collapse and how the determinations were made. Keeping the excellent overview we already have here in place and directing those looking for more information, or for the more technically inclined, to the "In depth" article. In the current context it would be a good place for detailing the studies done on window performance and how computer models are used when doing science ( vs the odd idea that they are fictional simulations of questionable value). Thoughts? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be a good article to have. The problem, as ever, would be keeping the Truthers from turning it into a soapbox. A Quest For Knowledge has been gathering references on 9/11. Something similar might be done on the collapse investigation. You might mention your idea on the attacks talk page and/or the project page. I would watchlist it, but don't have a lot of time to give the project right now. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I'll see what I can get going. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you have no concerns about debunkers using it as a soapbox. Do you think that someone who sees his or herself as having to go after and discredit conspiracy theorists with Wikipedia articles is not violating policy just as much as a conspiracist who tries to push the conspiracy theory? You do not have to insist on an article absolutely rejecting a position in order to convince people that your position is correct. If the evidence is strong enough that shouldn't be necessary. If the evidence is not strong enough than you definitely shouldn't have Wikipedia rejecting those other positions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to completely twist what I actually said. I only stated that a simulation should not be treated as hallowed truth. I did not say that it was "fictional" or of "questionable value" as you claim. They are probably very good and reliable simulations, but they are still not something that should be treated as definite. Having Wikipedia say "this is how it would have happened without question" as the current wording effectively does, is not appropriate. As I said, that change was also consistent with the wording in NIST's own study, something that you guys apparently only think has relevance when it makes conspiracy theorists look bad.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The change you just reverted does not in any way do what you claim. It merely rewords that sentence to correct a grammatical error. It just plain doesn't make sense why you would think it does anything else. The change, when read, says simply that NIST found no evidence, such as the window breakage pattern and blast sounds, that would suggest the use of explosives. What you have restored has it worded as NIST found no evidence because the window breakage pattern and blast sounds were not observed, which makes no grammatical sense. Please reinsert my correction of that grammatical issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "because" to "as," which is I believe a neutral edit that most of us can get behind. Given you are coming right off a one-week block, may I suggest that a better approach would have been to point out the grammatical issue here, rather than use it as license to make a more dubious edit. -Jordgette [talk] 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing dubious about the edit and I am not going to go to the talk page every time I notice a grammatical error, puffery, or something like outright vandalism. What I said on my talk page still stands. I am not interested in making major or controversial changes without discussion. As I explained, the wording "would be expected" is coming straight from the NIST report where it specifically says, "The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5) was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7." Also, the wording "NIST considered it unlikely" is no different from wording earlier in the same sentence that "it was considered unlikely by NIST" and no change has been made to that part for weeks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that the NIST report included contributions from many dozens of engineers, architects and others not on the federal payroll?--MONGO 03:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with my comment?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free image and citation issues

While, I realize now upon looking into the issue further that this image does show a discernible gash (I thought it too clean-looking to be a gash), I am still not convinced that this image is of any probative value to the article that justifies the non-free use. Probably the biggest problem is that the NIST study concluded it was fire, not structural damage from debris, that caused the collapse. This image would likely confuse people into questioning that conclusion. Another problem is that people not familiar with the subject may not realize, like I failed to realize, that there is a gash (perhaps pointing out the gash in some way would be helpful). Even then the free image we have at the top of the section would seem to suffice in showing damage to the buildings without giving people a mistaken impression about the collapse. My position is that the image should not be included here. Perhaps in an article on the building 7 collapse that some editors have put forward this image would have a logical basis for inclusion, but here it just seems to be a disservice to the reader.

One of the other issues I am having is with this material:

. . . as well as the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

The current link in the citation does not go to the page mentioned and when I go to the page named it is the investigation on the towers, not building 7. Furthermore, even then it does not appear to say what is said above. While all these organizations are mentioned, their roles are either not as described in this article or not mentioned if they had a role. The building 7 report barely mentions them at all, if it does mention them. As far as I can tell the closest wording to what I quoted above is in this link and is as follows:

To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.

Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media.

As you can see, none of the organizations listed in the article are mentioned in the quote above. The only connection I can find to these organizations and the investigation is that some of the people involved in the investigation come from one or more of these organizations. However, that is only after clicking several links in a page linked to in the citation and does not demonstrate that the organizations themselves were advising NIST in its investigation.

That part of the article would seem to require a citation that includes this information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the "non-free" issue, but I'm in favor of keeping the image if possible. Regardless of what caused the collapse, it's rather extraordinary to have a picture of the building with major damage from the 9/11 collapses, hours or minutes before the building itself collapsed. Especially since I would guess that most people coming to this article want to read about what happened to the building on 9/11. And again, you're targeting this image for removal why?

Regarding the other issue, maybe I'm unclear on the difference between people from these organizations contributing to the NIST report, and "the organizations themselves" contributing or advising. And again, you're targeting these organizations for removal why? -Jordgette [talk] 05:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave my reason for why I am proposing changes. That you refuse to accept my explanation as a sincere one suggests you think I am being deceptive, which is a bad thing to be doing on Wikipedia. Now, the non-free image criteria does not merely require that an image be difficult or impossible to replace with a free image, but also that its use is of some help to the article. In this case, it seems the image can only serve to confuse people. Where the image is currently placed creates issues, it is right next to the information on the investigation (where it might confuse people most) rather than where the gash is specifically, and placing it in the more appropriate area of the section would create problems with the look of the article. Since we already have a free image showing damage to the building and smoke billowing out of it, I think the point that the building was not subject to minor damage gets across well enough without the photo of the gash. Perhaps in an expanded building 7 section in the collapse article, or an independent article on the collapse, this image might pass as helpful enough to be justified. Here, I think, it only inhibits the article's purpose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"The investigation, led by Dr S. Shyam Sunder, drew upon in-house technical expertise as well as the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including..." This is a reasonable summary of the facts, and I think it's adequately supported by the reference cited. We could add one of these[1][2][3] also, but it's not necessary to string together three or four references to support the sentence.

The picture adds to the article, and has an adequate fair-use rationale. There's no compelling reason to remove it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the citation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

SEC and Fiterman hall paragraphs moved

I made a change that I thought was fairly minor and uncontroversial. The SEC paragraph was rewritten to more closely mirror what is stated in the citations and that paragraph was moved, along with the Fiterman Hall paragraph, towards the beginning of the section. That change was to improve the flow of the section as it previously had talk of the investigation being interrupted by this talk of Fiterman Hall and the SEC. Now the section flows from the mention of the collapse right to these issues resulting from the collapse and the part of the section dealing with the investigation flows together smoothly. Other than the change to the SEC paragraph, nothing else was seriously adjusted and it allowed for about 70 bytes to be trimmed from the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OEM paragraph

Since I do not feel the edit summary adequately covered my reasoning for the change I would like to offer a more in-depth explanation here. The previous wording said Giuliani's decision to move the OEM was after the 1993 WTC bombing, which is true, but provides the misleading impression that the two were connected. In fact, the sources do not suggest his decision to base the OEM there was due to the bombing, but that it was done in spite of that attack. Further it is clarified that this decision was criticized prior to 9-11 so I reworded it to reflect that the criticism only became severe after 9-11. Sources backing up the wording included a number of citations that did not appear to even mention the diesel fuel and generators, which is what was being mentioned in the preceding material. Although criticism of his decision to move the emergency command center there does involve other arguments, it would not seem to be suitable there. However, a new paragraph in either the 9-11 section of the article or tenants section of the article would appear to be a nice fit for elaborating on the content of these sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom harrison's latest revert

You are asking for discussion so let us discuss. What did you like and what did you not like about these changes you undid?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lie down!

The first picture (in the info box) is incorrectly oriented. --Ettrig (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture in the top right spot needs to be rotated. The roofs are oriented to the left, not up. There is a notice about this on the image page. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a thread on ANI about image problems arising from a conflict of EXIF information vs. nominal picture orientation. It seems to be intermittent and maybe browser-dependent. Acroterion (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

SEC paragraph wording

I would like to insert the following wording for the current paragraph mentioning the files lost during the collapse:

Files relating to numerous federal investigations had been housed in 7 World Trade Center. Substantial files for thousands of SEC cases were destroyed, though the SEC has said most of the important files were backed up or could be reconstructed. Salomon Brothers, a subsidiary of Citigroup, lost files later requested by the SEC concerning its connection with the WorldCom scandal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 of its cases were affected. Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office were also lost in the collapse of WTC 7 with one Secret Service agent saying, “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”

Any input would be appreciated. Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Added formatting to the above. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Substantial" is vague and unnecessary; I think "files for thousands of cases..." is fine. I would delete "of WTC 7" and add a comma before "with one Secret Service..." And, several wikilinks can be added. -Jordgette [talk] 03:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

With Jordgette's changes, this seems fine as a replacement for the paragraph beginning "7 World Trade Center housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations." Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I inserted the wording with some of Jordgette's suggestions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free WTC 7 image

The dispute in this case covers whether this non-free image should be kept in the article or not. Here is a brief summary of the two sides of the question:

• Argument for keeping the image - The image does not appear to be replaceable and shows a rare image from a major event, specifically it shows a large gash on building 7 before its collapse. Inclusion in this article is helpful to readers who want to know what happened to the building on 9-11 and the fair-use rationale is sufficient. That structural damage is not considered by the mainstream scientific community to be the cause of collapse does not take away from the rare and significant nature of the image.
• Argument for removing the image - The image may be confusing to readers as it is placed next to a section of the article saying structural damage to the building is not accepted as the cause of the building's collapse. Moving it to the part of the article mentioning this gash would create clutter and there is already a free image included there that shows damage to the building. Fair-use rationale is not satisfied here given the potential confusion it creates, though it could be used in an expanded article on the building 7 collapse.

So, should this non-free image remain in the article or should the image be removed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove As the collapse section in this article focuses mostly on the investigation into the building's collapse while only briefly talking about structural damage, the insertion of this image in any part of the article creates issues. In the very small part covering damage it would create clutter given the inclusion of a free image in that same area, I am not about to remove a free image in favor of a non-free one, and where it is included now relates to the investigation that concluded the collapse was a result of fires. The latter placement creates confusion by showing severe structural damage next to the investigation saying fires caused the collapse. While I think the image is irreplaceable, it does not appear to satisfy fair-use criteria for this article. I do believe it would satisfy fair-use criteria in another page, possibly in an expanded section on building 7 in the collapse article or a separate article on building 7's collapse altogether.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The claim of confusion is silly. The building was damaged by the North Tower's collapse — I think we can all agree that is a fact. Whether that damage was the primary reason for the collapse is immaterial. If there's any possibility of confusion, that could be handled very briefly in the caption, but I don't think it's necessary when it's clearly spelled out in the text. It was a confusing day, we shouldn't have to simplify and reduce the course of events on 9/11 to make it more digestible for someone who came to the article only to look at pictures. In other words I don't believe in whitewashing Wikipedia of visual information that 7 World Trade Center was subjected to a world of hurt just hours before it collapsed, because, well, it was. -Jordgette [talk] 22:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Remove - the image isn't very good (I don't see a gash - maybe it's there, but it doesn't jump out at me, so it couldn't be all that obvious), it doesn't significantly contribute to the article, it's got ABC's graphics all over it, and this is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, so the rationale for using a non-free image must be exceptionally compelling - which really doesn't appear to be the case. Rklawton (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, the gash is that big black line in the middle of the building. I didn't recognize that at first either, presuming it was some design feature. That you also had a hard time figuring that out suggests a lot of people would. It could be pointed out more plainly, but that doesn't address the other issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - As discussed above, the picture helps engage the reader, adds to the article, and has an adequate fair-use rationale. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Per Tom Harrisons reasoning Darkness Shines (talk) 01:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Per Rklawton. PaoloNapolitano 20:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Per Rklawton, it seems to be a confusing, unclear and unsuitable image. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The requirements for non-free images are in WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI : "Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance." The image under discussion is lower resolution, has no free alternative, and is significantly aids in illustrating a historical event, so it meets the requirement. The fact that the image is a bit fuzzy, or that there are difficulties aligning the image with the associated text are valid, but - in my opinion - don't outweigh the usefullness. --Noleander (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Remove Per Rklawton. NickCT (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Jordgette and Tom Harrison. Image is useful and relevent, and - per Noleander - meets requirement for use of non-free images.--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Question is there any evidence to suggest that this image is "historic" or "ironic"? The only evidence of such, in my view, would come from it's repeated use as a fair use image in a compilation of "icon images". Without that, it's just OR on our part to say it's "iconic" and an unreasonable excuse to rip off someone else's intellectual property for our convenience. Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Restoration of edits since October

Given the recent instability of this article, and the feeling that there's some unfinished business to attend to, I thought I would go back and look at all of the cumulative changes that have been made since mid-October,[4] and try to create a compromise edit. This being a Featured article on a controversial topic, and my edits numerous, I thought it would be best to allow editors to preview and discuss my version before I move it over. So, I have created a draft of my edit. You may prefer instead to consider this diff,[5] which compares the current version (as of 12/4/11) with my draft.

Please let me know if you have objections to content restorations or other edits (it's amazing what you find when you read down a Featured Article!). I'll incorporate suggestions and move it over in about a week. Thank you for your work. -Jordgette [talk] 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. It might be overlinking to link debris. "Damaging" is more direct than "causing damage;" generally I like more and shorter paragraphs and sentences; but no significant objections. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put in Jordgette's draft of 11 December 2011. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would either of you be opposed to me reinserting the changes like "Responding to" in place of "In response to", the replacement of "7 World Trade Center" with "the building" and "7 World Trade Center" inserted in place of "the entire building" later on in that sentence, replacing the wording "The bulk of the investigation of 7 World Trade Center" with "NIST's investigation of the building's collapse" possibly with the addition of "largely" before the word "delayed", or the modifications I made to the part of the lede about the new building 7? Also would my previous changes to that part of the lede be acceptable to reinsert?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. Seriously, I appreciate the effort, and I hope others will weigh in. "Responding to" isn't a good replacement for "In response to", because the former implies that NIST was doing the action, when what follows is a passive construction -- NIST "was authorized". Apparently another agency was doing the responding. The rest of the sentence looks good to me; I don't see a reference to "the entire building" in that sentence. If you're talking about two paragraphs earlier, there is indeed a difficulty with the phrase "the entire building", because only the facade remained at that point. I considered changing it to say the entire building collapsed by 5:21:10 pm EDT, but I don't believe that wording is in the source. I kept "The bulk of" because otherwise it sounds like the start of the investigation was delayed, and I don't believe that to be the case. "Largely delayed" seems vague to me and not an improvement. Regarding the lede, it looks like the current version is a combination of your changes and what was there previously. I don't think the paragraph should be split, because it's the lede and this paragraph is about the new building. I prefer "emphasizes safety" because it is tighter and active voice. (In this case I think it's okay for the design to be doing the action of emphasizing, but someone else may disagree.) -Jordgette [talk] 01:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"The bulk of" and "largely" are equally vague if you ask me. Also, I think "emphasizes safety" reads more like a brochure than an encyclopedia. I am making some changes to respond to these and other issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I get it. Your request for opinion was just a pretense, you ignored mine and continued on your way as before. I had a feeling something was out of place here. -Jordgette [talk] 20:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not a pretense. I didn't ignore your comments at all. You said "responding to" was not a good change because of it being followed with "was authorized" so I was looking to change it and noticed that the actual claim this was responding to FEMA's concerns was not backed up by the source, nor was any other form of authorization. I found a source that did mention authorization, yet still did not mention it as a response to FEMA's report, and inserted new material that would be more informative as well as being backed by the citation. Also, I did not split the paragraph, though I don't think I would need consensus for that nor do I think it is a change of any significance whatsoever. The other changes I made were minor, not tendentious, and really do not require consensus at all. Be aware that reverting due to "no consensus" is not a legitimate argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reinserting a select number of changes that have no impact on the meaning of the content at all. Just like capitalization, the only effect of these changes is to improve style and readability. Will you agree that there is no conceivable need to get consensus on such changes? It would be nice to know how strict your desired limits are on this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know "collapsed completely" says it all, there is no need for the word "entire" as a result.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

While there has been good work on some of the less significant changes, I think there is still a minor unresolved issue there involving the wording "design emphasizes" that, as I noted, seems more like something you would read in a brochure promoting the building as opposed to an encyclopedia describing the building.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that. One could say the same thing about "is designed to emphasize safety" or any other promotion of the building's purported safety. But tight sentences and active verbs are our friends, and the current version sounds like good writing to me. On another note, I don't like the length and awkwardness of the sentence that includes "but is built on a smaller footprint..." so I'm going to try an alternative. -Jordgette [talk] 00:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the 2nd mention of the substation from the lede; it was messing with the flow. It's mentioned in the section about the new building, and I don't think it's important enough in the context of the new building to warrant re-mentioning in the lede. There's also a slight problem with saying that the new building is still built over the substation, because certainly Con Ed had to rebuild the substation so it isn't the same one. -Jordgette [talk] 01:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board about the "design/is designed" dispute. I agree with Jordgette here; "design emphasizes safety" doesn't sound any more promotional than "is designed to emphasize safety" to me, and I think the former words it a bit more concisely. A rewording of the sentence that avoids words like "emphasize" might be more neutral than either (although I think the current formulation is fine as is), but simply changing the tenses around won't really change the perceived bias. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

One way I just thought of illustrating the problematic difference in connotation would be if an article said "The Patriot Act's passage countered terrorism" as opposed to "The Patriot Act was passed to counter terrorism" and I think that makes the POV nature of the current wording clearer. Current wording says the design does emphasize safety, while my proposed wording says the design is intended to emphasize safety.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Generators

There is a need to mention that these are emergency generators the first time we mention them as "generator" can refer to power systems that operate on a regular basis. It is also important that we have different wording because we are introducing this new fact about generators, not mentioning a fact the reader already knows about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

When you first mention a detail it is good writing to introduce the reader to the detail. The current version is bad writing because it is written like the generators were already mentioned when they were not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the Wikilink but disagree on "there were"; it's altogether unnecessary. Consider the difference between "Eight Republicans were running for president" vs. "There were eight Republicans who were running for president." This is the same situation; the first mention constitutes the introduction of the subject. A Featured Article should have good, tight prose that is engaging. Let's not have it read like a description of a lab procedure. -Jordgette [talk] 20:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At no point is "were" used twice in my change so it isn't the same. The first mention does introduce the subject in a strictly technical, but it is not written as though it is introducing new information. You are telling readers about tenants using the emergency generators as though they already know about them, when this is actually the first time the generators are being mentioned. A reader's first thought is likely to be "Generators? What generators? It had generators?" Saying the building had generators and then telling them what said generators were used for is just good writing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't were/were. But, it sounds like this opinion is based on a guideline you once learned in school. To quote a great former boss of mine, your English teacher from eighth grade won't be disappointed and call you up. We are adults on Wikipedia and can break rules if the resulting prose is tight, engaging, and clear. Think of all the other places where we'd have to add words according to this rule — the previous sentence would start, "The building had mechanical equipment that was installed..." (otherwise it's, "What mechanical equipment?") and later we'd need, "There were fuel oil distribution components..." Tight, active writing is always better than wordier writing that conveys the same meaning with the same clarity. -Jordgette [talk] 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No, we wouldn't have to do that. We only say there was mechanical equipment installed on such and such floors so that is ok. The same goes go for the fuel oil distribution components. Only with the generators is this sub-par writing on display. It isn't some guideline from school, but proper writing. Articles are expected to be well-written and that means adhering to some stylistic rules. Paragraphs shouldn't be too large, we should avoid repeating words, and subjects should not be discussed as though they are already known to the reader unless they are previously mentioned in the article.

Imagine if that sentence about mechanical equipment was written like "The mechanical equipment was installed on" instead of the current wording. You would probably remove "the" from the sentence for the same reason I am pushing for this change. It would be written as though this was referring to some previously-mentioned mechanical equipment when it was not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording is not "Several of the generators", which would assume the generators had been mentioned; it's "Several generators". There is no structural difference whatsoever between "mechanical equipment was installed" and "generators were used." I won't say any more on this except that you haven't convinced me, and I think it should stand, although I'm open to other opinions. -Jordgette [talk] 08:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You are focusing too much on the exact words I am using to make the argument, while missing the general thrust of the argument. There is in fact, a very distinct difference between those two cases. Were the wording "generators were added/installed/included/etc. in the building" it would be different. However, I realized one simple way to fix it, I think. I have added the word "installed" before "in the building" to resolve my concerns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Shortening of 9/11 section

Should the section of this article on the collapse of the original 7 World Trade Center be shortened to a summary given the material's inclusion in Collapse of the World Trade Center?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Support The matter was discussed considerably on this talk page. I think having the focus of this article shifted towards the building and away from the 9/11 attacks is better for its overall quality. Many trivial details are included in this article like the various floors where fires were raging, a paragraph devoted to two buildings that were damaged by the collapse, a paragraph covering delays in the NIST investigation, and another about the various groups and people that were involved in the investigation. My feeling is that details of that nature do not need to be in the article on the building and can be included in the article on the collapse of the various WTC buildings where they are already included. Some editors have voiced support for having an entirely separate article on the collapse of building 7, which I would also support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This was discussed at length recently, but let's see what others have to say. -Jordgette [talk] 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The building is primarly notable for being the first failure of a modern high-rise from fire alone. The focus of the article reflects this. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with ArtifexMayhem. There was nothing truly significant about this building that set it apart from any other average skyscraper except for the fact that it collapsed from fire. If 7WTC had never collapsed it would probably have a stub for an article.Cadiomals (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as before; central to the topic. I hope we aren't going to have an RfC on this every three months. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: per WP:SUMMARY and per argument given by The Devil's Advocate. We don't need to add the same content everywhere, simply link that article as a main article/further information or something. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support by attempting to maintain the same information in two different articles, our readers will have to wade through a significant amount of redundant information just to be certain they've gotten the whole story. A simply summary and a link would solve this entirely. Just as importantly, readers gain no meaningful benefit from having two articles with the same information while Wikipedia bears the disadvantage of trying to keep two pages in sync. Rklawton (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SUMMARY, provided that (1) no information is lost -- it seems that right now this article has much more detail about the collapse than the collapse article does, and the information here should be preserved in the collapse article, and (2) a genuine summary is left behind here -- I'm not implying that anyone lacks bad faith, because I haven't been involved in these particular articles, but too often I've seen the existence of a more detailed article used as an excuse to remove pretty much all the information on that subject from the more general article, leaving little more than a bare wikilink to the more detailed article. Of course, shortening a large mass of material is often the tough part, especially when editors disagree about what's important. If we go the summary route, and down the road there's a dispute between two different proposed summaries, ping me and I'll trudge back here to give one uninvolved editor's opinion about them. JamesMLane t c 13:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (slight oppose with caveats): I believe that the collapse material in this article is not undue or overly long, and it would be best to keep it here. But I also believe in would be acceptable and within policy to have a one-paragraph summary here, and a new article on just the collapse of WTC7 that includes all information currently here. I think it would be sub-optimal to have the information only in the Collapse of the World Trade Center section, since readers interested only in WTC7 and its collapse would have to dig more for all relevant information. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Quadell, it would be the best to keep it here, so readers do not have to search the whole WTC article for the issue. A separate article for the matter is possible but why have two articles on a building when everything can be said in one article. JCAla (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Keep in mind this became a featured article the way it was, with the detailed 9/11 description. Featured articles are basically good the way they are and require little change. I'm not sure if making such a major change would endanger its FA status. Cadiomals (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't accept that "it's a featured article so you best not touch it" argument. For one, whether something becomes a featured article depends partly on what issues people raise, if any, about an article and the standards themselves change as they rightly should. This was promoted nearly five years ago after a rather paltry discussion before many significant developments. Several issues raised in the discussion are still being raised concerning this article. An article can always be demoted based on a new consensus that the article is lacking in areas that were not previously noticed. Under no circumstances is featured article status a shield against criticism of the status quo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The original building would be notable all on its own. Even without 9/11 it would still be one of the major buildings at the World Trade Center, have Salomon Smith Barney as a major tenant, and be the home of the Office of Emergency Management (the choice being a matter of some controversy). The new building is also entirely notable on its own. Really the argument is that fewer people would care about this article if it wasn't for 9/11. It is true that the article would be more neglected than it is already, but that is not a legitimate reason for including all these details about the investigation here when there are perfectly fine articles where this material can be more appropriately included. Rather than arguing about what the state of this article would be but for 9/11 we should focus on what the state of this article should be given the information about the building itself. One important point to consider is that the current version does not have much more room to grow before talk of a split will be necessary. Looking at past versions there was already important information removed about the collapse to keep the article short, with it apparently just disappearing from Wikipedia altogether. Shortening the section on the collapse would allow expansion on a number of other points not currently covered by the article that are pertinent to the building itself. Expansion on the collapse can be done on a separate article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I smell a desire to POV fork on your part. Since the old and new buildings have the same official title, I can see no reason to split this...it would surely end up losing its FA status. While I always hope even FA level articles will improve with time, this isn't the way to go with this article. This is my opinion and no amount of massive filibustering and time consuming talkpage banter from The Devils Advocate is going to change it. And TDA...do me a favor and not post at my talkpage alerting me that further discussion about this is needed...I have this page watchlisted so IF I want to chime in, I will.MONGO 13:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you please assume good faith and not suggest I have some nefarious agenda for suggesting this? I do not think protecting FA-status should be our primary consideration at any time. There is no reason to believe the FA-status will stay so long as we avoid taking such actions, unless you are suggesting you would try to get it stripped of FA-status if such a change were implemented. Any issue that exists with an article should be addressed, regardless of the article's status. Do you mind giving a reason for why you think shortening the section on the collapse, given the material's inclusion in the collapse article, is inappropriate? Are you aware that is what we are discussing or do you think we were talking about splitting the information on the old and new buildings into separate articles?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Known" sentence in lede

I think this may be something that needs to be in the lede. Before I have said this sentence does not really fit where it is currently placed. This is one of the significant characteristics of the building and therefore should probably be added to the lede in some manner. A brief sentence noting the collapse being unique in this respect would be good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Naah. Not particularly significant characteristic. The fire and failure are prominently mentioned. The design is the significant feature. It goes without saying that it was the first building of that design damaged by falling debris from the collapse of a nearby building triggered by a collision with a jetliner that started a fire that burned uncontrollably. The fire and structural failure are mentioned in the lead and explained in detail. It was probably the first one with red masonry exterior to suffer that fate, too. Why would that even need to be mentioned in the lede though? --DHeyward (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty self-explanatory. Buildings like that collapsing from fire is not exactly common. I get that conspiracy theorists like to cite that as a reason for controlled demolition, but it is still kind of an important thing that should get some mention in the lede. Right now we don't even give an actual explanation for the collapse, it is basically just hinted at.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Section 1.2 of the article gives a very detailed explanation if you are unsure. It also cites references that go into more detail. Short answer is that the steel is coated with a fireproofing material for a reason so structural failure due to fire is neither unknown or unexpected with an uncontrolled fire especially if debris from the other towers damaged the fireproofing material. The coating is a rating against time and temperature that is factored into the design. Note that steel used for tensile strength in a bridge is coated against rust, not fire because fire isn't a threat. Steel in the building is coated for fire. It's not particularly noteworthy that fire can cause structural failure and considering that you already cited the CT belief it's related to seems to make it WP:UNDUE. --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

NIST actually specifically mentions this as being a unique aspect of the collapse. Unless you are going to label them conspiracy theorists I fail to see how it is undue weight. I am not confused about the explanation, but I happen to have read quite a bit about this subject. The uninitiated reader may look at that lede and be confused about what caused the collapse and thus it does not actually help people become informed. All it would manage to succeed at is confusing people.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly NIST mentions it: it's a report on the uncontrolled fire that brought the building down. Its also a common conspiracy theory trope. Just as pertinently, it's also the tallest building in which what firefighting resources could be committed were withdrawn and the building left to its fate. I don't see it as central to the article, but perhaps my opinion is colored by having explained so many times over the years that steel buildings perform poorly in fire to people who (not unreasonably, for laymen) assume that that shouldn't be possible. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm obviously too tired to see "lede" in the section. Not significant enough for inclusion in the lede. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of the article, but I don't think that this is notable enough for the lede. Most people know about WT7 because it was destroyed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, not because it was the only building that collapsed because of a fire damage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is the official cause of collapse not notable enough for inclusion in the lede? That doesn't even make sense. It certainly doesn't make sense that we never mention the cause of the collapse in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

@Devil's Advocate: You should check that diff again. The cause is already in there:

“ On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

NIST does not believe there is anything "unique" about WTC 7 that caused the collapse. In fact, if anything, they believe that any similar building design with uncontrolled fires would suffer the same fate. They recommended building code changes to prevent it in the future. That's hardly a position that WTC7's collapse was a unique reaction to that scenario. It was also not unknown that fire could damage the structural integrity whence the standard of fireproofing the steel. Highlighting a singular point in the lede that you readily admit is a CT point of contention is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. Being "first" had nothing to do with the collapse and putting it in the lede is promoting a fallacious argument that it's novelty is somehow related to the conclusion. It's not. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Unique" as in "it hasn't happened before" and you cannot really deny that. Since the finding that the collapse was caused by fire led to such changes in building codes makes it even more worthy of noting in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The lead says of what caused the collapse: "On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm. The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm." There's no need to change that, and certainly no need to highlight the conspiracy theories in the lead. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Where in there does it say "fire caused the collapse" or anything similar? I am not seeing it. That is kind of the most important part of the collapse, the cause.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it." The lede summarizes the buckling, the subsection expands it as it's supposed to. That level of detail is appropriate for the article, but becomes a little bulky for the lede. --DHeyward (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't need all those details. However, we don't even mention the mainstream account of fires causing the collapse until that part of the article. If anything, some of the other material about the fires and collapse should be trimmed from the lede, and the simple statement that the official investigation concluded the fires caused the collapse be added in as appropriate. We mention the penthouse collapsing in the lede for heaven's sake. That is a completely trivial detail, unlike the actual cause of the collapse. While we all know what NIST has said caused the column to buckle, not every person out there is going to be aware.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"Mainstream account"....you mean the one based on the facts? I think the lede is better off with this detail which is greatly expanded in the body of the article...it was there when it became a featured article...no reason to make a major alteration now.--MONGO 01:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Except being featured article doesn't mean perfect, and it doesn't even mean it has been adequately evaluated.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes...the article omits discussion that the original building may have been destroyed by Godzilla.MONGO 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

This page http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

for the image of the large format photo of the damaged Building 7, does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.83.183 (talk • contribs) 12:39, August 28, 2012

An archived version of that page is at the Wayback Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070329040344/http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

Perhaps the large format photo is in one of the PDFs that are listed. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 June 2012

The current sentence reads "The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in the September 11 attacks." This should be changed to "The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed in the afternoon of September 11th 2001 following the attacks upon the twin towers." The claim that this building was destroyed "in the September 11 attacks" is highly misleading since it implies that a plane hit building 7. Most people associate the phrase "September 11th attacks" with planes hitting buildings. Furthermore, many people among the public don't know the difference between building 7 and the twin towers. They frequently assumed that building 7 WAS one of the twin towers. This is because most of the public outside of New York city is unaware that there were more buildings in the world trade center complex than the twin towers.

97.126.202.141 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done I have slightly modified the wording to avoid confusion, but I disagree with the statement that it is misleading. The tower was destroyed in the attacks and the rest of the article provides more than enough clarification. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "destroyed in the attacks" is unclear. I prefer: "destroyed shortly following" or "destroyed on the same day" or alternatively "in the wake of". 67.169.93.56 (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the article does the phrase "destroyed in the attacks" occur? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into two, covering the original building with its own infobox and the new building. Jmj713 (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

False claim?

This passage in the article implies the tower collapsed as a result of the debris from the twin towers.

"On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm.[2] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm."

But WTC7 fell as a controlled demolition, didn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In a word, no. Acroterion (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

NIST found no evidence -> NIST concluded no evidence was found

I'm suggesting the sentence "The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition." should be modified to "The NIST report concluded no evidence was found to support conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition". The expression "concluded no evidence was found" is more neutral than "found no evidence" and therefore would, I believe, better comply to Wikipedia standards. I didn't want to make an anonymous edit without asking first, so are there objections to this modification? 18.58.6.65 (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's awfully clunky and arms-length considering we're talking about NIST's report on their own investigation, don't you think? Acroterion (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's awfully clunky. It's basically about NIST's interpretation of their own findings, and by using strong language on the matter ("report found no evidence") Wikipedia lends its authority to support NIST's interpretation. That is totally unnecessary in my opinion. 18.58.6.65 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't NIST be entitled to interpret the findings of their own report? The way you wish to word it uses Wikipedia's voice to water down referenced material from a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly allow NIST to interpret its own report. But do you honestly think saying "The NIST report concluded no evidence was found" is watering down referenced material? I could understand your comment if I was suggesting a wording like "NIST report claims" or something. 18.58.6.65 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If it were me I'd just say there was no evidence and cite the report. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation a blast event.

— NCSTAR 1A, page 54.

1. No reliable source has ever reported that there is any evidence to support any of the WTC conspiracy theories (If you, or anybody else, know of any, please post them here).
2. The NIST report is universally supported by those qualified to comment on the topic (i.e., It is a reliable source and reporting on its findings can be done in Wikipedia's voice).

— ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your first point leads me to post another suggestion, which I'll post as a separate item. The second point begs for a reference, in my opinion.

Edit: Hundreds of architects and engineers have signed a petition calling for a new, independent investigation on the collapse of the WTC buildings.[6] Apparently these qualified people do not support the NIST report. 18.58.6.65 (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

AE911 Truth is not a reliable source on the topic. Regardless, I've noticed that none of these "qualified people" have published anything in a reliable source. Of the peer-reviewed articles I've read that cite the NCSTAR reports, none of them challenge the NIST findings (not that I've every paper out there, just most of them) in any significant way. It would be simpler if you could provide a source to the contrary (I've looked and found nothing). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Every profession has a fringe element. Doctors and lawyers come up with unusual ideas: what makes engineers and architects any different? Neither the architectural nor the engineering professions at large take AE911Truth seriously. All reliable sources regard the Truther movement as (putting this as kindly as I can) a fringe phenomenon. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding peer-reviewed articles challenging the reports, what about papers by Cherepanov in two different Springer journals?[7][8]

And here is another 'reliable source' - a report in a peer-reviewed journal of evidence against the NIST report [9]. Ericlord (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not a "peer-reviewed" journal nor is a paper that includes Steven E. Jones or Kevin R. Ryan as authors a reliable source for anything other than their opinions (typically unfounded and devoid of any relationship to reality or support outside of the truther universe). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not wish to use AE911 Truth as a source per se. The petition is simply hosted on their site. Or are you saying the people in the petition do not exist or are not what they claim? @ArtifexMayhem: are you saying that none of the people in the petition have published anything at all in a respectable journal? As I said, I'd be happy to see a reliable source saying that the NIST report is universally supported by those qualified to comment. 18.58.6.65 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Few people at AE911Truth have done more than sign a petition, none have published peer-reviewed scholarship on this subject, and their respective professions do not consider their theories credible. What has been proposed by AE911Truth has been riddled with basic errors of physics, materials science, and overall wishful thinking. I see no reason to amplify or diminish the current language. Acroterion (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I can only once more ask you to provide some reference to support your claims. And, I was not just talking about AE911Truth activists but all of the hundreds of professionals and academics who have signed the petition. Finally, you did not comment on the papers by Cherepanov. 18.58.6.65 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're asking for proof of a negative: none of the petition signers have published serious research that anybody here knows about. As far as I'm aware, Cherepanov was not a signee. Cherapanov published his "fracture wave" theory before the NIST reports, and I know of no challenge to NIST/NCSTAR since then from his direction. Acroterion (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NIST report did not consider any conspiracy theories

The article says "The NIST report found no evidence supporting conspiracy theories that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition". However, in my understanding the NIST report did not make any mention to conspiracy theories. The report overview states "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001". The controlled demolition hypothesis is not a conspiracy theory as such, it is just one scenario for the collapse that warranted consideration (obviously, the collapse did look similar to a controlled demolition). I would suggest the sentence to be changed to "The NIST report found no evidence supporting a hypothesis that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition". 18.58.6.65 (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's rather silly to claim the WTC could have been brought down by demolition without the existence of a conspiracy to do so. Most people associate the demolition hypothesis with CT, so I think it's entirely appropriate here. I do not believe in whitewashing the term "conspiracy theory" out of the passage because some people do not like that phrase.

To comment on the earlier suggestion, "The NIST report concluded no evidence was found to support..." is clunky and redundant. They found no evidence; this is not a conclusion of the report. (The conclusion, from the lack of evidence, might be that demolition was highly unlikely.) It'd be like saying, "I've searched my house all day for my keys, and I've come to the conclusion that I can't find them." Either you can't find them, or you conclude they aren't in your house. -Jordgette [talk] 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You might be right that it is artificial to separate conspiracy theories and the demolition hypothesis. After all any explanation implies a conspiracy of some sort, be it Al Qaeda or something else. So I widthdraw my suggestion.

Regarding the rest of what you say, the issue is that whether some facts can be regarded to support a particular hypothesis can be subject to interpretation. When you are looking for you keys it's fairly simple, but whether the period of free fall in the collapse can be seen to lend some support to the demolition hypothesis is not so straightforward. NIST concluded that it doesn't, and that's interpretation. 24.61.131.249 (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A "hypothesis" suggests that there is some rational reasoning involved, when there is no rational reasoning at all when it comes to suggesting WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The feds simply discussed that they found no credible evidence to support such a notion, and rather than state the obvious, which is that such ideas are ludicrus, simply worded it in a more neutral manner in their report.--MONGO 00:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Fall Collapse Should be Acknowledged

Shouldn't the fact that the World Trade Center 7 fall is not in the 9/11 report be mentioned somewhere in this article? Apparently it was just a giant coincidence: the first building to completely collapse in near-free-fall speed due to office fires, happened to do it a few hours after the first and second time a skyscraper fell from being hit by airplanes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.240.217 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the 9/11 Commission was not tasked with studying the physical collapses. That was done by NIST in collaboration with private organizations such as the American Society of Civil Engineers, which issued several detailed reports that are available online. Sounds like someone has been reading "9/11 Truth" literature. CT talking points struck out. -Jordgette [talk] 23:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

CT soapboxing

One of the most controversial facts about the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 is that the building (or some claim what was left of it) underwent a phase of collapse at exactly gravitational acceleration for over 2 seconds. This is officially acknowledged in the final NIST report, NCSTAR 1-A, (section 3.6 pp 45-46 including fig. 3-15), although it was initially denied in the draft report until public criticism of the draft by members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth forced NIST to revise its claim. This fact (no longer disputed) is extremely significant, since even buckled steel columns must provide significant resistance to compression and collapse, despite the claim by NIST (p 45 of NCSTAR 1-A) that the 'buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face'. This is true even if we are only considering a single facade of the building, supported only by buckled perimeter columns, although there is absolutely no empirical evidence at all to support NIST's claim that only one facade of the building was in free fall. Either way, it is acknowledged that all or part of WTC 7 underwent collapse indistinguishable from free fall for 2.25 seconds, through a distance of about 25 metres, or roughly 25% of the entire height of the building. This implies that the steel columns supporting that part of the building (most likely all 82 steel columns throughout the building), whether buckled or not, were compressed through about 25% of their length, using no energy whatsoever, since all gravitational potential energy was converted to kinetic energy in this phase and was therefore unavailable to do work on the structure. Critics of the official report point out that this would be a physical impossibility, unless the columns were all removed simultaneously by some means such as controlled demolition using explosives and / or incendiary components. In view of the importance of this point, it should be acknowledged in the article, with a reference to the appropriate section of the NIST official report, NCSTAR 1-A as I have given above. This is especially in view of persistent claims by self-styled 'conspiracy theory debunkers' prevalent on the internet, who disseminate the misinformation that WTC 7 was never in free fall. The confusion usually stems from a misunderstanding of the difference between instantaneous acceleration and average acceleration, coupled with a misunderstanding of the significance of free fall, even over a short period of time, such as 2 seconds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC) The causes of the collapse are well known and do not include explosive or incendiary components. Please see WP:RS. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Please provide a reference explaining how the structural elements of WTC 7 (including 82 100-metre high steel columns) could be compressed through 25% of their length using no energy, as the official report implies. I have read through the entirety of NCSTAR 1-A and no such explanation is forthcoming which, as someone with a PhD in engineering mathematics and a physics degree, I would expect. Also, there are no peer-reviewed scholarly articles on this subject. Your statement that the causes of collapse are 'well known' is a palpably false and completely evidence-free assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC) The only source that the implied compression is required is you. Feel free to publish on the topic and get back to us. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Familiarise yourself with an elementary physics textbook. Maybe get yourself a 1st class degree in the subject or a PhD in engineering, as I have and then I'll get back to you. OK, you want a reference? Try this one.Sonmi 451 (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) You may be right, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Right now, there are few, if any reliable sources which claim that WTC7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia and so we cover mainstream viewpoints. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC) No, he's just wrong like all the rest of them. The initial buckling provided resistance. Then it buckled. Then it fell. Then it started to pile up. There is no requirement for compression nor is freefall of a facade during the middle portion of a building collapse controversial when the support structure has collapsed. Columns buckled outward, not down so no compression required. --DHeyward (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Were any 100-metre long buckled columns found in the debris pile? No. Is there any evidence on film for any buckling of perimeter columns? No. But it doesn't matter, either way. If a column is buckled, without being severed, the height is shortened and the building is collapsing - we agree thus far. In order to shorten the column further, it is necessary to deform that column further (which is what I mean by 'compression' - i.e. compression of the length). Any form of deformation requires energy; it requires energy to bend, as well as to 'compress' a structure. So where did this energy come from? We have established that it could not come from gravitational potential energy, since that is all being converted to kinetic energy during free fall. There is therefore no escaping the deduction that the columns must have been severed. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi, you might want to look at some of the discussions in the archive that have already happened (for example here). Wikipedia makes it very easy to search the archives and find out what has been discussed. It seems that every couple of months someone looks at the article, gets the idea that nobody on Wikipedia has heard such-and-such unassailable fact about WTC7, and comments. In most cases we've been through this. If you look through the archive and notice that something important isn't mentioned in the article, and you have a reliable source to back it up, let us know. Be mindful, though, that users can be sanctioned for tendentious editing of this and other 9/11-related articles. -Jordgette [talk] 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC) If it comes up every couple months, why not create an article FAQ? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't bother frankly. The CTers have long tried to promote the notion that IF WTC 7 was imploded, then it is at least somewhat plausible that the twin towers were as well. While CT's about Bigfoot, UFO's and Apollo Moon Landings have some element of humor in them in their preposterousness, the 9/11 CT's are so incredibly ignorant that they are beyond humorous...they are instead simply sad and sick.--MONGO 02:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I have no idea what Bigfoot, UFOs or the Apollo moon landings have to do with 9/11. But if we are playing the childish game of denigrating a position by trying to associate it with other more easily ridiculed notions, allow me to join in: Many who repudiate so-called 9/11 'conspiracy theories' are themselves climate change deniers, which immediately tells me they have no ability to evaluate complex scientific data. They also often use the well-worn trope that it would be impossible for 'the US government' (a somewhat vague signifier) to be primarily responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as they are simply incompetent. The same 'logic' would lead you to believe that they were too incompetent to organise the moon landings too. So which is it? Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the advice, Jordgette, and I do realise that Wikipedia will only ever endorse what they believe to be the 'mainstream' view, regardless of how wrong that view may be. I have no desire to edit Wikipedia articles directly, as I have better things to do than take on the astro-turfers who doubtless stake out these controversial articles. However, I do believe that where articles omit important facts, they should be called into question for the sake of completeness. Where genuine controversies exist, they should be highlighted, rather than swept under the carpet. Encyclopaedias should not pretend that a consensus exists when in fact there is none. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Finally, there is, in fact, a perfectly good peer-reviewed academic paper, which has never been challenged in any genuine academic forum, which does show with very high probability that explosives were used in the destruction of at least one and probably all 3 towers to fall on 9/11. It is the paper by Harrit et al (2009), "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". Detractors (usually non-scientists) often claim that the paper was not peer-reviewed or that the journal is some sort of 'vanity publication', thereby displaying their total ignorance of the Open Journal concept and always failing to engage with the evidence presented, preferring cowardly ad-hominem attacks or making totally unsupported allegations instead. As a published scientist myself, I find this kind of ignorance and refusal to engage with evidence pretty offensive. Anyway, I simply refer to it as an example of a good, reliable, verifiable source which Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge (without good reason), and which is therefore airbrushed out of its histories in Stalinist fashion. Meanwhile, the papers due to Bazant, Seffen and others, which have been absolutely torn to shreds in the very same academic journals in which they were published, are accorded some sort of godlike credibility, along with completely non-academic magazine articles (e.g. Popular Mechanics) and even marketing white papers.Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC) You're more than welcome to edit the article. It will be interesting seeing what you add since you're like a published scientist and all.MONGO 20:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi - When you say the papers by Bazant, are you referring to the 2007 and 2008 papers in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Because I looked through the 29 papers citing the first and the 6 citing the second, and saw none of them "tearing to shreds" the original, certainly not in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Care to point us to those papers? They sound interesting. It's really not worth your time arguing your pet theories here. According to the ASCE's publication (which practices true peer review, unlike Bentham Open), "allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered" (Bazant 2008). To challenge this on Wikipedia we need a reliable source; otherwise you're just typing at nothing. -Jordgette [talk] 20:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 1) The fact that Steve Jones' paper (aka Harrit et al.) is not published in any peer-reviewed journal is not related to anyone's "total ignorance of the Open Journal concept". 2) Without reliable sources to the contrary, claims that Bazant, et al. have "been absolutely torn to shreds in the very same academic journals" are, frankly, ludicrous. If, in fact, there was any tearing or shredding it was done by Bažant. 3) Reliable sources are also required to support your claim that Wikipedia editors have "airbrushed" information out of articles "in Stalinist fashion" (this is also the wrong article for such claims). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I am referring to Bazant & Verdure (2007) and the discussions published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by James Gourley and Gregory Szuladzinski, both of which carefully dismantle Bazant's thesis. A link is provided above by ArtifexMayhem, although this user seems to think that Bazant answered his critics adequately. That's his opinion but I do not share it. In any case, the discussion shows that Bazant's views are not universally accepted by qualified professional engineers. Further refutations were also published in the same journal, by Anders Björkman and Crockett Grabbe (concerning Seffen's paper). Whether or not you agree with Bazant's thesis regarding the twin towers, it must be noted that he has never tried to apply his analysis to WTC 7, since it is quite obvious that no amount of ad hoc mathematical modelling can describe a steel-framed building collapsing in free fall, unless all structural supports are completely removed (e.g. by explosive demolition). There are persistent claims by editors here that Bentham Open Chemical Physics is not a peer-reviewed journal. This amounts to a serious accusation of fraud against Bentham Science Publishers and that specific journal's editorial board. The evidence for the allegation is scant and concerns a single unverified case of a nonsense paper being allegedly accepted by a different journal in the Bentham range - but not Open Chemical Physics. The allegation against Open Chemical Physics is thus baseless and you would be on shaky ground in a libel case. However, the whole discussion around this topic simply reveals a totally hypocritical and asymmetric attitude towards the question of 'reliable sources' by Wikipedia editors. Non-peer-reviewed articles in the non-academic commercial magazine, Popular Mechanics, are frequently cited in support of NIST's official theories, so clearly peer review is not considered necessary for a source to be deemed 'reliable'. The NIST report itself (NCSTAR-1A) is not peer-reviewed and also contains glaring outright falsehoods, such as the claim that no explosions were heard by witnesses or captured on audio. By contrast, the Harrit paper was peer-reviewed and appears in an academic publication, yet is not deemed 'reliable'. Do you care to explain the double-standard? Moreover, Harrit et al's findings have now been independently replicated by professional chemical engineer, Mark Basile. No one has ever refuted these findings in a proper academic forum, although they have been welcome to try for nearly 3 years now. The only criticisms I can find are completely hilarious attempts on non-scientific internet forums to postulate a remarkable sort of 'paint' which explodes just like nano-thermite and fails to dissolve in an industrial solvent. Would these critics like to publish their own analyses in a peer-reviewed academic journal? No. Why? Because they are laughable. Further corroboration for Harrit's paper comes from the completely independent insurance report by R J Lee (WTC Dust Signature Report, 2003), which reveals that 6% of the dust particles from the collapsed buildings were composed of microscopic spheres of elemental iron (a by-product of a thermitic reaction). The report concludes, probably incorrectly, that these particles were formed by the melting of steel at extremely high temperatures within the buildings. This, of course, could not be achieved by the fires in the buildings, but it could be achieved by explosive demolition using nano-thermite and there is absolutely no other plausible explanation for such a high abundance of elemental iron microspheres. This report was clearly good enough for a court of law, so does it count as 'reliable' enough for Wikipedia? Seeing as it corroborates Harrit's findings and supports a controlled demolition hypothesis, I guess not. Sonmi 451 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:RS and the archives of this talk page before continuing down this path. Without proper sourcing your ideas will get no traction here. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I have read it, thanks. Clearly, Harrit, Jones, Gourley et al are all recognised experts in their fields, with numerous scientific publications between them, as is R.J. Lee, so they all fit the description of 'reliable sources'. However, Wikipedia editors consider a non-peer-reviewed commercial magazine such as Popular Mechanics to be a more 'reliable source'. I rest my case, as I have no desire to 'get traction' here. I think I've made my point, which is simply to show that this article on WTC 7 omits numerous important facts and controversies and is therefore hugely biased, disingenuous and unreliable. Sonmi 451 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC) A journal that charges authors to publish submissions [10] is a vanity press, not a scientific journal, and therefore not a reliable source. Seeing that New Scientist wasn't sued for libel for its accusations, I think we're on safe ground here. Checking Artifex's link, I see that these supposed refutations were e-mails, not peer-reviewed papers like Bazant's. I also notice that James Gourley is a patent attorney. A "recognised expert in their field" -- really?? It's a wonder why conspiracy theorists never ask themselves why the great Professor Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D. couldn't get his paper published in a reputable journal. Oh that's right, it's a conspiracy, NVM. -Jordgette [talk] 21:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC) This person doesn't know the meaning of "conspiracy," or he/she would not imply that conspiracies don't exist. --Coching (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC) And..Jones was a professor at BYU...he no longer is and the reasons why are somewhat easily discovered. I never cease to be amazed when folks show up here, claiming high level educations and call the Wikipedia editors biased when all we are doing is providing articles based on the known evidence...because we don't want to wreck articles by adding nonsense, we're "disingenuous".--MONGO 03:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC) It's clear to me that neither of you have ever published anything in a 'reputable journal' yourselves and I'd be most surprised if you've ever been through an academic peer review process. As someone who has been through the process many times, I am well aware of its severe limitations as well as strengths. If you had ever been through peer review, you would also be aware that you cannot get a paper into print - in a 'reputable' journal - within 6 months of writing it if it is to be properly peer reviewed. Bazant and Zhou's original paper was written only two days after the 9/11 attacks (i.e. completely free of any evidence and data) and was in print by January 2002, which means it was a 'rapid communication' and could not have been through adequate peer review itself. Everything Bazant has published since has been an attempt to embellish the basic analysis of that original 'back-of-the-envelope' theory which, sadly, fails to account for Newton's 3rd law. So James Gourley is a patent lawyer, qualified in Chemical Engineering, and Einstein was a patent clerk when he published his seminal papers. So what? Neither Gourley nor Bazant are Einstein, but you don't need to be a genius to understand that WTC 7 was demolished deliberately using explosives (and possibly incendiaries). You only need to understand elementary mechanics and apply it to the steel-framed structure of the building. Even Bazant is well aware that his mathematical model cannot apply to WTC 7, even with the unrealistic assumptions he makes about the twin towers. You also seem to think that all open access journals are 'vanity publications'. This is also a dead giveaway that you've never practised actual science at post-doctoral level or beyond. As a post-doc at Imperial College London (Maths Dept.), I was always being solicited to submit papers to open access journals. This is annoying, but no more annoying than having to pay fat fees ($30 or more) to academic publishers each time you want to download a paper from their websites. We never published in open access journals, because we had other more traditional options, but my Professor never considered them to be 'vanity publications'. Typically, the author's institution meets the cost of publication, in return for guaranteeing a wide audience. I have a pretty dim view of all academic publishers, as I consider it outrageous that a corporate oligopoly should be able to extract rents for the dissemination of information which they did not help to create. The point of open access is that people do not have to pay to read the results of the research. Clearly, when the research is controversial and of general public interest, it makes very good sense to publish in an open access journal, so that everybody can read it. Finally, perhaps you would be interested in a new business proposition of mine? I'm going to start a company called 'Uncontrolled Demolition, Inc.' Would you like to contribute say $10 starting capital? With your investment, I propose to buy a can of petrol and a box of matches. That should do it. Maybe you two could write up my marketing literature? I'm sure you'll have no trouble convincing prospective clients of my ability to bring down steel-framed skyscrapers symmetrically, at free fall acceleration, with sudden onset, straight down into their own footprints, at minimal cost and with no preparation. After all, Occam's razor says that's how it usually happens, doesn't it? If you don't like that one, I've got another one for you. I propose a plan to reduce 10-ton trucks to scrap metal, simply by driving a Volkswagen 2CV into them, starting at low speed and accelerating around 6 m/s^2 (hmm, ok we might need a BMW). According to Dr Bazant's most excellent theory, this should be no problem. In fact, he might volunteer to drive the car? I'm sure you'd also be happy to invest in my new scrap metal business. Sonmi 451 (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi, two large airplanes crashed into two large buildings. They fell down, taking with them some adjacent structures. That's about it. And you reference Occam's razor? Hello? Antandrus (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC) We are talking about WTC 7, which was not hit by any aircraft. Also, the official report makes it very clear that debris from the twin towers played absolutely no part whatsoever in the collapse of WTC 7, which is considered to be a unique fire-induced collapse (according to Shyam Sunder of NIST). The damage from aircraft impact is therefore completely irrelevant. Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC) WTC 7 was one of the adjacent structures, hence the damage to the twin towers was not irrelevant. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Exactly (and succinctly) what change is being proposed, and what is the reliable source to be cited for it? If the reply is another long screed, I propose it be removed for misusing the talk page as a soapbox. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi 451...It's clear to me that if the harder and more complex explanation is the right one, as you've postulated, then you need to review the Occam's Razor principle....which is the reverse of what you're POV pushing...if you don't have some facts to back up your POV pushing, then you need to stop wasting time here.MONGO 11:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Occam's razor is the rule of thumb (approximating to the use of a 'prior' in Bayesian inference) which exhorts that 'simple' explanations be preferred to ones which posit more unusual or inherently less likely mechanisms. Every tall steel-framed building which has ever collapsed completely and suddenly onto its own footprint has always done so as a result of controlled demolition using explosives. This is therefore the explanation favoured by Occam's razor (or a Bayesian prior), not the NIST theory, which posits a completely unique mechanism of progressive collapse which is also totally at odds with the evidence. Whilst we're on that subject, I should point out that evidence is more important than Occam's razor. For example, Occam's razor would suggest that the earth is flat and that space and time are absolutes. The evidence suggests otherwise. The evidence in the case of WTC 7 clearly favours controlled demolition, and so does Occam's razor. We're not even talking about a 'conspiracy theory' here; just a collapse mechanism. The change I request to the article is very simple and not controversial: just to acknowledge that WTC 7 underwent a stage of free fall collapse for over 2 seconds through a distance of 25 metres, since this is a unique and surprising feature of the building's destruction which many people are unaware of, but which does inform debate about collapse mechanisms. The reason they may be unaware of this is that the draft report attempted to deny it (because it totally destroys their thesis), before NIST was embarrassed in public by the physics teacher, David Chandler. Chandler's criticism forced NIST to backtrack and acknowledge in essence that they didn't understand the difference between instantaneous and average acceleration. In reality they do, but the report's function is to obfuscate. Anyway, the 'reliable source' for this information is now the NIST Final Report itself, NCSTAR 1-A. It's a fraud, but Wikipedia seems to like it (along with the 9/11 Commission Report), so you'll have no objection to my proposed change, I'm sure. Perhaps one of the regular editors would like to word it, so as to maintain a NPOV?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonmi 451 (talk • contribs) The final NIST report on WTC 7 is "a fraud"...okie dokie,MONGO 19:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Hey thanks for another hilarious A and E for "truth" Youtube video...those guys are better than the 3 Stooges!MONGO 19:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so you'll no doubt be prepared to substantiate, by reference to appropriate academic sources, that the NIST report is a "fraud." Otherwise, this is a prime example of another attempt to exploit any inconsistency that can be found to cast aspersions at a less-examined aspect of a secondary subject (WTC 7) in the hopes that the primary subject (WTC 1/2 and 9/11) can be discredited. This kind of doubt-by-degrees is characteristic of conspiracy theories, in which any disputed or poorly-understood aspect of a subject is enlarged upon to "prove" the conspiracy thesis. Unfortunately, rather than a bottom-up approach (by which a "proof" can be devised for practically anything), we expect to see a top-down approach. As in a story in the New York Times confirming beyond doubt the existence of a massive conspiracy to perpetrate 9/11, naming names and giving reasons. Show us that. We see far too many conspiracy theorists mistaking "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" for a license to publish their own ideas about The Truth. Acroterion (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC) True that. So the worldwide community of engineering and fire-safety professionals can be taken down by one high school teacher with a question, one patent lawyer with an e-mail, or one Wikipedia editor with a Volkswagen analogy. It's funny, the creationist Ray Comfort famously "disproved" evolution by natural selection, by pointing out that life doesn't evolve in a jar of peanut better. I can haz edit the Evolution article now? ps. Adding details about the varying rates of descent (a.k.a. NIST ADMITS FREEFALL!!) has been discussed and discussed again. -Jordgette [talk] 22:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Choosing factoids to make controlled demolition seem less unreasonable would give undue weight to a fringe opinion. The change suggested would mislead our readers, and isn't something I'd support. Tom Harrison Talk 22:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi – In "free fall" it takes aproximatly 3.9 seconds for an object to fall a distance of 242 feet (on this planet). It took the north face of WTC7 aproximatly 5.4 seconds to fall a distance of 242 feet... In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft. In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the northwest corner fell an additional 130 ft. In other words... The collapse took 40% longer than it would have under "free fall". How do you propose we incorporate these facts into our article? Maybe a nice graph? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC) What a total waste of time this whole discussion is. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Indeed they do. I couldn't agree more. The most extraordinary claim in the article is that WTC 7 collapsed solely due to fire-induced thermal expansion of a single beam (according to the 'reliable source', NIST): a unique event in architectural history. Where is the extraordinary proof of this extraordinary claim? Nowhere. All that is offered is a dubious computer simulation, with unclear initial parameters, backed by no hard forensic evidence at all. Against this, we have the rather pedestrian 'controlled demolition hypothesis', which explains the collapse of many buildings in a perfectly simple, parsimonious manner. Furthermore, this theory is backed by numerous pieces of hard, forensic evidence, all appearing in reliable sources (Harrit's thermitic materials paper, the RJ Lee report, the FEMA report, even the NIST report!). You claim that the 'worldwide community of structural engineers' backs the official story. Sorry to disappoint you, but they don't. Official bodies sometimes issue statements distancing themselves from anything controversial, of course, that might affect their funding, but actual engineers are divided. Those who are presented with the evidence nearly always reject the official explanation for WTC 7's collapse. I was recently at a talk by Richard Gage in London at the Royal Institute of British Architects, attended by many structural engineers, some of whom were open-minded or hostile to alternative theories to begin with. By the end of the talk, not a single one of them supported the official story. A feature of scientific discourse is that evidence is paramount and that one must be prepared to adjust one's views in the light of that evidence. For some supporters of the official viewpoint, no amount of evidence will ever be enough. You want a conspiracy theory? How about this one: It was all accomplished by a shadowy global terror organisation called al-Qaeda, led by a super-villain called Osama bin Laden, from his luxuriously equipped cave in the mountains of Afghanistan. What evidence is there for this conspiracy theory? Absolutely not one credible jot of information whatsoever. Reliable sources? Zero. Yet you guys dutifully believe it all. Evidence is not required in this case, apparently. Nor will it be required to convict Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, in a secret military court. So go ahead. Write whatever you like in your puerile 'encyclopdedia'. Sonmi 451 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC) The talk you had from Gage...was it as enlightening as the one in this video here?...if so, no doubt almost anyone would be sway from the facts with such new and awe inspiring details. I am overwhelmed by this demonstration! Duh...and also according to him "nano-thermite" residue was found at the WTC site...NO it wasn't! It's residue from steel beam paint primer that melted! You haven't provided a single reliable source for any of your claims...are you expecting us to believe that not a single engineering or scientific journal wants to stand-up and publish these conspiracy theories because all (I dunno...million) experts are all paid off?--MONGO 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC) The desire to believe is a strong agent for people accepting whatever evidence advances that belief. So on one side we have multiple video shots of jet-fuel-filled airliners plowing into skyscrapers, the collapse of which sent giant flaming missiles of debris shooting into a neighboring building, which burned for hours before collapsing as firefighters had predicted [11]. On the other side we have unseen secret ninjas secretly planting unseen explosives/incendiaries that somehow managed to survive seven hours of uncontrolled office fires, only to be set off by unseen conspirators in perfect synchrony, which apparently is the only condition under which the building could possibly collapse in the manner that it did. So what was that about "dutifully believing it all"? Also, if it's true that "Those who are presented with the evidence nearly always reject the official explanation," why hasn't a single rigorous paper been published in a major engineering journal? Why has the "Truth" movement been so incredibly ineffectual (beyond a small circle of believers in the "Truther" echo chamber), for ten-plus years and counting? -Jordgette [talk] 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC) FYI, scientific papers are supposed to present new science, not old science. You want a paper demonstrating that buildings can be destroyed by controlled demolition using explosives? Perhaps you'd also like a scientific study on the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow before you make any future plans? Harrit et al's thermite paper is there, of course, although MONGO has demonstrated that he hasn't read it, because he thinks that primer paint doesn't dissolve in industrial solvent and undergoes an explosive, highly exothermic reaction - which produces microscopic iron spheres exactly as found throughout the dust - when heated to 430 deg C. Try reading a paper before you try to critique it. If you really want to know what Gage's presentation was like, you should watch this video. But you won't, because evidence doesn't interest you. If you still think Richard Gage is an idiot (despite being a highly experienced, well qualified and still practising architect) and you know better than him, then maybe you'll listen to one of the dozens of other certified experts speaking out in this video? But no, I guess they're all crazy conspiranoid idiots too, aren't they? How can any of them still be practising engineers? As you point out, the FDNY and NYPD did expect WTC 7 to come down, because someone had obviously told them that it would. Silverstein and Giuliani clearly knew. Several news networks reported that it had collapsed half an hour before it did. So yes, collapse was expected. So what? Here is one of the first responders on that day, Kevin McPadden, talking about the countdown and the explosions preceding WTC 7's collapse. Did they think it would come down straight into its own footprint with a period of free fall? Only those who knew it was going to be demolished. So, I'm still waiting for your investment in my Uncontrolled Demolition Inc bsuiness. All I need is a box of matches and a can of gasoline. How about it? Sonmi 451 (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Let me get this straight -- Bazant publishes multiple papers in J. Engineering Mechanics, and then no papers come out refuting it. Is that how science works, when someone publishes what you claim is a load of nonsense in a major journal, just have your lawyer send off an e-mail for the discussion column, and it's all good? There are multiple reputable engineering journals out there, and yet we don't have a single paper that critiques Bazant, by an actual engineer, in any of them. It's most curious indeed. Why do you suppose it might be? You see, if such a paper existed, that's exactly what would qualify as a "reliable source" for our purposes here. Given no such thing -- just rubbish about matches and gasoline and the like -- at Wikipedia we go with what actually is there: the "official explanation." Which of course is just the explanation. -Jordgette [talk] 21:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC) Sonmi, it's great that you know the "truth". However, Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Reliable sources document what the world saw: two airplanes striking two large buildings, causing their collapse, and the subsequent collapse of WTC 7 which was damaged by the seismic-level collapse of the much larger skyscrapers nearby. Not that you'd do this, but I'd recommend standing back and looking at the big picture -- the planes and the buildings, and the Al Qaeda conspiracy behind the destruction -- for an accurate narrative in conformance with Occam's Razor. Looking at microscopic details, inventing wild-eyed conspiracies, and inventing armies of gremlins secretly planting explosives, would be funny if only it didn't waste so much of our time. You probably are on the wrong website -- there are plenty of places you can write what you believe to be the "truth" of what happened that day. I doubt if any substantial proposals for article improvement will come out of this thread, so it's probably best to let it die. Antandrus (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Seeing as you are pretty ignorant of how science (and engineering) works in the real world, -Jordgette, let me enlighten you: flawed papers are generally left to gather dust after a while. There are millions of papers like that out there; I've read plenty and never felt moved to write a refutation of any of them - it would be a waste of time. No one can be bothered to publish a whole new paper just to refute another one, unless the first paper is particularly seminal, and I'm afraid Bazant's papers on the twin towers are not. They have no relevance to the core discipline of engineering, so very few engineers would have read them, unless they are especially curious about the twin towers. What matters more are independent replications, and Harrit's paper has been replicated, by Mark Basile. You think one is a 'reliable source' whilst the other is not, but you have failed to give any good reason why. Anyway, this is all beside the point, since we are meant to be discussing WTC 7, about which Bazant obviously has nothing to say, since it underwent a period of free fall. The 9/11 Commission Report also had nothing to say about WTC 7 and you don't find that odd? In fact, that's another curious omission which your article in turn omits. Propaganda is usually betrayed by what it doesn't say, not by what it does. So stick with your al Qaeda conspiracy theory, for which there is no evidence. By all means enlighten me, if you will, as to the trail of hard evidence (as opposed to hearsay) connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11. As for the idea that someone would have noticed demolition charges being planted in the buildings, that argument is so moronic I don't usually bother to answer it, since it only takes a moment's thought to refute, but since you're being so obtuse, I'll help you: If you wanted to plant explosives with minimal chance of discovery, how would you do it? During broad daylight, on a week day? Wearing overalls that say 'Controlled Demolition, Inc' on your back? Or in the dead of night? With a cover story about elevator maintenance and cable upgrades? Would you leave lots of det cord lying around or would you prefer wireless detonation? Do most people even notice or ask questions about workmen going in and out of office buildings doing 'maintenance work'? In spite of that, some people did notice suspicious activity in the towers: WTC workers, Scott Forbes and Ben Fountain reported suspicious and unprecedented power downs but were ignored. Seeing as testimony like that was ignored by the 9/11 Commission, it was never going to make it into a 'reliable source', by your estimation. So maybe your sources are less reliable than you like to think and maybe you need to do a course in historiography until you learn that not all official histories are true. Sonmi 451 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC) Sonmi 451 formally notified of discretionary sanctions [12] per the ArbCom process: this page isn't a soapbox for CT. Acroterion (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I'm less concerned about talkpage disruption than article space...but since Somni has yet to provide anything as far as ways to improve the article, no reason to not archive this.MONGO 16:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC) I normally don't go into the discretionary sanctions for talkpage disruption, but this has gone on long enough and has nothing to do with article improvement anymore. Acroterion (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC) If it's not a forum for discussion, then why did Acroterion, Mongo, and JordGette all participate in the discussion? None of you had anything to say about improving the article, either. I came to this talk page unbiased, merely under curiosity. I am a member of academia as well as some of you claim to be and the only thing I have seen here is the thorough presentation of evidence on Somni's part, while also making the lot of you to look like a gang of fools. Now as Somni provides the knockout punch to your "arguments" you sanction him. Perhaps he is just better at debating that the lot of you, or perhaps what he claims is true, but it is impossible that both of the aforementioned are false. - Anonymous 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) For a little while it looked like the discussion was about article improvement. After it became clear that the OP was really interested in conspiracy theory soapboxing the discussion was at an end. This is an article about WTC 7, not about conspiracies, nor is it a vehicle to advance speculation. Acroterion (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC) Jeffrey Farrer performed a test on the 'red grey' chips (which you proclaim was the red oxide paint) by running them through a DSC these chips produced micro spheres, these spheres matched the spheres found in the WTC dust. The chemical make up of these red grey chips also matched the published data of nano-thermite by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Jeffrey Farrer also tested the red oxide paint in the DSC. It did not react with iron micro spheres.ROHZS (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)