Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center
Latest comment: 1 month ago by NotAGenious in topic Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024
 | Collapse of the World Trade Center received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Collapse of the World Trade Center was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Stairwell A was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Collapse of the World Trade Center. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Time to collapse explanation
editThe fact that the South Tower was hit lower does NOT mean there was double the pressure on the columns. You can verify this by comparing the strains in NCSTAR 1-6D fug 4-72 with 121 Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comparing the numbers ourselves is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You'd need a reliable, secondary source making the claim. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- The at least let's leave the dubious tag up. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we should remove the dubious tag. But also change "double" to simply "more". The source (NYT) reads "Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down. The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was more weight bearing down on the damaged floors." Thomas B (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that change.
- Abdullah Ali 4z5, I reverted your most recent change for several reasons:
- 1. Changing "46 minutes later" to "70% longer" is not helpful for the average reader.
- 2. The changes read more like a school essay than an encyclopedic entry
- 3. Removing the NYT article in favor of the NIST report, when we generally prefer secondary sources.
- I think Thomas B's suggestion is the better solution. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's not good having such a blatant falsehood there. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have implemented the change ("double" -> "more") and removed the dubious tag (since that doesn't seem doubtful, based on the source). What blatant falsehood remains? Thomas B (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's a blatant falsehood that the greater weight above impact contributed to the collaose. That is because the size of the columns also scales with their load. Indeed, because of this, the lower impact actually reduced the impact damage. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not a blatant falsehood. Perhaps it's an oversimplification. In an intact building, the load per unit area of supporting structure would be more or less consistent (factoring in differing steel grades and allowable loads) as you assert. That would not necessarily be the case for an impaired structure. You're making a lot of assumptions concerning redistribution of forces in a compromised structure. However, I would prefer the detailed NIST analysis over the Times as a basis for any assertions concerning structural engineering and failure modes. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would also prefer NIST's statement (or at least something better than NYT). Do you know where they addressed this? Thomas B (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- No, it's not a blatant falsehood. Perhaps it's an oversimplification. In an intact building, the load per unit area of supporting structure would be more or less consistent (factoring in differing steel grades and allowable loads) as you assert. That would not necessarily be the case for an impaired structure. You're making a lot of assumptions concerning redistribution of forces in a compromised structure. However, I would prefer the detailed NIST analysis over the Times as a basis for any assertions concerning structural engineering and failure modes. Acroterion (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's a blatant falsehood that the greater weight above impact contributed to the collaose. That is because the size of the columns also scales with their load. Indeed, because of this, the lower impact actually reduced the impact damage. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have implemented the change ("double" -> "more") and removed the dubious tag (since that doesn't seem doubtful, based on the source). What blatant falsehood remains? Thomas B (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- It's not good having such a blatant falsehood there. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I agree that we should remove the dubious tag. But also change "double" to simply "more". The source (NYT) reads "Ultimately, it was the combination of structural damage and the fires, fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel, that brought the buildings down. The south tower was also hit at a lower point, meaning there was more weight bearing down on the damaged floors." Thomas B (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- The at least let's leave the dubious tag up. Abdullah Ali 4z5 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Remove Infobox and change back to previous photo.
edit
Previous photo
current photo
Like the September 11 attacks article, the previous photo which had been used from 2008–2023 was suddenly changed and a Infobox added without any discussion. I don't believe we need a picture of the actual collapse taking place as the previous photo illustrates that one tower had collapsed. I would like to get editors HandThatFeeds and Butterscotch5 involved and hear there opinions since they made great points on the September 11 talk page. Cena332 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm actually leaning towards the new photo for this article, since it's specifically about the collapse itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- I like the current one better because it shows one of the towers has already collapsed. Butterscotch5 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The plane crashed to the North Tower at 8:46:30 a.m., not at 8:46:40 a.m.. 2600:1002:B156:7EEE:10D9:1AC0:BF4:B2E7 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please see the note attached in the lede, reproduced as follows:
The exact time is disputed. The 9/11 Commission Report states that Flight 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46:40 a.m., while NIST reports 8:46:30 a.m.
- We're aware of the discrepancy, but there's no point changing it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2024
edit| | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove this link for "New York City" per MOS:OVERLINK. 103.156.248.45 (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
