Talk:World Trade Center/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Construction" photo

This does not really show the fact of construction. It would probably be a better photo for the Moiré pattern article.

The file Image:Wtc panynj 1973.jpg (thumbnail to the right) is currently the photo in the "under construction" section. This photo doesn't really illustrate the building being under construction; and the moiré patterns (which are not just visible in the thumbnail but are also present in the largest version of the image on Wikipedia) are really distracting. Is a better photo available for the "under construction" section? (I'll post this request also to Wikipedia:Requested photos.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found the source of this image is here, at the NARA Flickr archive, and it was taken in 5/1973, after the buildings were already built. I'll remove it from the section, since this is not an "under construction" photo as claimed in the caption. There are some great aerial photos of WTC under construction that are easily found via Google but everything I've found so far is copyrighted. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Annnnd, I found a photo that someone graciously uploaded to Flickr with a CC license, and added it to the article. A free-for-us-to-use aerial photo of the WTC under construction would be better still as an illustration, though. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Error under WTC American Flag

In one of the sentences in this section, it says that the American flag was blown off during the "Implosion" of Both Buildings. =( Come on, The whole article points to al-qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Not The U.S Government and George W. Bush. Please, the "Implosion" should be changed to "collapse", because they fell because of weakened steel. Not built-in explosives! God I hate you people! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.171.225 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done –turian^{обсудить} 04:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Planes

Will somebody change the aircraft used in the attack from a 767 as quoted - which is a very large wide-bodied aircraft, to the 737, which was used in the attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.236.86 (talk • contribs)

The article is correct. The planes were 767s. What reliable sources claim 737s? Acroterion _(talk) 14:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

9/11 Flag issue

For some reason the 9/12 flag raising jumped into my head and I read the section on wikipedia. I wanted to see if I could find a better picture, then I found this from USA Today:

<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-30-flag-mystery_x.htm>

USA Today and several other sources seem to tell a different morning of where the flag was from, and how it has gone missing.

<http://www.findthe911flag.com/> Seems to be a website from the people who gave the flag.

My question is this: is the information on the flag's origin correct here on Wikipedia? Are there hard sources that can verify it besides that strange site? Reguardless, should this controversy be posted anyways here so that at least people can investigate on their own.

Ehmtwo (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the WTC is??

I was hoping to discover what the World Trade Center was, not in the physical sense but in the human sense; what is done there, why it was built, why the name "World Trade Center" ultimately find out why it is such a targeted & hated place by many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.14.43 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it sufficiently shows what the WTC was for, at least, compared to other towers like the Sears Tower. 68.235.157.103 (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Skyscraper infobox parameters

Some of the parameters, like re-construction_period, within the {{infobox skyscraper}} are not available and do not appear in the article; thus, should it be removed? serioushat 07:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No, as the infobox and geobox pages say- do not remove empty entries.Camelbinky (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All 7 buildings destroyed?!

How is this a GA when the very first paragraph has a glaring error! Not all 7 buildings of the WTC were destroyed in 9-11! Please tell me this is recent vandalism.Camelbinky (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All seven buildings were destroyed... –Turian (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Six of the 7 were destroyed on 9/11. Building 5 wasn't destroyed, but damaged, and was decided to be demolished. Look it up, building 5 survived! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox: Status

The status line in the infobox has a break, then it says "Destroyed" in red (but not a link?), and several breaks, before saying "Complete". This looks glitchy; is should just say one or the other, right? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

When was 1 WTC completed?

The article says the topping out ceremony occured in 1970, however the image next to it shows the North Tower still in construction and the image is dated 1971. Is there an error somewhere, or am I missing something? 79.73.135.19 (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The towers were finished in 1973, the year I became a Muslim ironically. They were topped out in 1970/1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This image is dated 1971 and shows both towers halfway during construction, yet the article reads next to it, "The topping out ceremony of 1 WTC (North Tower) took place on December 23, 1970, while 2 WTC's ceremony (South Tower) occurred later on July 19, 1971." This contradicts the date of the image, or the date of the image contradicts this. CityFeedback ^talk 12:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.216.245.184, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the middle of the article, it mentions that "20 people were pulled out alive." I don't believe anyone was pulled out alive. It references 131 - which the article no longer exists. Please check this source.

98.216.245.184 (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a backup of the source over here which does state 20 people were pulled out alive. If you can find a source saying that no-one was pulled out we might take another look at that fact. Thanks for your vigilence in checking the validity of the facts, Stickee (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Memorial - 1993 bombing victims

The original memorial was destroyed in the 2001 attacks. Will the new memorial cover the 1993 bombing victims as well? If not, are they going to rebuild the 1993 memorial?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC).

People pulled alive from the WTC on 9/11

There were thirteen men, all firefighters except one Port Authority Police Officer, and one woman who were rescued in the collapse of the North Tower, and there were two Port Authority Police Officers who were rescued in the basement area between the North and South Towers. Dennis Smith, author of Report from Ground Zero (NYTimes best seller). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.230.114 (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Significance of the World Trade Center

The World Trade Center was a center for international business. They also represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods. he loss of the towers in 2001 was a major psychological blow to the New Yorkers and to the nation as a whole. It dramatically changed the city’s skyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr26777 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

references out of date or not working

some of the references no longer work or are out of date. .[131] would be one that i have seen so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.131.27 (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this being removed

I properly cited source, but this keeps getting removed from the page: On April 4, 2009, The Open Chemical Physics Journal posted an article about "Numerous iron-rich spheres" found in the wreckage, and that "The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.244.118 (talk • contribs) Goatonastik (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion concerning Bentham last year: consensus was that as a "free" journal, somewhat analogous to Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source. The reference is something short of an article in any case, more like a notice. Nothing has turned up since then to back up the unsubstantiated assertion that I'm aware of. Acroterion _(talk) 04:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would I have to find a more trusted site, or would I need to contact the authors directly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatonastik (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Direct information from Jones would be original research if it's not been published in a reliable source, and as I noted, Jones's assertion is the sole source of the theory and is by mainstream media consensus a fringe theory. Jones's assertion is, however, discussed in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Acroterion _(talk) 12:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.62.159.168, 10 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to edit the section where Al-Qaeda-affiliated hijackers are blamed for the destruction of the World Trade Centers. There is no actual proof that the World Centers were attacked by Al-Qaeda men because it does not benefit them to attack United States. The people that actually benefited from this attack were Larry Silverstein, after he insured the WTC just weeks before 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Project For The New American Century(PNAC group), the Arms Industry, and Oil Companies. If you need explanation, watch this video below. It's clearly explained. References: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgHJ08kdtdI

69.62.159.168 (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Although I'm sure well-intentioned, your request is impossible to fulfill as it would violate several basic policies of Wikipedia editing. For a primer you could read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. __meco (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Documentary films of the World Trade Center attack of 9/11

ABC produced a major, two hour documentary film about the attack of 9/11, called "Report From Ground Zero." It was aired once in September of 2002. It was made from Dennis Smith's best selling Report From Ground Zero, and Dennis Smith was producer. It was directed by Lloyd Kramer, and produced by ABC's Tom Yellin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.230.114 (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

--> Seven days in September (documentary abt attacks & days after) someone w wiki skills please format this correctly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.22.134 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The WTC towers did not have steel and concrete cores

While it is true that the floors were steel/concrete-composite systems both inside and outside the core, the lateral members of the core were made up of only steel columns, not concrete reinforced with steel bars or any similar composite system. There have been numerous discussions on the internet whether the cores were made of reinforced concrete, which would have had a substantial advantage in resisting both the plane impacts and the ensuing fires, but those claims probably stem from either inaccurate pictures and figures from architectural or popular mechanics magazines published during the planning and early construction of the WTC in the 1960s or from newspaper graphics, again inaccurate, shortly after 9/11. There should be no doubt in this article that the cores were in fact made from steel as the rest of the permiter walls, and not steel and concrete.

The extensive report released by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) makes no mention of concrete in the cores save for the floor (in conjunction with beams in the cores and lihtweight trusses between the cores and the perimeter walls), and no pictures taken during the construction of the WTC shows any steel core columns being reinforced with concrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlrs84 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding something

i suggest to add a section on this fine article about the enormous controversies related to the attacks on the world trade center. they are a very, very big part of the history of these attacks, and must not be set aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.53.143 (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reconstruction section needs updating

No information from 2008 onwards seems to be present on the building of the Freedom Tower (the new WTC 1) or the other new buildings on the site, including the memorial which is now near completion. No need for excessive detail, seeing as all those things have their own pages, but a bit of an update to inform readers about developments as of 2011 would be helpful. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please update the picture for what the future World Trade Center site will look like? That picture is HIDEOUS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.206.1.56 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The 1st paragraph says "it was the tallest building", which should be changed to "they were the tallest buildings".84.13.60.50 (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's better as it is, since these towers are parts of a single complex, which the word building is referring to.1exec1 (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Errors in "Other Buildings"

The section on "Other Buildings" contains several errors. First, the Gold vault was located under 4 World Trade, specifically in the old Hudson and Manhattan Terminal that was vacated when the station was moved several hundred feet to the west. Both 4WTC and the vault were roughly 300 feet away from the 1993 bomb site, which was between 1, 2 and 3 WTC. It was undamaged by the blast, as was 2 and 4 World Trade. Plus "The 1993 bomb detonated close by the vault held. " is just an awful sentence.

SRC is already given in the article at: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-076.pdf

Second, the lower buildings were not structurally similar to the towers. While the towers were framed tube-in-tube buildings, the lowrises were conventional post and beam structures, with columns spaced every 30 feet. The hotel was similar, but had variable column spacing roughly 25 feet on center. Tower 7 was more like the towers, but was almost a bundled tube design, not dissimilar to the Sears/Willis Tower, though it was less obvious because it wasn't expressed architecturally. This is why the Salomon Brothers were able to so extensively modify the building.

SRC: FEMA and NIST WTC reports —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.119.56 (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Error in content between text & sidebar

There is a difference between the text and the sidebar on construction dates; I have no idea which set of completion dates for the Twin Towers is correct. Someone who knows must update the article so that the text & sidebar have the same correct dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinch (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

UFO sighting?

I saw a video o youtube of a ufo sitting on one of the towers with a woman in a helicopter recording it, and then it flies away. Should this be counted?--Souvalou (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Acroterion (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the second complex on the site to bear the name get more attention than it has?

I noticed the article is primarily about the old WTC rather than the one currently being built. Shouldn't we give some more weight to the new? While the old was likely more (in)famous, the new is also of interest. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the original Towers, not the new one under construction. TySoltaur (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is entitled World Trade Center so in the future it could well point to the new complex, that's a discussion for the next few years. At the moment it should stay where it is but this article may need to be moved in the future. Zarcadia (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about this question, how in the world are we going to differentiate between WTC 1 and WTC 2? They're BOTH going to be called "World Trade Center", so what should distinguish between the 2? Is it going to be WTC 1 and WTC 2? Since the terrorists won with the fact that Twin Towers=World Trade Center will no longer be the case, is it viable that "Twin Towers" be one of the routes for WTC 1?--75.0.33.216 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

World Trade Center was used even there was SEVEN buildings in all. Tower 1, Tower 2, Tower 3, Buildings 4 5 6 and 7. Twin Towers was just for Towers 1 (North Tower) and Tower 2 (South Tower). TySoltaur (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spider-Man

I added a couple pics of Spider-Man with the trade towers but after the edit was made they do not display on the page and I can't figure out why. Anyone know? AweCo (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eighty Thousand Visitors a DAY?

The caption on the picture of the observation desk reads:

Two World Trade Center's observation deck received an estimated 80,000 visitors a day.

I find it hard to believe 80,000 people PER DAY visit the observation deck. 99.53.168.200 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Bea Bryant

That's actually low, I heard an estimated 100,000 people visited it.--75.0.33.216 (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy in number of victims identified

In this article, the number is 1629. I know because I added it. The September 11 attacks article says the number is 1630, before the most recent victim identification, which would make the number 1631. There's no reason to doubt either source, but someone is wrong. Sources that say 1629 are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and this source I used. Sources that say 1630 but are now outdated because of the additional victim are [6] and this source used in the other article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No Concrete Cores

I noticed that someone inserted incorrect information regarding the cores of the twin towers into the article, claiming they were reinforced concrete. Members of the 9/11 "truth" cult promote this falsehood for their own bizarre purposes. I presented a letter sent to me by Leslie Robertson:

Dear Mr. Wieck: My response to your query comes with the preamble I am the Engineer-of-Record for the structure of the two towers of the World Trade Center. That is, I was the Chief Engineer for the design of both of the towers, and all of the drawings carry my professional seal and signature. Further, I was in responsible charge of our quality assurance operations for the construction work and, subsequent to the construction, of our on-going designs for structural alterations.

From time to time persons have written to me stating that the two towers were constructed with reinforced concrete cores. Without reservation I am able to state that, for the both of the two towers: - From the very earliest inception of structural design, concrete cores were not considered as a viable option. - The architects (including Mr. Minoru Yamasaki) and our client, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, never asked that concrete cores be incorporated into the design or the construction of the toweres. - From the lowest basement to the roof, concrete cores were never shown in the drawings for the design or for the construction of the two towers. - Concrete cores were not constructed. - Evidence of concrete cores cannot be found in construction photographs. - Following the tragic events of September 11, debris from concrete cores was not found in the field.

Irresponsible persons have generated material, even a letter falsely purported to have been signed by me, indicating that concrete cores were a part of the World Trade Center. The motives for such assertions is beyond my ken.

Of course, responsible persons, perhaps without a proper choice of words, may state or may have stated that concrete cores were a part of the design and/or construction of the two towers. Such statements are not based on fact. Where by responsible persons, I can only believe that such statements were or are made incidental to the discussion and without the intention of certifying in any way that concrete cores were in any way a part of the design or the construction of either of the two towers.

Regards,

Leslie Earl Robertson, P.E., S.E., Chartered Engineer (U.K. and Ireland)

First Class Architect and Engineer (Japan)

Now I see that the erroneous information has been removed, with no mention of Robertson's clarification.

Ronald Wieck — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonWieck (talk • contribs) 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the death toll include hijackers?

Someone edited the article to say it didn't, and another editor corrected a misspelling. I reverted both edits until we can find out for sure. September 11 attacks has a box saying no, the hijackers aren't included. The number who died at this site based on the three groups in that box add up to the correct total, but no source is given and we're not supposed to use Wikipedia as a source.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The hijackers are not included in the death toll, so as not make martyrs of them to their extremist allies. TySoltaur (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Then this should be made clear in the article, right?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a more detailed breakdown at Casualties of the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting 2,756 from that. But every source I've found says 2,753.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The box in September 11 attacks says 87 aboard American Airlines Flight 11. The Casualties article says 90. Someone is wrong.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the Flight 11 article says 92, including five hijackers. That's 87. I think I'm entitled to correct the information in the Casualties article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait, that's using Wikipedia as a source again. Someone should take a look at the sources for the various articles. I prefer not to do that at home.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Claification needed

"Kerik later released the flag to NASA officials and it was transported aboard the space shuttle Endeavour (STS-108) as part of its December 5–17, 2001, mission to the International Space Station."

Who is Kerik, he does not seem to appear in the rest of the text.

Former NYC Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who was the Commissioner on 9/11. TySoltaur (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sorcier777, 23 September 2011

Some internal links are missing : Please change "Larry Silverstein" to "[[Larry Silverstein]]" (2) and Silverstein to "[[Larry Silverstein|Silverstein]]" (7). But be careful : please change "Silverstein Properties" to "[[Silverstein Properties]]" (2). Don't worry, "Silverstein Properties" redirect to "Larry Silverstein". Sorcier777 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not necessary, Larry Silverstein is already linked to, don't need to link it multiple times--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Video

Here is a nice video that you should enter in the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRfoLBTHNFI wikitww — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.139.201 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Youtue vides are rarely considered as a good source, and that video has no relevancy to the article. TySoltaur (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Melting"

Please make sure the trolls don't change crucial details that would lead to a disinformation war. At the "1975 fire" section, there was stated: "Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower."

Office fires do not melt steel. Not one official investigation ever mentioned any steel melting. It is a disgusting strawman placed by "truther" trolls so they can turn something into a flame war by showing "evidence for thermite demolition".

Steel becomes weak in fires. It looses elasticity and becomes plastic, therefore is subjected to plastic deformation. That's the reason why structural members made of steel fail if left unprotected in uncontrolled fires. "Fire meltz steelz" is a horrific stupidity used to engage people into a battle. Endimion17 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

At 1,000 degrees F, steel has 50% normal strength. At 1,800 degrees F, it has 10% strength. The official investigations stated the temps were between those temps. Now imagine a damaged structure whose's main supports were the outside "webbing" (as opposed to traditional center columns) trying to hold up 20-30 floors wih softened steel. Of course it would bow and give out. But of course the "Truthers" tend to ignore that. TySoltaur (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

How this is work ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.32.159 (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Observation deck wasn't 420 metres up...

Hi!

The roof of 2 World Trade Center was about 415 metres up, and the observation deck about 417 metres, but World_Trade_Center#Top_of_the_World_observation_deck states that it was 420 metres up, also about three metres higher than the roof of 1 WTC, but on the pictures the roof of 1 WTC is a little bit higher.

Papper (talk) 07:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Flight 11 was hijacked by Moussad terrorists?

How does this end up in the article? Complete and utter hyperbole....

"On September 11, 2001,isreali mossad terrorists hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 and crashed it into the northern façade of the north tower at 8:46 a.m., the aircraft striking between the 93rd and 99th floors. a sophisticated military laser was fixed to the nose of the aircraft to soften up the building prior to impact." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smckenn1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple vandalism, the result of being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit." Now reverted, thanks for flagging it. In the future, you can remove such vandalism using the "undo" link. Acroterion (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion on the new World Trade Center

I think a small sliding board attach to the handrail of the escape staircase may help during emergency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.219.64 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for design suggestions. Escape slides do exist, but they must be very short (a few meters long, like an airplane escape slide) and used for high-hazard occupancies like explosives manufacturing where there are only a few people. For a tall building they'd kill or injure more than they saved. Acroterion (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And they'd be triggered all the time because it sounds like a lot of fun! --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Zip lines would be even more fun. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Financial Situation of the WTC before 9/11?

I've recently heard claims that the WTC (or the Twin Towers) was operating at a strong deficit before the 9/11 attacks... conspiracy theories abound of course, but what was the financial situation of the WTC and how can it be put in context? -- megA (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

WTC in Popular Culture

I'd like to suggest that the film Man on Wire be added to the short list of notable movies featuring the WTC. The short list currently contains no documentaries, and Man on Wire is probably the best-known documentary that deals extensively with the WTC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.222.205 (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Panorama

I took a panorama shot of the view from the top of the WTC about 3 weeks before it went down. I'm releasing this to the public domain, feel free to include it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:360-degree_Panorama_from_the_roof_of_the_New_York_World_Trade_Center.jpg 18.138.1.32 (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When was it tallest?

The infobox says 1 WTC was completed in 1970. The infobox also says it was the tallest in the world from 1971 to 1973. The box at the bottom says it was tallest from 1972 to 1974. Which was it? --Golbez (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The World Trade Center must have been the tallest from the time it was completed to the time the Willis Tower was completed. Since based on the WT article it was completed in 1973, that means the WTC must have been tallest from 1971 to 1973. Cadiomals (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, but I wasn't asking when it stopped being the tallest, I was asking when it started. The article gives three different years. --Golbez (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It must have been tallest from the time it was completed in 1971. Cadiomals (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Except the article states it was completed in 1970. And 1971. And 1972. All three are stated in the text. There's clearly a problem here. --Golbez (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you do google search and find a reliable website (or a number of reliable websites) to clarify this. That's all I can say. Cadiomals (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Any comments from other regulars? Perhaps a difference in terminology between topping out, completion, opening, that needs to be clarified? That is generally the point of a discussion page I think, to ask the people who have edited it a question, not be told "Google it yourself". --Golbez (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is still unsolved. The infobox has this: Tallest in the world from 1971 to 1973^[I]. What does that [I] mean? It's citelike, but it won't go anywhere when clicked and cites are normally numbers. And what is the reason for not being tallest from 1970, when 1 WTC was completed? And, actually none of these years seems to be cited individually. 85.217.22.18 (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

767??

"767" seems like a silly way to refer to the airliners of 9/11, which were of course Boeing aircraft. Also- aren't pages which are "locked down" noted as such any longer???

I agree, the full name is now there. As for the permaprotection, there is a small lock icon in the upper right indicating it. --Golbez (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

observatory height

Observatory section has this: Weather permitting, visitors could take two short escalator rides up from the 107th floor viewing area to an outdoor viewing platform on the 110th floor at a height of 1,377 ft (420 m).
But, the infobox has this: Roof: 2 WTC: 1,362 ft (415.0 m) and Top floor: 2 WTC: 1,341 ft (409.0 m)
So, the highest viewing platform was 15 ft (5 m) higher than roof and 36 ft (11 m) higher than top floor? I think that is not possible. 85.217.22.18 (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The observation deck platform was raised above the roof and set back from the edge to give a better view and provide safety from falling off. You can see what it looked like here. 24.74.27.155 (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That isn't a floor? Well, at least there is the floor (of the platform) on which people walked on. 82.141.64.59 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Surpassed by" link be "Sears Tower" rather than "Willis Tower"?

When the title of world's tallest skyscraper was taken from the World Trade Center it was taken by a building that was at the time called the Sears Tower, not Willis Tower. That would be like saying that in 1206 AD Ghengis Khan invaded the People's Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.173.50 (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Done. --Golbez (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Idea: Title the first WTC as "World Trade Center I" or "World Trade Center (1972)" and the second WTC as "World Trade Center II" or "WTC (whatever year the first building opened)"

This is how the issue of different buildings from different periods with the same name is dealt with in the case of Madison Square Garden, after all. (All four Gardens had to be distinguished somehow... so why not follow the Garden?) — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 07:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, according to those standards, the current WTC would simply be titled "World Trade Center" on its own page and the old (and probably more famous) WTC would be "World Trade Center (1972)". — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 07:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

WTC American flags section

I don't think that this section belongs in the article. It doesn't seem relevant enough. I would like to take that section out of the article. Do other editors agree?Folgertat (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The section might be moved to Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. Fitnr (talk) 14:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fine.Folgertat (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

'Is'

I might sound abit harsh by saying this, but the page still implies that they are still standing. It says 'The World Trade Center is a complex of buildings under construction in Lower Manhattan, New York City'.. The world trade center is no longer there, so i think it should be changed to 'The World Trade Center WAS a complex of buildings under construction in Lower Manhattan, New York City' -LRavenscroft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.41.98 (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The World Trade Center still exists. The original buildings were destroyed, but the site and the its name remain. The tower under construction, and recently topped out is called "One World Trade Center." The various other buildings under construction at the site have similar designations.

Previous edit by User:Tresmegistus 5th May was inside a mangled comment. Fixed. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to Reflect WTCA's Intellectual Property Rights

As the representatives of World Trade Centers Association ("WTCA"), we are writing to propose some changes to the Wikipedia® Pages for WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC to reflect WTCA's longstanding rights in the trademarks "WORLD TRADE CENTER" and "WTC."

WTCA is a trade association of licensed members that own or operate building complexes around the globe that bear the names WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC, and/or provide goods and services under the WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC trademarks. WTCA owns the registered trademarks WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC in the United States and nearly 90 other countries around the world.

The Wikipedia® Page which discusses WORLD TRADE CENTER currently describes that trademark, in part, as follows:

The World Trade Center is a complex of various buildings in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States, replacing an earlier complex with the same name on the same site . . . .

Additionally, the Wikipedia® Page which discusses WTC currently describes that trademark, in part, as follows:

WTC is an initialism which may stand for: World Trade Center in New York, a seven-building complex in Lower Manhattan that was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and is being rebuilt as a five-building complex . . . .

We would like to advise the Wikipedia® community that the trademarks WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC do not merely describe a single complex of commercial buildings in Manhattan, New York. Rather, the former WORLD TRADE CENTER twin towers building complex in Manhattan - which was named under license by WTCA - was one of many complexes throughout the world to bear the famous trademarks WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC. In fact, more than one hundred iconic buildings in cities on six continents are named WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC, with new WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC branded buildings being added every year. For these reasons, we believe that the current Wikipedia® descriptions of WORLD TRADE CENTER and WTC are somewhat incomplete, and we therefore recommend that they be revised at the beginning of each entry, as follows:

(1) WORLD TRADE CENTER:

The World Trade Center (a name licensed worldwide by World Trade Centers Association) is includes a complex of buildings under construction in Lower Manhattan, New York City, United States, replacing an earlier complex of seven buildings with the same name on the same site . . . .

(2) WTC:

WTC is an initialism which may stand for: World Trade Center (both World Trade Center and WTC are names licensed worldwide by World Trade Centers Association) in New York, which includes a seven-building complex in Lower Manhattan, New York, that was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and is being rebuilt as a five-building complex . . . .

In conclusion, we are hopeful that the Wikipedia® community will accept these small revisions. For purposes of the community's consideration, we would like to inform you that similar revisions have been accepted by a number of dictionary and encyclopedia publishers we have worked with over the past year. Additionally, we would like to make the community aware that we have been working with a Wikipedia® volunteer editor in connection with the above-described matter, and he has suggested that we submit our proposed revisions to the Wikipedia® community. Please let us know if you agree with the above identified revisions, and please let me know if you have any questions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAH1029 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) 

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes, but on the other hand these changes strike me as completely undesireable, and in my view they should not be made without some sort of talk page discussion. Whether or not the WTCA likes it, if in ordinary discourse one says "World Trade Centre", that unequivocally means the one in New York; it meant it even before the 2001 attacks. At most all that is needed is a note somewhere on the page that the original WTC in New York gave rise to the WTCA and to other buildings of the same name. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above by Pinkbeast, and note that the name "World Trade Center" existed prior to the WTCA's appropriation of the name. In common usage at the time (in New York City), it refered to to the proposed, and later actual construction of the twin towers in the early and mid 1960's. I know this from personal knowledge, having worked on the initial excavation of the site in 1968-69. Tresmegistus (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

One World Trade Center Base Cladding

It's no longer accurate for the article to state that it's "unclear what the base of One World Trade Center will be cladded with" since it's already being cladded with glass fins. A few sides of the base are, in fact, already complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.137.207 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorists

The adjective "Islamic" was removed from the description of "terrorists" in the Destruction section. It was presumably removed to preserve a neutral point of view. Facts, however, are important, and, being facts, are inherently neutral. The criteria for inclusion, however, it seems to me, should be whether or not the fact in question is indeed a verifiable fact and that it is both relevent and important to understanding the subject under discussion, but not whether it may or may not offend a (presumed) sensibility. I believe that the term "Islamic" in this contect is a verifiable fact, is relevent to the topic, and is important.

The term "terrorist", according to the Wikipedia article on "Terrorism" is "politically and emotionally charged". That would also be true of the inclusion of the word "Islamic" in the description. I wonder why the emotionally charged term, terrorist, is acceptable, while the fuller descriptive is not.

As to adding that the terrorists were male, or were (mostly) Saudis, doesn't contribute to an understanding of the subject, and are relatively minor details in the context of the article.

Nowhere in the introduction does the article mention either Islamic terrorists nor which Islamic terrorists. Therefore the reader who wishes to understand, will not have this very important information provided. After all two wars were fought, in part, due to an understanding (or misunderstanding) of these facts.

I think censoring important information, whether it is inconvienent, embarassing, politically sensitive or emotionally charged is a disservice to the greater Wikipedia community; and is antithetical to the Wikipedia philosophy.

I have not removed the deletion of "Islamic" from the article, but await the decision of the community as to whether or not that term should be included, in order to give a fuller understanding of the subject, and to preserve the accuracy, precision and relevancy of the article. Vergetorix (talk) 08:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tresmegistus (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Further to the above by Vergetorix, I take issue with the removal of the introductory phrase to the bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993, which was: “The first Islamic terrorist attack on the World Trade Center”. This reference was removed by Wiki- editor Acroterion within minutes of being posted by me. His (or her) attached comment was that this information was “unnecessarily specific.” That riposte is, on the face of it, absurd. The information added was indeed “specific,” but necessarily so. Are we not to be informed by Wikipedia who perpetrated an act, only that that act was perpetrated? Are we to be informed that Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941, but not to be informed on the pages of Wikipedia by whom it was attacked? Are we to be told that a Holocaust occurred in Europe in the middle of the Twentieth Century, but not to be told on Wikipedia by whom it was committed? Is it also “unnecessarily specific” for Wikipedia to vouchsafe to its subscribers that Iraq was invaded in 2003, but for it not to mention by whom, or why it was invaded?

The bombing of 1993 and the attack of 2001 are related. Their rationale was the same, their sponsors were the same, their sources of funding were the same, and their targets were the same. To deny this, or to conceal it with an ill-advised and poorly justified censorship, citing the pitiful objection of unnecessary “specificity” is disgraceful, and beneath the high standards to which Wikipedia has aspired, and should continue to aspire.

I note that the above comments by Vergetorix were not responded to, nor were they refuted. I anticipate, and welcome, comments to this posting. Lacking cogent objections, or counter arguments on these talk pages, I will reinsert the deleted phrase (or an agreed upon substitute) in approximately two weeks’ time.

I wasn't involved in the editing, but since you seem to want someone else's point of view I'll chime in. You make some good points, but in the case of Pearl Harbor, the Holocaust, or Iraq, the aggressors are not referred to as Shinto, Buddhists, Christians, etc. I think being specific about the group doing the attacking is extremely important, and the term "Islamic Terrorist" isn't specific enough. America was not attacked by "Islam" on 9/11, it was attacked by Al-Qaeda Terrorists who subscribe to a specific interpretation of Islam which drives their actions. To label the terrorists "Islamic" without qualification indirectly indicts a billion people instead of identifying the specific group(s) involved. Some of the same people were also involved in the 1993 bombing, but the group behind it was far less organized and appeared to have different (primarily anti-Israeli) motivations. So while they're clearly related events (and one appears to have inspired the planners of the other), it's less clear how to identify the attacking organization from 1993. Therefore I think the qualifying term should be, if anything "Al-Qaeda Terrorist" for 9/11, and I don't think any specific qualifier seems to be appropriate for 1993. --Sam (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. "Islamic" is little more use than "male", as compared with identifying the specific group they belonged to. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have awaited cogent criticism of the inclusion of a proper descriptive term for the terrorist attack in 1993. No such criticism has been presented. I have therefore included the introductory phrase which, I believe importantly, connects the first attack with the second. This is not much different than associating the First World War with the Second. They are indeed connected!Tresmegistus (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "was"

describing the subject, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.46.39 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been rebuilt, you know ... Acroterion (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

POV

There are WTC's all over the world in many countries and many cities within countries. NYC is not the ONLY WTC in the world. Maybe the first in fame, but this is not Americapedia, this is a neutral global encyclopaedia. WTC should be a disambiguation to a list of WTC and this should be World Trade Centre (New York City)(Lihaas (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)).

You, of course, mean World Trade Center (New York City). I don't entirely disagree with you, I was at the World Trade Center in Norfolk, Virginia last week, but I suggest that WP:COMMONNAME might apply. Most of the other WTCs are simple office buildings with grandiose names that trade on the notoriety of the place in New York. Prior to 2001, I think your argument might have had more force. Acroterion (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not clear on the rules for disambiguation, but if they have anything to do with notability and the number of reliable sources per article that to me would indicate leaving the disambiguation as is. -- Jodon | Talk 00:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Today someone made this move without discussion, on the grounds that "The phrase "World Trade Center" is copyrighted and refers to more than one building or set of buildings. Also, the current WTC is nothing like the original". 22 minutes later I obeyed a request to revert that move to allow discussion. See List of world trade centers (well over 100 entries). Also, there seems to be a desire to move into World Trade Center (New York City) the part about the post-2001 rebuild. See discussion hereinabove. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Question: In the edit summary for that previous move, as Anthony Appleyard mentioned, one of the reasons was that the "phrase 'World Trade Center' is copyrighted".[7] What does that have to do with anything? There is no provision in WP:AT that we cannot use a copyrighted common name for a topic as an article title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong but the only copyright issue I have seen was a lawsuit against Sarah Palin over the use of a photo of the trade center. If that is what the OP meant its a non-issue as far as the title goes since the only thing that could possibly be an issue for would be the article's images. I also may be wrong but I don't think terms can be copyrighted in the first place.--64.229.164.69 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Multiple things mean multiple things, just the term United States has multiple meanings. This is the World Trade Center, there are no other buildings that can have the same relevance as this WTC. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 06:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. The supposed copyright issue or whatever it's supposed to be is irrelevant, and this building is the primary meaning of the term "World Trade Center". Moreover, the proposed new title is completely unnatural for reader searches. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Move back to World Trade Center (New York City, 1973) or similar title. This has yet to be established as the primary topic of World Trade Center. Red Slash 19:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't? Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose no one has provided any evidence that this isn't the primary topic. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe this discussion should include what the scope of the article concerning the NYC WTC should be going forward. Although I strongly agree that the NYC WTC is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for World Trade Center, is that the former WTC, or the new complex? The article World Trade Center is primarily about the former WTC with a small mention of the new site. Maybe the primary article should have information of both with sub-articles of the current and former WTC? Zarcadia (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification needed. Zarcadia, I think there's some confusion here - there are 2 issues currently under discussion (see above), the first is whether to split this article into the former complex and the new complex, and thus giving them their own name (but which name?), the second discussion (here) is whether or not the existing article should be renamed to NYC. I think one discussion should be resolved at a time. -- Jodon | Talk 15:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I missed the discussion further up the page. Zarcadia (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Tbhotch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We don't make people looking for Paris confirm they didn't mean the one in Maine first. While there are other buildings named World Trade Center, this one is the most well-known worldwide. Many of the others are red links, even in major cities like Shanghai, Paris (not Maine), and Buenos Aires. If the reader is truly looking for the San Marino World Trade Centre, the note at the top of the page will bring them to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs) 23:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as covered above. I would support a a split between World Trade Center (1973) and World Trade Center to better differentiate between the original and the replacement. Fitnr (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose insertion of (NYC), Weakly Oppose division into 1973 buildings and replacement - In ordinary speech, if people say "World Trade Centre", they mean the one in New York. They meant the one in New York even before September 2001. I also don't like the idea of a split. While the previous and replacement buildings are in a sense different topics, the replacement is primarily notable only because it replaces the buildings destroyed in 2001. Additionally, it is hard to see that it makes sense to call the new buildings World Trade Center and the old ones World Trade Center (1973) when the old ones are enormously more notable... but it would be odd to call the pages World Trade Center and World Trade Center (20xx replacement)). Pinkbeast (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose insertion of (NYC) and Oppose division into 1973 buildings and replacement mostly for reasons given above by Pinkbeast. The WTC in NYC is always referred to as The WTC (only for others is specification needed). The page is about the WTC; the actual buildings that comprise the WTC are, conceptually, a secondary point. Eventually, the "new buildings" section will just be the "buildings" section and will be described in detail before the descriptions of the "previous buildings" and their destruction. Greater detail on the attacks and the effects are already described on separate, specific pages. This WTC page at the moment is very comprehensive and, in my opinion, we should continue to focus on the refs, fine-tuning, and updates. No move or split needed. Besh (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TBhotch. Unqualified references to "the World Trade Center" still refer to this. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversy

Wikipedia articles are generally exceptional in their ability to highlight controversy over the validity of commonly accepted historical facts, and the organization strives to fairly document various sources. However, as the "destruction" section of this article is currently written, there is no mention of the vast (and perhaps growing) controversy of the actual cause of the WTC destruction. If controversy on this subject is to be suppressed on our wikipedia page (perhaps for reasons of simplicity), then all descriptions on the cause for destruction should be removed. If mentioning the controversy on this page is acceptable, then reference to the documents prepared by AE911 should also be included, as should references to recent polls taken that highlight perceived controversy amongst the public. I am not a "truther" as they call themselves, but I am a member of the wikipedia community, and as a "wikipether", like the rest of you, am committed to fair and accurate documentation. Besh (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe they're called "Wikipedians". And I think your concerns are covered on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article page. -- Jodon | Talk 21:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jodon, yes I believe you're correct - "wikipether" was a (poor) play on words... please see below for a general comment. Besh (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AE911 is not a reliable source for anything but their own opinions: they've been ignored or disowned by the major professional design organizations, and the controversy they exist to promote has had no new ideas since 2006 - far from growing, it's generally discredited and declining. Most significantly, no reputable scientific journals have published peer-reviewed refutations of the major investigations into the destruction of the complex, so Wikipedia's policies apply: conspiracy theories may not obtain undue weight simply because they exist in an Internet echo chamber. The destruction of the WTC has been extensively documented and described, to the point that Truther organizations have shifted their focus to WTC 7 as more fruitful territory for theorizing than WTC 1 and 2, since WTC 7's destruction was less documented, making it a better field for speculation. Acroterion (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Do we lend any credence to the recent poll sponsored by ReThink911? (http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/#pagecontent) Or is the consensus here that the organization biased the poll's outcome with strategic structuring? Besh (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The poll's methodology, as you've noted, appears to have been designed to skew the results toward a controlled demolition opinion: much of the controlled demolition theorizing depends on convincing laymen that if it looks like a controlled demolition, then that's what it must be (given that the sample set of tall buildings failing in this manner for any other reason is limited to WTC 1, 2 and 7). It's akin to showing me a picture of a person covered in red spots and asking "does this person look like they have measles?". And they didn't ask people to read the NIST report or other scientific documentation of the collapse. Apart from that, Wikipedia doesn't use the results of opinion polls to adjust articles to suit what people believe, think they believe, or want to believe. Acroterion (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The general comment I am making is that there is significant CT on the destruction of the WTC, and perhaps this should be mentioned in the Destruction part of the WTC page, if we consider it relevant and important. I do not share the CT view, but the WTC seems to be a strong source of CT and this fact is certainly noteworthy. The Attack on Pearl Harbour page has a link to CT in its "See Also" section; perhaps another option for us here. Besh (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added 9/11 conspiracy theories & Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth links to the "see also". I agree that the omission of these could be viewed as possible bias against a neutral point of view . Now the decision remains on whether to include info from those articles in this article. -- Jodon | Talk 00:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you might have misunderstood WP:NPOV. Only majority and significant minority POVs belong in this article. Including tiny minority and fringe viewpoint exaggerates their significance. See WP:UNDUE for more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

JOJ's argument below is a better one, although it still precludes the allowance of viewpoint or notability. Your comment mentioned a violation of policy (before you deleted it and changed it to "exaggerates their significance"), so I will respond to your original comment. The notability of article 9/11 conspiracy theories is being ignored by you. Perhaps you could elaborate on how that constitutes minority and fringe? NPOV by its definition includes ALL viewpoints. You're being selective, using WEIGHT to argue neutrality when in fact it is selective bias, which is forcing WEIGHT on the article. Note that I have only included it as a link, and not as information within the article. Regardless, I will concede to JOJ's argument below. -- Jodon | Talk 02:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This articles is for the actual factual events. Fiction is covered at 9/11 conspiracy theoriesJOJ ^Hutton 01:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think your comment should be included in the article (I jest). Using that logic we should now remove the conspiracy "fiction" link from the "see also" section on the Attack on Pearl Harbour article. Agreed? -- Jodon | Talk 02:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No one disagrees that destruction of the WTC is a source of CT, and if this fact is noteworthy, then a sentence such as, "The destruction of the WTC has also been a source of conspiracy theory", might be appropriate for a section of the article dedicated to the WTC destruction, where "conspiracy theory" directs to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Besh (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree (I was being ironic). Unfortunately other editors don't seem to. See above comments. Articles need consistency above all else, either CT is included or not, and if not it must be abolished in all articles that claim to be 100% factual. See how difficult this is? Its easier to include them as per your suggestion. Personally I feel that an absolute exclusion is tantamount to cherrypicking. But unless there is a majority of consensus then the article will remain as is. If editors are in a minority on Wikipedia then their vote doesn't count (unless they have the loudest voice), which means their contribution stays invisible. This is one of the harsh realities of Wikipedia. -- Jodon | Talk 16:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• In addition to the many notable facts surrounding the destruction of the WTC, including the precise times the airplanes hit the towers and on what floors, when and how buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed, which other buildings in the area were later condemned, how many and how people were killed and some of their names, which firms lost the most people, exact numbers of each societal division killed, it is not also notable, from a variety of perspectives, that the destruction of the WTC initiated a new branch of conspiracy theory that still today constitutes organizations raising hundreds of thousands of dollars? Some 19,000 people who have signed AE911's petition to Congress, including family members of those killed in the 911 attacks. How is this information not significant, factual, and pertinent to the topic? Moreover, suppressing this information is not only potentially contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but may also flame conspiracy theorists by giving them evidence that the mainstream is ignoring their presence. Perhaps a better way to address conspiracy theory is not through condemnation or marginalization, but rather with rational explanation. Ignoring facts - on Wikipedia or elsewhere - does not make facts go away. Through a simple link to the well-written 911CT wikipage, we have an opportunity here to inform those interested in the facts, that clear evidence is at hand to argue against the blast hypothesis. At the same time, we include the (I will argue) significant information that the 911 attacks initiated a new conspiracy theory (that maybe should be dealt with, not ignored). Besh (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

  I think all of that should be included in the conspiracy theories article. But I'm still unclear why a link to that article is not allowed here, since as you pointed out the conspiracy "fiction" link from the "see also" section on the Attack on Pearl Harbour article remains in tact. On the grounds of article consistency either it should be removed there also or have a conspiracy link included here, otherwise this could be viewed as POV pushing, since it is an attempt to ignore consistency. If I get no answer to this I will make an edit and see what happens, then perhaps people will talk. -- Jodon | Talk 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that it is right to link to the article about the conspiracy theories. They were widely reported (as conspiracy theories) in the press, as I recall. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, added the info. Besh (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it. It's poorly placed, unsourced, awkwardly phrased, and it gives fringe theories undue prominence. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To expand a little, apart from the lack of sourcing and the way it's phrased, it was inserted in the middle of the discussion of the death toll from the attacks. Placement of a digression into conspiracy theory in the middle of a carefully sourced discussion of several thousand deaths is insensitive at best. As for a "new" conspiracy theory, every major event in the world today results in a new conspiracy theory, so I don't understand the emphasis on "new." What was the old theory? As for the alleged requirement for consistency, this is an article about the building complex, not the event, so it's more comparable to Pearl Harbor than Pearl Harbor attack. Additionally, an article on another event that has spawned conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, limits the CT mention to a "see also." At present, and given the fact that the article is about the WTC and not the 9/11 attacks, that is as much as might be warranted. Please remember that the WTC was not the sole focus of the attacks, as the inserted text implies. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the difficulty with a "See also" is that it does not make it clear that the conspiracy theories are fringe hypotheses. How about, at the end of "destruction", paragraph "A number of conspiracy theories rejecting the generally accepted version of events, often proposing alternative mechanisms by which the buildings were supposedly destroyed, emerged shortly after the destruction and continue to receive some attention.", referenced to http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/05/september-11-conspiracy-theories ? I agree that the article is about the WTC and not the September 2001 attacks, but many of the conspiracy theories pertain specifically to the destruction of the WTC also. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the conspiracy theories in this article exaggerates their prominence. Conspiracy theories are social/political/psychological phenomena associated with major events; these really have almost nothing to do with the World Trade Center itself, except in the imaginations of the conspiracy theorists. 9/11 conspiracy theories is already linked in the article via the September 11 attacks template, so a see-also link is not needed either. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely you jest. In an article with over 7,500 words, "mentioning" the theories certainly doesn't exaggerate their prominence, having a whole section on it does.

The problem is that there is a sizable section on the destruction of the WTC. Is that section itself exaggeratted or warranted? If its not exaggerated and is warranted then why exclude all references to it, regardless of whether they're considered fiction? I'm arguing for consistency of articles and NPOV rather than inclusion for its own sake, and just trying to understand the logic of doing otherwise. An absolute exclusion of it to me seem like POV pushing. Please explain how it isn't. -- Jodon | Talk 13:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain when reasonably-expressed concern about inclusion of fringe topics became POV pushing. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain when reasonably-expressed concern about absolute exclusion of fringe topics became NPOV. I've no problem minimizing its prominence in the article, as per Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but disagree with disallowing any mention of it anywhere, including the "see also" section, as per Wikipedia:ONEWAY. Either an article is neutral (contains all viewpoints) or is biased. There's no middle ground. Otherwise WP's claims for a neutral point of view are as pretentious as its editors. -- Jodon | Talk 20:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that they have nothing to do with it. I think it is quite appropriate to mention them, just as (say) the article about Kennedy mentions, briefly, the conspiracy theories about his assassination (or Princess Diana, etc; I think it is hard to argue that it is not common practice to mention notable conspiracy theories of this kind). They are clearly notable (it is not hard to find reliable sources that discuss their existence) and the ones that specifically purport to show that the WTC was destroyed by a different means are clearly related to the WTC. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• If we completely ignore the conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC (and their existence is undeniably noteworthy and a significant outcome of the WTC destruction), we both betray the purpose of Wikipedia, and worse still, provide the conspiracy theorists with their central argument of "cover up". Let's please not give them that. Besh (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For conspiracy theorists, "There's a coverup!" isn't a conclusion, it's a premise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It's one way of looking at it, though my experience with conspiracy theorists of all kinds is that determined conspiracy enthusiasts don't need any encouragement in believing that there's a coverup. In general, my view is that any acknowledgement of conspiracy theories or fringe view in articles on a given topic (and I mean throughout WP) should be de minimis, and should make clear that it is in fact a fringe theory. The main exception to that would be issues concerning, for instance, the Kennedy assassination, where the discussion is far more pervasive and where adherents aren't considered completely out of the norm (though care is needed there too, as there are constant attempts to swing those articles into CT territory). In the case of Truthers, the consensus of sources is that they're firmly in fringe territory. Acroterion (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that any mention of conspiracy theories on this page would give undue weight to a fringe theory. This isn't the article for the attacks on the World Trade Center – where they are mentioned, but only in one sentence that essentially states how fringe they are – it's the article for the World Trade Center. By comparison, the conspiracy theory about the moon landings being faked are mentioned at moon landing (where they're given a one-paragraph section explaining how wrong they are), but not at all on moon. As for the suggestion of conspiracy theorists viewing this as evidence of a "cover up", presumably anything short of presenting their theory as the correct version of events would be viewed as a cover up. Since we're certainly not going to do that, they'll think "cover up" no matter what we do. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I really appreciate everyone taking time to discuss this. All in, I think the arguments against reference to CT are predominately sufficient and fair. The WTC was made famous by the attacks on 911 (most people never knew of these buildings before this), much like Pearl Harbor, and these locations are thus analogous in this regard. The moon on the other hand, is pretty well known in its own right, and its primary notability does not come from the fact that human expeditions reached its surface, and thus less comparable from this perspective. On a different note, CT surrounding the WTC attacks will, like those surrounding the moon landing, continue to subside unless new evidence emerges, as is the case for advanced knowledge surrounding the Pearl Harbor attack, which although still considered a CT, is like the Kennedy assassination CT in having too high a prominence to be considered fridge. In regards to future structuring of the WTC page, we might try to trim the information provided on their destruction to bare essentials. Providing a link to the 911 attacks wikipage on the top of the article might be appropriate, since it is likely many readers investigate WTC to specifically learn about their destruction (and this is not the focus or purpose of the page here). Most other readers are probably interested in the new/current buildings. Therefore, if the focus of this article is purported to be on the WTC itself, then the picture of the twin towers should really be replaced by the new One World Trade Center; and its description, as well as the description of the newly planned buildings, should comprise the first sections of the article. This will make the page more dynamic and interesting, as it will describe the current buildings as they are erected (instead of focusing on buildings that are no longer standing). The suggestions here are those that I consider logical steps given the rationals provided for not including CT on the WTC page, which I think are well-made, and might better serve the Wikipedia community and the interests of most readers. There is of course no pressing need to implement these changes swiftly. Moreover, there is a talented group of editors on this page, and I understand that better plans may already be in the works, or emerge soon. Besh (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. The WTC is famous - notorious - because of the destruction, far more so than when it was two tall buildings in a city full of tall buildings. It is overwhelmingly the most notable fact about the site and hence deserves prominence. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the quantity of reliable sources for the CT surrounding the destruction of the WTC considerably outweighed the other conspiracy examples given here. I'm not sure if that's the case. I also think there would be an article on the WTC on WP regardless of whether it was destroyed or not, only the destruction section would be omitted. As was discussed elsewhere, there are other buildings called WTC around the world which are also included on WP. Also the notoriety of this WTC in the public's mind and that of Wikipedia are 2 different things. Conspiracy theorists put a lot of "information" on propaganda sites, forums and Youtube, none of which are considered reliable sources on WP. I now have to agree with the other editors here, as I can see where the consistency issues are addressed re: Moon vs. Moon landings, Pearl Harbor versus Pearl Harbor attacks etc. If we were to change it here we would have to change it on the other articles. Somehow I don't see that happening, regardless of how we may wish it were otherwise. -- Jodon | Talk 14:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. You're responding to me, when I am disagreeing with the idea that anything but the destruction should come first - but talking about conspiracy theories, which I don't mention in that edit. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You were responding to Besh's comment on including conspiracy theories on the destruction of the WTC. Besh had ultimately decided against using conspiracy theories in the destruction section and it seemed like you were disagreeing with that. My apologies if you weren't. My reply also echoes a previous one of yours when you said you still think it should be linked to the conspiracy theories article. -- Jodon | Talk 16:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)