Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Proposal for new content based on the latest NIST report

I propose to add details from the final NIST report and the q&a section on NIST's website.

- - - - - - - - - -

After critics on the previous report have been raised during the NIST WTC7 technical briefing on Aug.2008, the revised final report was published in Nov.2008. Different from the previous report assuming the building to descend at an approximately constant speed, does the new report assume an approximately constant acceleration in three phases: (confer NIST q&a page as well as the attached image)

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than free fall, due to buckling of exterior columns in the lower stories.
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall), indicating no support from the structure below.
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, due to increased resistance from the collapsed structure and debris below.

The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 that could be observed was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing. For the investigation, the NIST investigators did not look at actual steel samples from WTC 7. Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began.

• 
  Downward velocity of north face roofline as WTC7 began to collapse

- - - - - - - - - -

Is it possible to include this information, or are there any reasons why it can/should be excluded? The detailed (and really funny) Youtube investigation is here: WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I) (Part II) (Part III) Johninwiki (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that NIST corrected its findings should be related to how NIST used these findings to support its conclusions. It is in this respect that this information becomes relevant to the Seven WTC article. --Cs32en (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Update:Moved the proposal here (WTC7 talk). I also added a new part on how NIST used their findings to support their conclusions.Johninwiki (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the explanation I wrote above conform with the article writing rules of Wikipedia ? I would like to include it in the main article but would like to have acknowledgement from at least one administrator first. Johninwiki (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Way way too much detail and wouldn't belong here anyway. Boil it down significantly and it might fit in Collapse of the World Trade Center but probably not even then. It's really not very meaningful. RxS (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope the new version is acceptable - I boiled the explanation down to the most important facts. According to Acroterion(see User_talk:Johninwiki) and Cs32en, the new facts belong here to the 7 WTC article, which is what I believe as well, as they are an update to the existing description. The new findings are significantly different from the previous report, which is why they have to be mentioned. - Johninwiki (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are they significant to this article? RxS (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The current article already contains an explanation of the previous NIST article. However, the page needs to be updated and has to refer to the most recent article published by NIST as well. It is further important to mention why the article has been revised and to state the major changes. Contrary question: Which of the facts I wrote above is not of public interest and why ? - Johninwiki (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This (or any really) article should generally always refer to the latest information sure. Talking about how the understanding of the rates of collapse has changed over time is way too much detail in such a general topic article. Even the varied rates of collapse during the event is too much detail. There's very little public interest in any of this. RxS (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially the varied rates are of great public interest. So far, the NIST commision has kept denying the fact that the building descended in free-fall, which they suprisingly revised in their final paper. From the beginning people have been curious about if the building descended in free-fall speed and if controlled demolition was the cause. These questions still belong to the most interesting topics of WTC7, which can be confirmed by a quick search of wtc7 "free-fall", returning about 35.000 hits. Due to the public interest of this issue in general, even a complete article has been created Collapse of the World Trade Center (you mentioned earlier). The revised explanation of the collapse sequence is therefore a significant detail, which is, I would say, perhaps even more exciting to know than many of the other details. - Johninwiki (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you demonstrate somehow the great public interest? Outside the controlled demolition community that is? Outside that group of people, there has been little if any interest in the rates of collapse and if demolition was the cause. It has always been a fringe theory and continues to be one at the present. I think it's clear that the general public has zero interest in the speed at which the building(s) collapsed. And setting aside the public's interest in this, reliable sources have very little if any interest in the topic. They see no issue here, no debate or controversy, so the material really doesn't belong here. RxS (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You define general public by a subset of poeple visiting this page. However, general public applies to everybody visiting Wikipedia. If these people believe the one or other thing is irrelevant. If the information is interesting to a significant percentage of visitors of this page, interest for the public is justified. Free-fall is futher eligible to be included in the article, as the Collapse of the World Trade Center article already contains a statement about free-fall (cite:crushing the entire tower at near free-fall speed). This information is not only interesting to the "controlled demolition community". It is interesting for basically everyone who read the previous NIST report and wondered why the building should descend at a constant speed, as the video evidence shows the building to accelerate. The actual explanation of WTC7's collapse already lasts over 2.5 pages, yet there is no explanation of how the collapse sequence in the video evidence can be explained. Aside from that, your last statement is very interesting. Could you elaborate on the definition of "reliable sources" ? - Johninwiki (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that I define interest in this topic only to those visiting this page. No matter, my question to you remains unanswered. The definition of reliable sources is covered in some detail here: WP:RS. Such a high degree of detail on the collapse belongs in the article about the collapse, not in this article (which covers a more general topic). RxS (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. to add it to the WTC collapse article would be an option. Along with this, even more parts should be shifted there, to make the WTC7 article consistent with WTC. In WTC, the collapse is described in just two lines, whereas WTC7 still contains the full description. The public interest is, as before, proven by 35.000 hits returned by the google search of wtc7 "free-fall". How else do you want to guarantee an unbiased measurement of the public interest for a given topic ? - Johninwiki (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are a poor indication of notibility. See WP:GHITS. I'm afraid the burden is on you to show notibility at this point. Try bringing it up at the collapse page, though you'll likely get the same objections there. RxS (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain step by step. As you mentioned earlier, Wikipedia should be kept up to date and refer to the newest articles. You already agreed that the page has to be updated to include the citation to the new NIST report. Along with that, it is natural to briefly summarize what is new and why it has been changed. Everybody is interested to know what is new, which is why we have a Newspaper everyday. Next, the new findings in the actual article are significantly different from the previous article, which is why this needs to be mentioned. The previous report was simply based on a false assumption, which obviously questions the result and the conclusion. Taking a look on Wikipedias actual WTC7 article, I also wonder why a whole and very detailed section is dedicated to the Borough of Manhattan Community College's Fiterman Hall building (including photo), which is obviously not the main focus of the WTC7 collapse section. How can the importance of this section be justified by other than the personal interest of certain administators? A search of this particular bulding in google merely returns 2000 hits. You mentioned that my explanation is too detailed. Now lets take a look at the actual WTC7 article again. Cite: "The first visible sign of collapse [...] 8.2 seconds, before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds". This means, the existing explanation already explains the collapse in two steps, however, describing it in three steps would be too much detail according to you. As the complete chapter is called collapse, it is eligible to explain especially this part more detailed - no other part deserves more detail. Moreover is the actual explanation in the article false and not consistent with NIST's new findings. The first visible sign of collapse occured in the penthouse at 1.75 seconds prior to the collapse, not 8.2 seconds, also did the north face descend within 3.65 seconds rather than 7 seconds. I strongly recommend to fix this and update the actual page properly to remove existing flaws. - Johninwiki (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits you suggest above are well beyond simply updating some numbers. The collapse section already has too much minutiae as it is and I'd favor cutting it back a little. It's also clear that you're just trying to shoe horn controlled demolition fluff into the article. So no, like I say try the controlled demolition article or something. RxS (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You should be very careful with your arguments. Those numbers are not published by any "controlled demolition community", but by NIST themselves. There is not ANY reason for not updating them. If your opinion is that updating those numbers creates a link to controlled demolition, then you imply that NIST belongs to the "controlled demolition community". So unless you can prove that NIST belongs to the "controlled demolition community", there is no reason for not updating those numbers. For cutting down the article, you obviously plan to cut back the detailed timing numbers as they are not of interest of "reliable sources" due to new findings of NIST, right ? This proves my initital assumption in a talk with Acroterion (User_talk:Johninwiki) that Wiki administrators act as puppets of the US government. Once you remove those numbers I suggest to add this as example to Internet_censorship#Portal_censorship. - Johninwiki (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If it was just a matter of updating numbers that'd be fine. However, as I've said, your suggested edits go beyond that. Now that you've gone off the deep end and suggested that I (and others) are government agents this conversation is over. If you repeat that assertion I'll add you here: [1]

To you and everyone else, I'm positively absolutely sick and tired of single purpose editors coming through here and accusing long term editors of felonious cover-up of mass murder. If I hear that again I'll send you right to the Discretionary sanctions page of the Arb Com page. Or block you myself. RxS (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updating the numbers would be great already :-) This would prove me wrong and I'd apologize for my accusations immediately. My previous conclusion was simply because I didn't had the opinion that you are willing to update even the numbers. You don't need to respond as you ended the conversation already. - Johninwiki (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Proposal added to Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories - Johninwiki (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"are there any reasons why it can/should be excluded?". Yes, this YouTube video is not a reliable source. It should not be used in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right - also it was not my intention to include the youtube videos. The only part I want to include is written between the dashed lines above (- - -). I took care to only refer to NIST sources. - Johninwiki (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a shame that wikipedia is censoring despite the overhelming evidence of tampering and controlled demolition. Until now I thought Wikipedia is free for everyone who can show proof of the things they wrote but its more of an oligarchy of some wikipedia admins?! --Joblack (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read this [2] farther up the page. Acroterion _(talk) 16:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the hostile behavior expressed in this thread to be quite unsettling, not only unsettling but in violation of at least one community rule. I would like to remind you of this rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles and of this essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_vested_contributors

As a relative rookie, I feel extremely intimidated and demotivated by this sort of behavior. To make myself clear, I do not support the outburst of Johninwiki and his threats for skirting his ban, but I also cannot support RxS's status as a potential vested editor. I would like to commend RxS as being "prolific contributor," but would also seek to steer him away from being a vested one. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit Wikipedia as a means to advance a controversial agenda that you feel strongly about, and you'll be just fine. -Jordgette (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so which ideas are considered controversial? Is there a list somewhere? I thought the biggest thing here was verifiability, which John had. Is it OK to post on a topic I feel strongly about if it isn't on this controversial list... the one I can't seem to find and you didn't give me? If it is not OK does that mean that a doctor that cares a lot about penicillin, for example, shouldn't be allowed to post on that article? Or a passionate civil engineer, on the article on bridges? Please explain. Thanks in advance! Saji Loupgarou (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What I meant is, don't edit Wikipedia as a means to advance an agenda. I frankly can't see a doctor being as passionate about penicillin as some people get about 9/11, but if someone is that passionate about any topic, then no, they probably aren't capable of editing the article in a neutral manner. -Jordgette (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is trying to advance agenda here, by the way? You are denying important FACTS to be added to the article, and I don`t see in any article(not on the non-conspiration-theory ones) the FACTS that prove the three buildings where imploded by controlled demolition. You clearly only repeat those lunatic theories that are used by the US government as official explanation. Where in the world have you seen buildings falling down so controlled-demolition style because of fire? No you did not because those terrorist acts of 9/11 were made by US government agencies. Funny, I live in Brazil. In 1964 the US government supported brazilian military (through operation "Brother Sam" and many CIA agents living here) to take down a democratic elected president who was acting against the US interests by power. Those CIA agents taught the military those information-extracting technics, or tortures, and acts of terrorism such as a military that died with a bomb exploding in his car(he was going to throw the bomb in a show with thousands of people inside) and one bigger, exploding the Rio de Janeiro`s gasometer which would kill millions of people but did not happened because it has come public, and many other now public and well known terrorist acts etc. Do you know why would they blow up the gasometer distribution system and kill thousands or even millions of brazilian people? To tell in the journals, radio and television the "communists" blew it up and start a war against the terrorism(in brazilian case they called the communists and most left-wings organizations as terrorists in the media). Funny how the CIA scum have the guts to do that on their own country, with the american people(most of them were poor people anyway) to start the "war against terror" that already killed thousand of Afghan and Iraq people, and spit on the US constitution throwing the civil rights on a garbage can. The US big companies(including Bush`s oil ones) earned a LOT of money and are very pleased with what happened on 9/11, it allowed them to fulfill their agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.76.211.103 (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Who is trying to advance agenda here, by the way?" -- You are, as evidenced by your words, "FACTS that prove the three buildings where imploded by controlled demolition." Please edit Wikipedia to better reflect the content reported in reliable sources, not the content inside your brain.

"You clearly only repeat those lunatic theories that are used by the US government as official explanation." -- I don't know what you're talking about. I have never repeated any theories on Wikipedia, let alone lunatic ones, let alone clearly. If you're referring to what reliable sources do, take your argument to them, not to Wikipedia editors.

I am striking out the rest of your paragraph because it is inappropriate for this page. The purpose of this page is to discuss how to improve the article based on what is reported in reliable sources. Do not use this page to argue the topic itself. See talk page guidelines. -Jordgette (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center / Seven World Trade Center

I've created a template to clean up the WTC7 / Seven WTC / Salomon Brother Building etc. pp. mess.

Template:Sept11/content/WTC7

Display of transcluded template:

• Without parameter {{Sept11/content/WTC7}}: WTC 7

• With "long" as first parameter {{Sept11/content/WTC|long}}: Seven World Trade Center

Should the long version rather read "7 World Trade Center" or should there be "title" version "7 World Trade Center"?  Cs32en  04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

New talk page banner?

I propose adding a new talk page banner to the top of this page, reading "This is not the place for you to discuss or suggest yours or anyone else's controlled demolition theories." Jtrainor (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I second that...--MONGO 13:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So you even want to prevent people from discussing any info relevant to this article? Nice. Vexorg (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about controlled demolition theories is not relevant to this article. There is a wikipedia article where IMO it is relevant -- the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories -- and any discussion about controlled demolition theories should be taken there (and even there the discussion should be about improving the article while maintaining a NPOV, not a general discussion about controlled demolition theories). 72.251.90.109 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This talk page banner text violates the principle of treating editors equally, independently of what they believe personally. If we want such a banner, it would need to inform all editors that discussions should be related to improving the article.  Cs32en  13:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an even better idea, lock the talk page! 114.146.108.100 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Divide?

Maybe we should divide this article? For example,

• 7 World Trade Center (2001)
• 7 World Trade Center (2006)

--Vanuan (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. As time goes on, it's going to need to be done for sure. SeanBrockest (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'citation needed' resolved - please add

{{editsemiprotected}} in paragraph 'collapse' there is a quotation from the fema report. the needed citation is already in the notes: note number 6. please add it as i am not allowed. 147.122.52.70 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your suggestion!  Cs32en  22:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Melted Steel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why was the steel melted so quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.31.213 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. If you want to propose a change to the article please specify what it is. Hut 8.5 12:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No one aside from a scientists contacted right after the event, and truthers, say the "steel melted". In fact if you consider that the damage it received was around 10:30AM and then collapse after 5:00. Then, we have a window of about 6 1/2 hours from initiation to collapse. The fire weakened the steel. BillL1978 (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)BillL1978

Yeah. No one except NASA, the people working on the ground clearing up, and of course the thermal image photos. "fire weakened the steel". Uh, well, how scientific of you, strange and curious that fire did not weaken the steel of the 15 other blazing skyscrapers that have been blazing infernos for anything from 5 to 24 hours the last four decades then, don't you think? Yeah. right. I Thought not. Go figure.84.215.44.195 (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No one died in the collapse

I was delighted to see material I entered years ago remains in the article. What I did not see was a reference to the fact that there was no loss of life associated with the collapse, which sort of gets lost in the details of the files which were lost. Is it in the article somewhere and I missed it? patsw (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's in there: "there were not casualties associated with the collapse". Hut 8.5 11:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just that sentence, no source. I would add "citation needed", but article is locked.-anon 08:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.199.5 (talk)

Move (and summarize) collapse section?

I've suggested moving the detailed material on the collapse to the Collapse of the World Trade Center article. Talk page section here. I think it would be good for both articles and might make them easier to keep up to date and stable. What do editors working on this article think?--Thomas B (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nearly 30 percent of structural steel used in the building consists of recycled steel.

I think it's odd that the article mentions that figure. Steel or plain iron has been "recycled" for thousands of years by now, there's nothing special about that. Contrary to other materials like plastics or paper, all metals can be melted and reused ("recycled") without any quality loss. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if this is common practice for high-rise buildings. A reliable source found it notable enough to be mentioned, so I think we can leave it in, unless there are really compelling reasons to drop the information.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Collapse Video

I think that there should be a link to a video of the collapse somewhere on this page (External links perhaps?), but I'm guessing the reason one hasn't been added is due to the fact that YouTube videos are of uncertain copyright status. I recently found this video from the official website of NY1. Since the video is coverage of NY1 and is on NY1.com, it's probably safe to use on this page (copyright wise). That is, if everybody is okay with it? --Noah¢s (Talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to a link to the NY1 webpage, but it can't be uploaded here, as NY1 owns the copyright. -Jordgette (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good link for the External links section.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we upload it to Wikipedia, I was only suggesting adding a link. I'll go ahead and add it. --Noah¢s (Talk) 23:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the news report from BBC I believe is one of the more interesting facts about Building 7. It collapsed 20 minutes I think after the BBC reporter said it had collapsed - unfortunately the woman was standing directly in front of the building when she made her report. She thought Building 7 was down the street - SNL couldn't do a better skit. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a lot of misinformation and mis-reporting on that day. I have a tape of the CNN coverage, and for five minutes they were reporting that the Washington Mall was on fire. Never happened. -Jordgette (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This particular misinformation and mis-reporting happened to be prophetic. Is anyone suggesting that she just quessed that a building was going to fall - and she knew which one? We should see more of her reporting, not less - maybe she has some insight on war or econmics. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing prophetic about it. Firefighters had been expecting the collapse for several hours at that point [3] -- not surprising that someone would misreport this fact. Let's discuss the article on this page, not speculate on other issues. -Jordgette (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the informatiom, I had never heard that fireman expected the tower/s to fall. Can you supply the quotes? Everything I have read says that the firemen etc were stunned. It's nice to know that they were aware of this. This would make a good addition to the article - name of fireman/men etc. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Concerning the news woman - does anyone have her name - would be interesting to know where she got her heads up - firemen? other source? intuition? 159.105.80.122 (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The names and quotes are in the article (from "Firehouse" magazine) that I linked above... -Jordgette (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

some say they knew the towers would fall before the first plane arrived.... CybergothiChé (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CTBUH disputes the NIST WTC 7 report.

The article implies that the CTBUH fully endorses the NIST WTC 7. The CTBUH released a report and very clearly dispute NIST's proposed "collapse" initiation of WTC 7. Obviously, there are other more serious problems with the NIST WTC 7 report too. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference, please? I don't see it on a quick check of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat site. Acroterion _(talk) 03:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

... and what? You don't know how use Google either?: http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/CTBUHwtc7comments.pdf 24.11.186.64 (talk) 06:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary: the report disputes the details, but not the substance of the report, going to some lengths to make it very clear that they haven't the slightest interest in supporting conspiracy theories. They dispute column failure versus floor failure, both of which have been proposed as collapse initiators. You are stretching a technical dispute into something very different. You are also being remarkably rude about a reasonable request to see a link to the exact topic you were reading, making us guess instead. Acroterion _(talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fires or no fires?

Some here would claim that we should not question the standard script of the 9/11/01 calamity. Going so far as to claim "no public interest" in question such as the speed/acceleration of 7-WTC, the symmetrical pattern of the fall, etc. I won't go into that much, too many editors here seem to resent such talk, and facts it seems are not going to dissuade them. As a scientist I can tell you that a "10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[4][40]" would have created enough asymmetry to make a collapse of this building on its foot-print impossible. It would have collapsed towards the direction of the asymmetry and would have created a lot more damage on the street of New-York. Especially, as claimed elsewhere, that the structure was supported before the fall by its exterior structure, where its interior support was gone due to fires. An extraordinary fact in itself (that steel buildings fall due to fire), you may not know this about science but as a rule ordinary explanations are preferred, extraordinary explanations require extraordinary prof (observations) that is not given anywhere in the article.

Before I move on the my main point/concern I have one more issue. At the end of the "Collapse" section it is written "The use of thermate instead of explosives is discarded by NIST on the basis that it is unlikely the necessary 100 pounds of thermate for each steel column could have been planted without being discovered.[32]". I think it is prudent to also add that "Nonetheless, scientific investigations have uncovered evidence of Thermitic Material in WTC dust". Citing : "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"; Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3; The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31. This is a secondary source, found in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and hence more than fits Wikipedia's guidelines. It does seem to deviate from the "nothing to see here, move along" mentality exhibited in this article and its talk page, if anyone feels they need an apology for that please accept mine.

And finally to my main point. There seems to be a contradiction in the article's "Collapse" section. Towards the end of the section there is the assertion that "The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]", while more towards the beginning of the article it says: "nevertheless, it has since been determined that the fires burned out in 20 minutes at any given location as they moved from point to point.[15]". So which is it? Did they fires cause the collapse or just burn out as they did in all other cases of fires in steel buildings. This and other questions raised by the 9/11/01 calamity are of profound importance for the "general public". As is why steel elements from 7-WTC and WTC were never studied by independent scientists.

PS: How do you know "There were no casualties associated with the collapse." At best you may know that "There were no reported casualties associated with the collapse."

-- Those that ignore their history are bound to repeat its tragedies. 

Have a good day y'all and may we never again have 3000 people die in an instant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.112.176 (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some here would claim that we should not question the standard script of the 9/11/01 calamity."

Wikipedia is a place to collect information from reliable secondary sources. The speculation of intentional demolition is decidedly a fringe position, and therefore on Wikipedia, it is limited to articles specifically on that position (of which there are several).

Contrary to popular belief, the building did not collapse all at once. The interior begins to collapse some 14 seconds (I don't remember the exact amount) before the exterior facade. This is clear if you watch the entire video sequence of the collapse -- generally not shown on "Truther" websites for obvious reasons. Most secondary sources are probably be aware of this.

The "evidence of Thermitic Material in WTC dust" was not reported in a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham Open journals are not peer reviewed, even though they claim to be. The testing was hardly rigorous, being done on samples that were sent to Steven Jones by third parties, with no verifiable chain of custody. Regardless, the findings of sulfur, etc., in the dust can be explained without invoking extraordinary speculations. I think the reason why alternate extraordinary explanations aren't generally entertained by reliable secondary sources is Occam's razor. (Not to mention, Steven Jones is pretty kooky when it comes to his interpretation of evidence. Have you seen this? [4])

I don't believe we know more about the durations of individual fires than what was reported by the firefighters. Regardless, a fire can move from place to place without burning in any one location for more than a few minutes. But this page is not the forum for discussing such things amongst ourselves; this is a page to discuss what the secondary sources say. -Jordgette (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh please... no body who has a clue about physics or engineering actually believes that fires caused WTC 7 to collapse. You and your "reliable" sources are completely absurd. WTC 7 fell at exactly free fall speed for some 20 meters. Perhaps you are too stupid or ignorant to understand what that means, but millions of people do. Wikipedia is an utter fraud and covers up treason against the people of the USA. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, nobody who has a clue about physics or structural engineering would doubt that the fires could cause WTC 7 to collapse. But that's beside the point. No credible source states that the fires 'did not cause WTC 7 to collapse, and we need go with what is said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

In building construction, it is axiomatic that fire + steel construction = failure, absent effective countermeasures. No credible sources indicate anything other than fire-induced collapse, so that's what Wikipedia reports. All else is fringe theory. Acroterion _(talk) 15:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove misleading sentences

Under the collapse section, there are misleading sentences that seem to indicate that structural damage contribued to WTC 7's collapse: "In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest facade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south facade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior." This is irrelevant and ultimately in later NIST reports proven to be inconsequential to the collapse and was overestimated. I see no reason for these remarks to be here as they are only relevant to an interim report and not the final report, and mislead people into believing the collapse was due to structural failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.131.167 (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be okay with removing the second reference to the 10-story gash, as it seems superfluous. But not the mention in the first paragraph of the Collapse section. The damage sustained by the collapse of WTC1 is significant in the history of WTC7, regardless of whether such damage is thought to have contributed to WTC7's subsequent collapse. -Jordgette (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

More changes needed due to new findings contradicting previous ones

I'd like to suggest making some changes to the article given that some of the facts are wrong and some of the adjectives used are misleading.

In the Collapse section, the quote "As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[4]" is citing an outdated study, with a new one having reached different conclusions. The word 'heavy' here is also misleading and I propose removing such adjectives such as 'heavy' and 'massive' from the article, as it is not based upon fact (the cited study never refers to the damage as heavy or massive).

The new study can be found here, and specifically in regard to damage from debris found in section 4.3.1 on page 46: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

On top of the misleading an inaccurate facts, I'd propose removing all content that references damage from debris, since the final study found it did not contribute to the collapse (chapter 4). The final conclusion was that the collapse was initiated by fire.

The debris theory is again referenced here: "The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers."

No NIST study has ever suggested that the collapse was triggered exclusively by debris, and the final study makes it clear that debris was not the result of the collapse.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.25.98 (talk • contribs) 21:25, November 24, 2009

Nope, nothing inaccurate there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a draft document. Perhaps when it's published.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

nothing innacurate? Are you saying that you feel the word "heavy" as an adjective is justified, despite not being used in the study? Also, I'm curious of why you think "...and/or debris from the collapse..." is justified, when it is false according to the cited source?

And finally, others have already cited the study I linked to. Are you saying it is not a valid citation? If so, are you proposing other sections using it as the only source be removed?

I think the anonymous editor has a point -- the paper refers to heavy debris, but not specifically heavy damage. However, (1) damage certainly occurred, and (2) the WP article doesn't claim that damage was the exclusive cause of the collapse. I have adjusted the first couple of sentences from the section. -Jordgette (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii

According to NIST, then, WTC 7 collapsed solely as a result of the fires: the only role the debris damage played was in initiating the fires. It was the "thermal expansion" of its steel structure that caused the collapse - said expansion having been caused by "uncontrolled fires [that] had charasteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings". In other words, as NIST emphasizes, in this unique case ordinary office fires alone brought down a steel-framed skyscraper. History teaches (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about Larry Silverstein Quote

Searching the main page and this discussion I don't see a reference to Larry Silverstein authorizing demolition of the structure. There is widely available video of him saying that he personally authorized the FDNY to "pull" Building 7. I am wondering how it's humanly possible that there is video tape of the landlord authorizing a controlled demolition that does not appear anywhere in this discussion. Even if the tape is a fraud it would be notable; and if it's authentic it's absolutely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dioxinfreak (talk • contribs) 05:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny that you declare the existence of such a video when you apparently haven't seen it yourself. Silverstein never authorized a demolition. He used a two-word phrase, "pull it," referring to the firefighting effort to save the building. And despite what you will read on certain dubious websites, "pull it" is not a term used in the demolition industry, except when literally pulling down small structures like outhouses with tractors. Silverstein isn't even in the demolition industry to begin with.

In short, the reason why this video isn't mentioned in the article is that it's a fantasy, one of many that are used to manipulate people into believing a particular set of beliefs. -Jordgette (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the video is legitimate but the interpretation is not. There is a video where he says he gave the order to "pull it" but nowhere is there anything to suggest that means destroy the building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.116.4 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected on one point. He does not give consent to "pull," he says he suggests it. Then he says, "They made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The whole quote is, "I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

That provides some context. I would be happy to hear an alternate, in-context description of what the word "pull" and the phrase "pull it" means Dioxinfreak (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in the quote that suggests any other context to "pull" besides pull the firefighters out, which they did (see the sources for this article), and then watch the building collapse (as expected, see the sources for this article). Any other interpretation of this quote is a fantasy manufactured to fit a preconceived narrative. That's all I have to say on the matter; others may weigh in if they wish. -Jordgette (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Jordgette, it's rather unintellectual of you to say that there is one interpretation to anything, including "have a nice day" or "in the room the women come and go." To say that there is one interpretation, and that any other is a fantasy, is the preconceived narrative. To say that it meant "pull the firefighters out" makes no sense because nobody calls the landlord to get permission for search and rescue, which had been going on all day anyway. SAR during a fire is something that is just done. The Fire Department's role was established years ahead. Further, Silverstein says "pull it," not "pull them" or "pull them out."

The context of the quotation is in the last five words: "we watched the building collapse." This was shown on Public Television with video of WTC 7 collapsing on its footprint with Silverstein describing it. Now we work backwards from there.

That said, I understand what you imply when you say a "preconceived narrative." You are saying that, if used, it supports the idea that something besides the official theory is possible. I would, however, propose that this statement raises many more questions than answers, and shatters many more narratives, than it supports.

I see you're a magazine journalist. I'm a widely-published investigative journalist with 25 years experience. I have been trained never to treat a quotation of an informed source so dismissively, and in fact to leave it out is evidence of bias. Even if the quotation is not definitive, its potential implication deserves public awareness. I'm appalled that this has been pushed out of the article. It is the single most dishonest thing I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. Dioxinfreak (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Addenudum -- in your first reply above, are you saying that the video interview with Silverstein published on You Tube and elsewhere is not the same video as America Rebuilds that was broadcast on PBS on Sept, 10, 2002? Or are you saying that "none of this exists"? If so how are we discussing the quotation from a video that does not exist? Dioxinfreak (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

He's already explained what he meant. So unless you have better insight into his thoughts than he does there's nothing here. RxS (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

His revised last word, Q.E.D., like "Mission Accomplished", eh?!! C'mon! Cheers,Bjenks (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For readers who encounter this page, I would like to offer this. It does not matter how Silverstein later explains his actions; if he in fact authorized pulling the structure, that is what happened and that points to the next place we need to investigate. It is not adequate to have an admission like that on PBS and then dismiss it or allow it to be explained away.

"Pull it" is indeed a demolition term -- it's even in the dictionary. And to say that Silverstein is not versed in demolition is like saying that a brain surgeon can't apply sutures. In New York City, you don't build one structure without pulling another -- often several others for a big project. So while he personally may not be able to demolish a building, and while his company may not do that, we can safely assume he knows the terminology of associated industries, particularly in a city where development and demolition are synonymous.

I find it fascinating that so many people revert into accusations of "conspiracy theorist" when anyone questions the nature of a complex matter like this. I suggest we remember that there are conspiracy statutes on the books for a good reason and they are used every day. Then when something large happens, particularly involving all those super-honest bankers, warmongers and politicians we hear about on the news every day, it is generally swallowed whole without chewing. Dioxinfreak (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason people call "conspiracy theory" is because it would in fact require a conspiracy for Building 7 to have been intentionally demolished. Do you disagree?

I'm not sure what your intent is here. If you have a reliable source that interprets the Silverstein quote the same way you do, why don't you just be bold and put into the article the fact that Larry Silverstein admitted to having suggested to firefighters that they demolish the building ("they made the decision to pull"). And perhaps we should also create a new Wikipedia article: Buildings that have been intentionally demolished by firefighters. -Jordgette (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything that happened on Sept. 11., 2001 was an intentional act of destruction, by someone. Now, Silverstein uses "pull" and "pull it." Ruling out a young chicken less than one year old, then we need a definition of "pull" that includes demolition. The alternate hypothesis is that Silverstein authorized pulling out the firemen, but he's not in the Fire Department chain of command; that is not his decision nor does his opinion matter to the situation; the FD commander presumably does what is the safest for his people and does not pause to call someone across town in his office on the brink of an emergency like the building falling down at freefall speed. So I think that it's just as important to rule out the proposed alternative hypothesis (pull "it" meaning a fire fighting operation) as it is to support the hypothesis we are talking about ("pull" it meaning to remove a fixed object from its place). We are, however, starting to sound a little like our old friend Bill Clinton: it all depends on the definition of "it."

Now, most people would agree that firemen don't set up impromptu demolition operations of buildings occupied by the CIA, the FBI, INS and the Governor. Wiki says that it takes weeks or months to prepare a building, so we can take an educated guess that it takes more than, say, a few hours. Demolition is for demolition teams. Even if Silverstein, speaking to the PBS reporter, meant "pull it" as in pull the building, we don't know, from the information currently available, that he was telling the whole truth. Dioxinfreak (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

That people keep repeating rubbish like "it takes weeks or months to prepare a building" to discredit CD is behaviour no different to editors who push outlandish theories. Whats wrong with sticking to facts to discredit it? One of the demolition companies that cleaned up the WTC site has a website that details how a building is brought down. That site specifically says that it while it can take months because they have to do it per the building safety codes (ie: remove all the windows etc), the planting of the charges themselves takes only a few hours. Of course this is assuming you dont have to do it without being seen. The point is that it is ridiculous to use procedures that require terrorists to comply with building codes as evidence. Wayne (talk) 07:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't formulate a new argument in Wikipedia. That's not what encyclopedias are for. You would have to find a reliable source that advances this argument — for example, a source that supports intentional demolition by showing that hundreds of WTC7 windows were blown out by the explosive charges just prior to the collapse, as of course would be the case in any intentional demolition in which the windows hadn't been removed. If you don't believe the last point, try detonating some C-4 in your house and then check your windows.-Jordgette (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WLRoss...it's been over 9 years since 9/11, yet nary a single person involved in this controlled demolition plot has been found, come forward or been unearthed..."the planting of the charges themselves only takes a few hours"...are you kidding? The funniest thing is that surely a group that wanted to "cover up" a controlled demolition would make sure the building DID NOT fall down in its own footprint...not that these buildings did fall down in their own footprints, but that is often cited by the CTers as "proof" of controlled demolition isn't it?...disregarding the widespread damage to dozens of other surrounding buildings...but omission of the facts to support a far out conspiracy theory is okay I guess...CTers don't have to play by the rules of engineering standards and gravity if they can invent some far fetched and implausible explanation. Just as ridiculous is the inability of the conspiracy theories to connect the dots about Larry Silverstein...who has not only lost millions in unrewarded insurance claims but has also for 9 years been paying the lease on buildings that no longer exist!..."[his company Silverstein Properties paid $10 million a month in rent on the site, per the terms of his lease. The lease also obliged him to rebuild."....that Silverstein would have (he is 79 years old) wanted to lose a decade in lost leases at his age is preposterous. The engineering aspects of controlled demolition at several buildinsg at the WTC would greatly exceed any other demolition ever performed, yet the CTers think that but a few hours may have been needed to plant the explosives..."Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction." see very good explanation of how buildings are imploded...--MONGO 19:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you two are going on about. I'm not forwarding anything that supports CD and MONGO especially knows that I do not believe in CD as we have argued many times over the POV language he tends to use. I'm just expressing annoyance at editors putting forward urban myths as evidence against CD instead of real facts. A straw man arguement just brought up is another example as it is used to imply CD didn't happen "nary a single person involved in this controlled demolition plot has been found". All it means is "that no one has been found" which proves nothing. For example, if only 5 people were involved it is not even unusual that no one has been found. I have no interest in proving or disproving CD. I'm equally annoyed at POV pushing from both sides of the fence. Wayne (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WLRoss...you stated that "the planting of the charges themselves takes only a few hours"...how else is that to be construed? Do you have any understanding about the complexities involved in the implosion of even one 20 story concrete building, the time needed to set things up (regardless of the lack of concern to abide by various standards normative to typical controlled demolition), the manpower needed and the fact that airplanes hit the buildings...??? If "they" (whomever they are) wanted to blow up the buildings why not just use a couple explosive laden semi-trailers and ram the lobbies of each tower...why make a coverup more complex by adding wide body jets to the mix???? If only 5 people were involved????Huh??? How is it POV pushing to provide facts and not fiction? Urban myths about CD? There are dozens of websites that explain in detail the complexities of implosions and building demolitions so seriously...check them out. POV you tend to use is laden with theories...as you say yourself on your own userpage here..."I believe Popular mechanics is discredited BS (see here) and NIST cheated to get it's results (They admit they fudged the results, see NCSTAR 1-6) but that does not mean I believe in CD. There has to be some as yet undiscovered factor that caused the towers to fall but then that is OR."...the "See here" link is an opinion piece which starts out with "It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker"...well, hope you find the "truth".--MONGO 20:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's resist the temptation to retread this old discussion and focus on what should and shouldn't go in Wikipedia. Wayne, do you have an edit suggestion, or were you just venting? -Jordgette (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Both. "it takes weeks or months to prepare a building" may be a fact but only when applied to legitimate demolition. It is totally irrelevant and is fiction if mentioned in the context of terrorist attack. Mongo: It's obvious I have more understanding than you do but I have no need to answer you because I'm not supporting any conspiracy theory. BTW, the 2 hours was just an example of how long to place charges alone to show that "weeks and months" is bogus and the conspiracy theorists do not claim this. They claim someone also cut support beams on every tenth floor so if their hypothetical CD did occur it would have taken at least 8 hours to do the cutting and planting of charges which is far too long to make CD credible. If you ignore the loaded language and a few mistakes, the truth article makes several good points, I mean PM is little more than a home handyman magazine FGS not an engineering journal. Do you dispute that NIST fudged? They actually said they did in the report. Unfortunately the truth will never come out. Without the steel CD can never be conclusively discounted no matter how unlikely and the fires can never be conclusively proved to be the cause of the collapse no matter how likely. That is why NPOV is so important. Conspiracy theories should have died a natural death by now. Go beyond the facts and you just encourage conspiracy theorists (ie: fudge some facts and they assume you are likely to fudge them all) to push their side.Wayne (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WLRoss...I don't think you read and took into consideration anything I have written, which is fine, you're entitled to your beliefs but that doesn't make them reality. Surprisingly, I am not one for silencing dissent generally, but the CT's regarding this series of events are so insultingly preposterous that I am neverendingly shocked that anyone can believe any of them. My point and if you want to research the discussions by actual demolition companies you'll find that hours, days, perhaps even months to "rig" a building, even one a half the size of WTC 7 (600 plus feet/47 stories when it existed...the tallest building ever actually imploded was but 439 feet see this) is a time consuming, loud, intrusive, obvious and impossible to hide event. Even, as you say, these conspirators weren't worried about destruction to surrounding buildings and did not therefore have to conform to standard implosion safety issues, the time constraints and overtness of the endeavour would be impossible to hide...these buildings were occupied at the time needed to plant these charges...their high profile nature and the fact that a truck bomb almost took one out in 1993 made them more securely monitored than most buildings...the fact that NIST claimed they "fudged" is another example of how CT advocates twist issues. Their final release on the WTC 7 collapse has been questioned by but a handful of accredited engineers and none of them have offered a more plausible explanation....a handy tool is to question but offer no viable alternatives. That the CT surrounding these events are still alive isn't surprising...though no proof exists, CTers also say Area 51 has UFO's, Bigfoot really exists, the Loch Ness Monster is real and the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax...and each of this issues dates back decades. There is a BBC production about WTC 7...near the end, Dylan Avery, one of the guys behind the Loose Change productions, shows his true colors...when confronted with various issues, he flys off the handle...in addition, the CTers misrepresentations of Barry Jennings comments that he heard explosions are clearly stated by Jennings to be misrepresentations of his beliefs and he makes it clear that he does not think the government was behind the collapses...it is an hour long but is pretty informative....it was produced several years ago, before NIST released their final WTC report...and can be found via this link.--MONGO 16:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too many speculative words about two words spoken by a man under great stress, on a day of chaos. My view is that he wanted the firefighters out before more lives were lost on a lost cause, and misspoke ("pull out") or lapsed into a kind of firefighters' jargon ("pull [the crew]"), a far more likely circumstance than a conspiratorial desire to go for a demolition hat trick. In any case, the matter has no business in this article, as this is all speculation, and frankly, is getting into BLP territory. Acroterion _(talk) 01:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

section break

So are you going to edit the article, or just keep typing your opinions and speculations on this page? -Jordgette (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I plan to edit it, but I want my ducks and chickens lined up. I'm used to taking as long as an issue needs to develop it. I want to thank you; even though we don't "agree" on certain points, your critique has motivated me to sharpen up my fact base and arguments, and I appreciate your sense of fair play. Dioxinfreak (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You may want to check out the archives of this page and look at the history of similar edits. I'll step aside, but in the past editors have been very strict about the sourcing of any speculative matter, particularly if there's a living person involved. Good luck. -Jordgette (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It'll be a long time until implications of conspiracy to mass murder are made against a living person based on an interpretation of a single quote. A very long time. RxS (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but the quote -- an admission against interest -- can be used in a deposition. I wonder if Silverstein has been deposed in any of the lawsuits that have been litigated over the Sept. 11 incident, and if this issue came up. If he admits the building was pulled, the next logical question would be when it was prepared for demolition, and by whom. Dioxinfreak (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No one died in the collapse of 7 WTC, but there were plenty of other damages, so it'll be a tough sell indeed. -Jordgette (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Controlled demolition conspiracy theorys apply to all 3 buildings. The implication will be that if he knew about one he knew about the others, especially since the claim is that #7 was brought down because it was the center of the conspiracy. And as the poster below pointed out, there's no way of knowing who or how many might have died in the collapse. Not going to happen...RxS (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"No one died in the collapse of 7 WTC" is not a provable statement. We have no way to know that nobody was in the building at the time of the collapse. There were thousands of rooms, secret rooms (it was an intelligence facility), etc., that could not be covered by the hasty SAR operation of the day. And not every gram of dust was subjected to analysis for human DNA. So the way we would need to say that is, "There were no known deaths in WTC7" or "no deaths reported."

I recognize that Wiki is not exactly the place for investigative journalism, but inevitably some articles are going to verge in that direction -- anything where there is a potential coverup, where the whole truth is not known or where there are conflicting accounts and high stakes liability. So we need to be careful that we make our statements in a provable way, and know which direction we give the benefit of the doubt. In any investigation it is crucial first to admit and account for what you do not know.

This is an addendum: We are essentially discussing the potential for fraud here, indeed several kinds of fraud (for example, there were many insurance payments made associated with the Sept. 11 incident). Fraud is a crime of concealment. It's an extremely common crime, yet rarely prosecuted successfully, specifically because it's a crime of concealment. The courts acknowledge this; for example, the statute of limitations begins to toll from the moment someone has a reason to suspect fraud -- not at the time the crime was committed. In addition, fraud is an intentional tort. Intent involves determining the state of mind of the accused, including what they knew or should have known at the time.

Another observation I've made from covering many fraud cases (generally corporate cases involving mass poisonings) is that the part of the truth that is revealed is often used as a diversion from the part of the truth that is concealed. Both what is said and what is not said are potential elements of the concealment. Dioxinfreak (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dioxinfreak -- Before you proceed with your mission, I recommend that you check out this article, Wikipedia Is A Tertiary Source. Wikipedia is not the place to make arguments or synthesize connections between things you find in secondary sources. It is a place that summarizes reliable secondary sources only. These guidelines are heavily enforced by editors -- particularly if there is a living person involved (Silverstein in this case). Your time may be spent more wisely doing this kind of thing in another venue, as you may end up throwing your hands up in total frustration because you cannot get your voice heard here. But Wikipedia simply is not a place to do that kind of thing, and never has been. -Jordgette (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jette -- with you 100% on this, vis a vis this issue. I would add that I think that the case study is more important than the case itself. There will always be articles that verge onto investigative territory, and some will be on the other side of the line you describe. I think that it's a perfectly good use of mental bandwidth to have an open discussion of standards of evidence, sourcing, quoting and phrasing that don't necessarily fall into existing standards; and I think that an open discussion of what is not properly part of the encyclopedia and why is also necessary and useful. As I said, I'm not in a rush, and if and when I do an edit, it's going to be defensible and punted directly between the goal posts of the established Wikipedia policy. I love this encyclopedia. I think that it's one of the authentically great advances of the human race, and whether I am able to do something about it or not, Wikipedia's coverage of the Sept. 11 incident is one of the things that grieves me the most about this whole enterprise in laying a foundation of thought and knowledge. Dioxinfreak (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be pertinent to add the information about how BBC reported the building collapsed before it actually did? Goatonastik (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, unless we add to the Washington Mall article that CNN reported for ten minutes on 9/11/01 that the Mall was on fire. It wasn't, it was misinformation which was running rampant that day. The likely reason why the BBC made the report was that FDNY expected the building to come down, as this article mentions. -Jordgette (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, I'm not a wiki user but I just wanted to ask a question . . It is scientifically impossible for a steel-framed modern highrise building to collapse from a fire (which was only on a few floors) so why is this cited as the cause of the collapse? For a building to collapse into its footprint, that is, to collapse in such a way as to not damage adjacent buildings, all central columns must fail simultaneously. A fire on a few levels does NOT do that to structural steel. It collapsed at nearly freefall speed.. Engineering articles on this website tell the truth scientifically as they should, why does this article support absolute fallacy? Thank you for your time. 222.153.142.19 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scientifically impossible?" Do you have a source for such a statement? It's entirely possible for any steel-framed building to collapse due to the effects of fire. Steel performs poorly at elevated temperatures far below any melting point, and WTC 7 was designed before codes required analysis for single-column failure modes. The cited sources (and the related text) explain how it is thought to have happened. The fallacies tend to originate from the 9/11 Truth camp, where structural engineering and materials science fallacies abound. Acroterion (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I am not able to change the main page, so I am listing inaccuracies here. All of these changes pertain to the "COLLAPSE" section of the page:

1st incorrect statement: "...and other damage as high as the 18th floor.[5]" This is wrong. The given source clearly says that there was damage as high as the ROOF-LINE: "Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level" pg. L-17. I recommend changing "18th floor" to "roof level".

Smitty121981 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Smitty121981

Thank you for your research. So, who is going to do all of this -- not only fixing actual inaccuracies, but checking all of your work against the sources? It's an awful lot to ask. I recommend that you re-introduce suggested changes one at a time here on the discussion page, and wait for discussion. This is a closely watched and controversial article, with many unsuccessful attempts to make major or sweeping changes against consensus over the years. If anyone were to go ahead and change the collapse section without discussion, even if the changes have merit, it would likely be reverted anyway. So I think you'd be better off wiping your list and starting over, point by point. -Jordgette (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

At your request, I am limiting this to listing one change at a time. Verifying my information is not difficult at all because I am careful to always give a source. In many cases, my source is the same as the one being currently referenced, and I am simply correcting the wiki to reflect what the source ACTUALLY says. As you can see I provided the source, page number, and a quote to back up my correction. It's really not that much work - I would do it myself if I had access to edit the wiki. Please verify and make the change, this first one is not controversial at all. Thank you. Smitty121981 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Smitty121981

I am okay with this change. NCSTAR1A (p. 17) also indicates window damage up to the roof line and possible structural damage near the roof. I'd like to get someone else in on this, though, as there may be a more useful edit rather than just changing 18th floor to roof. By the way, you only need to make ten edits and be a registered user for four days to edit this article. While we throw ideas around, I'm sure you can find a few less controversial articles to work on to get autoconfirmed. -Jordgette (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose I will go ahead and make the change myself when I have reached my ten edits, and I do not see any need to improve the sentence other wise. It's really a minor clarification and does not change the tone of the sentence in any way. In the mean time, I'd like to clarify that NIST did not say "possible" damage near the roofline, they say "The debris also caused damage between floors 44 and the roof." (NCSTAR 1-A pg. 16) Their language is unambiguous and clear. The image on the next page that you referred to(Figure 2-1) uses the color gray to indicate "possible structural damage" and the damage at the roofline is NOT gray, but rather red for "damage to exterior structural steel".Smitty121981 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

First skyscraper known to be felled by uncontrolled fires?

Shouldn't this "honor" belong to the Twin Towers themselves and not to 7 WTC? While both were gored by airplanes, they survived the impact and were felled by the fires, right? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The Twin Towers came down due to the combination of structural damage and fire, according to the NIST findings. WTC7 came down primarily due to fire according to NIST. I'm removing the dubious tag. -Jordgette (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole collapse of WTC 7 is dubious Jordgette, I suggest re-tagging it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.74.101 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be your opinion, but on this specific issue, the reliable source is clear. So there is nothing dubious about this particular claim. -Jordgette (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating to use NIST's Final WTC7 Report!

In making my last edit, I found that the wiki did not yet reference this very important article, so I created the reference named "ncstar1-a". I hope everyone helps me in updating the article to reflect the newest reference available, to make sure that we are as accurate as possible! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty121981 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

misleading paragraph

the paragraph about NIST's progress report is very subjective in tone and does not reflect the source. I am suggesting two major revisions, that's why I am listing them here first.

To begin, the first sentence reads "In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA..." While it is true that NIST released images of damage, the assessment of this damage is not found in the Progress Report. Firstly, FEMA never assumed anything, they clearly stated "The extent and severity of the resulting damage to WTC7 are currently unknown" (FEMA 403 5-16). Also, some of the damage was estimated to be worse by FEMA than by NIST! Example - FEMA described the SW corner damage as extending from "approximately floors 8 to 20" (FEMA 403 5-16) while NIST later revised this to a more conservative figure of "primarily between Floors 7 and 17" (NCSTAR 1-A pg. xxxvi). So the first sentence must be revised by removing the subjective content.

the next incorrect sentence: "A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[42]" This is totally wrong, and is NOT what the given reference says. The given reference clearly states that the 2000 sq ft is for a critical column underneath the penthouse that is capable of initiating collapse (meaning that they are referring to a CORE column - most likely #79). The given reference describes the perimeter as a "perimeter moment frame" which is NOT unique to this building. There is also nothing in the given source that would indicate that the structure's integrity was "severely compromised" by the damage to EXTERIOR columns, and in fact a newer publication from the same source (NCSTAR 1-A) makes it clear that the debris damage did NOT contribute to collapse other than starting the fires. I would suggest that this entire sentence be removed - the next sentence which begins "Consistent with this theory..." would also have to be revised of course, since the referenced theory is demonstrated to be false.

EDIT: I forgot, the concluding sentence is bad also when it says "...the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds." This is a subjective measurement based on a layman's interpretation of a low quality video. I would recommend revising this to reflect the published figure from NIST which is 5.4 s (NCSTAR 1-A). This figure is based on a different video which shows slightly less of the collapse, but it is unquestionably a more reliable measurement.

Unless there are objections or suggestions here in the discussion, I will go ahead and make these changes.Smitty121981 (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

WOW!! Do people not know how to read this discussion page? I left this suggestion here for a week, and then when no one had objected I revised the paragraph, removing SEVERAL WRONG AND MISLEADING statements. I was able to include SEVERAL NEW facts as well. Yet me edit was immediately removed?? What kind of community is this?? I am new to wikipedia, but I thought that CORRECT AND OBJECTIVE STATEMENTS which REFLECT THE SOURCE would be welcomed. I am astonished that this page did not even have the newest NIST report as a source until I just recently added it myself, yet obviously there are people trolling the page daily. It's shameful really. This page should be about ACCURATE, VERIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE - please leave your drama and personal vendettas at the door!! I will try once again to edit the page - if you object to the edit do as I have done and list your problems here. Let's be adults shall we?? Smitty121981 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

What's there is accurate and well supported in the citations. It would be better to build a consensus here on the talk page before re-writing. If you've come here with an agenda,[5] you will be unlikely to get support for your version. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would you assume automatically that I come with an agenda?? Because of the topic? I am here because I have spent a significant amount of time reading the NIST research on Building 7 and I am here to make sure that the wikipedia article CORRECTLY reflects what they say. I listed 10 things for you to verify on your talk page Tom, how are those coming?? Found a source that says even one? How about you start by posting, RIGHT HERE, a source that says specifically that each PERIMETER column was responsible for holding 2000 sq feet of floors.

While you're at it, go ahead and post the source that says that the structural integrity was "severely compromised" by debris damage. That's two completely FALSE statements.

How about the collapse timing?? How on earth could a layman's subjective measurement of 7 seconds be more accurate than NIST's collapse sequence?? How can you possibly justify not letting me update this with the most correct measurements??? If anything I would say it is YOU who appears to have any agenda other than the love of knowledge.Smitty121981 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

and can someone PLEASE point me to a single video that show "cracking and bowing of the building's EAST wall"?? That's what this article claims, even though EVERY video shows the NORTH wall. Seriously, this paragraph is SO bad that I cannot believe the resistance I am getting to changing it! This is a very silly community. You put on this big show pretending to care about sources but you were not even using NIST's Final Report as a source even though it has been released now for almost 3 years!! I could not believe that I had to add it myself! Give me a break!Smitty121981 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

What layman are you talking about?--MONGO 21:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

MONGO, if you read this discussion you will see clearly that I said twice that I am talking about the collapse timing when I say that it is a subjective measurement by a layman. Specifically, when the articles says "...which took at least another 7 seconds" this is a figure which is NOT published in ANY report, and is simply a wikipedian's own measurement of the cited video. How can we be sure they measured correctly? We can't. That's why I revised the article to reflect the accurate and published figures from NIST, who actually broke down the collapse into several phases, which I correctly paraphrased in my revision.Smitty121981 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Someone needs to cool off here. Look, people are lazy and busy. If you come onto a talk page and list a bunch of proposed changes, and then assert that those changes will be made if no one objects, don't be surprised when people only respond when you actually make the changes. Nobody was going to go through your list and check each change. What I would suggest is discussing changes one at a time. If you look above (section: Inaccuracies), you'll see that a similar thing happened in June and the editor -- who happens to be you -- agreed to discuss and make individual changes rather than sweeping changes.

You have to understand, this is rated a Good Article, and it also has a very controversial section. Articles like that are going to be watched very closely and treated conservatively by the community, particularly if an editor has shown bias in the past (as indicated by the edit cited by Tom Harrison). Finally, please cool it with the all caps. It doesn't help your case or your presentation. -Jordgette (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I would concur with Jordgette as to how to go about making updates, but want to mention that this article is actually considered one of the finest on the website and is actually a Featured Article.--MONGO 21:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that; impressive. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

but does ANYONE have a source to defend the content that is there??? You all just keep proclaiming that it's good, well how about you actually find a page number and a quote from the source to defend it?? And I know it's recognized as a good article but it says "Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." and frankly I thought my revisions significantly improved the tone and correctness of the page and I am absolutely dismayed that it is not being considered at all.

Look, you just aren't going to get anywhere with the attitude of, "You're doing a terrible job, my changes made the article better, prove that they didn't." How about taking one claim from the article, suggesting how the sentence can be improved (with your sources), and asking for opinion. And when that's settled, repeating. -Jordgette (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I have already listed it! And you have simply ignored the FACT that you cannot find it in the source!

Here, let's see if someone (anyone!) can defend this one single sentence. Is that simple enough for you Jordgette? The article states: "A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space..." It's really easy. Simply click on the referenced source and do a word search for "2,000". Let me know what you find. Does it say that this is an OUTER column? NO. Does it say that this is UNIQUE to this building? NO. Oh, but wait the sentence isn't over yet. It goes on to say "...suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity." We're still in the same sentence with the same source. Can you find anything even remotely related to debris damage SEVERELY COMPROMISING the structure?? And why did I just have to type all of this again, isn't it above? Why is it so impossible for all of you to just admit that it's NOT what in the source?

PS, cool it with the bold text ... jk ;)Smitty121981 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

When we have two reliable sources that are contradicting each other, and we determine that one source fails verification, we can either dismiss that source, or possible cite it, with inline attribution. Proceeding otherwise would be cherrypicking reliable sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

it's really simple: the paragraph is about the NIST Progress Report, so anything in this paragraph that is not in the progress report should be removed or updated with the CORRECT information. This is not cherrypicking, sorry to disappoint you.

the first sentence has Popular Mechanic's interpretation of the NIST report. Wikipedia guidelines make it clear that the NIST Report itself is a better source ("academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable source"), and the NIST report itself does NOT say anything about there being "a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA". So yes, this is a case of conflicting sources, but they are NOT equally reliable. The sentences that come next describe the damage, but list uncertain damage as if it was certain. My edit to this section was to actually read the NIST Progress Report and describe the damage WITHOUT BIAS.

My full edit was:

"In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of the building which allowed for an assessment of the damage from falling debris. The report highlights a gash in the center of the south facade that caused structural damage across 5-10 floors, and structural damage to the southwest corner across 10 floors. The full extent of the damage remains unknown due to smoke which obscured the view, and conflicting descriptions given by witnesses. "

This is clearly more accurate and less subjective than the existing material. However, the rest of the paragraph contains more glaring errors. The entire sentence about the perimeter design that I posted above for Jordgette is just completely wrong, so I removed it. The section describing the timing of collapse is better off in it's own paragraph and the content that exists is clearly subjective.

7 seconds for collapse? I changed this to reflect the newest and most accurate measurements. My full edit for collapse timing was:

"The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was captured on video from the north by CBS News and other news media, allowing NIST to put together a clear timeline of collapse. The first visible sign of collapse to the naked eye is the descent of the East Penthouse. However, using advanced analysis NIST was able to detect small vibrations in the building which lasted for about 6 seconds leading up to this point. Approximately 7 seconds after the East Penthouse first moved, global collapse initiated and the entire visible portion of the building began to fall downward as a single unit. After moving downwards a distance of 7 feet, the building entered a period of free fall acceleration which lasted for 2.25 seconds. After this period the building encountered resistance and the acceleration decreased as the building disappeared from view."

you will notice that this includes a new fact from a new source NCSTAR 1-9. Not many people know about the vibrations in the building, so I feel this is a compelling addition but I will agree to leave it out if people feel it is making the paragraph too wordy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitty121981 (talk • contribs)

I was outlining a way to tackle the problem. Not having read the sources (again), and all of the discussion above, I don't want to make a definitive statement. However, if your description of the issue is correct, then that would indicate that the NIST report, in those instances, contradicts what the Popular Mechanics article reports. I agree with your assessment regarding the quality of these sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapse Timing

OK, so the change above was too big for people to handle all at once. I am moving discussion of the collapse timing here. This is currently at the end of the paragraph about the NIST Progress Report and states that the building took 7 seconds to collapse. This is an important topic and NIST has given many details so I feel it is important enough to have it's own paragraph. Also, the figure of 7 seconds is an example of "original research" and should therefore be replaced with published figures. My full recommendation is to remove the current sentence and insert the following paragraph:

"The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was captured on video from the north by CBS News and other news media, allowing NIST to put together a clear timeline of collapse. The first visible sign of collapse to the naked eye is the descent of the East Penthouse. However, using advanced analysis NIST was able to detect small vibrations in the building which lasted for about 6 seconds leading up to this point. Approximately 7 seconds after the East Penthouse first moved, global collapse initiated and the entire visible portion of the building began to fall downward as a single unit. After moving downwards a distance of 7 feet, the building entered a period of free fall acceleration which lasted for 2.25 seconds. After this period the building encountered resistance and the acceleration decreased as the building disappeared from view."

This includes a new source for the article (NCSTAR 1-9) and I made every effort to reflect both sources from a neutral point of view. I have been asked to get a consensus here before editing the article, so PLEASE respond to this if you have any problems or suggestions about the content. I'm not sure what a reasonable time to wait for comments is... last time I waited a week and no one said anything in the discussion, yet the edit was quickly shot down. I'm trying as hard as I can to avoid thisSmitty121981 (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Yes, I object. I want to see page numbers for every new element of information being introduced. And please introduce them into discussion individually, for example, each timing interval as a separate (brief) discussion. When consensus has been reached on that fact, we can move on to the next one. When we have all of the facts verified, then you or someone else can suggest how to phrase the associated paragraph expressing these facts. This is how the article can be improved in a serious manner. Writing new phrases such as "the building encountered resistance" is not okay -- the word "resistance" does not appear in this context anywhere in NCSTAR1-9 as far as I can determine, and at that point it was only the outer walls remaining anyway, not "the building"...that being just an example. I hope, finally, you can understand where I and the others are coming from in wanting to protect this article.

Your dedication is admirable, but please, do not write new paragraphs and expect others to say "it's all good dude." With a Featured Article on a controversial topic, that just isn't going to fly. -Jordgette (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Jordgette. I do understand that everyone wants a good article, but so do I! It really worries me that you didn't look in the sources I provided before shooting me down. When you stated "Writing new phrases such as 'the building encountered resistance' is not okay" I wonder why you even bothered at all. Encountering resistance is indeed the only way that the acceleration could decrease. Has anyone here actually read the Final Report from NIST? (did you see all those sweet italics and amazing lack of all caps?) You're right it's not in volume 1 of NCSTAR 1-9 - this source was only there for the bit about vibration... I assume we can get back to that later. If you wish to look in NCSTAR 1-9 for collapse timing, you will need to retrieve Volume 2 and look at page 602 where they clearly state: "In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the building encountered resistance..." You'll notice that I emphasized the exact 4 word phrase that you claimed was "not okay". There is a very similar phrase in NCSTAR 1-A in section 3.6, which is the source I actually cited for this timing. Perhaps I need to reword slightly so that it's clear it's not the entire building we're talking about, but you need to respect the research that I have done by doing some of your own!

In the mean time while you are doing your research, we can discuss the first sentence - this was simply a rewording of the existing sentence. There is still a mention of the video being captured from the North by CBS News and others. I adjusted the sentence to introduce the fact that NIST used the videos to give a detailed timing. My full recommendation for the first sentence of the new paragraph is:

"The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was captured on video from the north by CBS News and other news media, allowing NIST to put together a clear timeline of collapse." Smitty121981 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

---

We might entirely remove the paragraphs "In its progress report, NIST released..." and "The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004."[6] It seems like we should rely on the final report, and simply describe the collapse, summarizing the material on pages xxxvi and xxxvii of ncstar1a. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the use of the final report only to describe the collapse. I really like the idea of keeping the sourcing as simple and unambiguous as possible. And, continuing the above discussion, I think we should come up with complete paragraphs here on the talk page first, rather than trying to replace sentences piecemeal. -Jordgette (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jordgette, at your request I have restated my proposal as a complete paragraph below. Smitty121981 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981