Talk:7 World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 7 World Trade Center is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 21, 2007.
September 19, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject New York City (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skyscrapers (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fire Service (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 7 World Trade Center is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Toolbox

The Government is not Reliable.[edit]

I am so irritated about how you gave the previous poster a bad name because you won't include his segment about how the World Trade Center fell at free-fall speed. You then proceed by saying "I need a reliable source".

I think it's common knowledge that it was a controlled demolition, and you CANNOT use the 9/11 commission report for anything because the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE! If you put all the evidence together, you can see that a building would only fall at free-fall speed if there was a controlled demolition. This type of one-sided, biased scripture inside these articles is the reason why you don't get your donations you ask for every single week.

I'm not saying you should remove what's written in the 9/11 commission report, but I'm saying that you should include the FACTS and allow readers to make their own assumptions from that point on. The point that it fell at free-fall speed is a FACT. So add that, and leave it at that.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.226.87 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, putting in all-caps and insisting it's so doesn't meet reliable sourcing requirements, and telling us about your personal theories and mistrust of the government doesn't invalidate NIST as a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia isn't a forum for conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"If you put all the evidence together," you can have a very nice blog site explaining your theory. If a reliable source such as a major newspaper or peer-reviewed structural engineering journal puts all of the evidence together, that theory can be included in the article on Wikipedia. -Jordgette [talk] 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This person is just trolling Wikipedia trying to spread his conspiracy theories. Go to his talk page and you can see this. It is only "common knowledge" that it was a controlled demolition to you and other conspiracy folk. There is a reason all the reputable institutes that have studied the collapse of the towers and 7 have come to the conclusion they did and not to the conclusion you believe. There is a reason 99% of the experts back the official story and only 1% say it was a conspiracy. Go to a 9/11 conspiracy forum or YouTube if you want to state your opinions.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Zdawg is a discriminating against those with opposing views by calling them "conspiracy theorist". Although they don't call you this degraded term, they argue that you are the "conspiracy theorist". Zdawg, crawl out from under your rock devil and receive the light of truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to sign your post, RON PAUL 2012!!!!! PorkHeart (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Larry Silverstein was interviewed in a PBS documentary called "America Rebuilds: A Year At Ground Zero". He stated: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Isn't "pull" in this context common construction industry jargon for a controlled demolition? You can see Larry making this statement here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lSC3jXFDE -Hank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank930 (talkcontribs) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yawn.David J Johnson (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In a word, no. Furthermore, Wikipedia requires far more explicit statements to substantiate that an order for a pre-prepared controlled demolition was undertaken rather than an order for firefighters to pull out of a hopeless and dangerous situation. Acroterion (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure "[edit]

How funny. Obviously not an expert opinion. 2003:45:4B40:2A01:999E:BAF7:22AE:AB3E (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We just report what the reliable sources say.--MONGO 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant document, not report. 2604:5500:15:4F5:9853:29F0:26BE:9FEF (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The animated GIF image[edit]

You know the one. https://www.metabunk.org/files/WTC-7-Explosion.gif Would this be a good addition to the article? Its seen a lot of circulation. --RThompson82 (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

On my phone all In see is a picture of the old building. What does the gif otherwise show?--MONGO 12:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No. --DHeyward (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Footage of Building 7[edit]

Why does the image of the structural damage taken by ABC News contain a caption stating that there was little video footage or photos taken of the structural damage to building 7? There are plenty is plenty of footage of the collapse from several angles here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/. I know that this is an advocacy organization, but the footage exists, so why isn't included in this article?

There isn't any readily available to us due to copyrights and other issues. You are correct that that is an advocacy organization...as evidenced at the bottom ,"All contributions are 100% tax-deductible. 5% of your contribution go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, one of Remember Building 7’s cosponsors." --MONGO 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Old Building Page[edit]

I think there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7. This page could be misleading and the fact that it collapsed is only apparent further down the page. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)