The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 18.104.22.168 (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 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 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)
Who decides what "reliable sources" and which "peer-reviewed structural engineering" forums are acceptable to Wikipedia? Would this C-SPAN interview with Richard Gage, AIA qualify? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkidson (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The AIA has explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with Gage or his organization. Membership in the AIA does not confer specific expertise beyond recognition of basic competence available to anyone with a degree, three years of experience and a passed exam, any more than membership in the ABA makes one an expert in all aspects of the law or the AMA makes one a spokesperson for the medical community. Gage's organization is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. Acroterion(talk) 12:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a reference for "The AIA has explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with Gage or his organization" Acroterion? Your claim that "Gage's organization is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. " is without foundation. Can you specifically respond to the facts presented in the video? If not, how can you delete the video from the article? Who is sponsoring you to sanitise this article? Mkidson (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What is being sanitized in your opinion?--MONGO 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a nice little leap to "who is sponsoring you." Please stop making insinuations like that. In fact, I, like Gage, am an AIA member, and my opinions are of roughly equal value to Gage's if you are of the view that an AIA after one's name confers instant authority. You're placing mistaken weight on a basic and commonplace professional qualification. As for the AIA, here's the article on the AIA's chagrin when Gage rented space at AIA headquarters in one off his many attempts to use the AIA title to imply authority . See the bottom of Page 2 in particular. AE 9/11 is a fringe group that has no support from the broad A/E community. Acroterion(talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure "
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)
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)
Why? All the other WTC towers have two (old and new) buildings at one page. Besides, it mentions the fact that the original 7 WTC collapsed, right there, in the lede. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)