Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

---

Edit request

An editor who is restricted from editing this page came to my talk page and suggested what appears on its face to be a change that may improve the article. Could somebody who is very familiar with the NIST report consider this and respond?

Hi Jonathan, reading the progressive collapse section just now I noticed a sentence that is likely to be misunderstood as something that is false. "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail," it says. But the reader is likely to think that the mechanism in question is total progressive collapse, which is the section heading but which NIST did not look into in any detail at all. The sentence used to read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it does not address the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers."

If there is any issue about proxy posting, consider that I have adopted this suggestion as my own and am asking if it is reasonable or not. Perhaps the suggested wording works, or maybe better wording needs to be crafted to avoid misunderstanding or ambiguity. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I'm certainly not "very familiar with the NIST report" it isn't correct to say that NIST did not address the subsequent collapse of the towers at all (see NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 146). --Hut 8.5 12:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say IT IS correct that NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. I quote directly from NIST:
"NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution."
And another even more relevant direct quote from NIST:
"NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST's analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation."
To imply NIST's mention of the collapse equates to NIST analising the collapse is POV pushing. I suggest the sentence should read "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the subsequent total collapse of the WTC towers." Wayne (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not very clear what distinction is being made here. If a structure fails, it will collapse under gravity. There's nothing to be gained by studying the specific behaviour once collapse has started. Peter Grey (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If the structure fails, how exactly will it collapse under gravity? Why did it collapse at near fall? Why was the collapse progressive? If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away. It's a major point argued by the community as reason for a new investigation. Wayne (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Structural failure by definition is the state of a structure that ceases to support its own weight. Hence, it falls down. The conspiracy theories are described in a separate article, and they would not simply "go away" since they are based on emotion, not evidence. Case in point: conspiracy theorists pretending there is something astonishing about a compromised structure falling down (as opposed to what? falling sideways?). Peter Grey (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly of your objection is relevant to the request? The issue is SIMPLE, clarity for neutrality. The current version implies NIST analyzed the collapse when NIST themselves claim: "NIST did not analyze the collapse of the towers." We are not talking about conspiracy theories. And especially we are not talking about your own personal opinion of the mental state of theorists. Wayne (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up, giving your own personal opinion about the conspiracy theories. "If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away." No, they wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory.

I reverted one of your recent series of edits with the summary rv - tendentious. You reverted back with this edit summary: Revert POV pushing made with an offensive edit comment. What exactly is tendentious about relevant, neutral and reliably sourced (from NIST) facts? This is an encyclopedia and they often contain facts I'm content to let those comments stand on their own as evidence of who used an offensive edit summary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to unsigned: I point out that this topic is still under ARBCOM and the ruling applies to extremists from both sides of the fence so please refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you. I did not give my personal opinion of conspiracy theories. I used debunking conspiracy theories as an example of why the edit needs to be made because you do not understand the engineering concepts involved, my questions were legitimate and had nothing remotely to do with any conspiracy theories. Even people who accept 100% the official theory know that the collapse itself needs to have those points explained. And I correct myself: If the collapse itself after initiation was investigated the conspiracy theories would all go away if the results show progresive collapse was inevitable.

What do you find offensive about my being truthful in my comment? My edit was not tendentious. It was directly from the NIST report, contained no editorial content, contained no opinion, contained no OR, made no claims, made no implications, was completely relevant to the article and did not violate any WP rule or arbitration. Also the same edit was previously in the article for around 12 months before it disappeared, according to the comments, to make the article "more balanced". Again I ask: What exactly is tendentious about my edit? Wayne (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, no, the conspiracy theories wouldn't go away. The conspiracy theories come first; then the conspiracy theorists look for justification - isolated factoids they can present out of context; "suspicious" absence of evidence pointing to a deliberate coverup; lather, rinse, repeat. If they were falsifiable, they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. All of that is well supported in the academic literature about conspiracy theory. Please don't insert your own comments within mine - instead, write your reply after my signature. "[P]lease refrain from making allusions to the mental incompetence of anyone who thinks differently to you." Sure, you betcha. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the insertion. Because of the gap I assumed I was replying to someone else who had not signed their post. As for your other point, I can say Cognitive dissonance is well supported in the literature for uncritical supporters of the official theory but I don't think either side supports their own view due to a mental imbalance. I see such claims as a personal attack. I am assuming that your justification of the deletion of relevant and factual material is that "factoids can be presented out of context" by some readers? I would agree if you said the facts were irrelevant or out of context to the article but they are relevant and in context. A factoid is an unverified or fabricated fact which my edit was not. Wayne (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a valid point that The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism in detail. may be poorly worded. When considering the progress of a collapse, the amount of detail that is worthwhile (or even possible) to analyse is much less than the intial failure, and is perhaps less than what a layman might consider in detail to mean. (Though ironically even a simple quantitative estimate is far more detail than is ever considered by conspiracy theorists.) Peter Grey (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that unless a reader goes on to read the references he will assume the whole box of dice was analyzed when it was not. The whole idea of the article is to inform not misinform. Better wording could be: "While the NIST report analyzes the initial failure mechanism in detail, it did not analyze the collapse of the towers past the point of initiation." If the reader wants to know why he can get that from reading the next two sentences. Wayne (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Article restructuring

We now have a WikiProject to help organize efforts to improve articles relating to the 9/11 attacks. A current priority is preparing articles that have been selected for Wikipedia Version 0.7 (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_September_11,_2001#Wikipedia_Version_0.7_selections for list of articles). This article is one of the selections. Of all the articles selected, this article needs more attention and cleanup work to bring it up to standards, which are always rising.

I am working on restructuring the article in a way that is more chronological and easy to follow, in effort to improve article quality. Here is what I suggest, including some changes already made, and others to be considered:

1. The structural design section, which covers design and construction of the buildings.
2. The events of September 11, 2001 (the collapse mechanism probably should be worked into here).
3. Initial opinions from engineering experts, quoted in the media, along with preliminary analyzes by Bazant and others.
4. Then, the formal investigations by FEMA/ASCE and then NIST.
5. Aftermath section - this is towards the end, which probably makes sense, though it's out of chronological order.
6. Controlled demolition theories - okay as the last section, since these gained some interest later on

I think the Osama bin Laden remarks section fits oddly and too much out of context. I suggest perhaps omitting in from the article, or possibly trying to rework that section. It could be kept for now, while deciding what to do with it.

I don't think the "Other buildings" section is needed here. Right now, it fits oddly in the structure of the article. Also, pretty much all of what's said in that section is said in the main September 11, 2001 attacks article, as well as the main World Trade Center articles. For now, the section can be kept here, while thought is given on what to do with it. --Aude (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see...I say we limit the CD stuff to an absolute minimum. I'll do whatever I can to help get this to FA standards...little else is likely to come forward to revise and or certainly refute the known evidence....so the issue of the collapse itself is pretty much stable and should be much easier to get to FA level than more dynamic articles and issues.--MONGO 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's possible to get to GA and then FA level. I have some free time available in the short term to put effort into the task. --Aude (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Initial opinions

The initial opinions section is the first task. It's not representative of what structural engineering experts were saying in the aftermath of 9/11. I am in the process of going through Lexis-Nexis and other databases to come up with what the common points and themes were in expert opinions.

What was in the article included quotes that I think are taken out of context, and were more minor points that per undue weight, probably should not be included. I removed some quotes from British architect Bob Halvorson, about "a debate", and "the collapses were well beyond realistic experience." (huh?) I also looked at the New Civil Engineer source, which in turn cites an article published on September 13, 2001. I looked at both the source linked and the September 13 source, and believe the quote included in the Wikipedia article is out of context and not representative. The Wikipedia article talks about the collapse as a "surprise to engineers." No, it was not a surprise. What was a surprise to engineers was that terrorists would fly passenger jets into the buildings. But given the circumstances, the collapse of the buildings was generally not a surprise for most of the experts who are quoted in numerous articles on Lexis-Nexis and other sources.

Based on sources consulted so far, experts were overwhelmingly said that the tremendous heat from the fire caused structural steel elements to loose much strength. Upon heating, the steel experienced deformation which continued until a certain point was reached and the steel fractured. Once that happened, structural failure and collapse was inevitable. Many also noted that after the aircraft impact severed numerous columns, weight of the above structure was redistributed and added stress was placed on the remaining columns. Many also noted that the fireproofing was likely dislodged, allowing the steel structural elements to heat up more rapidly.

I think this section needs to be reworked to give due weight to various points that experts were saying. --Aude (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above, I removed the New Civil Engineers quote, and bit of text saying the "collapse was a surprise to engineers." What was a surprise was what the terrorists did, but given the circumstances, engineers were not so surprised that the buildings couldn't hold up and ended up collapsing. --Aude (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Aude/Sandbox2 - I'll continue to compile sources and information, but this lists so far the expert opinions that were quoted soon after 9/11. It gives an idea of what the common points and initial ideas were. This can help in deciding on due weight and what to include in the article. --Aude (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Structural design and aircraft impact

I have adjusted the "anticipation of aircraft impact" section to make it follow summary style better, and give more balanced discussion of the various aspects of the WTC design, with the structural design also very important. --Aude (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Much improved...--MONGO 03:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

An editor recently reverted a number of edits with the comment “ revert to last reliable version, namely the last edit I made”. I restored it then two minutes later another editor reverted it back with the comment “ rv - more accurate, less slanted”.
More accurate than what? Less slanted than what? The edits reverted consisted of three grammatical corrections, one correction of a false claim, deletion of one redundant word, deletion of a note from NIST and reversion of a compromise edit as per the talk page. I point out that there is no ownership of this page. If these two editors have a problem with legitimate and uncontroversial edits they need to make the case here rather than tag team reverting. Wayne (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"More accurate and less slanted" than the previous version, the inaccuracy and slant being the promotion and overemphasis of fringe material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm making some adjustments. Including the footnote might work, but the section on aircraft impact and studies needs to be succinct and not go into excess detail. The "progressive collapse" section needs reworking, to make that part of the article well-written and much more clear to the reader. --Aude (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I like the footnote, the way it's written now. It too could be more succinct. --Aude (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How can grammatical corrections and a correction of a false claim be promotion and overemphasis of fringe material? Is it a case of "I don't like it"? I point out that Robertson DID NOT design the WTC and he was not The chief engineer, he designed the sway reduction mechanism only and was one of several chief engineers under Skilling. What is the problem with the note? It is cut and paste from NIST. Wayne (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way Aude, good job so far. Bedtime for me so I'll look at it later. Wayne (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Your lack of knowledge in this subject matter is apparent, so until you do some more studying on the issue, perhaps it would be best if you let experts in matter work on this article so we can make sure it is accurate and doesn't end up becoming some fantasyland hypothesis. As you have stated "I believe Popular mechanics is discredited BS and NIST cheated to get it's results 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"...you're obviously here to spred rumors and innuendo related to 9/11 that have no scientific or relaible evidence to back them up. I suggest you cease doing so because others who have have been banned from editing 9/11 related articles.--MONGO 08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So you are telling me you are an expert on 9/11 and your opinion trumps NIST? What rumours am I spreading? You make claims but give no examples. You refuse to discuss edits. You even revert grammatical corrections. I find it offensive that I can include material copied from NIST and have you come to talk and claim it has no "scientific or relaible (sic) evidence to back them up" which is an implication it is made up and a blatant attempt by you to discredit my edits without having to prove there is anything wrong with them. The ARBCOM applies to extremists from both sides so your POV pushing for the official theory can get you banned in the same way that someone pushing conspiracy theories can. NPOV must come before your paranoia and perceived "ownership" of the article. Wayne (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine how I am an extremist when I only add information that is from reliable sources like the NIST. There is no room for conspiracy theory ridiculousness when we are working on an article that is not about the conspiracy theories related to how the WTC collapsed and we have reliable sources regarding what happened that we can cite. You're the one that has claimed on his userpage that NIST "cheated to get it's results" and that what was written in the magazine Popular Mechanics is "BS"...so seems your mind is made up that reliable sources aren't reliable.--MONGO 15:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics, Hearst Publishing, the History Channel and the San Francisco Examiner are owned in whole or in part by the Hearst Corporation, which has a long-standing reputation for inaccurate reporting and warmongering. NIST stopped being a reliably reliable source some time back when its head, a scientist, was replaced by a politician. Some of NIST's information is accurate, as is some of FEMA's, but when those two contradict each other, we much give more credence to the source which is most in disagreement with the Bush regime politicians, as it is more likely to be accurate. Popular Mechanics was thoroughly debunked by David Ray Griffin, and NIST clearly "cheated," for want of a better word, to arrive at its conclusions. Omitting relevant data from the FEMA report while claiming to have found no evidence of controlled demolition is but one example. It's hard to find what you purposefully ignore. Wowest (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I purposely ignore David Ray Griffin, that's for sure. Maybe what really happened was the U.S. Government, led by the most evil U.S. President of all time (George W Bush, of course, yuch, yuch) placed steel eating termites in the towers and other buildings right after he was sworn in (see Executive Decision SETWTC...that's Steel Eating Termites World Trade Center...you may have to file a FOIA request since this was a covert op)... so when the explosive laden passenger jets hit them, they were naturally going to be so weakened they would all collapse. This masterful plan was direly needed since Bush wanted to wage a war in Afghanistan and later Iraq of course, since he had nothing better to do with his time and everything in these two countries before the U.S. invaded was simply too peachy...the roads were all paved in gold and all the women and children danced around singing happy, happy, joy, joy songs about their generous and kind leaders Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.--MONGO 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, tendentious or not, I don't think this discussion is constructive. I think we're getting a little too far removed from assuming good faith as well as from anything related to improving the article. Peter Grey (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't, in good faith, assume MONGO edits in good faith. He accuses me of adding conspiracy theory to the article in an attempt to discredit me when I have not added any at all. He misrepresents my user page in a personal attack by implying it says something it does not (see this). He ridicules anyone who doesn't share his beliefs. His edits are not reliable sources as he claims, but deletion of the same reliable sources he then has the temerity to claim support said deletion and the addition of hiw own POV language to strengthen his own view at the expense of accuracy. He claims expertise in the topic in support of his deletions. All together he is in violation of the Arbcom and as much an extremist as any who have been banned for their behaviour. The article cannot be improved as long as this behaviour continues. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My edits are supported by the known reliable sources...when you openly state that reliable sources such as those from Popular Mechanics (a magazine that has written thousands of highly regarded pieces, least of which is their engineering analysis of the collapse) as well as saying the NIST "cheated" indicates to me that you must have some other "evidence" to offer other than what is normatively regarded as the factual accord. Please do tell us what you propose happened since you claim that controlled demolition is not something you believe in, yet have openly stated that there is possibly some other explanation other than what is normatively known as the factual accord. I certainly hope you have some reliable references other than your take on what NIST has detailed, since you feel they "cheated".--MONGO 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Here you refer to Tom harrison's edit as "POV pushing, tendentious editing or whatever"...and that was after you had reverted me stating here that I was "POV pushing"...one of the things I had added awhile ago which you removed was the word "adjacent"...in the section regarding the relationship of the North Tower and WTC 7...looking at Google Earth as well as from my own recollections having been to the area dozens of times as well as immediately after ther attacks, the North Tower and WTC 7 were less than 300 feet from each other. Removing the word "adjacent" indicates to me that you are trying to allude that the WTC 7 collapse was distinct from the earlier collapse of the North Tower. In light of the fact that Google Earth shows that the Winter Garden Atrium, which suffered severe damage when the North Tower collapsed, is 150 feet further away from where the North Tower stood than was the distance between the North Tower and WTC 7...I believe, especially since the North Tower was over 1,350 feet high and the debris field extended out more than 500 feet in all directions, that certainly by Manhattan standards, the North Tower and the WTC 7 were "adjacent". Maybe a better way to state it would be to say the obvious...that they were across the street from each other.--MONGO 03:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an afterthought. You accuse me of removing "adjacent" to further some nefarious claim and say that by "Manhattan standards" they are adjacent. The problem I have is that there is an entire building between WTC1 and WTC7. Saying they are "across the street from each other" by world standards implies someone demolished WTC6 to make this true. Are you sure you are not supporting adjacent to further your own POV? Wayne (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What change to the article are you proposing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how you can discredit Popular Mechanics and the History Channel out of hand without providing hard evidence. Any theory other than the official story is automatically classified as a conspiracy theory so it is up to you to prove why these sources are so unreliable, not just with statements saying they are. Soxwon (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the argument Soxwon before commenting as Popular Mechanics and the History Channel have nothing to do with the edits in dispute and it's also obvious by your comment that you didn't even read the links I provided to refute MONGOs claims before replying. MONGO is using it as misdirection to discredit my edits. I doubt anyone can even find a reason why what I said about PM and NIST should have been brought up at all. I never made any edits involving PM and I also used NIST (copy/paste so not an interpretation) as a source for edits that MONGO reverted on the grounds that they are not supported by NIST. My objection to "adjacent" is that it's use does not comply with the dictionary definition and is used for POV pushing. 300 feet is not adjacent unless we are talking of objects considerably larger such as suburbs or city blocks. The word is not needed or appropriate. If an adjective is needed at all "nearby" is more accurate. As for the other edits....I deleted another POV adjective that implied the WTC was weaker than similar structures that was reverted. I corrected a false statement which was reverted. I changed "the" to "a" for grammar which was reverted. I added what NIST said of Robertsons study to reduce it's undue weight compared to the official WTC study, this edit had actually been in the article for 10 months last year before MONGO deleted it, I just put it back and it was deleted again. It is relevant to note MONGO/Tom harrisons reasons for these deletions and I quote: "revert to last reliable version, namely the last edit I made", "rv - tendentious" and one that was clearly a lie "rv - more accurate, less slanted". Aude was doing good work mediating but both problem editors completely ignored him and started serial reverting. BTW, PM was discredited by reliable sources not for it's factual content but for it's POV pushing manipulation of the facts. NIST themselves in their own report admitted they they altered the computer input to get a result, to the extent (and I use NISTs own words) "it no longer matched the eyewitness and photographic evidence", which in my world is usually called cheating regardless of whether the result was correct or not. Wayne (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Soxwon was mainly responding to Wowest's comment...though this may not have been evident from the indentation of his response. My restoration to my last edit was indeed based on what was from reliable sources...sources including the NIST report (which you say they "cheated" on) and other engineering literature, but I simply stated that it was to the last reliable edit. Saying I "lie", calling myself and Tom Harrison "POV pushers" and "problem editors" will do little to make this article better. I support the known factual accord and that most certainly doesn't make me an "extremist" either. There is no "balance" between the established facts and fantasies or conjecture in an article dedicated to providing an honest accord of the events based on known and proven reliable sources.--MONGO 10:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidently...in adjusting why you think the Popular Mechanics analysis on the collapse is "BS" you cite an opinion piece in this edit which shows this opinion piece...where somebody named Craig Schlanger starts off saying "It’s been an exciting year to be a 9/11 Truth Seeker." (aka, conspiracy theorist) and goes on to mention names like Jim Hoffman, Alex Jones (radio host) and other conspiracy theorists...Hoffman has made it a mission of his to promote WTC controlled demolition idiocy [1]...and you have done what you can to take wording by NIST out of context in an effort to enhance your clearly stated beliefs that they "cheated".--MONGO 11:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again I ask what my views on those two publications have to do with the edits. You keep avoiding the issue by making irrelevant claims and as long as you continue to do so then my descriptions of your behaviour are valid. Drop the irrelevant personal attacks and concentrate on the edits. Wayne (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What edits do you want to make? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayne...you asked, "views on those two publications have to do with the edits"...Just about everything....in what is supposed to be a serious article about the collapse, we don't have room for someone like you who is mainly interested in adding their own take or interpretation of the event, nor in taking NIST and other sources out of context in some effort to NPOV conspiracy theory nonsense into this article. There is no room for nonsense or fantasy when we have reliable and factual references...the same references you have openly stated are either BS or are the results of cheating.--MONGO 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that my views bar me from making any edits no matter how legitimate? This is not about any theory but about factual NPOV. I made no edits unsupported by RS or based on my "own take or interpretation" and I warn you again about this continuing use of irrelevant claims in personal attacks to discredit my work. I made no edits regarding anything to do with PM and several were grammatical edits, all of which you reverted. One edit in regards to NIST was a copy paste of what they said about Robertsons and Skilling's studies. Robertson's study has no evidence of existence apart from Robertson's own claim he did it yet you want to (and do) give it considerably greater weight than the WTC's engineers own official study which is documented. This appears to be POV pushing on your part as it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Also the original article text detailed exactly what Robertson's study was claimed to be so I added what Skillings study was. This was reverted so that only Robertson's has detail giving it even more weight. My edit reduced both studies to equal weight although it could be argued Skillings should have more. Included in that edit was adding mention that the copies of Skillings report were lost in WTC7 which was also reverted. The article mentions the originals were lost in the Port Authority offices so why can't it also say what happened to the WTC owners copies when the reference does so? Another edit I made was this correction of a false claim. That claim, "In designing the World Trade Centre, Leslie Robertson considered the scenario...", implies that Robertson designed the WTC. He didn't, he designed the sway reduction features. I changed it to the more accurate "Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers who worked on the WTC considered the scenario..." which you reverted. The last edit I made was this adding "it is speculated" to a claim, NIST specifically say in their report "this view amounts to speculation" so it should be included. Aude attempted to mediate and I was accepting of any changes to my edits due to legitimate objections yet you continue to see your "own take or interpretation" as trumping everyone elses edits. Wayne (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the editing history in total since mid January...seems all the things you are arguing that were eliminated are now still in the article...as shown here...so what the heck are you still whining about?--MONGO 00:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• MONGO: Edits are judged on their individual merits. If an editor declares that he's not objective, then there is cause to review their edits carefully and it somewhat negates assuming good faith, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of constructive input. Wayne: There is a consensus as to what are reliable sources with respect to this topic. Popular Mechanics and NIST are reliable sources. That doesn't mean they're perfect sources, but it does mean that contrary information will have to be backed up by solid evidence. Can we all get back to writing an encyclopedia? Peter Grey (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If an editor openly states that they refute what is believed by the vast majority of engineers and scientists and fail to provide solid, peer reviewed and scientifically credible alternatives, then they are acting on their hunches and that will reflect in their edits. The encyclopedic intergrity of this website is undermined when we give any quarter to those that want to misuse it as a soapbox or advocacy point for conspiracy theories. We have other articles that do discuss the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 related events...this one is supposed to be about the facts and as such, isn't to be misused by those that are overtly advocating the impossible.--MONGO 00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Peter Grey: Although I consider the PM article as POV as conspiracy websites (which is backed by RS) I never edited regarding them. I never claimed NIST was not a RS and all my edits are supported by NIST. You are being sucked in by MONGOs disinformation.
Reply to MONGO: If you are refering to me as the one refuting "what is believed by the vast majority of engineers" then you are outright lying as is proved by what I wroteon my user page. Despite requests to cease ignorant, false and irrelevant personal attacks you continue. I'm assuming you are not a moron so you are obviously hoping people will accept your accusations without checking for themselves but it's time to stop before you get reported. I'm getting a little sick of defending myself against such obviously false claims because most editors tend to take your word for it instead of reading for themselves exactly what it was I said. Wayne (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a moron and a liar and ignorant I suppose...since no one seems to agree that the steel eating termites are one of the possibilities that might have helped facilitate the collapses, then I guess we'll have to stick to reliable sources...and do our best not to take NIST and other accredited sources out of context to suit out mistaken biases. However, what I am wondering is, and what I have tried to get you to explain to myself and others following this, is simply for you to explain how you can use reliable sources when you call them BS (as is the case of the Popular Mechanics article and say that NIST "cheated" to obtain their results? If NIST cheated on even the smallest thing, then why would you support using them as a reference at all? I mean, how can you trust them if you feel they cheated? Are you denying that you have openly stated that you find these reliable sources to be either BS or the results of cheating? Just above you state that the Popular Mechanics article is as "POV as conspiracy websites"...you then say there are reliable sources (RS) to back up this claim...where...where are these reliable sources that say the Popular Mechanics article is as POV as a conspiracy website?--MONGO 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WLRoss, do you think there should be any changes to the article, or are you satisfied with it as it is now? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems all by two of my edits are back in the article which is a vindication of sorts although it would be nice to get an apology from MONGO in regards his accusations. The missing two I still feel are important. Although the article now includes my edit that Robertson was one of the chief engineers it still says that he designed the WTC. Technically this is sort of correct as it is qualified by saying he was one of the engineers but the wording still implies he designed substantially more of the WTC than he actually did which gives him undue weight. The other missing edit is what Robertson told NIST about his study which is extremely important in giving it it's due weight in comparison to Skillings study. Wayne (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look it over, but frankly, this entire article needs an overhaul...it has a CT slant that needs to be eliminated if anyone is ever going to think it is based on facts.--MONGO 05:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WLRoss, thanks. I share Mongo's concerns just above. There's always room for improvement, but what reliable sources would you use to support the changes you suggest? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Easy. Instead of saying "In designing the World Trade Center, Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers", you can say "Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers who participated in the structural design of the towers" which is factual with no implications. You don't need a reference for this as it's common knowledge and a rearrangement of the current text although the wording is NIST's if anyone gets pedantic. As for the second edit you can use the NIST report as the ref "Leslie Robertson, who had participated in the structural design of the towers, recalled he "addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity". The National Institute of Standards and Technology was unable to document this reported study as Robertson says he cannot find a copy. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his department, say they have no knowledge of the study". This is I believe a direct quote from NIST and I would not have a problem with it as a note to reduce any implication NIST is supporting any view. It does however serve the function of rightly reducing the weight of this study compared to Skillings which NIST was able to document. It needs to be remembered that the WTC was Robertsons first high rise job after graduation and he had no more expertise in this aspect of design than what he was taught at school. Wayne (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The first proposal is unacceptable. It says the same thing with less clarity and in poorer style. The second is not even an edit proposal; it's a commentary several degrees removed from the subject matter of the article and is completely irrelevant. Peter Grey (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how to view your reply. You can argue poor style but arguing clarity is rediculous as my edit is more specific and avoids the current ambiguity. How would you word it? As for the second edit, how can you say it's irrelevant when it's in the NIST report as a qualification of the claim? If irrelevant you also in efect argue that Robertsons claim be deleted entirely, after all it is a single persons undocumented claim, it is impossible to verify the reports prior existence and in it's current form would normally be a violation of WP policy (eg:"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article" NIST does not support the way it is presented without the qualifier). I'm not arguing for deletion but giving it due weight although if you are concerned with irrelevence I guess we can delete Robertsons claim although i prefer to retain it. Wayne (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter Grey. That seems unclear, and a bit tendentious if I understand the suggestion correctly. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

What is unclear about removing the implication Robertson designed the towers by himself? For the second edit are you saying we should delete the claim or are you saying NIST themselves are being tendentious in dismissing it? We don't have to use NISTs exact words, we can reword to shorten it. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

These are not good-faith suggestions. The intent is clearly to introduce redundancy and reduce clarity, not improve it. Peter Grey (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please show good faith and explain what is redundant and how adding NISTs own qualifier reduces clarity. Wayne (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

who participated in the structural design of the towers introduces no new information. Peter Grey (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said it did. It removes a POV implication that Robertson was more involved in design than he actually was which gives him undue weight. Robertson himself said the study he did was "only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity" and NIST was clear that they could not document that it had existed yet the way the article is written his study has more weight than the WTC official study. The presentation here is in clear violation of several WP policies. Please reply to my previous question. Wayne (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such implication. Peter Grey (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There clearly is such an implication. The sentence is ambiguous, as written. It can easily be read that one engineer was THE (member of a team) whose individual duties were to design the WTC, which is clearly not the case. As we've seen before, MONGO and his ilk will remove even the most minor of grammatical corrections in order to prevent anyone not a member of their cabal from modifying this article, which they claim to WP:OWN. Maybe we need a Wikipedian loyalty oath for anyone working on this article: that you're not a governmental employee, that you're not a Muslim and that you're not a Jew. Wowest (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly an 'easy' interpretation, but it's fixed, just in case. Peter Grey (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

South Tower Tilt

One of the more curious aspects of the collapse of the towers is the strong tilt of the top 30 floors (approximately) of the south tower following the initiation of collapse. For illustration, see the photographs here, here, and here. The top portion is said to have tilted to this angle in approximately 2.5 seconds, implying a large amount of angular momentum and shifting of the center of gravity. Intuitively, one might expect this section to continue tilting until it toppled and fell freely to the ground. In reality, it either (1) disintegrated into dust and fragments, as suggested by the photographic evidence, or (2) tilted back to fall down through the lower portion of the building, crushing it uniformly and straight down; as asserted by the NIST. Tilting back would also seem to suggest (counter-intuitively) that the upper portion abruptly stopped following the path of least resistance, and instead descended through the path of greatest resistance; directly down through the building.

I think it would be worthwhile for this article to offer at least a brief explanation of the physics and mathematics of what happened here. If the tilt of the upper portion was arrested as a result of disintegration in mid-air, what caused the disintegration? If it lost its angular momentum (and the lopsided crushing effect of having its center of gravity shifted strongly to one side of the building), what caused that loss of momentum and tilt? Has this aspect of the collapse been structurally modeled to provide a plausible explanation? Curious minds would like to know. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the rotation and horizontal translation. (Both occur, but are linearly independent.) Is there something specific that needs to be made clearer? Peter Grey (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a reference to a structural analysis of the effects of the "rotation and horizontal translation", if you want to call it that. I think it would be good to include a summary of the findings of the analysis (assuming that one exists) in Wikipedia as well. There was certainly some shifting of load there (the photos would imply a lot of load being shifted), and since this would appear to be a major feature in the collapse of the south tower, it would be interesting to know how and why it progressed in the seemingly implausible way that it did. If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then that information would be useful to note in Wikipedia, since it would spare individuals like myself from searching for something which doesn't exist; and perhaps motivate an initiative to have it analyzed. The Original Wildbear (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's that hard to find, it will most likely be WP:FRINGE or WP:OR, the fact that no reputable third party has covered it most likely means it doesn't bear mentioning. Wikipedia is not the place to "initiate" things either a la WP:SOAPBOX. Soxwon (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll go a step further. If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then it should not be in Wikipedia. As Soxwon says, that's called original research and it's not allowed on Wikipedia. If only fringe sources have covered this, then it too should not be in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

What aspect appears implausible? Peter Grey (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The alleged tilt. I haven't checked those particular photos, but photos from different angles frequently show a signfificant pseudo-tilt, and http://911research.wtc7.net has been known to host — shall we say, retourched — photographs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that reliable sources (at least, a presentation at NIST) indicates a tilt. However, the significance of that tilt in the collapse seems questionable, per Soxwon above. <begin WP:OR>It tends to suggest irregular weakening of the building's structural integrity, which is not completely surprising. When the effictive structural integrity becomes inadequate to support the weight of the structure above, that part goes into free fall, and the horizontal velocity becomes essentially constant.<end WP:OR> But we can't include any of this in the article unless a reliable source reports on it, and we shouldn't include it unless a reliable source comments on the significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The first of the three sets of photographs is credited to Amy Sancetta of the Associated Press, and appears in the Washington Post here. The third photo down on this page in 911research also appears on page 2-36 of the FEMA report, here. While the FEMA report includes this photograph, it does not appear to make any attempt to analyze or describe it, other than the photo caption: "Figure 2-32 The top portion of WTC2 falls to the east, then south, as viewed from the northeast." In the NIST NCSTAR 1 final report (17MB)(section 6.14.7, page 152), it states that "the tilt to the east was seen to increase to 20 degrees until dust clouds obscured the view." I'm not finding any further analysis of the tilt in the NIST report. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: On page 153, table 6-11 in the NIST NCSTAR 1 report, it states "The tilt to the east rose to approximately 25 degrees before dust clouds obscured the view." The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What sort of 'analysis' of the tilt do you think there should be? I don't see what there is to add to "building collapse in progress." Peter Grey (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The analysis of the cause of collapse, and thus the investigation as a whole, is incomplete without this information. The most important unanswered question being, was the total collapse purely gravitational, or were other factors involved? Some of the issues which need to be addressed are as follows: By the NIST's report, the upper section of the building was leaning some 20 to 25 degrees. It acquired this tilt within only a few seconds of the initiation of collapse. A thirty-story section of the building rotating 20 to 25 degrees within several seconds implies that a considerable amount of angular momentum was present, and possibly also a large shifting of the load on the lower portion of the building. The questions then arise, was the load redistributed on the lower portion, and if so, by how much? Was the load shifted enough that an asymmetrical collapse should have been expected, rather than the uniform, straight-down collapse which was observed? What was the angular momentum of the rotating section, and what became of that angular momentum? Where was the fulcrum or center of the rotation? Did much of the leaning section disintegrate in mid-air, or did it all get pulverized against the lower portion of the building and/or the ground? In NIST's NCSTAR 1 report, in table 6-11 on page 153, it states that the (observed) "tilt to the east rose to approximately 25 degrees." It compares that to the simulation, in which it says, "At point of instability, there was tilting to the south and east." How much tilting was indicated by the simulation? Why was it not presented in the report? Providing basic figures such as these would help us to gain a sense of the accuracy of the models, which is needed if the NIST's results are to be taken as authoritative. Having said all of that, I acknowledge that I have not (yet) found authoritative sources answering the questions that I have raised. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are not valid questions, or that answers will not be forthcoming. We should keep our minds open on the issue. The Original Wildbear (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up on one of the other 9/11 articles and thought it might be helpful here. The 9/11 terrorist attacks have been extremely well-covered by numerous reliable sources. If you're having trouble finding reliable sources about something, that's a good indication that it should not be in Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources should be (relatively) easy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The tilt has been addressed by at least one engineer in support of NIST but I can't remember his name. If I remember correctly he claims the fulcrum of the tilt at it's worst was still within the footprint which prevented the building falling over before the floors beneath collapsed pulling the top section back upright. Why do editors debunk before searching for info? It must be out there as I've read it. Wayne (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can Arthur Rubin give me a link for retouched 911 WTC photographs please? I've been searching for a while and found several but the captions said they were retouched to show features (ie to show entire height of tower), some that were never intended to be taken seriously (such as the Hungarian tourist one) and I've also found lots of claims that official pictures were retouched but have been unable to find any that say any of the WTC conspiracy pictures were retouched with the exception of the ones that showed the devils face in the smoke but those can hardly be considered related to conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your question is about horizontal translation, not rotation. For a building with such a large cross-section, a large horizontal movement would be necessary to cause a substantially asymmetric collapse, but there is no evidence of such forces or any plausible mechanism that might have caused them. Peter Grey (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This section is a very good example of what is wrong with WP when it comes to controversial subjects. WTC "editors" dismissing good faith questions. IE: "If it's that hard to find, it will most likely be WP:FRINGE or WP:OR" and "The alleged tilt. http://911research.wtc7.net has been known to host — shall we say, retourched — photographs." An answer like "Wikipedia is not the place to "initiate" things either a la WP:SOAPBOX" is not helpful to anyone. If you can't be bothered to help the guy don't reply to him. It took me under a minute to find dozens of reliable sources addressing the tilt including peer reviewed magazines such as "Mechanical Science and Engineering" and "Journal of Engineering Mechanics" making 99% of the replies in this section irrelevant. One of the more detailed of these RS is Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis By Zdenek P. Bazant and another is the NIST NCSTAR 1 report although it seems no one is familiar with either of these sources.
In reply to The Original Wildbear's original question at the top. The top 19 floors of the south tower tilted 8 degrees to the east and 4 degrees to the south before the building even began to collapse with the final angle, according to NIST, reaching 20 degrees to the east. The top 12 floors of the north tower tilted 8 degrees to the south before the collapse began but the final angle of tilt is disputed as it was obscured by debri. The south tower tilted towards the aircraft impact site while the north titled away from it, this discounts the aircraft being a major factor as both towers tilted towards where the most fire was seen. NIST’s report "does not actually include the structural behaviour of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached" (NIST P82) so does not address the tilt beyond it's existence. NIST themselves said their inquiry was not forensic "that left no stone unturned" but solely a project that used data given them so is useless from an engineering standpoint. For that Bazant is probably best. Basically the tilted sections behaved as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. They fell at least one story in freefall (this was not observed because of dust but is required to validate the math) and impacted the lower sections with a force amplification of 31g. This force was considerably higher than the momentum of the tilt and, as the tilted sections centre of gravity was still within the buildings footprint prevented it from increasing significantly before the tilted sections hit the ground. According to Bazant the tilted sections were still intact at this point (having crushed the lower sections) and pulverised on impact with the ground. I should mention that Bezants calculations are incorrect as he used 71 GN/m for the stiffness of the columns where they were actually 7.1 GN/m so one floor of freefall is no longer enough but I don't think any other engineers have done any calculations with the correct figure so Bazant has to be used as the primary source. I hope this is of some help. Wayne (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What change to the article are you suggesting, and what's the source for it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested any change. I answered a question put forward by an editor. The fact that The Original Wildbear asked for info and that supposedly informed WTC editors are ignorant about the tilt and tried to debunk it instead of fact checking (despite it being in the literature they should have read) indicates it might need to be in the article though. If you read all my previous post you will see the source is Bazant and NIST. Wayne (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What specifically "might need to be in the article"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The tilt is on film - no-one is suggesting it didn't happen. The question was about centre of gravity, and why there is no detailed anaylysis of the horizontal translation "caused" by the tilt, the answer being that there's nothing to analyse because these are independent. Peter Grey (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is nothing to analyse then why did Bazant analyse it? Wayne (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If they study ppl's faith in God does that prove it existed? A study does not give it weight, this is a trivial matter and doesn't deserve inclusion in an article. Soxwon (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Bazant did not analyse tilt as a part of the collapse, he analysed tilt to demonstrate its irrelevance. Peter Grey (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to commment on these two statements:

This section is a very good example of what is wrong with WP when it comes to controversial subjects. WTC "editors" dismissing good faith questions

The fact that The Original Wildbear asked for info

But this isn't the place to ask informational questions. This is for discussing improvements to the article. If someone has an informational question, Wikipedia has a place for that. It's called the Reference Desk. As long as the question can be answered in factual manner (and doesn't require legal or medical advice, personal opinion, etc.), it can be asked there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

And I would like to ask you to read the posts made in this section. The Original Wildbear wrote, and I quote: "I think it would be worthwhile for this article to offer at least a brief explanation" and then in his next post "I think it would be good to include a summary of the findings of the analysis (assuming that one exists) in Wikipedia....If no engineering analysis of this aspect of the collapse exists, then that information would be useful to note in Wikipedia". I may be alone but I see this as implying The Original Wildbear was suggesting an improvement with the info he requested being what to use in the edit. Wayne (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Controlled demolition (conspiracy) theories

Spartelite wrote: Changed "Controlled demolition conspiracy theories" to "Controlled demolition theories". The concept of controlled demolition is not in itself a conspiracy theory, and should not be labeled as such.
To which Peter Grey replied: if so, show a counter-example
I submit the following:
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, April 08, 2008, 2, 35-40 includes: "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" (pdf) 2008, Volume 2, pp.35-40
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
"Controlled demolition" is mentioned as a possible explanation for the collapse at least three times in this document.
"The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering."ref The Original Wildbear (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)