Talk:7 World Trade Center

---

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11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building.[4]" is citing an outdated study, with a new one having reached different conclusions.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)

'Conspiracy Theories'

It's definitely worth noting that this building has more conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks than any other, especially given the UHF recordings of detonation orders that were passed around the net that appeared to be of a controlled demolition of the building. Whilst all of these conspiracy theoriest probably are far fetched nonsense, they are however note worthy, just as we note alternate views of say, for example, crack pot alternative medicine that causes tens of thousands of deaths every year; we as Wikipedians are FORCED to note with neutrality that a lot of people believe they work and even kow tow to views that we know are patently absurd.

By policy we can not take some sort of count of theories floating around and ourselves conclude this is significant. Instead, we must find a source that states these theories are significant, that "a lot of people" believe them, and so on. If we find such sources from reliable, verifiable, sources, then we'll have the appropriate rationale to include mention of them in this article. That's how it works here. Rklawton (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Would the opinions of the 1500+ architechs and engineers over at http://www.ae911truth.org/ count as valid sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.91.249 (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a fringe movement among the several hundred thousand architects and engineers in the United States. All professions have people who believe in odd things, certainly medicine and law have some unusual ideas. Why would architecture and engineering be any different? Acroterion (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And those supporting the theory of evolution were a fringe at one point, too. The argument above is not persuasive. That 1,500 architects and engineers have found inconsistencies in the official government conspiracy theory and have put their names on the line is very significant. In fact, the organization does not present a conspiracy theory at all, but merely calls for fresh investigation based on evidence that is significant and inconsistent with the government's story and NIST's report. AE-911-Truth's findings should be reported in the article, by referencing news stories, etc. about the organization's claims and activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastwise (talk • contribs) 02:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A specious analogy: I could equally reply that many reputable people used to believe in spontaneous generation and transmutation of species, to much the same effect. A/E911 has no findings, just a series of suspicions and half-baked theories, and certainly no reputable scholarship or influence in either profession. For new stories about the organization's claims and activities (they haven't come up with anything new in four years or so), see current stories in the Guardian [1], [2] and Slate [3]]. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

> "A specious analogy" (not). Both such would deserve coverage, while the matter is unsettled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.114.174 (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion, I believe you missed my point, but am glad to see that you agree (as evidenced by your links to the WP pages on spontaneous generation and transmutation of species) that theories regardeless of their credibility or lack of same are welcome to coverage in WP articles. Spontaneous generation and transmutation of species have been well refuted, yet have a place here. Nonetheless it seems that you believe the points raised by a number of experts in the fields of architecture, engineering and building demolition - as well as by scientists in peer reviewed papers - that are contrary to the official theory must be excised from this article. With all due respect, your logic is internally inconsistent. Substantive evidence raised by these experts and scientists has never been addressed by our government or NIST - and in fact this evidence identifies critical gaps in the NIST report on WTC-7. Wikipedia should operate at a higher standard than what you suggest, and this article should neutrally report substantive evidence that has been publicly raised; especially evidence that has not been refuted convincingly if at all. Moreover, the section heading "Conspiracy Theories" is pejorative and has no place here. Something like "Other Theories" is (in contrast) neutral, and readers can make up their own minds as to which theory of what happened is credible, based not only on the content of the article but its documentation (both of which will hopefully be more complete and balanced in the future). Coastwise (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

None of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed...sources such as engineering journals and the like. A theory has some support amongst reliable witness, so these conspiracy theories cannot be alternate since they provide false and or misleading evidence to support their claims....they oftentimes do this to make a buck since much of this misinformation is only available by going to "seminars" or buying a book they peddle or by subscribing to their self published websites. The "theories" aren't considered worthy fo significant discussion by NIST and experts and that is why they don't do so.--MONGO 07:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that "[n]one of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed," and it is simply your opinion that the evidence is false or misleading. There is battle of experts here (NIST, etc. on one side, those that have found additional evidence on the other side) -- the article should not choose sides, and instead present both. Coastwise (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that "[n]one of these things have been published in reliable sources that are peer reviewed," if you exclude "peer reviewed" articles where the "peers" are truthers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

None of these theories, innuendos, surmises or suppositions have ever been taken seriously by scholarly sources. There are no peer-reviewed sources for technical examination of 9/11 conspiracy theories, merely press releases and deceptive letters to open-source scientific journals, in stark contrast with the NIST report, for instance. By Wikipedia policy, we do choose sides: we deal with the mainstream content and mention fringe theories in due proportion. There is no battle of experts: none of the people prominently associated with A/E911 have completed scholarly studies on the subject,n or have any standing to do so. Jones has never published his material in a peer-reviewed journal: Gage has no special standing among architects. It is not my opinion: it is the finding as verified in mainstream thought, which is what Wikipedia does. We have articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories which discuss this in great detail: it is not un-covered by WP, it is presented here in the context of its acceptance or rejection by reliable sources. Acroterion (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Also WP:WEIGHT Rklawton (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a misquote. The correct quote is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," by Carl Sagan. What you are suggesting is the evidence doesn't matter, only the source of supposed evidence matters. This is probably the worst fallacy of all history (Ad Verecundiam); that something is true because the "authority" said it is; end of story. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not StackExchange where truth is decided by popularity poll. 67.6.202.243 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia where we are guided by WP:RS and WP:V. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

For Petes sake, I cannot understand why these fools waste their life with consipiracy theories - 9/11, JFK, Fake moon landings. I really hope that one day they look back at their lives and see what they could have done with the time and efforts rather than chasing their BS fringe theories.121.218.67.123 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears that many commentators in this section have not taken a basic logic course. For, if they did, they would realize all of the various fallacies they are committing with reckless disregard (Ad Populum; Ad Hominem, both circumstantial and abusive; Ad Verecundium; Fallacy of Inconsistency, Special Pleading, etc.). I suggest the debunkers use the tools of logic; it's what they were invented for. Wikipedia is not a source of Propaganda or to tell the reader what to believe; it should only disseminate facts and leave the conclusions up to the reader. If the subject is complicated or even muddled; oh well, that's not your concern. 67.6.202.243 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 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,[4] 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."[5] 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

Proposed change

Remove the paragraphs "In its progress report, NIST released..." and "The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004."[6], as briefly discussed above. Unless there's just overwhelming support for this, I'd like to wait til after the coming weekend so we can hear from people. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Support streamlining section. Aside from possible mentioning that FEMA did an early investigation and NIST did some preliminary work, the final report is all we need to have referenced essentially. Besides, the article discusses 2 different buildings which aren't similar aside from their location and that the share the WTC 7 designation. The lengthy details about the collapse of the original building should stick to the final report and discuss who the findings from the engineering studies influenced the design for the new structure, fire code enhancements and related matters.MONGO 16:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, important to detail the recommendations. That helps lead into the section on the new wtc 7, which I know little about. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of including a section that deals with NIST's recommendations. Can you explain how it will lead to the next section though? Wasn't the new building completed before NIST published it's report? Smitty121981 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

I am fine with removing those two paragraphs. The structural damage is already detailed earlier, it doesn't help much to list it again here. I do think, however, that it is still important to include a paragraph about the observed collapse (i.e. timing). To list my proposal again:

"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."

The first part, about the vibrations, can be found in Volume 1 of NCSTAR 1-9 on pg. 329 and it is important because it indicates the internal failures that happened prior to column 79 buckling. The rest of the timings, including the 3 phases of global collapse, are sourced from Section 3.6 of NCSTAR 1-A. Smitty121981 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

You think collapse times should be emphasized, and the article should include "free fall acceleration?" Astonishing. I oppose includeing your paragraphs. That kind of skewed selection of factoids gives undue weight to the elements of fringe theories. We should rely on the summary of the report to determine what's important. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the less cherrypicking we do of these hundreds of pages of documents, the better. That's why I support drawing from the executive summary only. There is little value in these minutiae. The detection of six seconds of vibrations, and what parts of the building were determined to experience free fall acceleration and for how long, are not necessary in a general encyclopedia article on the two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade Center. The five-page NCSTAR1A executive summary does not mention these details, so the brief collapse section in this article shouldn't, either. If someone is looking for the precise timing sequence of the collapse, they can find it in the source. -Jordgette (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when is a resource subject to only allowing inclusion of information in the summary? Can someone please post a link to a WP best practices that recommends this? Tom, your link about trains was amusing, but it does not pertain to the subject at hand and your insinuation that I am pushing "fringe theories" is absurd. Are you saying NIST is on the "fringe"? My entire post was pulled from NCSTAR 1-A and NCSTAR 1-9. The six seconds of vibration is pertinent and interesting, and it is one of the pieces of real world data that NIST used to verify its computer data. You can read a more brief summary in NCSTAR 1-A on pg. 42. If you want to leave this detail out, that's fine. However, I state strongly that the three stages of collapse are important enough to include because this is the part of collapse that is actually visible to people. You can't possibly justify ignoring the actual visible collapse. In fact, it is important enough for NIST to include in their FAQ page. However, for the best accuracy I believe we should cite NCSTAR 1-A rather than the FAQ.

Additionally, the wiki article currently contains original research when it comes to the collapse timings. You cannnot defend what is there. It must be updated to reflect the current source. Smitty121981 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Yes, you've stated your position strongly indeed. However, others seem to disagree, don't they? That's why we have a talk page. If we're going to list what was actually visible to people, then we should include when specific windows broke and what direction and color the smoke/dust was going. But we aren't, because they're unnecessary details. (If you want to distance yourself from conspiracy theorists, perhaps you shouldn't keep insisting on including the extremely minor bit about free fall acceleration of the north face. You may not know this, but "NIST admits freefall!" is a common rallying cry used by "Truthers.") We aren't ignoring the visible collapse; it is and will continue to be in the article...don't quite know what you meant by that. As for your last point, yes, you've emphasized that previously as well, and we are trying to deal with inaccuracies now. In a careful and deliberate manner. This is not a video game, and we are not on a clock. -Jordgette (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not my job to "distance" myself from any group. Let me remind you that it is your job to assume good faith. My only goal is to remain neutral, as in not taking any sides at all. You and Tom have further proven with your emotional comments that the collapse timing is indeed a relevant topic to discuss, and should therefore be addressed in the article. Let me also remind you that the more general WTC collapse article has many fewer details about WTC7 but it does include the period of free fall. Clearly though, the current paragraph isn't going to fly as is. I accept this and I will take your feedback into consideration and think on it. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

"the more general...article has many fewer details about WTC7 but it does include the period of free fall." Yes, that will need to be dealt with at some point too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"You and Tom have further proven with your emotional comments that the collapse timing is indeed a relevant topic to discuss, and should therefore be addressed in the article." All right, I'm done with you. When it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, even the best Wikipedia editor cannot assume it isn't a duck. We're the emotional ones, check. You're the neutral one and we're the biased ones, check. You're being ganged up upon, check. Free fall acceleration, check. "Allegedly," check. Interested in the collapse of 7WTC and apparently no other topic in the world[7], check. Given this evidence, it is my opinion that Smitty121981 is editing 9/11-related articles with the specific intent to skew their POV toward fringe conspiracy theories, and is hiding behind the AGF guideline in order to accomplish these goals. Perhaps sanctions ought to be considered at this point. At any rate, from here on I will ignore this editor's comments. -Jordgette (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really not fair. Hiding behind guidelines? I'm new here - I'm simply trying to follow the guidelines. And I never said I wasn't emotional. I was emotional when my edit was removed without review because I am new to wikipedia and you know what? It's scary to edit a page. That's why the be bold motto exists, is it not? I overreacted to the reception that I perceived (and continue to perceive) as unduly negative and I am sorry. Since that point I have made every effort to maintain the "sober and patient" qualities that you recommended. I am not perfect. I really am a newb that jumped in the deep end, and sure I thrashed around a bit - but did nothing deserving of sanctions! And since I am new to wikipedia I have not had the time to write on 50 different subjects or whatever you require as the requisite amount. But you may want to check out the two sentences I added to the (rather short) Centroidal Voronoi Tesselation page, complete with wikilinks and sources. I am trying to work with you here - did you miss the part where I said I would consider your recommendations? Smitty121981 (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

For being a "newbie" you sure did learn fast...--MONGO 03:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The quote marks seem to imply sarcasm, but I'll take it as a huge compliment anyways because I really am new here and you seem to be an accomplished and respected editor. Thanks! :) *blush* I am striving to be a valuable addition to the community, hopefully you will see that my actions continue to improve because I am working hard to do so. As I told Tom on his talk page, I am taking a short break from this conversation to give others a chance to weigh in, and to contemplate the various feedback from the community. Thanks everybody for your patience with my less-than-graceful entrance. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Here's a draft of the change I propose,[8] and its diff from the existing version.[9] Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Definitely improved the article. -Jordgette (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• I concur. Please make this change. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change 2

I've made the change. Next, we might remove the paragraph about thermate, and switch the order of the last two paragraphs so the section ends with the recommendations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the article needs to mention, if only briefly, the conspiracy theories with the link to that page. There are an awful lot of people who know WTC7 only from this allegation and who will end up at the article for that reason. However the thermate mention (or nanothermite, or nanothermate or whatever is the "dark incendiary" of the moment) is superfluous. Does anyone know of any reliable sources at all that mention thermate in the context of this conspiracy theory? I mean reliable sources, not things written or sponsored by Steven E. Jones. -Jordgette (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's the proposed change. The paragraph "World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say..." is still there, moved up from last to next-to-last. It's likely there is a reliable source that mentions at least thermite, but we should be sure it's a source about 7 WTC - in which case it might go here - and not a source about the conspiracy theories or Dr. Jones, and so belongs on one of those pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a source for it. The NIST FAQ about the collapse of WTC7 talks about "thermite or thermate" in this context (the NIST FAQ is the source of the information currently in the article). Here in the FAQ it is given equal weight as the hypothetical blast scenario. I'd rather let you all decide if it's kept or not, I'm just pointing out the source. If it is decided to be kept I would move it up to be part of the preceding paragraph. Smitty121981 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

We could either expand it a bit, or shorten it. Here are longer[10] and shorter[11] versions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the longer version, actually -- it eliminates the "but what about...?" factor. Perhaps though we can say "an incendiary such as thermite" rather than "thermate"; the NIST FAQ mentions both incendiaries in the question, but only thermite in the answer. -Jordgette (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That suits me. Here's my current proposed change:[12]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it, with one minor change to the existing hypothetical blast scenario sentence. I think we should remove "window breakages" so the sentence would read "The draft NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used was not observed." While it is true that NIST did perform a window breakage analysis, they did not use this data for their conclusion because the relevant windows were not visible after 4:00 pm. (NCSTAR 1-A) Smitty121981 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Editors, again, please use page numbers so we don't have to go searching for the reference. NCSTAR1A p. 27 reads, "The actual window breakage pattern on the visible floors on September 11, 2001 was not at all like that expected from a blast that was even 20 percent of that needed to damage a critical column in WTC 7. The visual evidence did not show such a breakage pattern on any floor of WTC 7 as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor at the time of the building collapse initiation." I can find no mention of what would be considered the "relevant windows" or the fact that NIST did not use the data in the end. In fact, predicted window breakage was part of the sound analysis (top of p.28). The paragraph should go in as Tom has written it. -Jordgette (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of comprehensive citation, I was trying to keep my post succinct. Yes, the window breakage analysis was used indirectly, as part of the sound simulation. However, read your quote again. They only had record of the windows "...as late as about 4:00 p.m. or above the 25th floor". We are concerned with the area of the building below the 25th floor and after 4:00. Specifically, on pg. 26 of NCSTAR 1-A they state "Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario" involving "two shaped charges applied to Column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as Floor 12" (emphasis added). Floor 12 is obviously well below Floor 25, so it could not be observed at the time of collapse. So yes, it is true that NIST analyzed the window breakage, and yes it is true that this breakage was not observed. However, if the breakage had occurred it still would not have been observed, therefore making this data unsuitable for any conclusive statement. You will notice that NIST does not talk about the window breakage when drawing their conclusion other than to introduce the sound simulation data, which they were able to match against empirical data, and there was not any empirical data that matched so they concluded that explosives could not have been used. The broken windows were mentioned because they made the sound louder. Considering the resistance to adding any small minutae to the wiki, I do not think this should be in the article. If it is kept in the article, it will need to be rewritten. Basically NIST is saying, there was no sound therefore there were no explosives:

"The window breakage would have allowed the sound of a blast to propagate outward from the building... the sound level emanating from the WTC7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km... However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast. Therefore the investigation team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC7 on September 11, 2001." NCSTAR 1-a pg 28 Smitty121981 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

"The draft NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed" accurately summarizes the source. Other than changing our sourcing to the final report (ncstar1a, Section 3.3, Hypothetical Blast Scenarios, pages 26-28), I don't see the need to change anything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of sentence structure. According to NCSTAR 1-A, NIST did not reject the hypothesis based on window breakage observations, because these observations were not available for the area around Floor 12 at the time of collapse, as my above post pointed out in verbose detail. Smitty121981 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

I've made the change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the logic for keeping "window breakages"... but I accept that this is what the community wants at this time.Smitty121981 (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)smitty121981

Fuel Oil

Given that Con Ed is suing the Port Authority on the basis that the stored fuel oil contributed to the fire that destroyed 7 WTC, is the denial in this article that the fuel had anything to do with the destruction too sweeping? FEMA also speculated that the fuel oil might have been responsible; I don't know whether they've ever withdrawn that claim. Nareek (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If Con Ed gets a trial and if their claims get any traction via WP:RS we might have something to report. Until then claims are just claims (not to be confused with clams). Regardless, stating that the "NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role..." is not what I would call a denial much less one with a broom. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a better way to put it. Nareek (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

1967?

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[5] I really wonder where that 1967 year came from. I´ve seen many photos of WTC construction from the end of 1960s and there was definitely nothing standing on the future 7 WTC site in 1967! Just an empty plot as of September 1967. The earliest photo with some construction is early 1970 and looks finished around late 1971, early 1972. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The 1967 date comes from NIST NCSTAR 1A - Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 - section 1.2.1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then I guess all those photographs are part of some conspiracy, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.175.191.46 (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide a reliable source that would be helpful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Interim to Final

Seeing where the link goes now, it looks like we need to change the citations from the Interim Report to the Final Report - which makes sense really. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change of CT mention in "9/11 and collapse"

In an attempt to adhere more closely to how NIST refers to the CTs about controlled demolition, I think this would be an improvement:

From this -

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories say the buildings that collapsed on September 11, including building seven, were felled by controlled demolition.[53][54][55][56] The NIST report rejects this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.

To this -

The NIST report rejects the hypothesis put forward by conspiracy theorists that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.

Thoughts? Shirtwaist ☎ 07:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I like conpsiracy theory better than conspiracy theorist. Not that there aren't people reliable sources say are conspiracy theorists, but talking about the theory avoids any potential issue in talking about the men. How about "The NIST report rejects the conspiracy theory that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed." But both are improvements, and either should be fine. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Tom. I say we use your version. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

How about we say "The NIST report rejected claims that building seven was felled by controlled demolition, based on a contention that window breakage and blast sounds that it expects would occur if explosives were used were not observed." I believe this wording is neutral and accurate. Coastwise (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe: The NIST report found no evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that 7 World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001, based on the contention that the expected window breakage and blast sounds resulting from the use of explosives were not observed." Although, it may be too "cut-and-paste" from the report. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, guess I'll run it up the flagpole and see who spits. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm. Seems to me like a retrograde step. In general we should not just make a negative statement; it looks weird on its own. Before we had the alternate thesis then the rebuttal, which did make sense. I think that was better. --John (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Shirtwaist's looks good - succinct while still summarizing the facts. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Why editors like John always replace what should be the word "conspiracy" with "alternate"...jus cuz....Shirtwaist, your last version looks fine to me.--MONGO 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't let this pass, four suggestions and all are grammatical nightmares. Try The NIST report rejected claims that building seven may have been felled by controlled demolition as the pattern of window breakage observed and sounds recorded were not consistent with the use of explosives. It is informative, avoids any POV pushing from both sides of the fence and flows. Wayne (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Given the controversy and conspiracy theories, I think that the second sentence of the opening paragraph should read "The original structure was completed in 1987 and was destroyed on the day of the September 11 attacks." This is more neutral, and recognizes the controversy of teh subject.Jonnyboy5 (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is against give undue weight to the conspiracy theories, which are rejected in in major media or scholarly sources. Besides, the third sentence says much the same as you propose. Acroterion (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Related merge proposal

At Talk:5 World Trade Center there's a proposal to merge Five World Trade Center and 5 World Trade Center and Four/4 using this article as a pattern. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lee Hamilton quote added in several places

I notice that Coastwise added a quote from Rep. Lee Hamilton regarding WTC7 on a number of pages [13]. I'm reverting the addition here. The video used as the source [14] promotes a conspiracy organization and depicts a reporter confronting the congressman and accusing the 9/11 Commission of not conducting an investigation. I find that this gives undue weight to a fringe POV under the pretense of a simple "neutral" interview, which it was not. I'd like to hear others' thoughts, and whether the additions to the other articles ought to be scrutinized as well. -Jordgette [talk] 19:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What is of interest here is what the vice-chairman said, twice in different ways that he does not believe the NIST report is necessarily conclusive. Because the cited documentation is both audio and video, Mr. Hamilton speaks for himself, and what person (or oranization) is doing the interviewing is therefore immaterial. Also immaterial is whether the reporter's style is abraisive. Readers who view the video can make their own judgments about the interview and Mr. Hamilton's statement. Also, the "weight" here is not at all to an organization but to the opinion expressed by a very important figure -- the vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission. Accordingly, I have reverted the deletion. Coastwise (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This remains fringe material, unreported in reliable sources, and provided here without context as if the quote was some form of official statement, rather than an ambush by someone with an agenda. As such, it's inappropriate in the other places where it's been spammed. The congressman noting that the report is not the last word (which I don't think anybody, including the report, claims) is a very far cry from some kind of admission that some startling truth is waiting to be revealed. Acroterion (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the slightly revised version, which still provides only minimal context and is getting into areas of synthesis and original research, erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with. Unless this quote is discussed in reliable sources, it's misuse of a primary source and undue emphasis. The same objections apply to the other insertions, as they appear to be trying to indicate through synthesis that there is some kind of support on the part of Hamilton for conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion. I wrote a reason for the revision of my text that I made a couple of hours ago (the material indented below), and which you have now removed; however, I now see that it didn't post. So here I will answer the points in both of your posts above. (1) Your claim : "This remains fringe material, unreported in reliable sources." Response: The material is not fringe, because it is a direct statement by an important official who was involved in the investigation. The meda source in this instance is reliable because the entire, clearly unedited interview is presented, and the actual source of quoted material, Mr. Hamilton, is both an appointed and elected public figure of some stature. (2) Your claim: "... provided here without context as if the quote was some form of official statement ...". Response: I agree with you on this, and made the changes below in my last article post. (3) Your claim: "... an ambush by someone with an agenda ...". Response: Mr. Hamilton turned and began to leave. Then the question about Buildin 7 was asked, and he turned back to answer it. He could have continued leaving; therefore this wasn't an ambush. He answered willingly. Whether or not the interviewer had an agenda is immaterial; Hamilton answered calmly and said the phrase I quoted twice. He expressed his opinion, and it is his opinion that is relevant to the article. (4) Your claim: "The congressman noting that the report is not the last word (which I don't think anybody, including the report, claims)..." Response: This is bull. The paragraph above where I inserted mine (beginning "In November 2008") in about what "NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse." Hamilton says that NIST's conclusions on that are not necessarily "the final truth." Whether or not anyone else has said that is beside the point; the information of interest for the article is that here is a key official in the investigation saying that. His statement is a reflection on the report, not a response what others have said about it - nor did I portray it otherwise in my text. (5) Your claim: Hamilton's statement "is a very far cry from some kind of admission that some startling truth is waiting to be revealed." Response: This is a false criterion for admission of information into an article. The important fact is that a key official has now indicated (for the first time I have seen) that the final truth of the matter could end up being different than the report's conclusions. That he does not necessarily consider the report the final word, is a notable fact. Because the NIST report and what it determined are part of the article, high caliber documented commentary on it is important (regardless of the perspective on the report). (6) You said: "I've reverted the slightly revised version, which still provides only minimal context ..." Response: I believe the context is adequate, appropriate and complete. What additional context do you suggest? (7) Your claim: The challenged text "is getting into areas of synthesis and original research, erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with." Response: My text is not in conflict with the synthesis rule. See the second sentence in synthesis; here C is explicit in B, not implied by it; it is a direct commentary on A. A "reliable source (Hamilton) has combined the material in this way," in audio and video that all can observe, as reported in toto from a publicly accessible source which also is reliable because the interview is obviously complete and unedited. My text is not original research because "a reliable, published source exists," and "[t]he appropriateness of any source depends on the context." Here, the source is "the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)", the video, in accordance with one of the three WP definitions of "a source." Here, "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (see prior link) is not at issue because the interview is complete and unedited. (8) Your claim: "... erecting a strawman to discuss doubts about the conclusions concerning 7 WTC when no party claims certitude to begin with." Response: A presumption of certitude surrounds a report of the stature of NIST's. A statement from a responsible official who was involved in the process surrounding the report concerning such presumption is not a strawman, because the statement exists it is part of a balanced discussion of the report. In Sum: I believe inclusion of Mr. Hamilton's statement in some fashion is appropriate. I await your views on how it should be written, and if you suggest a timely edit I will consider that before making a further post in the article. Coastwise (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(My prior post to the article): In an unoffical, on-the-spot interview in September 2011, 9/11 Commission vice-chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton said: "Building 7 was a very special problem. We do not claim in this report to have written the final truth. The consulting engineers, we consulted with them. They studied it for three or four years. They've come out with their conclusion, and I respect that. ... I know what the - I think it's called the American Society of Consulting Engineers - said. I'm not an engineer. I can't figure all that out, so I respect their judgment. Is it the final truth? We'll have to see." (As was posted to the article by me, Coastwise (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC))

You're conflating the term "final report" with the notion that it represents, or is intended to represent the last word on what happened at WTC 7: the report makes no such pretense, it simply states what the authors believed to be the most likely case, together with a methodology for arriving at their conclusions. Hamilton says as much in your quote. It does represent the most complete and rigorous study yet made on the subject, but the fact that one congressman, a layman where engineering is concerned, confessed that he didn't fully understand the report when confronted by an aggressive interviewer with an agenda does not materially add to the encyclopedia article. Your strawman is your implication that the report is a statement of certitude which is doubted by the congressman. Your admitted premise of finality or certitude is false, and you are inappropriately using a primary source to construct a synthesis concerning what you apparently misunderstand, spinning the congressman's words as a statement of doubt and implying some untold story. We write articles from secondary sources, not primary sources, as primary sources can be misused as they are being misused here to advance a fringe viewpoint as undue weight. Acroterion (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Acroterion and Jordgette. Drive-by "interviews" by agenda-heavy "interviewers" that are later used for blatant POV pushing are a poor excuse for WP:RS and have no place here. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio halted due to fringe dispute above

I am pausing on creating a spoken version of this article until the above fringe dispute is finished. I intend to continue in 24 hours, and that is assuming the dispute has been resolved. As for the content itself, I am of no opinion. Phearson (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I will strive for resolution of this within your timeframe. Coastwise (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Timeframe will be extended another 24 if not finished. Phearson (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio Canceled for now. Phearson (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

See Also?

Any objections to removing the link to Larry Silverstein in the See also section? His name is linked three out of four times it's used in the article, and is also linked in the navigation box at the bottom. Per WP:ALSO, I would think he can therefore be safely removed from the See Also section. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No objections at all: Silverstein should only be linked in the lead and at the next mention. Acroterion (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Might as well remove it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

10/19/11 edits

Editor The Devil's Advocate made some edits that I have partially reverted. These edits were significant and not uncontroversial, and this being a Featured Article on a controversial topic, they should be discussed here before the article is changed.

In the first edit [15], details about the collapse in the intro were replaced with "the original 7 WTC suffered a catastrophic structural failure because of damage stemming from the attacks...." NIST found that physical damage likely did not play a major role in the collapse, and that the collapse was primarily due to fire. I have reverted this edit but removed some of the excessive detail from the previous version of the intro.

In the second edit [16], there is the addition of, "though [NIST] added that even if a test could have been performed on the rubble it would not have necessarily ruled out the use of thermite because its composition is similar to that of the debris." In my opinion, calling out this detail constitutes an undue weight violation. The thermite hypothesis is highly fringe and does not warrant more mention in this Featured Article than already existed. -Jordgette [talk] 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically the fires would have been covered under damage stemming from the attacks. As for the edit about thermite, I think it is important that the article be neutral. Mentioning NIST discounting the use of thermite without clarifying that they could not rule it out biases the article. Controlled demolition being considered a fringe theory is not a free pass to exclude important information on the study just because some might find it favorable towards such a theory. If you are going to mention the conspiracy theories in this article, reasonable given the building's prominence in such theories, then it has to be done in a way that presents the facts objectively.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion regarding undue weight stands. But the source says, "Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive." That's not quite the same as, "would not have necessarily ruled out the use of thermite." I will now step aside. -Jordgette [talk] 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not being able to conclusively determine whether there was thermite used is the same as not being able to rule it out. However, if you want to put in something closer to the wording in the study then I have no objection. Either way, Undue weight does not mean leaving out facts because they create a different impression than the one desired. Some may not like noting the fact NIST kept the door slightly open for the possibility of thermite being used, but if a government research body is not able to say for certain that it was not used you have to mention it. By only mentioning that they discounted it the article is creating an impression of certainty that is not accurate. Such an impression is solely meant to bias the reader towards a preferred viewpoint and this is a violation of policy. Wikipedia is not Snopes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certain that there is no evidence thermite/thermate was used. If something different is ever reported via WP:RS then we will include it. We do not report speculation. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Except I did not include something saying it was used or any sort of speculation about its use. All I did was include details from the NIST study saying that a test for thermite would not be able to rule out its use.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Even though I have only used the NIST study's own words my edits keep getting reversed. The fact is that NIST actually used the word unlikely not "discounted" or "discarded" so there should be no reason to substitute the word I used for either of those. I am acceptant of the idea that saying they could not conclusively rule out the use of thermite is being tossed out, despite again just noting what the government's own study said. However, when even using the exact word NIST used is being rejected I can only conclude that a number of editors (most likely self-declared "skeptics") are letting their bias get in the way. There is also no need to double-up on the conspiracy label. A wikilink over the word "theories" to the page titled controlled demolition conspiracy theories is more than enough, especially since anyone who gets so far as to read this one paragraph would understand that controlled demolition is not an accepted theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Split

This article covers two different buildings. Logically this article should be split into two - one for the original building, and one for the new building. I'm assuming we have additional articles for the original building's destruction and the associated conspiracy theories. Rklawton (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There are already pages to discuss the collapse and controlled demolition, though only the latter goes into much detail concerning building 7 so there probably does need to be some change regarding those articles. I agree with the idea that each building should have its own article. Both are distinct in design and construction so it is not like they simply rebuilt the old one. It is a new building that just so happens to be named 7 World Trade Center. I imagine the best way to split them would be to have one article titled "7 World Trade Center (1983-2001)" and another titled "7 World Trade Center (2002 - Present)" while having "7 World Trade Center" go to a disambiguation page. Unless there is some history for having two distinct buildings covered by the same article due to their common location and name I would support splitting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to have these combined on one page, as suggested at Talk:5 World Trade Center. In any case, there's more to the organization of these pages than it looks like at first. However we do it, we should make sure we understand how all the articles fit together. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, aside from being distinctly different buildings the article is also large enough for a split to be conceived. Of course, one way to trim the size would be to have most of the information concerning 9-11 and the collapse moved to another article. It seems kind of ridiculous that this article would have several times the information on the WTC 7 collapse then the article about the trade center collapse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Name of this Article

I think 7 World Trade Center should be renamed to Seven World Trade Center, to match One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six World Trade Center.

Secret Agent Julio (My Talk Page)

13:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed 9-11 section

After the discussion above on splitting the article I felt that it would be a good idea to move most of the material in the section of the article concerning 9-11 to the page on the collapse of the World Trade Center. I believe this should end much of the controversy concerning the amount of material covering the conspiracy theories since what is left only covers the most salient points on the collapse and investigation, with the real area to dispute such questions about fairness towards conspiracy theories being the page on the collapse. That is more appropriate, in my opinion, given that this is an article about the building in general and not the 9-11 attacks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The edit is unacceptable. This (Featured) article has a long history of controversy and discussion. This edit strips the article of details that are important to the explanation of the collapse. For example, this article was the first place I had ever read of firefighters measuring a visual bulge on Building 7 before its collapse, and that led me to read more about NIST's findings. The explanation in this article, as it reads now, comes off as almost flippant. The reader should get an idea of why the building actually collapsed, without having to download multi-hundred-page PDFs from NIST, and not just told, "this is what NIST decided, you're on your own from here." It is okay that the material exists in both articles, but it definitely needs to be in this one. -Jordgette [talk] 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article need to be where this information is placed? It makes more sense to have detailed information on the collapse go in the article devoted to the collapse. Someone looking into the collapse of building 7 is more likely to look at that page than this one in the first place. So long as people are prominently directed towards that article there is no reason to prevent this article from being shortened to get closer to a reasonable size. You are using this article's status as a Featured article as an argument for obstructing this edit, but when it became a Featured Article this page was over 12% smaller. I did not in any way dispute that the material was important, only that it was more than necessary for a page about the building. Also, while the example you gave was not mentioned in detail it was included as a source for the statement about firefighters seeing signs suggesting the building would collapse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the version of the article on the day it was promoted to Featured Article [17], the collapse section was actually slightly longer than it is now (and this was before the release of the NIST findings). There was a trim effort earlier this year involving several editors working in collaboration and as I recall it turned out quite well. The article on the Collapse of the World Trade Center is primarily about WTC 1 and 2; if someone were interested in 7, they would likely come to this article first, and here is where they should be able to read the salient details without getting the run-around. The collapse was obviously a huge event in the history of the structure; to remove the explanation of why it collapsed does not seem like the right idea. Can anyone present a reason for cutting this material, other than just to make the section shorter? Shorter isn't necessarily better. -Jordgette [talk] 23:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that it is an important part of the building's history but there are other considerations and I mentioned several besides the length of the section. There is simply no reason why this article should go into heavy detail on how the building collapsed and the process of investigation when an article to touch on those issues in greater detail already exists. Just because that article presently pays greater attention to the twin towers does not mean that weakens the argument for moving the information. In fact, that there was a dearth of information concerning building 7's collapse on that article make the argument for expanding the information there even more compelling. As far as giving people the "run-around" as you say, the see also wikilink now goes directly to the sections of the article on the collapse of the WTC that deal with building 7. So, if someone wants greater detail they can just click on that link and get it. No one wanting to look into the collapse of building 7 would be disserved by the changes I made.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong disagree. If the details were to go in just one article, they belong in this one, and the gloss should go in the more general Trade Center Collapse article. -Jordgette [talk] 02:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to give more than that. So far I have given a lot of reasons for why this information should not be included to the extent it was, but you have yet to give a good reason for why this should remain the same. The claim you make here also is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia policy suggests in a case like this. Details given here are more suitable for a page on the collapse, not on the building itself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Jordgette. It's a good article that's been stable for a while. There should be a consensus for major dramatic changes like this. This particular change removes too much neccessary material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to Jordgette's concerns I trimmed it without removing the things that editor expressed a desire to keep. Yet apparently you disagree with even those changes. Tell me what is so essential about the material you put back in that it simply cannot be removed? Why do people need to know every organization that was involved in an investigation, what software they used, and about some other building that was demolished because of the collapse when there is an article specifically devoted to the collapse of the WTC buildings? Rather than just immediately resorting to a wholesale revert of any change you do not completely like how about you try and discuss it or try to accommodate the concerns of another editor?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that in your rush to revert any changes you don't like you, like Jordgette before, reverted uncontroversial edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's highly valuable for the article to include the list of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST. You might be aware of a group of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that flaunts its self-proclaimed expertise on the matter of Building 7's collapse. I'm sure they would be thrilled to see the article expunged of the list of professional organizations that consider their claims professionally unsupportable, especially considering that they have few if any structural engineers, fire engineers, or tall steel-building architects onboard. I'm sure they would also be thrilled to see the removal of the image of Fiterman Hall, which was partially destroyed in the collapse and proving that WTC7 didn't collapse "into its own footprint" as routinely claimed. In other words, these aren't extraneous details but facts that have considerable value in a world of misinformation. -Jordgette [talk] 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

First, I do not question that these details have value as it concerns the collapse of building 7 and the investigation into said collapse, but that does not mean that including this information in an article on the building itself improves the article's quality. Second, I have said already this is not Snopes. Wikipedia is not your personal platform for debunking pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. Including information in this article for the sole purpose of weakening support for conspiracy theories is you letting a personal cause get in the way of improving the article. This battle mentality you are demonstrating with regards to efforts to manage the size of this article is not helpful. Every last bit of information you believe is important would still be included in a page on the actual collapse that is linked to directly from this page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are blatantly disregarding WP:AGF with the above accusations. I will say it one last time: The collapse of WTC7 is a historical event of much interest. The collapse is what the original WTC7 is best known for, and people coming to this article should get all the facts involving how it happened, and how the matter was investigated, in this article — not hidden away within a general article on multiple building collapses. If you want to shorten this article, surely there are other ways it can be tightened besides removing factual content from the section with the highest level of controversy and public interest. But really, it's silly to say this article is unmanageably large and needs to be cut down. Even though it comprehensively covers two different buildings, it is not long by any means — the Collapse of the World Trade Center article that you added material to is considerably longer. -Jordgette [talk] 00:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not disregarding the asumption of good faith to say you are pushing a POV when you make it plainly obvious that this is exactly what you are doing. You are defending this edit warring by claiming all of the information is necessary to target some claim of conspiracy theorists that are not even given any voice in this article. Maybe you do not realize that was an admission of what I said above, but it was regardless. Your word usage suggests you think that I am pushing a POV by moving this material. I am not attempting to hide material that is damaging to conspiracy theories. One of my edits changed the wikilink so that it takes the reader directly to the section of the collapse article that concerns the building 7 collapse. As far as the Collapse article I would like to see that trimmed as well, though that would likely be a more complicated task. That building 7 is notable for the collapse is something I understand very well, but I also understand that it has notability beyond just that instant and that, either way, such a notable event does not require the level of detail you insist on. Having a paragraph devoted to some buildings that collapsed because of building 7 in an article that is supposed to be about building 7 in general is ridiculous. However, since you say there are other ways to trim the article how about you mention some.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Once more I have attempted to shorten the article giving consideration to the objections raised by other editors. This time I would ask that if any editors object to some of the changes that they only undo those changes rather than simply reverting the entire edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This material is central to the topic, and needs to remain in the article. Moreover, changes of this extent should have consensus first. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you completely ignored my request above, unless you disagree with every last change that was made. Should that be the case I would really love to know what you think should be trimmed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I kept the changes you made that improved the article. Why should anything be "trimmed?" The length isn't excessive, and the scope and weighting are appropriate. Certainly large portions shouldn't be unilaterally taken out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

All right, how about you explain why this page, and not another page like the article on the actual collapse of the buildings, absolutely needs to include a detailed list of problems with the sprinkler systems and play-by-play of the fires that burned in building 7? What essential purpose for this specific article about building seven is served by including a drawn-out explanation of why the NIST investigation faced delays? Do we honestly need to mention in this article what specific kind of software NIST used? Finally do you really think that NIST's conclusion that lack of water was a key reason for the collapse needs to be mentioned twice in the same paragraph? Did you even consider that something like that might actually be an appropriate change? Not to mention that none of this material was removed from Wikipedia altogether. Everything you insist on keeping here is also included in the article on the collapse that is linked to directly from here under sections explicitly including building 7 in their headings. No information is being hidden away. Logically speaking, detailed information on the collapse belongs in the article specifically devoted to the collapse of the buildings, not an article that is about the building in general.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The building is notable because it failed as a result of fire. As such, this article is where the failure should be covered. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The building was notable in its own right before the collapse. Its collapse is only another notable aspect of the subject and said collapse is specifically covered by a different article. Having details like the list of organizations participating in the NIST investigation or buildings that collapse as a result of building 7's collapse in this article makes little sense when an article to cover the collapse in detail exists, never mind listing every single floor that had fires or describing all the problems with the sprinkler system. I am curious, do you agree with what Jordgette said about it being important to include this information so as to counter conspiracy theorists?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not the case that detailed information about the collapse logically belongs elsewhere. This page developed over time in the way it has and includes the material it does becuase this is where people expected to find the information, and where they came to write about it. It's been stable for some time, so the content and structure are clearly not inappropriate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I posed several specific questions that you have not bothered to answer. Do you really think all the material I removed was absolutely necessary for this article? At no point in this discussion have you provided a legitimate reason for reverting my attempts to shorten the article. Essentially your argument is that you don't like shortening the article and so it should not be shortened. Do you agree with Jordgette's argument about this information being necessary to counter conspiracy theorists?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The material belongs in the article because it's central to the topic - 7 WTC. That there are conspiracy theories about the collapse is another issue. The conspiracy theories are a social/physiological phenomenon. The material about the collapse is about the building as a structure in the physical world. The material you keep removing against the long-established consensus is central to the article's topic, appropriate to the scope and organization of the article, and is something readers would expect to find here. It needs to remain in the the article. Removing it does not improve the article, but impairs it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you done misrepresenting what I wrote yet? You asked if I had a better reason for keeping the list of engineering and fire-safety organizations, for example, other than just not liking your deletions. So I gave you one possible reason: If a person just watched Loose Change and came here for more information about the 7WTC investigation, it would be useful to learn that the study was serious, extensive, and peer-reviewed by numerous professional organizations. But there are other reasons as well, for example it was an important and notable role for the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. But I'll stop there, lest I be accused of using Wikipedia as a personal platform to commercially promote CTBUH. -Jordgette [talk] 23:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent what you said at all. That your mind immediately went to how it might affect people's perception of conspiracy theories is quite revealing. In any event do you, Tom, or Artifex have any legitimate reason for keeping the material I removed in my most recent attempt at trimming the article? Saying the article is good enough as it is does not constitute a legitimate argument. I would also like to know what any of you think could be trimmed if the article were to be shortened.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First "known" collapse from fire

Tom and Jordgette seem to believe WP:RS does not require them to pay attention to any other rules. However, their insistence on having this comment from NIST asserted as undisputed fact in the article is giving undue weight to one part of the source at the exclusion of another part of the source they appear to wish did not exist. Here is what NIST said in the very same source:

"NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely . . . Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7 . . .Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive".

So why exactly is this article asserting as fact a claim from NIST that this is the first building felled by uncontrolled fires when NIST itself clearly indicates with words like "unlikely" and "believe" that it does not really know for a fact that it was felled by uncontrolled fires? If the very people being cited are not certain that some other action did not cause the collapse, insisting that we should let the statement stand as though it was an unquestionable fact is violating WP:NPOV.

I would also like to add that I think the inclusion of "according to NIST" or a similar comment improves the general flow of the paragraph as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so it's about thermite. I should have seen that coming. Well, I oppose rewording the article to legitimize the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's about what NIST itself said. What I presented above is a direct quote from the very source you and Jordgette have referred to when reverting my edit. Do you think the above quotations really indicate that NIST "knows" beyond any doubt what brought down building 7? It seems they are pretty certain about their conclusion, but that is far from "knowing" to any extent necessary for us to repeat it as fact. So, noting that this is only what NIST claims, as opposed to what it could objectively prove, is important for maintaining the sentence's neutrality. Like it or not, so long as there is detailed information in this article about the collapse (something that, I may remind you, I actually oppose) you are going to have to allow some information that will keep people's minds open to the possibility that the official story may not be proven beyond all doubt. That you think allowing even slightly for the possibility that the official story might be wrong is akin to "legitimizing" conspiracy theories says a lot about your motive for reverting the edit.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

NIST uses the words "unlikely" and "does not believe" because that is the language of science. In science we do not claim theories to be absolute, definitive, or infallible. You will find the same standard applied in the literature to evolution, germ theory, and gravity. However, this standard should not be taken as ambivalence or insufficient information. NIST would also say it is unlikely that WTC7 was felled by termite damage, but doing so would not give any credence to the notion that termites might have been involved. To borrow a phrase used in an earlier discussion, scientists "leave the door open" to other possibilities as part of the scientific protocol. This shouldn't be interpreted as "frankly, we don't know what to conclude" or "we admit there is a valid controversy here." See intelligent design. -Jordgette [talk] 00:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that Hell has not been adequately explored in the physical realm, we can not conclusively rule out the possibility that it might indeed one day freeze over. (NIST) Rklawton (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a leap of synthesis to use NIST's "unlikely" as positive grounds for inclusion of the Truther thermite hobbyhorse, which has never had any traction outside conspiracy theorist circles. Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with what you are saying Jordgette is that the language NIST used with regards to the use of explosives was more definitive. On explosives they "concluded" that explosions "did not occur" and that is much more definite than what was said about thermite. Not to mention their argument for why thermite use was unlikely is flimsier in general. I am not suggesting the article argue anything on that, only that it make clear this is NIST's claim. Doing so does not suggest anything other than the fact NIST is making the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually...

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

Is what the scientists, engineers, architects, et al. from inside and outside the NIST (the humans that created the report) have objectively proven. There is no "official version". There is only the one based on real, published, actual science. Got an RS better than that? Bring it. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, things are objectively proven only in logic and mathematics, but you make a great point about there being only one actual scientific version of this "story" in the real world. -Jordgette [talk] 02:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm hip but I'd like to think "objectively" modifies "proof" away from "absolutely" sufficiently in this context (considering the amount of logic and math that was used). But I could be wrong. Not that being wrong would mean thermite modifies proof (or bananas for that matter). ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating the merits of the NIST case and I respect your opinion that only the official version is the one that should be considered legitimate, but none of that is relevant to the edit I made. NIST's declaration that building 7 is the first "known" case of a tall building collapsing due to uncontrolled fires should not be restated as though collapse due to fire is unquestionable fact when NIST in the very same source (no WP:SYNTH issue there) says it cannot reasonably rule out another explanation. Saying only that this is "according to NIST" avoids the problem of misrepresenting the source and prejudicing the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget FEMA, the American Society of Civil Engineers and this from the Institute for Research in Construction of the National Research Council of Canada...

However, the collapse of WTC 7, a 47-storey building, has shocked everyone much more since this collapse was entirely due to fire. Further, this was the first ever collapse of a steel-framed building under fire. Thus, fire resistance issues played a major role in the collapse of the WTC 7.

Also your quote from the NIST above seems in error. From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation I get (emphasis mine)...

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

If you have sources that claim WTC 7 was not the first fire induced failure of a building of its type...please present them. Lastly, I am not of the opinion "that only the official version is the one that should be considered legitimate" and don't care much for the accusation. -ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My quote from NIST was not in error at all, you are going off a more recent version with that appearing to be the only change of note in the section. In other words, it appears there was no new evidence that caused them to change the wording. I do not really care whether this or that organization concurs with NIST's impropriety in stating that it knows what happened when it freely admits not being to able to rule out an entirely different scenario. What matters is that NIST says it could not rule out an alternative explanation for the collapse and so its statement should not be treated as objective fact. This is not the equivalent of saying you cannot absolutely rule out Young Earth Creationism and therefore it should be mentioned as a viable alternative theory to evolution. It is more like saying that because the evidence allows that another suspect may have killed a person you should only refer to the accepted perpetrator as an alleged murderer even if the evidence against said person is really good.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jordgette's reversion of most recent change

As you did not provide an explanation in the edit summary I have no way of knowing what precise issues that were perceived with the edit. So Jordgette was your revert in response to my changes regarding the sentence disputed in the discussion directly above or was it a problem with the entirety of my edit? If it is the latter then I think you need to provide a good explanation because I felt the shortening of the Fiterman and SEC paragraphs were similar to two previous efforts I made that received no objections, and were edits you even endorsed, so claiming I was acting against consensus is a bit incredulous, but if it is the former then please state as much so I can restore the other changes allowing us to focus on that sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing you once again attempted to delete the Fiterman Hall image, without any indication of why it was an improvement to do so, and without asking for opinion on the matter, even though the deletion had previously been reverted. I'm tired of this ongoing disruption and I've taken it to the edit warring noticeboard [18]. -Jordgette [talk] 02:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Is your only objection to the Fiterman Hall image being removed? Did you have any issue with me moving the "known" sentence to the intro with this wording?:

An investigation involving numerous major research institutes described it as the first known case of a tall building collapsing primarily due to fire.

I think that type of statement reasonably belongs in the intro and it manages to sum up the facts in a way that could be compelling to readers, without trying to force it down their throats. While an absolute statement is likely to only be accepted or rejected absolutely, no one is really going to reject the phrase above instead only agreeing or disagreeing with the conclusion of those cited. That should be the desired response for any edit we make on a controversial subject.

Now, as Tom appears to agree with shortening the information concerning Fiterman Hall, and no one appears to object to changes on the SEC, would you object to reinserting this wording?:

While no casualties were associated with the collapse, the debris did cause substantial damage to other buildings including the Fiterman Hall building and the Verizon Building. Fiterman Hall was found not to be salvageable and was demolished in 2009 with plans for reconstruction, while the Verizon Building was able to be restored in 2005.

Files relating to numerous federal investigations had been housed in 7 World Trade Center and all the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed, including files relating to Citigroup's connection to the WorldCom scandal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimated over 10,000 cases were affected. Investigative files in the Secret Service's largest field office were also lost in the collapse of WTC 7 with one Secret Service agent saying, “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.”

On your objections to removing the Fiterman Hall image, I can't help but find your insistence on including it here a bit silly. The section of the collapse article that people are taken to by the see also wikilink includes the image, and the wikilink on Fiterman Hall takes people to a section of the BMCC page that also includes this image. Your reasoning that including the image here is necessary to target the claims of conspiracy theorists is weak and coatracky given that the specific claim is not that some debris did not spread over a larger area, but that the building fell straight down rather than falling at a tilt. Fiterman Hall is used an example in some obscure objections by skeptics to contest the claim, but the only conspiracy theories that even treat it as an issue of interest is some small-time Youtube videos that appear to make implications about earthquake weapons or some other such nonsense. Your insistence on keeping this image for the reason you give means your intent is to push an uncited conclusion in this article that favors your POV. In the immortal words of Sonic the Hedgehog: "That is no good!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom harrison's revert

In my absence Tom apparently decided to revert a number of changes I made that had been standing without objection for a week and had been explicitly endorsed by another editor. No explanation is given in the edit summary or on the talk page for why Tom objected to those changes. Here are a few problems have with this material:

1. This is a general problem I only recently noticed and that is the citation does not appear to include any of the information concerning institutions involved in the NIST report on building 7. It appears this is because of a change on the site and so an editor should locate a new source that includes this information.
2. Even if such a source is included there is no reason why this article on building 7 needs to mention all of the groups involved. As it stands two structural engineering groups and two fire protection groups are included. While AISC would be a legitimate keep, the Council on Tall Buildings does not seem to be worthy of mentioning.
3. All this information about preliminary reports, all the reasons for the investigation's delay, the factors that were ruled out (the most important factor ruled out being the diesel generator that is already mentioned as having been ruled out further up in the article), and the recurring mentions of lack of water is excessive. We can include such information in the collapse article, but for this page it just seems ridiculous to be elaborating on these things.
4. Tom also appears to think we need to mention three times that these fires were not under control as he inserted material at the beginning of the section mentioning this when it is already mentioned in the following paragraph. I am pretty sure saying there is no water to fight the fires, as the previous change had stated, and mentioning it once at the beginning of the section is enough to insure people understand that the fires were out of control.
5. My efforts to trim down the rather wordy explanation of the collapse were also undone and there appears to be no legitimate reason for this. The change I made to that paragraph made it much more tolerable to read, in my opinion, without altering its meaning in any way. If people want to know what floor this or that happened on they can go to the collapse article or go straight to the source. All they need here is to get the basic idea.
6. Lastly I have to contest the reinsertion of this non-free image. While included on the basis of fair use it does not appear to provide any useful purpose for the article. We already have an image of the building on fire and the gash said to be visible in the picture is not really discernible. I cannot see it and I doubt many will without straining themselves. So it's sole reason for inclusion does not appear justified.

Maybe some of the changes I made could have been done somewhat differently, but the bulk of the changes Tom reverted without explanation improved the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Revert of The Devil's Advocate's changes

I'm reverting all of these new changes, and sorry but I'm not going through and spending an hour extracting the one or two changes that may have improved the article. In the first change, there were several unhelpful edits plus the creation of a grammatical mistake. In the last edit, there was a non-controversial wording change that was reminiscent of the conflict that occurred last week and resulted in the editor being blocked for a week. The editor will be reminded one last time about WP:ARB911. -Jordgette [talk] 00:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not get offended at me for moving your comment. It just did not pertain to my objections to Tom's revert in any way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, I must say I am very livid at what you have done here. The only grammatical mistake I can see in the first edit was something that did not even remotely require you to undo the entire change (the simple insertion of a single word in the intro would suffice). In fact, the only thing you appear to object to that would have required a revert concerned only the last two edits. What do you consider an unhelpful edit in the first change by the way? Was there something helpful about the article waxing poetic about the beauty of the new building 7's park without any citation to even back it up?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Further the changes I made to the section on the conspiracy theories were responding to three issues. The word "found no evidence supporting" should not have been followed with "because" and this was a grammatical error overlooked over the former wording was inserted. I also added the word "pattern" to "window breakage" because that is what NIST was referring to, and simply mentioning breakage can create the misleading impression that there was no window breakage. The only change in that sentence not concerning those two issues was the change to the words "would have resulted" that was a response to a different issue. That separate issue is also why I changed the wording of "because it is" to "NIST considered it" and that is the insertions of absolute statements on matters that are not absolute. NIST's word on whether it is likely that thermite could have been brought into the building is not enough to state it as fact, that is not an issue concerning NIST's area of expertise. Generally we should avoid absolute statements, especially in a case like this where the claim is coming from a source that did not actually explain its reasoning. Similarly the terms "would have resulted" implies that the window breakage pattern predicted by NIST's simulations were definite. Even if they were pretty close to reality, it is not appropriate to describe it as though said simulation perfectly conforms to reality. Additionally, NIST's own wording in the study uses "what would be expected" in describing its observations of the window breakage pattern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not encouraging that coming right off a block for edit warring, you begin again where you left off, rewording things to make controlled demolition seem less implusible. I've restored the paragraph on the conspiracy theories. Please get consensus on the talk page for any significant changes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Tom, I'm beginning to think we need an article that goes into the details of the studies done (by the NIST, etc). Something that would help explain the more technical aspects of the collapse and how the determinations were made. Keeping the excellent overview we already have here in place and directing those looking for more information, or for the more technically inclined, to the "In depth" article. In the current context it would be a good place for detailing the studies done on window performance and how computer models are used when doing science ( vs the odd idea that they are fictional simulations of questionable value). Thoughts? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Way to completely twist what I actually said. I only stated that a simulation should not be treated as hallowed truth. I did not say that it was "fictional" or of "questionable value" as you claim. They are probably very good and reliable simulations, but they are still not something that should be treated as definite. Having Wikipedia say "this is how it would have happened without question" as the current wording effectively does, is not appropriate. As I said, that change was also consistent with the wording in NIST's own study, something that you guys apparently only think has relevance when it makes conspiracy theorists look bad.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The change you just reverted does not in any way do what you claim. It merely rewords that sentence to correct a grammatical error. It just plain doesn't make sense why you would think it does anything else. The change, when read, says simply that NIST found no evidence, such as the window breakage pattern and blast sounds, that would suggest the use of explosives. What you have restored has it worded as NIST found no evidence because the window breakage pattern and blast sounds were not observed, which makes no grammatical sense. Please reinsert my correction of that grammatical issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed "because" to "as," which is I believe a neutral edit that most of us can get behind. Given you are coming right off a one-week block, may I suggest that a better approach would have been to point out the grammatical issue here, rather than use it as license to make a more dubious edit. -Jordgette [talk] 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)