Talk:7 World Trade Center

---

Construction above power substation

The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site, which would be 25 stories and contain 600,000 sq ft.[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building, which also covered a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built...can we elaborate what design changes were implemented to accomodate the original building? Or possibly expand on how they were able to build a 47 story structure when only a 25 story one had been originally considered?--MONGO 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded upon what factors made the building unique, in terms of structural design, and how engineers were able to build on the site given those issues. Is it clear enough now, or is there anything that's still confusing? --Aude (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out and see, but this looks excellent now.--MONGO 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse video

Link to web resources for viewing the collapse of WTC 7 returned. As it represents one of the few (of three, actually) skyscraper collapses in history, readers should be encouraged to view its significant collapse. At least, there is absolutely no reason not to link to online material showing its collapse. Vesku 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and Google videos are not generally used as resources for articles. Your link to a list of google videos is not pertinent to this article since all refs need some introduction as to what they are viewing. Not all the videos on that link have valid copy rights. I'm not sure why you are removing pertinent info from the middle of a paragraph. Please discuss before making changes and if you are reverted by more than one person, you do not have consensus of the editors for your changes. WP works by consensus. --PTR 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The video you linked to is highly misleading, as it only shows 6 seconds of the collapse. In reality, the east penthouse began to collapse 8.2 seconds before the global collapse (what you see in the video you link). The overall collapse took at least 16 seconds. The link is definitely not appropriate.
• What you say about "no steel recovered" is not the whole story. The FEMA/ASCE teams, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Dr. J. Gross, a structural engineer at NIST, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley were among those that had access to Fresh Kills Landfill and other locations where steel was taken. They were unable to identify with 100% certainty any pieces as being from WTC 7, and not from the twin towers. But, they had the opportunity to look and did collect samples for the twin towers.
• Also not accurate that NIST relied solely on "videos and eyewitness testimony". WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi). NIST also worked with structural design drawings and talked with people involved in designing the building. The steel used in WTC 7 was typical, and properties of the steel can be estimated, in order for modeling to be carried out.
• Adding "There are numerous resources for viewing the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Internet, including Google Video." in the middle of the article is entirely inappropriate. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

- If the video I linked to is "misleading", feel free to suggest a better one! The important thing is to link to *some* decent-quality video showing this major collapse. If a link to the collapse video "in the middle of the article is entire inappropriate" (why?), let us find a better place for it.

- As regards NIST's "no steel was recovered" statement, it is noteworthy that NIST gives the impression that it has not had access to steel from this collapse. Steel from WTC 7 would have been relatively easy to isolate from that of the Twin Towers, as the building stood for hours after the Twin Towers' collapse and had a smallish debris field.

- My formulation did not indicate that NIST relied SOLELY on "videos and eyewitness testimony". I wrote "including videos and eyewitness testimony". Please refrain from distorting. 192.100.124.219 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I added a link to a collection of WTC 7 collapse videos to the External Links section. The link is to http://wtc7.net/videos.html If you are not satisfied with that selection or site, feel free to suggest an alternative. It is absurd that the article currently has no link to any collapse video of the building. Could a collapse video be somehow embedded to the article? Vesku 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The wtc7 link is not suitable. It says things like "they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish.", which is not at all the case. The collapse took 16-18 seconds in entirety. We don't link to sites like that here. We now have a link to a different video. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---Forgive me if i'm mistaken, but there hasn't been a NIST report released about the collapse of WTC 7 yet. It's still a work in progress(the first draft of which should be getting released, in the next couple of months, if I remember correctly). So until they release it, you can't really take anything they say about the (wtc7) collapse, as being their official stance. dbalsdon (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in and lack of investigations

How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of the debris and the fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should? Skyscrapers should be able to withstand much larger damage. That's why engineers tend to take them into account and use extra safety margins on top of that. Still it is said that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column. So a much stronger then usual critical column failed. I'm talking columns which even under normal building principles, where no tower extension is planned, are not only the strongest colums of the building but are also build with extra safety margins. And that while the debris had only hit the base of the tower and a corner while these colums lie in the center of the building. This means the fire did the trick. But how can that be, buildings like this are engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration and above that are even constructed with a sprinkler systems. So things happened that could not have happened under sound engineering and operating principles. This article should have a note on that and it should present the facts on where engineering and/or operation failed and why. For instance, which mistakes were made in engineering, constructing, maintaining and using building 7 so that it collapsed, and building 6 did not while building 6 was hit harder and should have been weaker. There should be reports on that. And if there are not, than what has taken them so long to do find out which under other circumstances would have been clear by long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.136.108 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps; it was not an automatic system
2. Sprinkler system may have been damaged by debris. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; damage there would have meant no functioning sprinklers.
3. The sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers
4. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers in the first place, even if they were still functioning.
5. Low water pressure also meant that firefighters were unable to do much to manually fight the fire.
6. Buildings are not engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration. WTC 7 had fireproofing that was designed to last 2-hour for steel beams, girders and truss, and 3-hours for columns. The fires burned for much longer than that. In normal circumstances, that should allow time for firefighters to work on the fire or at least evacuate occupants. Firefighters had little or no water, the building was unstable and in danger of collapsing, and they already lost hundreds of firefighters (need not risk more) since occupants were evacuated. --Aude (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Move collapse section to collapse article?

How does everyone feel about moving the information about the collapse to the collapse of the World Trade Center article? The section links there with the promise of a "main article", but the section here is much more substantial than the section there. (Alternative: move the main article link to the collapse article. But that seems counter-intuitive.) If we move it, we should of course leave a summary here.--Thomas Basboll 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose any major changes to this article. It just became a featured article.--MONGO 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the links here.--MONGO 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Making this a "See also" link as MONGO did is appropriate. Aside from that, no changes are needed here. --Aude (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

In this ABC picture, what are we seeing. A desription of the picture would be really helpful.--Lionheart Omega 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption says "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories." What about the caption is not clear? --Aude (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Where in the picture is the gash?--Lionheart Omega 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns about the collapse section

I think the section is very informative and interesting, but I have a couple of concerns about the sources.

• The first description ("volcanic erruption") comes from a response, not just to conspiracy theories, but to a popular talk show host's version of them. There are much better sources to support statements about the effects of the collapse of the North Tower on building 7. I would recommend confining all the sources that pertain to these theories to the paragraph devoted to them. (Rosie is of course one of the most notable cases of promoting WTC7 as a demolition; she is an important part of the popular mythology that surrounds WTC7.)
• The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage.

Like I say, we should do what we can to keep the section informative, but these issues about sources and synthesis seem important as well. We had a bit of a discussion about it at the main collapse article here.--Thomas Basboll 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think that Rosie is an important part of anything regarding WTC7...aside from her opinion, which is based on just that, her opinion. I disagree with the changes you are proposing...this is a featured article and passed the featured article process with a complaint only about one of the images. I see no reason to mess with this article at this time.--MONGO 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be ironic if featured article status made it more difficult to improve an article. The article already does a good job on the CT mythology; I am suggesting we improve it there, and (in line with Tom Harrison's suggestion over on the collapse article) confining CT-related sources to CT-related parts of the article.--Thomas Basboll 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way to "improve" the CT stuff would be to say it is idiotic, but that would be too kind, and not encyclopedic, even though I am sure I can find plenty of sources that have stated this and easily reference it.--MONGO 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In ref 20, Popular Mechanics tells us that Rosie's remarks "renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7" and that NIST has begun to "address concerns of conspiracy theorists". This tells us something about the impact of conspiracy theories on both science and society. While I don't really like this source (it is only the weblog of a popular magazine, after all), I think these two ideas are supported by better sources elsewhere, including PM's book on the same subject. So, for example, both Keith Seffen at Cambridge and Zdenek Bazant at North Western have submitted work to a top engineering journal defending progressive collapse specifically to (using PM's phrase) address the concerns of conspiracy theorists. That's a pretty unambiguous impact on scientific research. Likewise, Rosie received wide (mostly negative) coverage at the time of her remarks. That's impact on society. So it is easy to document that CTs like this are not just the idiotic personal opinions of individuals. Not mentioning them here would be a bit like not mentioning Nixon in the Watergate complex article. Do note that in the exemplary mention of the Watergate scandal, not even the word "illegal" is used. That's because it would insult the intelligence of the reader.--Thomas Basboll 06:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to expand on CT stuff in this article..the more we add, the more credibility we give it. It is our job to rise above this foolishness. Rosie's opinions were a momentary issue that has now since passed...no one with a rational mind was swayed by her opinions.--MONGO 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's truly unapologetically POV. The notability of a theory should determine its weight in the article. Your personal view on whether the theory is "foolish" is completely irrelevant and has no place here. It is not our job at Wikipedia to "rise above" what people believe about the world - it's our job to report it. --Hyperbole 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The lack of notability as far as science is all that matters...we don't report on the opinions of non-experts.--MONGO 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case we are in a position to report the expert opinions of several engineers (Bazant, Greening, Seffen and others) along with coverage in Popular Mechanics. Science simply has taken notice. We may find that regrettable, but there's nothing left to do but report it.--Thomas Basboll 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What notice have they taken? Where do you get your information?--MONGO 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bazant et al.'s tech report (PDF here), BBC coverage of Seffen's paper (here, press release here). Plus the Popular Mechanics blog source and it's links to NIST (already in article).--Thomas Basboll 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct yourself, Hyperbole. The job of Wikipedia should be to report truth, to the best extent possible. What "people believe about the world" is incredibly ambiguous and self-defeating for Wikipedia's purpose. There is objective truth, whether anyone is aware of it or not.

...then we should remove the following articles entirely: Scientology, Flat Earth Society, and Tin Foil Hat. There have been serious documentaries and lots of discussion in the media about the possibility that the collapse was an "inside job." Whether or not the theories are valid or absurd is irrelevant. What is relevant is the widespread publicity of these theories. I would wager a guess that a greater percentage of the population believes in this theory than Scientology and Flat Earth combined. Even if one of the strongest proponents of the theory is a nut, it is noteworthy in this article. The objective truth is that there are a significant number of people who believe there is some kind of cover-up in 9/11. We are only reporting what notable people think, and what makes them "notable" is not their expertise, but how much their words make an impact on the general population, either by throwing mud back at them or by following them.Randhuck (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's description isn't the best. I thought about changing it before, and now have reworded it. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm on wikibreak and might respond slowly to queries. Please bear with me. Regards. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That does the trick.--Thomas Basboll 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate section on the synthesis of eyewitness account

To keep things orderly, here's a separate section to discuss the second issue.

• The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage.

(Please note that this really has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.)--Thomas Basboll 06:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FDNY chief Daniel Nigro was present on 9/11 and involved with operations during the afternoon. Are you telling me that Chief Nigro is not a reliable source? How so? He was there. FDNY chief Peter Hayden, also on the scene, not a reliable source? FDNY captain Chris Boyle? not reliable? These accounts were published by the New York Times and Firehouse Magazine, which are reliable "authoritative" sources. These are simply descriptions of what was happening and are completely relevant to the article. If anything, I think we could add more description from other firefighters. But, taking any of this out is not an option. --Aude (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem we are going to run into arises when these firefighters (as often happens) offer slightly different accounts of the same events, slightly different chronologies, etc. We are in no position to decide between them. To my mind, the problem is akin to what happens in articles on works of literature: the best policy is not to let our own reading of the texts determine, say, the description of the plot.--Thomas Basboll 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Facts are facts ... but, truthfully, I don't really know."

The New York Magazine article that Sunder's "Who's Who of experts" quote is taken from continues as follows:

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

I think some of this needs to go in the article. Sunder is saying that the experts, who have a good handle on the Towers, are still puzzled by WTC 7. The article leaves out the the part of Sunder's answer that specifically pertains to WTC 7. This is especially troubling, by the way, because the WTC7 section in the controlled demolition hypothesis article doesn't leave this point out. That seems to me to indicate that Sunder's words have been inadvertently POV forked.--Thomas Basboll 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Forked in what direction?--MONGO 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at both sections again. I think the answer is both. The CDH article, when discussing NIST, seems slightly biased in the direction of CDH--leaving out NIST's statement that it has found nothing to suggest CD. The 7 WTC article leaves out Sunder's direct statement that he doesn't know what happened to the building, while quoting only his confidence in his team (which, like I say, pertains to the Tower investigation, not 7WTC.) The ideal solution here would be to write a paragraph about NIST's position on the 7 WTC CDH that can be put in both articles. That would avoid the POV-fork.--Thomas Basboll 10:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the CDH article. Such details need to go there, not here. --Aude (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But don't you see the problem? We are offering a CDH-favourable slant on this exchange in the CDH article and a sanitized version of the same exchange in the 7 WTC article, even though they are talking about exactly the same issue. That looks like POV-forking.--Thomas Basboll 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because the CDH page is full of WP:SYNTH, and slanted to give the "hypothesis" more credibility. Sunder's quote is being misconstrued by you guys to give the assumption that because they aren't yet precisely sure which trusses and which support columns failed first, second, etc...and his comment that they are not sure why, somehow equals some other cause aside from long burning fires and severe damage. This article, as it exists gives an excellent overview of what happened. If I have time, I'll go over to that CDH article and clean it up.--MONGO 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the CDH article can be cleaned up. I may beat you to it. But in this case the CDH article is more accurate. My view is that since it is the very same issue, the articles should say the same thing. That thing is: when Sunder was asked about the possibility of controlled demolition of 7 WTC he said he didn't really know. When NIST was asked about it later (in the FAQ), they said they had no reason to suspect CD but they were considering hypothetical blast scenarios. The "Who's Who of experts" remark wasn't about building seven. It is misleading to present it as though it is.--Thomas Basboll 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that...again, making something out of nothing is not what a scientific treatise incorporates. Sunder's remarks shouldn;t be taken out of context or elaborated on as if he meant more than what he stated. As a scientist...a really good scientist, they are supposed to look at everything...even if it is preposterous. Same can be said about physical antropologists...while they know Bigfoot does not exist, many do not take the assumption that it is impossible...the evidence that Bigfoot exists is so miniscule, that for all practical purposes, it really is not possible that he does...the same aplies here, and as far as I am concerned, expanding on science fiction for the sake of catering to the CD crowd is not necessary.--MONGO 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion here is not to expand, but to properly represent what Sunder said about building 7, since that is what the article is about. All he said was, and all the article should say he said, was that NIST still hasn't got a good handle on building 7 (or at least didn't when he was asked). AS it stands, it looks like he said that they've got it well in hand, that they know "the facts".--Thomas Basboll 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote, "truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” is already in there, but does need to be there twice. It's also not really related to conspiracy theories. They know that fire caused the collapse, but it has been difficult for them to find the exact point that the collapse initiated and other such details. --Aude (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I had forgotten to remove the earlier instance. I'm going to revert back (and remove the second), just so we have an alternative. Like the "volcanic eruption" remark, I think it is best to leave, as much as possible, official reactions to conspiracy theories in the paragraphs that are about those theories.--Thomas Basboll 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS It was important to me to correct the impression that Sunder's "who's who" applied to conclusions reached about building seven.--Thomas Basboll 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That part of the New York Magazine article is talking about the NIST report for WTC7 and why it's been delayed.

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report? This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year. NIST did have some "preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"

That they have had difficulty is nothing to do with the conspiracy theories, and doesn't belong in the paragraph discussing those. Moving it there takes the quote out of context, and is not an improvement to the article. --Aude (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote entirely, and replaced it with more recent information from NIST. --Aude (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was taken out of context (the whole article the quote comes from is about CTs). But I do agree that the paragraph is better without Sunder's remarks at all. Like I say, the "but truthfully" was necessary to correct the impression that the "who's who of experts" had WTC7 well in hand.--Thomas Basboll 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New photos

I have new photos of the new building that can be used in the article. Probably can only add one (or maybe two), and not decided which ones. I'm open to suggestions. Also, I'm having some trouble uploading to commons, and don't have time or patience to upload all. Right now they are posted on Flickr --Aude (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This or another interior might be good: [2]. Outside, this is a great shot: [3]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Switched the one in the infobox, and added the other.

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Though, photo A and B would also work. Don't have a preference. --Aude (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Is Absolutely Necessary

It truly strains credulity to state the pat explanation of WTC 7's collapse and have absolutely NO MENTION of the glaring contradictions and various inconsistencies in its underpinning. It is now common (and NOT fanatical) knowledge that something fishy was afoot in (at LEAST) the collapse of WTC 7. More than a few structural engineers, demolitions experts, some of them on-site witnesses of the collapse, have all come forward (in the face of great resistance and admonishment) and expressed their doubts and reasons for them. These are not crackpots or conspiracy theorists. These are professionals trained in the assessment and maintenance of structural safety and integrity, with thorough knowledge of how and why different buildings collapse. Many years of study and real-world experience inform these people's opinions and yet they are dismissed out of hand due to, at least from one angle, the emotional and social sensitivities of other Americans who are, simply put, too terrified of the possible implications to even entertain these "wild notions."

And let's not start with Larry Silverstein's unintentional gaff of stating ON CAMERA that they "pulled" the building. Please, no semantic discussions; HE SAID IT and so did other WTC engineers. And there are many accounts of witnesses reporting secondary explosions preceding the collapse of all the fallen WTC structures. These all amount to the proverbial elephant in the room.

Long story short, SOME mention of these unacknowledged aspects and their prismatic effect on our perception of the 9/11 events as presented in a "people's encyclopedia" is absolutely a must if faith in Wikipedia as an unbiased, living document is to be maintained. §pårk (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of the disputed, aka not fully supported by fact, way the building collasped needs to be mentioned in the very beginning of the article...replacing "due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage" I've tried to edit this. I do not see how as a people's encyclopedia one can speak so definitively on something that is more grounded on emotion than fact.Knowledgebycoop (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article, as currently written, does not mention any of the inconsistencies or faults of the widely held fire-collapse account but instead presents it as fact rather than speculation, as no official government or professional body has yet to fully explain the collapse. See Lee Hamilton's admission that WTC 7 collapse is still on open question.[4]

The small section on alternative theories ("conspiracy theories") for collapse is currently worded with a POV bias. At the very least this part needs expansion in order to justly summarize alternative perspectives on the collapse. Resources for this job are immense and easy to access. I hope someone with more detailed knowledge than me can do this necessary job.--David Barba (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If they detonated it, we would know, but we don't so, this article is factual then.--68.9.193.246 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

huh?--David Barba (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but this is Wikipedia, where we rely on facts and evidence - and not conspiracy theories - to write our articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I will revised "Despite preliminary findings by FEMA and NIST that fire caused them," to "Rejecting..." This word is more accurate b/c proponents of CD theory do not simply over look NIST findings but openly reject them. "Despite" carries a negative POV connotation because it infers that CD theory does not consider NIST findings when CD challenges the NIST findings. One can object to to CD theory and consider its proponents wackos, but don't carry that bias onto Wikipedia. This simple word change in no way damages the integrity of this article or the information it conveys.--David Barba (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here but I would propose that the proper word would be disputing "To question the truth or validity of". Tony0937 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why i deleted the green building section

The statement that WTC 7 is the first green building in NYC is false... the first LEED certified structure was the Hearst Tower by Norman Foster which opened for business May 4, 2006 vs. the WTC opening some 3 weeks later... Silverstein Properties is the source of this info, which seems a bit biased in its own right... Its my first time editing on wikipedia so sorry in advance for any mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.123.191 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page needs protection

Already I've seen 9-11 conspiracy crap placed in the introduction, and this article is a hotbed for it. The page needs temporary protection while it is on the main page. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. 67.36.57.121 (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage."

This article is a joke. There is no consensus. I think majority of people actually believe that WTC 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition. So, who decides which version goes to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.191.151 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - bought down by fire ??? Check out wtc7.net and read some of the engineering reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzarotemaps (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sources blaming Rudy Giuliani for collapse

I was stunned to see Wikipedia running a version of this article that excludes widespread media reports of Rudy Giuliani's involvement in creating this disaster by poor planning. I added a brief summary of relevant information, with thorough sourcing to withstand any controversy:

The decision by Rudy Giuliani to site the emergency response center and associated diesel tanks at a vulnerable site, despite a memo by his appointee Jerome M. Hauer advising a more secure location, has been blamed for the intense fire that consumed the building.

and of course it was reverted within one minute, without explanation. I am not impressed. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably belongs on Rudy Giuliani I would think. RxS (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I summarized this from a paragraph in that article. But you're telling me you actually want the article to not explain the bad decision that made the building flammable enough to collapse? You're telling me you folks cannot tolerate one sentence, studded with good media sources about 7 World Trade Center, because it might make people think bad about a certain politician? I doubt China's Wikipedia can be much worse than this. All this conspiracy nonsense about explosives hidden in the building is almost a half truth, when you consider that some crazy politican actually decided to put an emergency bunker with diesel fuel high up in a building that was at the #1 national target for terrorist attacks. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a platform for you to slag Giuliani. WP:BLP applies to all pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP allows you to slag a politician if your sentence is backed up by six articles from major news media including the New York Times. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Present it in context in his biography. You can't selectively aggregate negative material, or give it disproportionate weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not selectively aggregated - Giuliani just happens to be the only person blamed for installing a skybox bunker full of diesel fuel near Ground Zero. Nor is the weight disproportionate - it's one sentence about the major theory of how the building came to be destroyed. As WP:BLP puts it, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless that decision was the only one he made while implementing security measures (which of course it isn't), cherry picking one issue is aggregating negative material. I'm not fan of his but really, you're just using this article to pitch rocks at him...RxS (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which introduces a more biased POV to the article? To include mention of articles which lay blame on one particular person for the tower's collapse, or to remove all mention of him despite these articles? Also, pardon my ignorance, but could you explain what policy or guideline defines "aggregating negative material" so I can be sure not to run afoul of it in the future? I can't find "aggregating" in WP:BLP, and searching for the three-word phrase in Wikipedia gives no results. It sounds like the phrase would refer more to people who start articles "Controversy and Criticism of So-and-So" than one sentence in an article. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think an attempt to "lay blame" on one particular person (in a situation that's as complicated as this one is) on any Wikipedia article is more POV than policys allow, for sure more POV than not laying blame on one particular person. As far as "aggregating negative material", that's a phrase used earlier in the discussion and I used to keep the same terms in use, there's no aggregating negative material if that's what you mean. RxS (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "blame" is entirely incidental - actually, it's more to say the diesel fuel was blamed for the fire. So I could easily accept, for example, "Rudy Giuliani has been criticized for choosing the site for the emergency response center despite security and fire code concerns, after stored diesel fuel contributed to the intense fire that consumed the building." (this is also simpler, removing Jerome Hauer from the text at least for now - I've also added "fire code" based on the NYT reference from 2001-12-20 added below) 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try not to be too stunned. Giuliani surely has his brownshirts monitoring this article. No criticism allowed. nut-meg (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Selected references for the proposed sentence

It should be clear that what is being discussed here is not the conspiracy-ravings of the controlled-demolition crowd, but rather a more serious criticism that it represented very poor planning for New York City to establish an emergency planning command center, in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, within the very confines of the World Trade Center complex itself. The argument is that because the WTC was a foreseeable target, the command center should not have been included at a nearby location. Therefore, some mainstream sources have faulted Giuliani and his assistants for not foreseeing that in the event of an attack on WTC, the command center would not be accessible or usable. However, what is proposed to be included here is a sentence that blames Giuliani and his assistants, not only for failing to foresee another major attack on the World Trade Center, but for failing to foresee that the attack could cause an adjoining building to actually catch fire, causing the fuel storage tanks to be ignited as a result. From the vantage point of pre-September 11, that was a remote and not a particularly foreseeable scenario (I cannot think of any prior incident in which a terrorist attack on a major building ignited a neighboring building). To say that Giuliani's decision is "blamed for" the loss of 7 WTC without these caveats is arguably unfair, and therefore I agree that the proposed sentence is not appropriate. It might, however, be possible to point out here or in another article something along the lines of "ironically, after the prior attack on the World Trade Center, New York City decided to situate a command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center, so that the city's planning following the prior attack may have added to the devastation of the next one"—but without the NPOV and somewhat simplistic use of a term like "blamed." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno..."ironically" seems to be editorializing. It's easy to look back at past mistakes, but less so to envision all future potentialities...that two wide body jets would be hijacked and then slammed into the two towers one after another was something that was only considered to be of the most minor of possibilities...a land based assault as what happened in 1993 was always deemed the most probable scenario that might unfold.--MONGO (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, and I am not saying that any reference to this belongs in the article; just pointing out that if there is consensus to address the matter at all, a term like "blamed" should certainly not be used. It is a common observation that A can be the "cause" of B, in the sense that if A had not happened then B would not of happened, without it having been in any way foreseeable that A would lead to B. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, however, that Mr. Hauer did foresee that this was a bad idea. Still, I can see softening the wording a bit - the problem is that instead of softening it in some way that might even be mutually acceptable, RxStrangelove just reverted it entirely. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the gist of Hauer's concern was that the emergency facility might become inaccessible, not that it might catch fire and help cause the collapse of the building. Saying that Hauer thus warned Giuliani to anticipate what happened is thus overstated. Given that this issue is disputed, I would rather see it omitted from the article until there is consensus to include it, and particularly would prefer not to see an edit-war on mainpage FA day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberally stolen from NYB's suggestion: after the prior attack on the World Trade Center, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate a command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center, possibly adding to the devastation of the September 11 attacks? Something like that? RxS (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I composed a sentence in the subsection above simultaneously - I like my wording better, but yours is still a lot better than nothing. At least it provides a Wikilink to point at the right section of Rudy Giuliani. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a NYT reference indicating that the city knew the fuel tank was a danger and even took some action to reduce the risk. "A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center". 2001-12-20. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) So the city was warned that the area could be the target of a terror attack, and that the fuel tank could catch fire; the only question is whether they were warned the tank could catch fire because of a terror attack. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That article talks about the fire dept not wanting that tank there basically because it was a dumb idea...that it posed a hazard and was not in line with codes. But not as has been pointed out here, that it might cause a collapse during a terror attack...and it sounds like the port authority had some say in the matter anyway. In any case, unless there are other people wanting to weigh in, I'd rather use something along the lines of what I stole from NYB...it's a little more neutral. RxS (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in your wording for now - hopefully any further tinkering with wording can be done by the normal editing process. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for politicizing this trashy article, schlockheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.115.36 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to put it somewhere, and that looks no sillier than anywhere else. The addition isn't interesting. Midgley (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. All of the above information lends vital information to the article. It should also be noted that the building has faulty fire protection, in foam form which had worn off of many of its steel support beams. The controversy over placing the Emergency Management Center in WTC 7 is more then a valid issue. Coolgamer (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Characterization of Collapse "Conspiracy Theorists"

This section of the article (which is largely based on the NIST report) characterizes "conspiracy theorists" advocating controlled demolition as believing so "despite" the NIST report. Any familiarity with the controlled demolition theory would shows that it is poised agianst the conclusions of the NIST report, challenging NIST rationalizations for collapse. Therefore, I am arguing that "rejecting" is a better word, to replace "despite", characterizing the sentance and "conspiracy theorists". I have offered sources of popular controlled demolition websites associated with 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory showing how the NIST report is challenged. [5] [6] This characterization does not preclude criticism or ridicule of 9/11 conspiracy theories but simply better a description of such stances. I believe "despite" unfairly precludes the unassailablity of the official account (admitted by the 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton to be lacking concerning WTC 7 [7]). Furthermore, the lack of a completed and published report by the NIST concerning WTC 7 means that it is technically impossible for demolition control advocates to believe said "despite" the NIST. I would like those opposed to my edit to respond, respectfully- do your homework! Specifically Quadpus claims that my sources (I suppose there could be better examples) do not relate to the characterization of "conspiracy theorists" in this paragraph, please elaborate.--David Barba (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So it has been a week with no response from anyone opposed to my proposed change. Where did everyone go? Because no one has challenged this change or offered further suggestions, I will go forth with the revision after another forty-eight hours. Please now respond if you have problems or suggestions. I will not tolerate an edit war and much prefer consensus building.--David Barba (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the "despite", but perhaps for a slightly different reason. "Despite" makes it look like controlled demolition is being pursued largely in ignorance of NIST's suggestion. I think it could be much clearer that controlled demolitionists explicitly criticize NIST's position. I do think NIST has said that their position on controlled demolition of WTC 7 is that it didn't happen that way. This position has also been "rejected".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"PULL IT"- controversies missing

What a benign and apologetic article for all the controversies surrounding it. The world isnt a vacuum of the supernatural. History is a result of human meddling (ie. conspiracies) also. Tons of sources. Junior Brian (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this means but the quote you added has nothing to do with any real events of the day. It's a single quote that some people are reading all sorts of meanings. He's explained it and unless you can read his mind he is the best source for what he meant...RxS (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's abundantly obvious from the context that Silverstein was referring to pulling out the team of firefighters, not the building itself. Terraxos (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Shrine

This article is a shrine to the FEMA report and the US government. Any other information, no matter how well sourced is clearly unwelcome. The Founding Fathers, pioneers of democracy, would shed tears to see this. If the USA means anything at all, it means freedom of expression, not this government cosy-up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any other information had better be well-cited, or it will be removed. Jtrainor (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree completely; on this article, anything in general agreement with the official U.S. stance on the collapse can apparently be parroted without any citation at all, and all but the briefest, most cursory mention of the fact that literally millions are highly skeptical of that stance is censored. Yes, censored. Wikipedia is only as NPOV as its editors. --Hyperbole (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a featured article and your efforts to add fact tags was unnecessary since that area is but the introduction and the facts are reliably sourced in the article. If you have proof that this article is incorrect, then lets see it. It doesn't matter what others "think"...all that matters is what is proven to be correct.--MONGO 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but "what is proven to be correct" is the matter at the heart of this. For many many people the FEMA report is just a whitewash. There is some persuasive evidence of that at http://www.911truth.org/ and other places. The problem with this article is that it presents the FEMA report as "proven to be correct" while allowing little or no mention of alternative points of view. Now, I'm not an architect or an engineer, so I don't personally know, but there are architects and engineers that have rubbished the FEMA report. So their point of view deserves some space here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you're a 9/11 Truther, I can't have a serious conversation with you. Jtrainor (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't believe in freedom of thought or expression then? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...I simply believe that this article should recognise and reflect the fact that there is a significant body of opinion that is suspicious of the official version of events, and make clear their bases for doing so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, MONGO. Good of you to show up and prove my point; if there's any editor who openly asserts that he intends to insert a POV bias into the article, it's you. If there's any other editor who wants to hide the notable fact that so many millions of people think the collapse of WTC7 is suspicious on the *sole basis* that he doesn't agree with them, it's you. Sorry - I can only assume good faith until it's proven otherwise. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy the "so many millions" bit, the polls are all too general to draw a conclusion about WTC7...I doubt if millions could even tell you what WTC7 is. Apart from that, there isn't a "significant body of opinion" that is suspicious of the official version of events...there's a tiny vocal minority but that's about all. As an encyclopedia, we don't include every opinion, just those that have a notable and/or significant presence. CT's in this context do not. As an aside, I'd cool it on the personal attacks. RxS (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to see WP:NPA interpreted to mean that when someone *brags* about editing without respect to Wikipedia policy, we all have to be too polite to say anything about it. Characterizing those who see the official story on 7 WTC as implausible as a "tiny vocal minority" is just plain ridiculous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together that "a significant percentage of the English-speaking world don't buy the U.S. government's 9/11 story" + "many people who don't buy the government's 9/11 story are especially skeptical about the 7 WTC account" = "controlled demolition of 7 WTC is a notable viewpoint." I mean, just Google the building - there are two controlled demolition links on the first page and five on the second. These are pages that get millions of hits. Framing the theory as so non-notable that it deserves only the most cursory mention is ludicrous. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together that "a significant percentage of the English-speaking world don't buy the U.S. government's 9/11 story" + "many people who don't buy the government's 9/11 story are especially skeptical about the 7 WTC account" = "controlled demolition of 7 WTC is a notable viewpoint." is original research, which we don't allow here. And search results and number of "hits" do not make something notable. RxS (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What??! Are you seriously suggesting that we need a citation to tell us whether something's notable?? If that were the case, Wikipedia couldn't exist at all. It's not like there have been scholarly, citable articles that conclude that the official government story on 7 WTC has enough support to deserve mentioning on Wikipedia. And while search results don't "make" something notable, they're an extremely strong piece of evidence for the notability of something. There is almost nothing with hundreds of thousands of Ghits that we exclude from Wikipedia besides the fact that so many people are suspicious of the official 7 WTC account. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter how many people think the NIST evidence, the evidence of news reports and the facts of the case are wrong, either due to their own ignorance or biases. This article is not about conspiracy theories regarding what happened to WTC 7...it's about the facts of what happened. Telling me I'm here to promote my POV is ludicrus...I support the known facts of what happened, not some fantasy or delusion.--MONGO 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, you're all but admitting you're here to promote your POV, and ignore policy, when you assert that you personally can determine which sources contain "known facts" and which don't. You'd think that someone who used to be an admin would know that's more or less the definition of original research. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Baloney...please do provide one piece of fact based, peer reviewed and scientifically scrutinized information that supports your ridiculous conspiracy theory POV or stop wasting our time, Hyperbole. The disruption you keep causing to multiple 9/11 related articles just because they don't conform to your fantasy world version of reality makes you nothing more than a Tendentious editor.--MONGO 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, you have absolutely no idea what my POV on this subject is. By comparison, yours is more than clear - because you actually cite it, rather than policy, as the reason for making your reverts. I find it hilarious that you cited WP:TE to me - an essay that ought to be accompanied by your picture. --Hyperbole (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's special. This is a featured article and many if not most featured articles do not have references in the intros since the article body restates what is in the introduction (which are there to summarize what the article will discuss) and properly cites that info then. Attempting to readd FACT tags and demanding we reference something that is already exhaustively referenced in the article is tendentious editing on your part.--MONGO 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently no consensus there then. For MONGO's benefit, I'll draw his attention to Wikipedia:List of controversial issues (this is one of them, not a cut and dry case, as you'd like people to think) and Wikipedia:Controversial articles which clearly states "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy". In short, MONGO, you have absolutely no right whatsoever (whether you want 'right' to mean entitlement or correctness) to maintain your campaign to keep things you personally don't like out of this or any other controversial article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem we have is when conspiracy theory POV pushers try and misuse this website to promote their nonsense in our articles at the expense of the known evidence. See..the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV as well as WP:FRINGE. Neither you nor Hyperbole have provided a single reliable source that refutes the known evidence that is exhaustively referenced in this featured level article.--MONGO 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

aha, now I understand. MONGO = defender of known evidence; those who disagree with MONGO = POV pushers (who) promote their nonsense. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those that disagree with the known evidence=POV pushers.--MONGO 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those who try to ensure that only their POV appears in an article = POV pushers. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bzzzt, wrong. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A fringe theory with no evidence backing it, and certainly no reliable sources, does not qualify for mention. Raul654 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources make reference to the controversy over whether 7 WTC was demolished often. For example, a Google News search makes it evident that 21 publications have referenced 7 WTC in the last month, nearly all of which refer to the demolition controversy. That's just in the last month. There's all the evidence in the world that the controversy is very real and has infiltrated the international consciousness - it's not, as some would claim, just a few lunatics off somewhere being ignored. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the controlled demolition idea it wasn't published in those publications. What they say is that some people believe it was intentionally blown up, despite having no evidence for themselves and a mountain of to the contrary. Debunking does not qualify as being "published by a reliable source". Raul654 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no no interest in "refuting" anything; that would be original research and completely beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is for. What I would like to see is an article that gives due weight to different POVs. The argument that controlled demolition is a "fringe" POV is laughable; it's obviously held by an extremely large minority. And the argument that controlled demolition is a POV held by "idiots" is just totally irrelevant to what we're doing here - not to mention that editing on that basis shows a blatant disrespect for Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article had a peer review and a featured article review and easily passed both in it's present form...sorry you missed the reviews. We do give due weight to the conspiracy theories...since there is zero proof of them, they aren't even mentioned. We don't incorporate ignorance at the expense of knowledge and this is not going to be a platform to promote extremely fringe theories on the impossible.--MONGO 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it "easily passed" because almost no one showed up. And of the ~3 editors who showed up to the featured article review who don't actively edit the article, one of them suggested a subsection for the controlled demolition theory. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of "things that are proven to MONGO's satisfaction" - it's an encyclopedia or things that are notable. Calling skepticism of the FEMA account of 7 WTC "extremely fringe" is just a joke. Polls prove that there are *millions* of English speakers skeptical of the U.S. account of 9/11, mainstream publications have addressed that skepticism, and the number of websites devoted to that skepticism is overwhelmingly higher than the coverage of the vast majority of issues we consider notable. Calling it "fringe" is just not rooted in reality. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple notes here. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues is a list of issues that are controversial within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Controversial articles is a guideline that talks about editing articles that are controversial among Wikipedia editors. While both talk about controversial issues within Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily mean that those topics are controversial in the real world. And indeed, WTC7 is not a controversial topic outside of Wikipedia. So neither the list or the guideline apply here, except the points that deal with behavioral issues. In fact, all an article needs to be listed on the list is edit warring. Which clearly can happen on even the most mundane real world topics.

When it comes to "due weight", people should read the first sentence: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. There are few, if any, reliable sources that talk about controlled demolition as anything other than a cultural phenomenon...and because of that it has no place in the article. There are other articles that describe CD though, and it gets plenty of attention there. As long as experts working within their field and mainstream reliable sources do not consider CD a realistic theory of events (which they don't), CD has no place in this article.

The assertion that CD is a belief held by a large minority is not supported by the facts. Citing various polls to justify that claim is wrong. The polls show that people may believe there is more to the story, or that they are unhappy with the leadership in the US, but they did not test and do not show that anyone believes in controlled demolition. The fact that there is a tiny vocal minority running websites and sharing videos doesn't mean anything regarding general public opinion about WTC7. That's all there really is to say about this subject...and it's been said multiple times by multiple editors, there really is no need to keep debating it. RxS (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think "tiny" means, but the number of websites and videos arguing against the official account of the 7 WTC collapse is *anything but that*. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of websites and videos; they're not originating from ten lunatics in the Nevada desert, and even if they were, they're reaching a massive audience. They're notable by any standard. And you shouldn't try to act as though the issue is "closed" just because there are presently more editors making reverts you like than reverts you don't. --Hyperbole (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thousands upon thousands of websites and videos....well, there's one of the problems. You make an assertion about how many websites there are but do not back it up. Same with the massive audience assertion. But I'm just not going to go round and round, I made a bunch of points about how CT is not a notable subject, pointed to applicable policies and noted where adding CT content would appropriate and you just come back with an unsupported assertion and assuming bad faith about my motivations. The fundamental fact of the matter is that this has been settled many times, and until something changes it remains settled. That's not just me pronouncing that, that's the outcome of every debate/discussion that's occured around this issue. RxS (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to back it up? Okay... here's 162,000 Google hits for "wtc7 demolition" - Google only catalogues 740 *unique* hits for any search, but we can see that hits 731-739 are all websites and blogs on the subject. So, yes, there are obviously thousands upon thousands of websites on the subject. YouTube returns 628 videos for "building 7", 1,350 videos for "7 wtc", and 1,750 videos for "wtc7". Several of those videos have more than 100,000 views; some have more than half a million. It's just ridiculous that anyone could call this subject "tiny" or "fringe" or "non-notable". --Hyperbole (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but thousands upon thousands of websites on the subject does not translate into arguing against the official account of the 7 WTC collapse. And funny, the first of the 731-739 you mention is a video dump that's mostly about sharks. And a cursory inspection of the you tube results show a significant amount of the same video submitted multiple times. Searches like that are unreliable indicators of anything...even if the number of videos on you tube are high and there's a high number of blogs out there they are not reliable sources. The Internet is a big place, and this subject is indeed fringe. You'll need to do much much better than that to get a consensus. RxS (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the thousands upon thousands of websites referencing the "demolition" of 7 WTC are arguing for or against the proposition; their existence proves that the POV is highly notable, and deserves far more weight than a tiny blerb stating pejoratively, without reference, that it's only believed by "some conspiracy theorists." And, yes, YouTube videos are always duplicative, but views and comments are not; the fact that videos arguing the case for controlled demolition of 7 WTC have been viewed literally millions and millions of times, sparking enormous discussions, is proof of the notability of the POV. Yes, the Internet is big, but I challenge you to find a single other POV associated with that many websites and blogs and videos and views and comments that is so poorly represented on its subject's Wikipedia article. You won't. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does matter...things don't become notable by repeated you tube plays. But I think we've said all that needs to be said here. This isn't a new conclusion here, others can have their say. RxS (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Things become notable when enough people take note of them - regardless of whether they hear about them from their government, from a newspaper, or from a website. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

Your viewpoint already gets the screentime it's worth, in [8]. It's not going to be added to this article. Jtrainor (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you have no idea what my viewpoint is. Second, I think that subsection is pretty good support for the proposition that WTC7 is central to the controlled demolition hypothesis, which, itself, is obviously notable. And isn't it interesting that the sentence over there, "Some journalists commenting on the nature of the collapse of WTC 7 said that it resembled a controlled demolition," here becomes "Some conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses... were the result of controlled demolition," and any attempts to edit that blatantly misleading and POV sentence are met with a knee-jerk revert? --Hyperbole (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)