The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
7 World Trade Center is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
I think there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7. This page could be misleading and the fact that it collapsed is only apparent further down the page. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? All the other WTC towers have two (old and new) buildings at one page. Besides, it mentions the fact that the original 7 WTC collapsed, right there, in the lede. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7? Because the old and the new WTC 7 are different buildings. At the moment it is so, as if there was only a renovation or conversion of the old building. If the rule is that all buildings at the same place should be described in only one article, than it is ok. But if the rule is that if the old building is destroyed before the next building was built write two separate article then we should split up the article in two articles. And if there is the same problem with the other WTC towers then we should make the same decision there. But maybe it should be discussed at wikidata.org because in some language versions are separate articles for each building and in some versions there is only one article for all buildings. And an other point: If you ask who was the architect of the WTC 7 and you have to enquire which one of the WTC 7 buildings is be meant then there should be separate articles for each building, IMHO.--Fit (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And for the complexes of buildings which are called World Trade Center there are two separate articles.--Fit (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with both buildings being covered in one article, however, it is kind of hard to defend, given that the buildings are totally different. They share the same name and address, but the new one is completely redesigned and they obviously have very different histories. I notice, for example, that New York's Pennsylvania Stations have two articles (this and this). -Jordgette[talk] 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the text is implying that World Trade Center tower Seven fell as a result of the damage caused by debris from the other explosions on the same date. I think it is **HIGHLY** important that it be noted that this could not have been the cause of the collapse, and that the true cause was that of a controlled demolition. When a tower collapses from fires burning within, they do not collapse from the top floor first, and they certainly do not collapse evenly. Please do some research on the subject and correct your misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, if you care to check the World Trade Center articles - you will find that the consensus of registered Wikipedia editors is that they have no time for conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. There are plenty of sites on the internet for these "theories" and that is where they should stay. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP has apparently never read the NIST report on how the building collapsed.--MONGO 03:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, Wiki isn't the end-all be-all source for accurate information anyways, so I'm not surprised the admins consider the sources in the article reliable. Good enough for an introductory rundown of the events, I'm sure readers will be smart enough to know they should look at a variety of sources when researching a topic. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Note that even the NIST report admits free fall
Please leave your comments on one of the many conspiracy websites on the internet and not here. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Any reason why this hasn't been moved to Seven World Trade Center to match the other World Trade Center articles? I see only brief mention of this in the archives, but if no one objects I will make the move. NuclearWarfare move-protected this article to sysop-only as it is featured, but I suspect that was only as a preventive measure against vandalism (which has happened before). Pinging Epicgenius as I see you are one of the primary contributors. — MusikAnimaltalk 16:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to override my protection if you establish agreement here. NW(Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and NuclearWarfare: I think moving this article to "Seven World Trade Center" would be consistent, though I wouldn't mind either way. (Also pinging Aude, another of the major authors, though he's relatively inactive right now.) Epic Genius (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The building's name is 7, not Seven, according to its website . The WTC complex is not consistent in its naming, so WP shouldn't try to impose an artificial consistency. This has come up before on other WTC articles. Acroterion(talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wanted to go off of the front page, they are all numerical except One World Trade Center . We should probably go with that, then, unless you feel there's some sort of WP:COMMONNAME discrepancy. — MusikAnimaltalk 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
"Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre"
One of the images in this article has a caption referring to the "Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre". Has a conspiracy theorist snuck this in? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)