Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Picture of new building

Shouldn't there be a picture of what the new WTC 7 will look like? I feel it should be there...maybe a picture of the old one as well when it existed. (Jamandell (d69) 14:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC))

Durin...seems the puffs of "air" come out before building 7 even starts to fall. How could your theory of air from inside being forced out hold water? the building isnt falling while the puffs come out of the building! It doesnt add up to support your claim.

concerned 63.224.35.58 00:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

According to FEMA, the collapse sequence took more than 30 seconds to complete, of which the last several seconds were the most dramatic and visible. There was substantial collapse happening inside the building during the collapse sequence before the ultimate catastrophic failure. --Durin 02:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

durin...ty for the reply. that theory is very plausible as well.unsigned edit by 63.224.35.58 (talk · contribs)

I haven't read all of the debate in the archives, so fault me if I'm wrong or off base, but I think Durin is correct: This talk page isn't a place to argue about unknown facts. Since we don't know what actually happened (for sure), we need to describe the collapse in terms of what people say it is. As long as we say "according to..." or something similar, and as long as we show both/all views proportionally, the article has a neutral point of view. Where do you see bias in this article, Alfonslof? Please cite specific quotes. If there really is bias, we want to get rid of it. But stating the "other side" isn't grounds for an NPOV tag. ElAmericano 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has answered, and I don't see any bias. I'm removing the NPOV tag, but if someone presents some justification for it, I'm fine with that, too. ElAmericano 22:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The building is complete, big party next weekend for it.

The building is not complete. No party yet. CoolGuy 15:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

Can we move the conspiracy theories to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Most of this is redundant to that page as is. I think it would be best to have a brief mention of the theory here and then put a link like

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

or something. I'm not sure why these theories should be like 3/4's of the page. --Quasipalm 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That might be better. However, if we do that, the 9/11 conspiracy theories page should probably have an entire section devoted to WTC7, rather than dispersing various pieces of WTC7 information throughout the existing structure of that article. Further, the few existing tidbits of WTC7 information on that page should be integrated into that section. My $0.02. --Hyperbole 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the explanation from the promoters of the 9/11 conspiracy theories for how tens of thousands of people involved in the official investigation of the collapse of WTC7 were kept from revealing the truth? patsw 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving it to one place would make sense. There is a tendency to write the same article over and over again at all points, rather than a focussed article on one thing at one point. Repetition should not be mistaken for force of argument. There probably are not so many as tens of thousands of people who get a look at the building for the purpose of explaining its collapse, and like the conspiracy theorists most of them will be unable to make sense of it. however there will have been enough before and after that a conspiracy theory seems unlikely. Midgley 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The Collapse

Why are the advocates of the official story glad to have the Larry Silverstein "pull-it" comment on here, but balk at allowing the aspects of the collapse that resemble demolition to be posted? Seems odd that some questions are okay, but others - the ones that are not refutable - aren't. And the reason they are removed keeps changing. 67.170.205.59 17:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Due to the subject of the article, quite a number of reversions have happened. Quite a large number of them have been because people have attempted to lace the article with unsubstantiated speculation. One of the frequent claims is that the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprints. This is factually false in all cases. But, people who believe the buildings were intentionally demolished attempt to use this as a basis for proving they were demolished. So, they want to lace the article on this building and others in the WTC complex with similar wordings. Another common claim is that WTC 7 collapsed in just a few seconds. This is also factually incorrect. The collapse sequence took about a minute. Another claim is the puffs of material prove explosives. This is also factually incorrect; if a building collapses, the pancaking floors are going to cause material to push outward, as air is being forced out. That this looks like puffs is not proof of demolition charges. The point is, we base encyclopedia articles on *fatual*, verifiable information. We do not write articles based on speculation. The vast majority of information available that supposedly supports various conspiracies theories (ranging from windowless 767s firing air to ground missiles to underground nuclear explosions causing the buildings to "jump" and everything inbetween) is either itself pure speculation or based on speculation. I recall one conspiracy theorist insisting he had proof because a Ph. D. said the buildings were intentionally demolished. Turned out the Ph. D. was a professor of...recreation. This is not a credible resource. --Durin 18:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed...we have to stick to facts, not speculations...facts are that those that claim almost no steel frame buildings have simply fallen down due to fire fail to recognize a few things. Firstly, large building fires are actually very rare...one recent fire in Omaha Nebraska of a 12 story building in which the entire central section collapsed was national news due to the size of the fire...and that is a 12 story building, not almost a 50 story one. Secondly, as was the case in WTC 7, there was a large corner of the building that was severely damaged by the collaspe of the north tower of the WTC...some of the steel frame from WTC was projected all the way into the central core of WTC 7, damaging the support structure. Fires were burning throughout the building for many hours and were essentially out of control and the loss of life already by firefighters made the unnecessary attempts to fight another deadly fire too much, especially since the real need by that time was to try and locate missing persons from the main towers. Lastly, much of the collapse is "in the dust"...once the building gets to the 30th floor, you can't even see the remaining collapse as it is obscured by dust it is creating. The combinations of severe structural damage, persistant fires and ground destablization is why WTC 7 failed.--MONGO 20:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

"One of the frequent claims is that the buildings that collapsed did so within their own footprints. This is factually false in all cases." Hardly.

They did not fall sideways.

They did not fall partially.

They did not tip to one side and gradually slide down on one side.

They fell *straight* down and although the debris *clouds* were large, they mushroomed symmetrically around the centers of each falling tower, which are documented in the FEMA reports. The image is at the bottom of this page

"Another common claim is that WTC 7 collapsed in just a few seconds. This is also factually incorrect." Look at the videos and time them yourself for chrissakes! Physics Professor Steven Jones timed it with his entire class of students and they got about 7 seconds (6.6 sec). It doesn't take a mathematician to look at a watch and look at a video. Please show me the video where it took a MINUTE for the building to fall. There are videos all over the internet. Show me one.

"Firstly, large building fires are actually very rare." They are documented here and include 4 steel frame skyscrapers burning for multiple hours.

More later . . . Bov 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The references you cite are not mainstream...they are looking for evidence and they have to dig deep...tell me...how many steel frame structures do you think exist in Manhatten alone...I'm not sure...I couldn't even guess, but at least 1,000...and that is just in that one city...now how many homes do you think burn up in New York state every year? Many...hundreds. Steel frame structure fires are incredibly rare, so much so that they cite only 4...and of those four, how many were one block from the destabilizing effects of hundreds of thousands of tons of just collapsed remains of the twin towers. Did the 4 buildings cited there also experience massive destabilzation and structural damage to their southwestern corners, as happened at WTC7? Buildings do not fall over...they fall down.--MONGO 01:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• As documented by FEMA, the collapse sequence of WTC 7 took 37 seconds. Please see [1], page 5-23. Note that the collapse sequence isn't timed from the point at which global collapse initiated. There was considerable structural failure prior to the initiation of global collapse. Once global collapse initiates, the building will obey the laws of gravity just like any other falling object. That the gobal collapse of the building was just as fast as any other object does not prove demolition; it proves the existence of gravity, and nothing more. --Durin 16:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison You have removed the link to a video of Larry Silverstein's quote. I don't see any reason for this removal. Isn't one of our goals on wikipedia to give fully sourced information. Here is the quote from the article:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Here is the link to the video that you removed: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=trade+center+7&pl=true Kaimiddleton 18:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Would this be the video titled, "Larry Silverstein Admits to Demolishing World Trade Center 7 on 9/11"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is in fact the title. One might say "If the shoe fits wear it". More to the point, though: The video exactly represents the words of Larry Silverstein in much more clear form than ascii text. If we're to be a premier information source then we should give users tools to evaluate the arguments in the milieux. Pretty much any information source is going to be biased one way or another on this issue. If we're willing to put in links to Fox broadcasts of the content of Bush's speech after 9/11, or such, why shouldn't other publicly available sources be acceptable as well? From the quote alone some ambiguity might exist. But from hearing the video, the "juror" (the wiki-reader) can form an opinion based on much clearer evidence. Kaimiddleton 21:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote in context, cited from a reputable source, is better than a video with a leading title, chosen to support a conclusion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. I reiterate my point about understanding video over a transcript. I give a further example from Salon.com:

On his latest public relations offensive, President Bush went to Cleveland Monday to answer the paramount question about the Iraq war he said people have on their minds: "They wonder what I see that they don't." After mentioning "terror" 54 times and "victory" five, dismissing "civil war" twice, and asserting that he is "optimistic," he called upon a citizen in the audience, who homed in on the invisible meaning of recent events in the light of two books, the Book of Revelation and "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. Phillips, the questioner explained, "makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the Apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the Apocalypse? And if not, why not?"

Bush's immediate response, as transcribed by CNN, was, "Hmmm." Then he said, "The answer is I haven't really thought of it that way. Here's how I think of it. First, I've heard of that, by the way." The official White House Web site transcript alters the punctuation, dropping the strategic comma, adding "the" and thereby changing the meaning: "The first I've heard of that, by the way."

Note the part I emphasized: the transcript was misconstrued in a way to benefit Bush's point of view. If Silverstein wants to backpedal from his use of "pull" to mean "demolish the building" then why give him the strength of relying on a transcript? The audio argument is much stronger. Kaimiddleton 22:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Well, I disagree with you." Yes. Choosing the sources to present the strongest case is not encyclopedia writing, it's advocacy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If there really are concerns that the transcript of the video is somehow inadequate, we could try linking directly to the video file at several locations, including here [2]. However, I really do feel that the video has been accurately transcribed and that actually seeing it doesn't give any significant additional information. --Hyperbole 01:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Quoting from Wikipedia:External_links: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first." It seems clear to me that the "alternate theories regarding the collapse" links must be, at least, fairly represented, if not preserved in their entirety. That WTC7's collapse was not caused secondary to the plane crashes earlier that day is a widespread POV; removing that section entirely amounts to nothing more than rank censorship. --Hyperbole 05:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added what I believe are accurate comments informing readers of the POV of two of the "alternate theories" links. With respect to "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," that link more properly belongs on the main "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, and since it is represented there, it does not, in my opinion, need to be represented here. --Hyperbole 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Even the engineering department at BYU doesn't support Steven Jones' opinion...nor does the mainstream press, the U.S. government or any other foreign reputable government. It's junk science. Jim Hoffman link is the same. Misrepresentations of the evidence, misquotes, miscues to deliberately slant the "evidence" to make it appear they have a case. We don't cite in an encyclopedic forum unpeer reviewed original research. Those websites are by the hundreds and all they sell is the same old thing.--MONGO 06:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your POV on this issue is very clear. What isn't clear is whether you think there is any reason, in accordance with Wikipedia:External_links, that external links representing the other POV should be excluded from the article. --Hyperbole 06:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we not not give undue weight to junk science and try to call it encyclopedic.--MONGO 06:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It meets the external links policy to my satisfaction. Whether any of the information in those links should be added to the article, and those cites used as references, raises the question of whether the links are encyclopedic. When they exist only as external links, the only question we need to address is whether one common POV is being adequately and fairly represented. I think those external links do a good job of representing the POV that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. --Hyperbole 06:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Brought down by explosives. Sure...they were blown up right? Okay. See:WP:NOR and the section about undue weight [3]...so few people with more than 12 brain cells believe that there was controlled demolition, aside from cranks and politically inspired (and anti-American) POV pushers that even linking to their bogus websites is undue weight. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."--MONGO 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, MONGO, your POV on the issue is crystal-clear, and arguing the actual point is not the purpose of this talk page. The viewpoint that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is in no way an extremely small or vastly limited minority view. For just one example, polls show that one in five Germans - somewhere on the order of a million people in that country alone - believe the U.S. had a role in the destruction of the WTC. It's a common POV both inside and outside the U.S.; like all common POVs, it deserves representation. You yourself said that "these websites appear by the hundreds" - "extremely small minority view"? --Hyperbole 07:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what my POV is. Most of the Germans don't think the U.S. should be fighting in Iraq either, so what. It doesn't deserve representation becuase it is nothing but fabrications and misrepresentation of the facts...explosives to bring down the building..want kind of. There are hundreds of websites on Bigfoot too...does that make it factual...of course not. It is not a common POV inside the U.S. or even outside, unless these internationals have been deliberately mislead by their media and newspapers. That's okay, I just take the nonsense you peddle out and others will too when they have a chance to chime in. What kind of moronic fools would believe something so completely ludicrus? Oh gee...not one shred of proof of any of it...none! But I guess these people must also believe in the tooth fairy and UFO's too, eh...12 brain cells indeed.--MONGO 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, you're being deliberately insulting and rude. The POV that the WTC7 was demolished by explosives has thousands if not millions of adherents. It has, as demanded by the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV you cited, significant proponents who are easily named (you named two in this very discussion). It has support at the highest levels of academia. No matter how strongly you feel that the theory is false, it is a significant POV, and your work to exclude its mention in no way improves the article and only makes it less NPOV. --Hyperbole 08:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No one believes that the buildings were brought down with explosives. It has support by a few rogue acadmics (who are mostly politically opposed to the current administration), none of which are structural engineers or experts on controlled demolition. As I said, there are countless websites about this looniness, and thousands about the loch ness monster, UFO's, Bigfoot...and none of them, any more than the websites you keep trying to put in here, have one shred of proof about anything. Nothing. Most of them are just bloggish misrepresentations, pulling at straws, trying to find something, oh anything that would constitute proof and they all fail miserably. Stop reading these websites...they will twist your mind.--MONGO 11:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate, that a fw signatories or names on some list in a silly website do not constitute anything more than an extreme fringe group that are not even worth mentioning. It's just conspiracy theory bunk.--MONGO 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it to you this way: If millions of people believed in Bigfoot, the article on Bigfoot would deserve external links representing that POV. Otherwise, it would be an NPOV article. Or, to give another example, millions of people *do* believe in Scientology - that the alien Xenu put billions of people to death on Hawaii thirty-million-odd years ago - and that POV is (properly) represented in the Scientology article. Just because you believe a POV is "hogwash" is not a proper reason to whitewash it out of an article, *especially* the external links. --Hyperbole 17:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I disagree with your edit summary, "Links violate WP:SPAM, WP:EL and have not been published by a reputable neutral party" when deleting an external link you consider to be unreliable. As long as it is properly flagged, extreme POV articles are allowed to be linked. Are you censoring the article? Guinnog 12:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Due weight

In trying to deterime what is "due weight" and what is "undue weight" there's an editorial consenus in this article and all the WTC-related articles that a link to the conspiracy theory article is the due weight this POV merits in accord with the Wikipedia policies.

To have text which explains the theory of the destruction of 7 WTC by controlled demolition appear in the article itself is to give it undue weight.

I do not deny the existence of several incompatible theories on the cause, nature, and consequences of the attacks, I assert that the due weight for their appearance in this article is a link and not the theory itself. patsw 17:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Precisely...that was my point, albeit, not as eloquently spoken.--MONGO 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If he's "precisely" made your point, why do you keep removing the link to the conspiracy theory article, if that's the due weight this POV merits in accord with Wikipedia policies? --Hyperbole 19:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A link with a very short description of the link seems acceptable to me - to simply put an "Alternate theories about the collapse - main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories#World Trade Center 7" seems abrupt and unencyclopedic. --Hyperbole 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that linking at all may give undue weight. I don't think there is a clear consensus that we should link to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It is really not an uncommon POV that the official story about the collapse of Building 7 doesn't wash. No one has polled Americans on the issue, but in one poll, half of New Yorkers said they believe the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. [4]. Right there in that one city alone are millions of people who believe there was *some* conspiracy in connection with 9/11. If mention of conspiracy is excluded from the WTC7 article, it is not because that POV is insignificant. It is more likely because people of certain politics want to censor the reference. --Hyperbole 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

In your edit summary you wrote "Revert censorship", and just above you say "people of certain politics want to censor the reference." Do you mean to say that my edits are driven by malign political motives? As I wrote above, I don't think there is a clear consensus that we should link to the conspiracy theory. It looks to me like every historic event has its associated conspiracy theories. Over-linking to them risks presenting them as more prominent than they are. The main article on the 9/11 attacks links to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think that's appropriate. I don't think every person, place, and thing related to 9/11 should be linked to its corresponding conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with 9/11 conspiracy theories, but many theorists consider WTC7 to be the "smoking gun." It was a building filled with top-secret government offices that mysteriously caught fire and collapsed much later in the day. There is a significant section on it in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Thoeries article. You'd see, if you looked, that I certainly am not advocating a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories in the WTC6, Pentagon, United Airlines Flight 93, etc. page. This one is different. --Hyperbole 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it is different. I think the same argument you use here could be used to argue for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory link in virtually any article. As to my familiarity with Wikipedia's coverage of conspiracy theories, I invite you to look through the relevent articles' edit histories and judge for yourself. Finally, if we are to work together in good faith, I'd appreciate an answer to my question: Did you mean to say that my edits are driven by malign political motives? Or did I maybe misunderstand you? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory links only belong in articles on subjects where there is a widespread, noteworthy belief that a conspiracy occurred. The John F. Kennedy assassination would be one example, the Moon landing perhaps another. Both of these articles do include a link to their conspiracy counterparts; the former gives it prominance, whereas the latter relegates it to "See also" status. The vast majority of articles obviously do not merit a conspiracy link, because there is no widespread or notable belief in a conspiracy in connection with their topic. The belief that WTC7 was brought down by explosives is probably less common than the belief that Kennedy's assassination was a coup and probably more common than the belief that the moon landing was faked. I would personally argue that its due weight is a subsection of the article, but I concede that a link (with a brief one-sentence explanation) to the section on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article is acceptable. It is certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, noteworthy enough to merit a mention. --Hyperbole 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

>>I think the same argument you use here could be used to argue for the inclusion of a conspiracy theory link in virtually any article.

I understand the fear of these links popping up all over the place. But I think that where there are conspiracy theories about an issue which are reaching mainstream media, those issues should have at least a link if not a brief explanation.

As for undue weight being given to the particular conspiracy theory that Building 7 was demolished with explosives, that theory was already covered this week in New York Magazine, on CNN's 'Showbiz Tonight' with a 911truth.org representative and Webster Tarpley, and via actor www.prisonplanetcom/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm Charlie Sheen on Alex Jones' Prison Planet].

That's just this week.

Coverage of the 9/11 Truth Movement is increasing all the time, so saying it can't be even mentioned on a page on wikipedia talking about the most well-agreed-upon issue in the movement, and when it's already been discussed in these venues, seems unencyclopedic.

It sounds like there should be a policy, but I'm not sure what that would be.Bov 01:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

huh. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The coverage given by New York Magazine is to show the absurdity of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. To cite it as a reason to include a conspiracy theory in this article is chutzpah. patsw 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's been covered this week in three different major publications, how on earth can moderators claim with a straight face that it's such a non-notable fringe theory as to not be afforded the due weight of a *link*?! However strongly you believe the conspiracy theory to be true or false has no bearing on how notable it is. If the Moon landing includes a link to the theory that it was a hoax, it is *ludicrous* that WTC7 wouldn't include a link to the theory that it was demolished with explosives. --Hyperbole 06:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy...we don't give undue weight to conspiracy theory nonsense at the expense of losing encyclopedic credibility. We don't pander to the far out, nor is this resource to be used to peddle outlandish innuendo.--MONGO 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the policy is that an individual editor's POV on what is "nonsense" does not define what is notable enough to be encyclopedic. --Hyperbole 06:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You think wrong. Wikipedia is not a random collection of misinformation, just to provide balance or equal weight if there is no equal weight offered by conspiracy theory pundits.--MONGO 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not you consider the theory that WTC7 was brought down with explosives "misinformation" is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether it is a notable belief about WTC7. Wikipedia does include entries on Bigfoot, UFOs, and everything else you've labeled as nonsense. Furthermore, those entries attempt to be NPOV. Wikipedia is not "The Truth According to MONGO." --Hyperbole 19:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

We should, and do, link to 9/11 conspiracy theories from September 11, 2001 attacks. We do not link to Reptilian humanoid from Kris Kristofferson, David Icke's notable theories notwithstanding. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So what's the bright line test? Obviously, it's exactly the same reasoning that suggests linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories from 7 World Trade Center as that suggests linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories from September 11, 2001 attacks. Those two links are inarguably more similar to each other than linking anyone Icke accuses of being Illuminati back to Icke. I would also assert, although this is admittedly impossible to prove, that the people who believe WTC7 was demolished vastly outnumber the people who subscribe to Icke's theories. --Hyperbole 22:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That there are edge cases does not mean that there are only edge cases. It seems we agree that this is not an edge case; we disagree about which side of the line it falls on. There's little purpose in each of us repeating arguments the other has not found persuasive. How do you suggest we proceed? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could each revert the page three times a day for the rest of eternity?

Okay, maybe not. But it's hard to see a compromise in such an obviously binary issue: include a link, or don't include a link. Personally I would always err on the side of including more information, since it seems apparent that people are interested in that information. What is the benefit of including less? I still think it's significant that Moon landing includes a link to Apollo moon landing hoax accusations - it's just hard for me to imagine how, if *that's* an "edge case", the demolition of WTC7 falls on the Illuminati side thereof. --Hyperbole 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what people think. It's a matter of whether it is encyclopedic to pander to the obviously ridiculous. Wikipedia is under no obligation to parrot wild ideas and speculations just to be "complete". The controlled demolition bunk is based on complete speculation. Look at any college level book on Physical Anthropology...they mention nothing about Bigfoot...why...because it is not based on any empirically based evidence. We do the same thing here. There is no reason to even mention completely unscientific opinion and innuendo.--MONGO 01:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, I invite you to read Bigfoot yourself. There is a very large group of people who do not share your perception that the controlled demolition theory is "obviously ridiculous"; that makes it notable. You should not try to control an article's content based on your own opinions of which POVs are right and which are wrong. --Hyperbole 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read bigfoot, and got a POV pushing troll there banned for trying to insert nonsense in the article about the Bigfoot being from outer space...it was nonsense and his behavior was both disruptive and insulting, hence the end result, a one year ban. Also notice on my userpage that I have Bigfoot on my list for a complete rewrite. There is no nee dto even have a link to the conspiracy theory junk just to appease those that want to turn this forum into some bizarre version of National Enquirer instead of an encyclopedia. As I mentioned, and as an comparisn...Bigfoot isn't mentioned in Physical Anthropology textbooks becuase there is no proof that he exists, we will not have conspiracy theory bunk here because there is no proof that anything they have to say refutes the facts of the case. This junk would be thrown out of a court of law.--MONGO 03:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bigfoot isn't mentioned in most physical anthropology textbooks; it is mentioned on Wikipedia. That's because it's notable. So I don't exactly understand the analogy you're trying to make. --Hyperbole 05:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reality check: the edit war isn't over a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories but over having the text which explains the conspiracy theory appear in this article itself. It is this text which has been frequently deleted in different forms. That is what I've called undue weight. patsw 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The edit war involves two editors who are removing *any reference* to the controlled demolition theory. I have pared down the reference to as close to "a link" as I think is encyclopedically feasible; it's two short sentences that explains why one would, you know, click on the link. --Hyperbole 01:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting the words controlled demolition into the article text is undue weight. I concur with the editors who are deleting any reference. I think you stop the edit war, and perhaps in the future with more evidence revealed to support the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory, there will be a new editing consensus to include it in the text. patsw 01:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, those exact words (which are incidentally the name of the contractor that cleaned up the site) do not appear in the article. I assume you mean "planted explosives." That being said, I can't see *why* you're asserting that the words themselves carry undue weight. There is a very notable group of proponents of the theory; frankly, they're the reason this page even exists in its current incarnation (compare 6 World Trade Center - nobody cares enough about it to write an article because it doesn't throw off the red flags that 7WTC does). --Hyperbole 02:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually 6 World Trade Center does throw up a few red flags. You see, a missile from one of our military planes fired at the second hijacked plane when it went into the South Tower.[5] The missile hit in the vicinity of WTC 6. You guys are a bit behind the curve.216.174.52.68 03:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparing a low squatty building to WTC7 is odd. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? No, okay, so why are you wasting everyone's time.--MONGO 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have proof that a diesel fire caused the building to collapse? You continue to be deliberately insulting, rude, and unhelpful. Please knock it off. --Hyperbole 05:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in a link to the page under 'See also' and removed the commentary. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Any objections? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have an objection — you've given no reason for deleting the single sentence on the alternate theories. I'm sure that you're familiar with the polls that have shown that a majority of New Yorkers do not believe the official government story of Sept 11. Wikipedia reports on controversies. Deleting the single sentence on the controversy constitutes a clear failure to be neutral on the subject. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The description of the conspiracy theory gives undue weight to a fringe point of view. I think even a link to the conspiracy theory article gives undue weight. In a spirit of compromise I'm willing to consider including it under 'see also', since some think that a link is appropriate weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you respond to my comments, please? — goethean ॐ 17:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad...conspiracy views aren't held by a majority of New Yorkers. Only by 49.3% of them[6]. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>"The description of the conspiracy theory gives undue weight to a fringe point of view." That's right everyone, encyclopedias need to censor those 'fringe points' of view which question and discuss how a building collapsed in NYC on 9/11, the same 'fringe' that includes CNN, MSNBC, New York Magazine and the Village Voice, not to mention the original 9/11 Family Steering Committee -- the families of the victims -- who have asked what happened to Building 7 specifically. But apparently, like the 9/11 Commission, mention of their questions, along with the discussions taking place on mainstream media, cannot even be included in a single line on this page. Bov 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I did include a link in 'See also', though I think it's unwarrented. Bov, be careful of that argument. It's going to make it difficult for you to then say that other's can't, on this or other pages, include descriptions of theories you think are bogus, or links to websites you find distasteful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with someone including a *single line* describing the theories about pods and holograms -- sure I would like them to not be there but I can't censor them out of existance. When people pointed out to me that a google search for "missiles" and "wtc" came up with just as many hits as a google search for "explosives" and "wtc," regarding the types of theories about why the towers came down, I had to back down -- the disinfo promoters are massive and we literally don't have the resources to go up against people with endless resources on the internet. Similarly, I backed down and left 9/11 blimps' link on the page, and instead tried to pursue a policy, rather than censorship. All I can really do is post the debunkings of those theories, and let nature take its course. If those theories were true -- that pods and holograms were involved -- one would expect that more and more people would come onto here to promote those as more info came out to support their truth. That's a natural course of events. But that isn't happening. And I think it doesn't happen for a reason. In the same way, I think that defenders of the official story are going to gradually get swamped on here with more and more people asserting that the official story isn't true. Ed Asner, Charlie Sheen, etc.

I think a policy is the best way to deal with these things. But if a single line isn't even allowed, if there is no breathing space, it can escalate emotions.Bov 19:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Emotions? breathing space? How about simple honesty? A huge number of people believe in the conspiracy theories and it is simply dishonest not to mention it in this article. That fact is the reason behind the escalating emotions etc. Creationism is wrong. It doesn't follow from that that we should not have an article on creationism. That is precisely analogous to what Tom Harrison is arguing. — goethean ॐ 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Zogby is the least respected pollsters in the U.S. the questions provided by the 9/11 organization were loaded as to give a relativelyu false end result percentagewise. It doesn't matter what people beleieve, all that matters is that Wikipedia not support in equal time those items that have no basis in fact. Not a small bunch of those "polled" by Zogby have a resentment of the Republican party...we are talking about New York...and that resenment in that region is also oftentimes anti-southerner...Bush is Texan of course. It is hardly a scientific sampling or a wide enough coverage to be a fair poll. But the conspiracy theorists have taken the end result and twisted it and stretched it into more than it really means. You say that we have articles on Creationism...we know that...is this linked off the article on Jesus, or the Bible...if so, (as I havene't looked) then all it would deserve if anything at all, would be a passing mention...that would be in accordance with not providing undue weight.--MONGO 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a poll by a more respected pollster that gives a different result? — goethean ॐ 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed my point...opinion polls do not make a lot of issues true. If you polled a random 1,000 people in the U.S. about whether UFO's are real or not, I would imagine that a fair number of those responding would say they believe that UFO's exist...even though there is not one shred of verifiable proof that they do. No one has bothered to my knowledge to ask this poll as Zogby did, which was commissioned, no less, by one of these conspiracy theory groups. I can't blame Zogby, but I would not rank them as a trustworthy source as say Gallup. Regardless, why would anyone take a poll on these issues...if you have one, it would be interesting to see it as a comparison, but again, the poll one way or the other is based on people's beliefs or opinions and not necessarily the facts of the case. The results of this poll have been twisted to equate with governement coverup...but the findings actually simply indicate that New Yorkers think the U.S. government knew the events were going to happen and failed to do enough to prevent them from happening. In other words, it is a poll which essentially believes the government is a mess, disorganized, has lousy communication between agencies, and what not.--MONGO 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is you who has missed the point. There is a poll, whose methods you personally reject (as if that is relevant) which found that approximately 50% of New Yorkers believe in the conspiracy theories. You appear to have no evidence to show (a)that the Zogby poll is faulty (b) that New Yorkers do not in fact believe in conspiracy theories. Yet you insist that this is such a tiny fringe theory, so undeserving of attention, that it would be a terrible, terrible thing if this articvle includes a single sentence on the subject. You do not have a argumentative leg to stand on. — goethean ॐ 02:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't missed any point...the poll is meaningless if there isn't any proof to back it up. What the heck difference does the poll make as far as science goes...does the poll prove that 50% of New Yorkers are correct, even though there is nothing to back up their beliefs aside from their opinions? Go ahead and put it in...our real goal here is to be fantastic and eyebrow raising...not encyclopedic, right? Oh, that's right, we are doing our readers a disservice by not including opinions. "In a poll commissioned by ? , Zogby reports that 50% of New Yorkers think......" but the comment needs a qualifier too..."the poll has no basis in fact and is just an opinion held by certain individuals".--MONGO 03:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to find sarcasm very productive. Wikipedia is here to document the facts. The fact is that 50% of New Yorkers don't buy the official line. What, exactly, is wrong with documenting that fact? I don't want Wikipedia to claim that x or y caused the collapse. I want it to document, according to a poll, what people believe caused the collapse. Portray this as an affront to science or however you want — it is clearly nothing of the sort — goethean ॐ 03:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What exactly would be your wording for such a passage...how do you make it NPOV and provide a qualifying statement? Go ahead and put it in the article then and we'll play with it...I will confess that if 50% of New Yorkers are this kooky, then it actually supports my biases...I would have expected no less from an opinion poll of that sampling.--MONGO 03:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Explanation

Well, now we have a bit of a problem in that the article claims that the "official explanation" for the collapse is accepted by most, but makes no mention of what the official explanation for the collapse is. Nor does the article specify what is meant by "official" - if the Commerce Departmnet's explanation is slated for a release in a few months, it obviously can't be "accepted by most." --Hyperbole 05:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't controlled demolition. That we can be clear on.--MONGO 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did some research, and found that there actually is no "official explanation" for the collapse; FEMA made preliminary findings that it was due to fire, remarked on the fact that that had never happened before, did not make final conclusions, and urged further study. I wrote it up in the article. --Hyperbole 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The recent article in NY Magazine quotes Sunder here:

"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.”"

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html Bov 18:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I confess, yeah, we've known for some time that the building was imploded deliberately by explosives...news at 6 today, stay tuned for the latest.--MONGO 20:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read Appendix C to the FEMA report on WTC7 that discusses the mysterious evaporation of the WTC7 steel? Is that junk science?

Three Reports

Just to clarify something - there were/will be three reports on the WTC collapse:

• 1. FEMA - made preliminary findings that the collapse of 7WTC was due to fire (and not debris impact), but did not reach final conclusions and urged further study.
• 2. 9/11 Commission - made absolutely no mention of 7WTC.
• 3. NIST - from what I read, released its report on 1WTC and 2WTC, but "decoupled" 7WTC from its report and delayed its release until sometime this spring.

The article doesn't make any mention of the 9/11 Commission in its current incarnation, and a reference was just reverted under what appears to be the erroneous assumption that the 9/11 Commission is the same thing as NIST. I'm not sure whether we should mention the 9/11 Commission or not. --Hyperbole 19:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Opening date

The date of May 2006 has been removed because it can't be cited. It was in New York Metro but I can't find it online. Hey, it's probably going to be delayed anyway. CoolGuy 05:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Video Footage

There is a clip of the Larry Silverstein quote regarding the demolition on Google Videos here. I put a link to this after the quote but it was deleted. This is clearly a valid link. Kernow 14:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the article, it refers to Larry Silverstein's clarification on the "pull" comment as being directed at the firefighters. How does it=firefighters? He said "Pull it" not "Pull them". --Spindled 07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And, strangely, NIST tells Popular Mechanics that "There was no firefighting in WTC 7" [7] Curious. --Hyperbole 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• "It" refering to either efforts or the team. There most definitely were firefighters in WTC 7 that day. Even various conspiracy sites have transcripts of firefighters in the building. --Durin 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we would be going to extreme, unlikely interpretation when we interpret the "it" as firefighters, efforts, whatever... The most likely interpretation (also in regards to context) is that he was referring to the building. What should be observed here is that the "anti-official story" mind is only trying to follow logical routes, and not bizzare far-fetched conduits like the "pro-" mind. However, the media and others will still like to force the idea that we are charlatans, coming up with outrageous conspiracy theories. As Bush once said "Who is trying to fool America?".

External Links, Part 2

I can't see any possible justification for deleting the wtc7.net link. Even if there *was* an editorial consensus that the information contained therein was "junk" - and there is not - that would not be a reason for exclusion of the link. According to Wikipedia:External links:

(Normally avoid) any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless... it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view.

wtc7.net is unquestionably the most notable proponent of a POV about 7 WTC - so notable, in fact, that most searching for information about 7 WTC brings up that site. Deleting it appears to directly contradict Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• You've made a reasonable claim (and thank you for doing so!), but it is lacking in several areas.

• When I type in World Trade Center demolition into Google, the site you want to reference in external links does not come up in the list until link #35. Leading proponent? Hmm. At link #6 there is a reference to 911research.wtc7.net, but that is not the same site as you'd like to reference.
• Please observe WP:RS#Partisan_websites. wtc7.net is strongly anti-government and certainly qualifies as being partisan. That in itself might not be enough reason to exclude the site.
• Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links #5 tells us not to link to sites that violate copyright. wtc7.net claims fair use of a number of images and video segments taken from CBS, NBC and others. The chief problem I see here is that quite a number of photographs on the site are unattributed. If we were to hold that site to the standards at Wikipedia, we'd fault it for {{nosource}} in a large number of cases. If we're to include references here on Wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect that those sites pass some basic copyright standards.
• Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links #4 tells us not to link to sites that exist primarily to sell products or services. On the very front page the site hawks a DVD. There's also a link in the main navigation bar to the store, where it lists three books by the same authors as the DVD. This strikes me as a site that wants to get people to buy books and other materials from them. It's not overburdened with attempts to hawk their materials, but it does attempt to make sales.
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority; note that at the list of articles on wtc.net, the very first article is writtne by a professor whose current field of research has to do with dueteron and proton beams impacting on metal. While his research area might be slightly tangential to the subject matter, it's a weak connection. The next author attributed document on that list is attributed to "anonymous". The third authored document is attributed to David R. Kimball, whose qualifications are not listed. I note that his "fact #3" states that no significant debris impacted WTC 7. This is flatly false, as the building was damaged to at least a depth of 25% of the width of the building by falling debris.

• I could go on for a great length of time about the factual inaccuracies on the website, and the willful misinterpretation and omission of information as a means to prop up a particular viewpoint. wtc7.net is highly biased towards a particular point of view, and no surprise given they are trying to sell books and DVDs. They'd like to make their theory sound as believable as possible. While some of the information presented on the site is referenced, it excludes ample amounts of other evidence that undermine the site's position. It is not a leading proponent of the theory that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, it is poorly referenced and researched, makes false claims of authority, and presents a highly biased viewpoint that contributes little of encyclopedic value. Our mission here is to create an encyclopedia, not to be a link site to websites hawking books and DVDs of limited value. --Durin 13:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear to me that none of those are appropriate standards for the exclusion of wtc7.net. First of all, it is the leading proponent of the theory that 7 WTC was demolished - and this is an article on 7 WTC. Googling "7 world trade center demolition" bring it up second, after Alex Jones's Prisonplanet. We could include Prisonplanet as a link representing the demolitionist POV, but wtc7.net seems more appropriate on an article about 7 WTC because it is more specific to the building that is the subject of the article.

• WP:RS#Partisan_websites is a policy on sources, not on external links. wtc7.net is not being used as a source for the article.
• It is not Wikipedia policy to exclude an external link because of a vague concern that something, somewhere, on the site might be copyrighted and not fall within fair use. If that were Wikipedia policy, something like 90% of Wikipedia's external links would have to be excluded. An external link should only be excluded when a specific copyright violation can be pointed to that clearly violates fair use.
• wtc7.net obviously does not exist primarily to sell merchandise. It obviously exists to espouse a POV; selling merchandise is tangential to that. There's no problem with Wikipedia's link policy there.
• Finally, "beware false authority" is another policy on *sources*, not *external links*. It's perhaps one of the reasons we can't write "World Trade Center 7 was demolished by explosives (see wtc7.net)" in the article. It has no bearing on the website's suitability as a link.

wtc7.net is described in Wikipedia:External links in the "What Should be Linked To" subhead:

On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.

Unless a specific copyright violation can be positively identified on the site, with more than a vague hint that something, somewhere, might violate fair use, I don't believe anything you've given supercedes that policy. --Hyperbole 17:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Start with the first image showing the building in mid collapse with no attribution. [8] Has another unattributed image showing the Interstate Bank Building on fire. [9] Has an unattributed image of the remains of WTC 7. So does [10]. [11] Contains an unattributed image of investigators. [12] Contains an unattributed pre-9/11 image of WTC 7. Lastly, all of the background images on each page are unattributed potential copyright violations as well. In fact, I can't find a single properly attributed image on the website. The only thing that is properly attributed are the videos. Given that the site is attempting to hawk published books and a DVD, the use of fair use claims for the site's usage of the videos and still photographs is legally suspect. I hope that clarifies any vague references you felt I'd made. Please note that the burden of copyright clearance proof lies before we use material, not after. --Durin 18:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the website does not source its images as Wikipedia itself would does not mean that we must operate under the presumption that the images are not being used in a way that violates fair use. If that were Wikipedia's policy, the vast majority of external links on Wikipedia would have to be removed. It only if there's evidence of a copyright violation - not a lack of evidence that no copyright violation is occurring - that we should hesitate to exclude an external link. --Hyperbole

• Please see above where I note the burden of copyright clearance proof lies before we use material, not after. Regardless if we had a hundred thousand external links to sites that have possible copyright violations, it doesn't change the fact that we should not be linking to them. --Durin 02:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on use of wtc7.net for reference

There's now an ongoing edit war regarding the inclusion of a link to wtc7.net. Some of the arguments for/against inclusion are above on this talk page. Given the presence of the edit war, I'd like to take a straw poll to see what contributors here feel we should do regarding this issue. Please sign in the appropriate section below what you feel should be done. Please do not engage in lengthy conversations in the poll; start another section on this talk page for that. Thank you.

Support inclusion of a link to wtc7.net in External links

1. Support, along with Popular Mechanics link for balance. I do not believe the conspiracy theories, but the behavior of administrators on this talk page almost makes me want to. The shameful record of administrators opposing the inclusion of neutral information about the conspiracy theories in this article should be extremely disturbing to everyone here. It is certainly very disturbing to me. Not so long ago, two administrators were insisting at length that not a single word about the theories could be included on this article. Fortunately, things have not gone their way. — goethean ॐ 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Support per Goethean. Seabhcán 22:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Support per Wikipedia:External_links, which states that notable proponents of a POV should be represented. The only valid concern about the site seems to be copyright issues, and the fact that the site does not source all its images does not mean there should be a presumption that their use does not constitute fair use. The site is absolutely not first and foremost a commercial site, and the presence of a single DVD for sale does not somehow turn its presence into adcruft. --Hyperbole 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Support per Goethean. --Spindled 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
5. support: per above, and due to the fact that Don Paul has been a well known and credible figure in several communities for decades. Ombudsman 02:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of a link to wtc7.net in External links

1. Oppose per my reasons state in the prior section to this. We're building an encyclopedia, not advertising someone's books for sale. --Durin 18:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. There is a link to wtc7.net on the conspiracy theory article, and that seems reasonable. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Tony and Durin's earlier comments. Every subject has some conspiracies associated with them, that doesn't make them relevant or notable for the main articles. We don't for example, on the Abraham Lincoln page have a link to the claim that he was assasinated by a British conspiracy even though it does exist. However, Mongo's comment below shows a lack of respect for consensus which I find troubling. JoshuaZ 01:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Strongly Oppose. WP:NPOV and WP:EL doesn't mean giving equal billing to extreme minority conspiracy theories. The place for the link is 9/11 conspiracy theories and not here. -Aude (talk | contribs) 01:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose There's no traction to this at all...if and when something mainstream comes along use that. In the mean time 9/11 conspiracy theories is the place for it. This is no where near main stream or notable enough for inclusion, and the fact that the main proponents profit from the success of this "theory" makes it worse. Find something that isn't selling a POV, then we can talk but for now there is no way this belongs on this page Rx StrangeLove 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Other

1. There is no need to have this "vote" continuously demanding that unscientific websites be linked to is ridiculous. This is not a blog, so irregardless of this "vote" I will continue to remove all links to any website that disservices JImbos decree that "we make the internet not suck".--MONGO 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'll take a wild shot in the dark and assume that it is you who decides what does and what does not meet "scientific" guidelines. I'm glad that you are here to supervise what people should and should not be viewing. — goethean ॐ 21:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   The other implication of your comment is that we can go around and delete any external links that we feel "suck." Or maybe it's only you that is allowed to do that. Either way, it's untenable. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed. Wikipedia is not "The Truth of the World According to MONGO." --Hyperbole 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

2. wtc7.net is not a reliable source of information for anything except what its proprieter thinks. It has no editorial oversight, no fact-checking, and no peer review except insofar as conspiracy sites within their walled garden swap links and cite each other as references. For 9/11 conspiracy theories it is a primary source. For the World Trade Center it's no source at all. And voting is evil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

   An external link is not a source, and there are completely different policies for the two of them. Wikipedia is not reporting the claims of wtc7.net as truth; that would make it a source. Rather, Wikipedia is including a notable external link to a notable POV. That is not only permitted but demanded by Wikipedia:External_links. --Hyperbole 00:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   Already within the body of the article we link to that viewpoint with "For more details on this topic, see 9/11 conspiracy theories#7 World Trade Center." That page appropriately links to wtc7.net. The reader already has a link to that viewpoint. Giving wtc7.net yet another incoming link may boost its google page rank, but it does nothing for our readers. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   I'm pretty sure Google page ranks don't work that way - they don't tally individual html pages as multiple "votes" for a site. More to the point, wtc7.net has a notable POV on both 7 World Trade Center and 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's no valid reason it shouldn't be an external link on both pages. --Hyperbole 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   To the extent that point of view is notable (as an example of a conspiracy theory, not as information about reality), the reader already has a link to it - 9/11 conspiracy theories#7 World Trade Center. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

   Your — incorrect — idea that conspiracy theories are not part of reality (and thus should not be documented by Wikipedia) is precisely what is holding you back from grasping the issue here. This argument would have us pretend that creationism doesn't exist either. — goethean ॐ 16:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

   9/11 conspiracy theories are discussed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, so we're not ignoring them but this isn't the place for them. I think we need to trim the amount of conspiracy theory discussion included in this article. Such as deleting the Silverstein quote, which is redundantly mentioned here in addition to 9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

wtc7.net violates our policy against advertising so it cannot be included...we routinely remove any website link that is attempting to sell their products...see WP:SPAM as well as WP:EL--MONGO 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This puts the question to bed...we do not allow spam advertising and any further addition of this link is a violation of guidelines and policy.--MONGO 01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia links to dozens if not hundreds of sites that happen to sell a product in addition to performing their main function, whatever that may be. wtc7.net exists to disseminate information; it does not exist to sell DVDs. It is not spam, and WP:SPAM is not a valid policy for its exclusion. --Hyperbole 06:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is..end of story..it stays out.--MONGO 08:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that you personally define an editorial consensus? Or do you think your adminship gives you the right to unilaterally dicate the contents of an article? If either is the case, you're sorely mistaken. Bottom line: wtc7.net does not exist primarily to sell merchandise; therefore, it does not run afoul of WP:SPAM. Wikipedia:External_links demands the inclusion of sites representative of notable POVs. The link should be included. --Hyperbole 08:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that I am the only one that opposes the inclusion of the link? Hardly. Right there, soon as one clicks the link to that preposterous website is a link to a their DVD which is not free...it is FOR SALE...what are you trying to sell us Hyperbole? It is spam and advertising and is not compatable with this forum becuase inclusion of the link to that website violates guidelines and policies. So it stays out.--MONGO 11:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what you think it accomplishes by dictating "what happens" on Wikipedia as though you have the right to do so. Have a look at Homestar Runner. Or, I don't know, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Perhaps World Wrestling Entertainment. There are *hundreds* of Wikipedia sites that have external links that include a shop. The bright line test is whether the site *exists* to sell merchandise, not whether it happens to sell merchandise. And, frankly, sites like Homestar Runner or World Wrestling Entertainment's homepage are *more* questionable under that test because they are commercial sites. Yet no one sees anyone challenging them as external links - because they don't contain a POV that any editors object to. Trying to paint wtc7.net as "spam" is utterly transparent; if you really objected to any link that sells a DVD, you'd be going through Wikipedia rapid-fire and ripping out a third of the external links on the site. And I notice that no deletionist here has made any attempt to replace wtc7.net with another site that shares its POV but doesn't sell a DVD. Curious, mmm? --Hyperbole 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

On Homestar Runner, the homestar runner link is the official website for the topic. Same with WWE - official sites for the article topic. Per WP:EL, "Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one." With 7 World Trade Center, wtc7.net is not at all the official website. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:EL also says that on topics with multiple points of view, sites representing each point of view should be included - so I'm not sure where you draw the distinction. --Hyperbole 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with MONGO on this point. --Durin 02:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. wtc7.net does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source policy, except for reference on the 9/11 conspiracy theories of what conspiracy theorists are saying. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As a mere external link, Wikipedia is not a link directory, and I don't think wtc7.net meets WP:EL. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, This is sounding a lot like what the media and government was doing with the Iraq war, I mean, WMDs, 9/11, Iraqi freedom, whatnot... Why not stick to one objection here. When you change your objection, you are implying that you are no longer convinced with your original objection. And that is no way to debate. --Spindled 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no debate, if inclusion of nonsense that also is spam is in question...what on Earth are you talking about? If website ahs multiple reasons (aside from it being nonsense) for exclusion, then they should all be explained. Uh?--MONGO 00:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse if you label it as "nonsense" it would seem so, but don't forget that the "nonsense" part is really only your opinion, as quite a large group of people find this much more sensible than the official story, and it would seem to that group that the official story is quite a better candidate to the term "nonsense". So, if you want to be objective, you have to forget the nonsense part and accept this as being a different point of view. As for the SPAM comment, I tend to disagree that this is actually SPAM. They are not selling you junk, they are just trying to promote their POV in a sensible way. And really, the DVD portion of the website is insignifact to the amount of information on that website. Exaggerating this DVD thing seems to me to be just an alibi. However, a better way to solve this problem is probably to link to http://911research.wtc7.net instead. --Spindled 01:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Large is a pretty subjective word. I'm sure there are a lot of people that believe wtc7, but objectively it's a pretty small minority compared to the number of people that think it's nonsense. This hasn't anywhere near critical mass. Also, I don't think anyone profiting from a POV can be objective enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Rx StrangeLove 20:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Giuliani's bunker in tower 7 used to remotely control planes?

That's what a former German minister of defense is saying on interview with Alex Jones. The link: Former German Minister Says Building 7 Used To Run 9/11 Attack. No mentioned yet in this article. He is the highest profile politician to make these accusations.--tequendamia 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I never would have figured that, but I thought that Giuliani had the Batman alert spotlight down there though.--MONGO 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea has been around for three years already:Die CIA und der 11. September. Internationaler Terror und die Rolle der Geheimdienste. Piper Verlag GmbH, München 2003, ISBN 3492045456 y 2004, ISBN 3492242421 (The CIA and September 11 (book))--tequendamia 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There was NO firefighting in WTC 7

Silverstein Properties' statement about Larry meaning to pull the firefighters cannot be true. According to people at NIST, FEMA, and the New York Times, there was no firefighting in WTC 7. Links to verify these facts are near the bottom of: www.infowarscom/articles/sept11/silverstein_answers_wtc7_charges.htm

The statement by Silverstein Properties is therefore an outright lie. CB Brooklyn 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a classic card-castle made of lies. These are just lies piling on top of lies, end eventually, it will all collapse and the truth will come out. What they need to understand is that the more they lie, the greater the damage in the future is going to be for them. So, best thing to do for them is to just tell the truth now. They are fabricating a story, and obviously there are numerous loop holes in it. Silverstein is just adding to these loop holes ofcourse by first giving that interview, and secondly, lying afterwards about what he meant by "it". For God's sake, should we teach them English or something?? --Spindled 19:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• The card castle is the presumption that if there were no firefighting efforts, there must have been no firefighters in the building. We know this is false, as even some conspiracy sites have transcripts of radio communications with firefighters who were in WTC 7 that day. --Durin 19:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe that a bunch of firefights rushed into a burning skyscraper and then stood around doing absolutely nothing, until the owner of the skyscraper decided to "pull it" and ordered them out, at which point the building collapsed into its own footprint on its own. That really stretches credulity. --Hyperbole 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is hard to believe because it didn't happen that way (as I'm sure you know). WTC7 was professionaly demolished. There's no examples of buildings fallling in that manner (near freefall speed, straight down, puffs of smoke coming out the side in rapid sequence, molten metal underneath for weeks afterwards, steel members that appear to be partly evaporated, etc) from anything other than controlled demolitions. Yet on 9/11 it happened three times? Very weird! --CB Brooklyn 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• It also presumes the guy knew whether there were firefighters inside at the time or not. It seems to me he was talking via phone & not even at the site --JimWae 20:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think believing they were "controlled demolitioned" is silly - though there were resemblances. I do not think this article serves readers well if this issue is not discussed at all, however. Better to present the main points from both sides - without undue weight --JimWae 21:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the site I listed above:

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Sounds like there was no one in WTC 7 as on 11:30AM on 9/11/01

CB Brooklyn 05:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• What time was the phone call to Silverstein? --JimWae 05:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. I see what you mean CB Brooklyn 06:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom Tower in the 7 World Trade Center article

How is politics over the design of the Freedom Tower relevant to this article? patsw 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)