Talk:7 World Trade Center/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conspiracy theories & the harm you are letting them cause to Wikipedia

The firemen knew that it was going to collapse and told the public to get away from it seconds before it collapsed. this is not a conspiracy theory it is known fact and can be seen in various news clips about the event. This is an important FACT and should be included in the normal discussion of the collapse.

A lot of important information is being moved from various articles to conspiracy theory articles. Many users seem to be following exceptionally flawed logic...

Information that has been used to support one or more conspiracy theories is NO LESS RELEVANT solely because of this.

This page gives a perfect example. This article is about WTC7. Larry Silverstein was the lease holder and insurance policy holder of WTC7. WTC7 collapsed. The lease holder's account of what happened to the building that this article is about is not here, simply because some people have used it to support conspiracy theories. Allowing things like this to happen is insane. This means that anyone can invalidate any information on Wikipedia simply by coming up with some conspiracy theory surrounding it. Kernow 15:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The quote from Silverstein doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there. Silverstein simply acknowledges the building came down. Whether people choose to claim it as proof of conspiracy theory or not is irrelevant. All that quote does is state the obvious; the building came down. Introducing it, when it has been a main focus of a conspiracy theory, irresponsibly tilts the article. To correct that tilt, there'd need to be very significant additions to the article indicating possible interpretations of the quote, usages in context, uses elsewhere, and so forth. This would create a situation of undue weight for a single quote to be included in an article when the quote adds nothing of value to the article. --Durin 17:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I see your point but I don't agree. In an article about the building we can surely quote the owner of the building talking about the collapse, without invoking any conspiracy theory in particular. --Guinnog 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The issue though is that the quote is non-notable; the only reason one would want to include it is to create support for their conspiracy theory du jour. -Quasipalm 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd (tepidly) support including it, and I definitely don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory du jour! I think what the owner of the building verifiably said about the building's collapse is, almost by definition, notable in an article about the building. --Guinnog 18:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Surley he's said a novel's worth of quotes about WT7. Should we include them all? Why single out this one little, oft misunderstood quote? It seems to me that a lot of people here are playing dumb about their true intention, which seems to me to be to mislead the casual reader. -Quasipalm 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I do hope you're not being self-deprecating here! Let's assume good faith, and assume we're trying to make the article better. Given that this quote is oft misunderstood, why don't we either quote it and quote the controversy about interpreting it, or else maybe you can find a better quote from the guy, and reference it. --Guinnog 00:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, if there are other quotes from Larry Silverstein about the collapse then let's see them. Kernow 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote does give information not already in the article:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire" - This tells us that the fire department realised that they may not be able to contain the fire. Assumably this meant that they knew that the building would either collapse or the fire would spread to other buildings.
"and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." - This tells us (assuming the non-conspiracy theory interpretation) that because of the number of fatalities the decision was made not to try and further contain the fire. It seems to infer that they knew this would lead to the building's collapse.

Both of these points give us important details about the events leading up to the collapse that the other evidence does not. Kernow 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Here we go again. --Durin 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you agree with me? I doubt it, but you don't seem to explain why what is said is wrong. You said that "The quote from Silverstein doesn't add anything to the article that isn't already there", so I told you some things that it does. Comments like that make it look like you can't find anything wrong with what I said. Another thing I feel the quote informs us of is the involvement of Larry Silvestein in decisions regarding the fire department. Personally, I was unaware that fire department commanders sought advice from the owner of a burning building regarding whether or not the situation is too dangerous for the firemen. Kernow 14:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe Durin is saying that we've argued this point around and around in the past, and most often it takes this form: The quote is inserted. The quote is removed as being rather problematic. A discussion begins on the talk page, with proponents of including the quotation arguing that the quote adds value to the article and is not explicitly supporting a conspiracy theory, while opponents state that its value as a quotation has been compromised by conspiracy theory, yes, but more importantly and to the point, it's simply not that meaningful a quotation. As you yourself have demonstrated, Kernow, is that you have to explicitly state your personal inferences in order to demonstrate the value of the quotation. The implications you point out are nowhere near obvious, and clearly analysis of what you interpret the quotation to mean could not be included in the article. All that is left, then, is a quotation that doesn't add much explicit, new information, and which, yes, has been heavily deprecated by the conspiracy crowd. The quotation has minimal net value and too much of a bad history. The frustration Durin is expressing (and I do hope you'll forgive my putting words in your mouth, Durin) lies in the fact that, even though these points have been explained in arguments in the past, the issue still comes up; furthermore, if those past arguments are indications of how future discussions (i.e., this one) will go, proponents of including the quote will gloss over or ignore altogether the reasons pointed out here in the pursuit of their goal. This, at least, is what has frustrated me on this and other similar discussions on this page. JDoorjam Talk 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The fact that a quotation has a "bad history" can't have any implication in the decision to add it or not. The best you seem to be able to say to prevent people from inserting the quotation is that you find it "non notable" or "not informative" but it is your personal opinion and possibily not a neutral one if it is influenced by the history of the quotation.--Pokipsy76 10:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Without having a particular POV on this, what frustrates me on this and similar discussions, is that the reasons for excluding significant and verifiable quotes from the owner of the building about its collapse, have never been explained properly in terms of wiki policy or even in terms of common sense. Like with the exclusion of the Zogby poll, I get the feeling that people looking up this topic in an encyclopedia will expect to see the information and be disappointed by its poor state. The article currently only serves the purpose of reminding us just how poor a group of editors can keep an article from (presumably) well-intentioned reasons. --Guinnog 21:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue weight applies to both the quote and the poll. Quotes are problematic in that they are cherry picked in a way to support a POV. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
        • JDoorjam, I don't have to state my explicit inferences, and I should have known it was a mistake of me to mention them. Ignore the last sentence on each of my paragraphs (which are my inferences). The fact that "the fire department realised that they may not be able to contain the fire" and that "because of the number of fatalities the decision was made not to try and further contain the fire" are not inferences.
        • Kmf164, "Quotes are problematic in that they are cherry picked in a way to support a POV". There is no "tree" of quotes to pick from here. No one has provided any other quotes from Silverstein relevant to the building's collapse. Kernow 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So it's because it's POV you're not including it in the article? Many(most?) people in the USA know this quote, so it's definately part of information connected to WTC7. So why not include it to let ppl around the world know what is it all about? It's POV? it's "selective"? (among what other important quotes or info?? - right there with you, Kmf164). If conspiracy theories are bu***it it won't hurt anyone as it is a part of culture, information relevant to this article. If one of c.theories is somehow right, it should be included, too. This article is not too long, so as far as for now relevant information can/should be added.
What I dislike most is trying to convince everyone that it's better to hide some information because selective information can be POV-pushing. What i think is that properly, carefully commented information is never a cause of problems - it's lack of information that leads to trouble. If some of you think that this quotation is POV-pushing then please try to find some balancing, well referenced info and add it. Pity that most of admins, that edit WTC articles prefer to conceal info, like they were afraid that someone might read it and think "who knows what". If this person is provided with whole spectrum of information,then he/she can make up his own mind. If C.T are bull**it then ther should've been maaany sources that prove so without doubt and info from them could have been included. Now, it seems that some of c.t.are disproved, some not - this is our world, welcome to it, and face it.
"Lack od information is root of all evil."
To conclude - my opinnion is to add the quote not making any connection to conspiracy. Information is vital and we haven't run out of article space yet. SalvNaut 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Larry Silverstein said "pull it". The only thing he could have meant from this was to "pull it down", or using correct construction terminology to "demolish it". If he meant for the FD to no longer attempt to control or subdue the fires he would surely have said "pull out". --Jskw 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been argued ad nauseum in countless forums external to Wikipedia. It gains no traction here because there is nothing to substantiate the claim. We do not base articles on Wikipedia on speculation, or inferred meanings. --Durin 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
So why are you pushing the same dumb excuse about it meaning anything other than "demolish it"? It's been a common term for demoilition in the English language for decades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Frankly, I find this entire argument to be silly. The building was severely damaged to begin with as a result of having another building falling on it, and I think any reasonable person would agree that it was at least at risk of a collapse. A controlled demolition is far safer and cleaner than an uncontrolled collapse, so that would naturally be the preferred way to handle it. I don't even see anything worth covering up that could actually be covered up like this, and certainly not anything worth the effort of getting all the extra people required for this hypothesis to be true to keep quiet.Fdgfds 15:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The point is, that if it was a controlled demolition, how was it possible to bring down the building in a matter of 7 hours, wit a controlled demolition? If it was a controlled demolition it indicates that the building was setup for controlled demoltion before 9/11. It would indicate prior knowledge to the event on 9/11 which has abundant mysteries surrounding it. Several of the hijackers later showed up alive. Odigo also reported that they were forewarned. Several Israelis that illegally emmigrated to the United States to work at a moving company were seen recording the event. I don't see how anything can be considered "irrelevant".

When exactly did WTC7 catch fire?

From the Wikipedia entry for Larry Silverstein( ... "7 World Trade Center is said to have caught fire when debris fell from the North Tower. The building collapsed shortly after 5 p.m. -- 8 hours after the attack."

I have read numerous timelines (including CNN's archived on 12Sep2001) that said "reports of fires in WTC7" occurred around 70 minutes before it collapsed, i.e. 6+ hours AFTER the North and South towers collapsed... Kinda strange for it to not catch fire until so long a time it got hit by "debris" isn't it? :-\

Okay, some information re. the timing and INTENSITY of the WTC7 fires can be found here, in the FEMA report (2002) with highlights... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Just to clear up: The FEMA report says that firefighters checking the damage observed fires "fairly early on". No doubt there was a lot of confusion immediately after the attack, so there probably is a CNN page out there somewhere saying that there were reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse. If it says that the reports of fires 70 minutes before the collapse were the first reports of fires, then it's wrong. As the FEMA report notes, there was news coverage of smoke emanating from WTC 7 at 1:30 PM. Which probably means the building had begun burning well before then, and in the chaos nobody noticed until there was enough smoke that somebody had to notice. --Mr. Billion 08:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

New Picture

Somebody please add this old picture of WTC 7 pre-9/11. The website is here-

I'm not sure we can argue fair use, especially since the blog doesn't indicate a source or say who's photo that is. It would be best to try and find something that can be used without strings attached. My best suggestion is to see if the Skyscraper Museum, New York Historical Society, or other such organization has something. If they do, try and clear the rights with them or whoever is the copyright holder. I may be willing to take it up with them. Though, it would be best to try that, in conjunction with bringing this article up to featured status. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


The same FEMA report quote appears twice, with two dates (2002, 2004). This needs cleanup and verification.

I think it part of the "history" of the investigation, so it provides a chronological order of what has been learned over time.--MONGO 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction regarding 'controlled demolition' should be resolved. In the first paragraph, Silverstein states he 'pulled the plug', controlled demolition. Later on the liklihood of a controlled demolition is dismissed and referred to as a conspiracy theory.

Status of NIST Reports

This NIST page dated September 2005 lists the planned schedule for WTC 7 Reports (referring, of course, to the collapse of the first WTC 7)

  • January 2006 Completion of technical work
  • March 2006 Draft reports for review
  • April 2006 Draft reports to NCST AC
  • May 2006 Reports for public comment
  • June 2006 Publication

I can't determine from the site if any of these project milestones were reached. It certainly seems to be the case that there was no publication of a final report. Does anyone have more recent status from NIST on them? patsw 03:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • See [1], question 14. --Durin 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't want to click on the link, here's the answer to my question:
It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.
patsw 03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire causing collapse

Isn't it relevant that this is the first large steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse solely because of fire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 14:53, 17 September 2006.

Also isnt it weird that the firemen KNEW that it was going to collapse and told the public to get away from it! how would they know? this is the first day in history that buildings collapsed supposedly due to fire. they would have no way of knowing. unless ... it was about to be "pulled"

also the BBC knew in advance that it will collaps: [ BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell ]

  • No, because it's not the first large steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse solely because of fire...because it didn't collapse solely because of fire. --Durin 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right on two counts. The first large steel-framed buildings to collapse due to fire were the twin towers seven hours earlier. Also, the cause of WTC7 collapse is officially unknown. Saying it was due to fire is OR. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If that's put in the article, it should be noted that buldings 1 & 2 were hit by a plane, while WTC7 was only in the same vicinity of the dust cloud as the rest of the World Trade Center complex (3-6).
No, we shouldn't put that in the article because it's not true. 7 WTC was hit by tons of debris from the collapsing North Tower. It wasn't just "in the same vicinity of the dust cloud" (whatever the hell that means).

Opinions from structural engineers

If unsourced opinions from NIST, not substantiated with publications have their place in the collapse section, then I'm sure that opinion of two demolition experts, and structural engineer form Swiss university have their too. Sentences I include are very NPOV and I see no reason why you MONGO would like to remove them. You have to give arguments.--SalvNaut 19:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a valid argument and matter of relevance to the article. Where are the unsourced NIST statements? Tyrenius 01:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC) as source

Unless someone is accusing them of fabricating the photograph, it's not clear to me why they are not a suitable source. However, I have substituted They identify themselves as "an independent research and media group of writers, scholars and activists. It is a registered non profit organization in the province of Quebec, Canada...Numerous universities, libraries and research institutions have established a link to Global Research on their respective web sites. Global Research is classified by Alexa (the web-ranking organization), as The Number One Globalization Site. Global Research has about 20,000 unique visitors per day. Global Research has received for four years in succession, the Goodwriters Democratic Media Award, classified among the best 80 alternative news sites." Please do not delete this source without explaining your justification in this space. Thank you. Ribonucleic 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that Steven E. Jones specifically mentions Jim Hoffman at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium, in particular the references he found at Hoffman's website, as the inspiration for more seriously investigating the evident controlled demolition of WTC 7, the Wiki should not pretend the site is not noteworthy enough to mention in the 7 World Trade Center article. Ombudsman 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The notion that 7 WTC fell within its footprint is often brought forth as 'proof' by the conspiracy theorists that the building was intentionally demolished. The reality is that buildings adjacent to 7 WTC all suffered significant damage from its collapse. It most definitely did NOT fall within its own footprint. For evidence of this, I cite [2]. In particular, page 20 (as numbered, 25 of 42 actual) shows significant damage to the building just north of 7 WTC, 30 West Broadway. Page 21 shows more images of this, as does page 22. Controlled demolitions do not cause such damage to neighboring buildings. In fact, great care is taken to not damage neighboring buildings. But, it doesn't stop there. Keep going through that document and you'll see damage to the Verizon building, just west of 7 WTC. This article also notes that the Verizon building was damaged by the fall of 7 WTC. Positions of these buildings relative to 7 WTC can be seen with this little map. Lastly, a review of this image shows that 7 WTC clearly did not fall within its footprint, and this image too shows the damage to 30 West Broadway. The idea that 7 WTC fell within its footprint is simply, and as I've shown, provably false. Inclusion of commentary in this article asserting that 7 WTC fell in this manner is thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Durin 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The idea that a controlled demolition results in the debris of the demolished building piling up completely within the building's footprint is both unfounded and against common sense. No CD, especially of a tall building, can achieve such accuracy. On the other hand, assuming that WTC 7 was demolished with explosives, it is difficult to imagine why doing everything to save the surrounding buildings from damage would have been a high priority. The closeness of WTC 7 to the surrounding buildings can be seen clearly from this aerial photograph (click the picture to enlarge it).
    WTC 7 came down just as accurately as could be expected of a controlled demolition. Saying that it caused some damage to the buildings across one street on all sides goes nowhere near refuting the CD hypothesis (besides, the damage to two of the three neighbouring buildings was really quite small). By contrast, if the building had toppled—which is how tall buildings normally collapse, on the rare occasions they collapse—the damage to one or more surrounding buildings would have been much more extensive.
    But of course, the greatest challenge to any explanation of WTC 7's collapse centering on fires and debris damage is the fact that the roof of the building came smoothly to the ground—and did so in approximately 6.5 seconds, meaning that there was simply no time for a gravity-driven destruction of intact structures. As the accident researcher and Doctor of Engineering Heikki Kurttila points out, the "observed collapse time of WTC 7 [...] is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account."
    Thus, the roof of WTC 7 came down more quickly than an object dropped from the same height reaches the ground when resisted by mere air. In other words, there was no structural resistance. It will be interesting to see if NIST even mentions this fact. My guess is no.Vesku 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The footprint issue is not going away anytime soon, despite the above reasoning. Beyond the fact that there were thousands of gallons of fuel in the lowest stories that likely contributed to collateral damage of nearby structures, the prima facie evidence of a controlled demolition has only continued to build since the 'official' 9/11 omission report. The whitewash of WTC7 in the 9/11 omission report speaks volumes about the lack of any substantive theories about why WTC7 collapsed, conspiratorial or otherwise, proffered by the Bush Administration and its allies. Like any sharp culprits, those behind the collapse seem to have done quite a bit to ensure that any actual evidence of their crimes was removed and effectively disposed or destroyed. But it was the prima facie evidence of a controlled demolition, in videos at websites like, that caught the attention of scientists like Steven Jones, whose subsequent paper on the physics involved with such collapses led to a concerned citizen sending him WTC evidence samples, which in turn allowed Jones to determine exactly what type of detonation took place. Jones found that the explosive used was thermite -- more to the point, he determined that the specific brand used for the controlled demolition was thermate.[3] Ombudsman 23:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • is not going to be linked. This has been discussed at great length before. Since nothing has changed in regards to the problems with, there is no reason to revisit the discussion to potentially come to a different conclusion. --Durin 02:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Pray tell, what makes you so adamant about suppression of The website is clearly noteworthy, as the foremost repository for information about the building and what brought it down. How and why do you assume that censorship of this sort should be upheld? Your contention seems eerily like that of the 9/11 omission commission, which totally avoided any and all reference, aside from a footnote, relating to the destruction and coverup of WTC 7 evidence. While you are at it, if you have a moment, could you please explain why you seem to think so much like the omission commission? What is it about your beliefs, with regard to the evidence presented by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman at, that leads you to conclude that discussion of restoring the link should also be suppressed? Ombudsman 17:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I noted above, this has been discussed at length before. Please see the archives of this talk page, which are linked at the top of the page, for the relevant discussions. There is no need to rehash the debate, as nothing of significance with relation to the debate has changed in regards to --Durin 22:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been discussed, but certainly never resolved: nothing resembling a consensus has ever been reached. In my view, some of the reasons given for excluding from the external links were nothing short of ludicrous - like the unsupported charge that some of the pictures on that site might be under copyright, and the idea that Wikipedia's copyright policies extend to anything any article links to. --Hyperbole 22:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several valid reasons for it's exclusion, the discussion can be found in the archives. I think you took part in them. There was a consensus and nothings changed since. Remember, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Otherwise we'd be paralyzed. Rx StrangeLove 23:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There was nothing even resembling a consensus; if memory serves, there were about six users who voiced opposition to including and about five who felt the site should be included. I continue to believe that, while WP:RS prohibits using as a source, WP:EL requires that it, or another notable site of its POV, be included in the external links. --Hyperbole 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether consensus existed in one direction or another is actually irrelevant; as a resource for Wikpiedia violates a number of our standards. Policy can and does on occasion trump consensus. For example, if consensus said we should violate copyrights left and right, policy must win over to protect us against lawsuits. The failure of to meet our standards was discussed at length and can be reviewed in the archives. A number of administrators agreed with the position. I'm sorry you take issue with it. Since this already went to an RfC without any more light being shed, you should be taking the next steps in the dispute resolution process rather than attempting to rehash the same arguments here. If you want to get included as a reference, then rehashing the arguments here is not going to get you what you want. --Durin 02:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't want to get included as a reference; I think that would violate policy. I would like to see it included as an external link - and as I said before, the reasons argued that it would violate policy if it existed in that capacity were laughable (never has Wikipedia held a policy that anything it links to must conform to its own standards on sourcing pictures!). The matter was never settled, and the fact that a group of editors have managed to keep the article in a certain state for a certain period of time doesn't mean that they can hold it there indefinitely just by saying "we already discussed this." --Hyperbole 05:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It was settled, WP:EL covers this, see "Links normally to be avoided": points 2 and 4. Also see archive 3 above. Rx StrangeLove 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL also says that "Links normally to be avoided" is overrided by "What should be linked to" - and that there should be "On articles with multiple points of view, a link to prominent sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." is arguably the most prominent site dedicated to the controlled demolition of 7 WTC POV; the style guide clearly leads us to the conclusion that it should go in the external links. And no, the issue hasn't been settled - some just consider it settled because the article is currently in a state they like. --Hyperbole 05:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not linking to a biased website that is under the control of only one or a few webmasters...they have no editorial oversight and therefore is simply nothing but a POV pushers website. I think that ends this discussion.--MONGO 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

We're linking to whatever we can build a consensus (or, if it comes to it, to use the dispute resolution process) to link to. Here's yet another reminder that you're not Wikipedia's personal dictator; shame I have to keep handing these out to you. You just make yourself look silly when you try to step into those shoes. --Hyperbole 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Consesnus won't work if you violate policy and try to link to unreliable websites...the only thing that will happen is you'll end up being blocked for disruption. That goes for any other POV pushers here as well.--MONGO 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And, as I've pointed out, the only policies being violated by including in the external links are ones that have been invented on the spot by those who do not want it mentioned. WP:EL makes it crystal clear that the site should be linked to. It's a shame you'd threaten to block people for following it. --Hyperbole 06:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:EL is a maunual of style...WP:RS used in conjuction with WP:V and WP:NOR eliminates from being a valid source for inclusion...we don't reference biased websites.--MONGO 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
We don't reference biased websites, but we do link to them--WP:EL makes that clear. The idea that internal Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR apply to external links has apparently been invented on this talk page, just for the purpose of excluding this website. --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And we're rehashing the same argument again. Hyperbole, let me restate again: this is not going to go anywhere, and will not bring you the results you want. Since the argument has achieved as much forward progress as it possibly can on this talk page, and since an RfC brought no further satisfaction to this for you, your next step in the dispute resolution process is to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Failing that, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. --Durin 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I see it, there's a dedicated group of editors obstructing a group of external links for reasons not rooted in policy. It's important to make a record of that, since there are new editors all the time who rightfully notice the absence of appropriate links. Telling them that "We settled this a long time ago" isn't going to fly; we didn't. --Hyperbole 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • You've been directed as to where to go to seek remediation. You feel this isn't settled. Fine. You have your own opinion of the matter. Fine. However, it isn't going to be settled here any further. Continuing to rehash the debate so that newcomers to this can see the debate is not going to help improve the article, and that is what we are here to do. --Durin 15:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Could this Finnish page be seen as offering a relatively dispassionate analysis of WTC 7? --Vesku 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • No. That's just a blog. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources". Also, it's rather far from dispassionate. --Durin 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It is a "blog" only in the sense that it is published on; otherwise, it does not differ in any way from a "web page". Also, I'd like you to point out precisely why it is "far from dispassionate". I don't think there are any factual, calculation, or translation errors (the conclusions of the Swiss construction professors are translated quite accurately) in it -- any more than in the WTC 7 article by a Finnish Doctor of Engineering it links to. Vesku 20:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions to the conspiracy theory paragraph

The source describes it as "the undercover office". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "clandestine" as "kept or done in secret". To delete that word from the sentence is to obscure the plain meaning of the source. So I'm putting it back. The deletion of Morgan Reynolds does improve NPOV though - so I'll have to agree on that. Ribonucleic 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Didn't read the definition all the way through! "Undercover" it is. Ribonucleic 23:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Split article?

Has anyone thought about splitting this article? This could address the cleanup tag on the top of the article, by creating separate articles for the old building and the present building. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've thought of that, but not sure it's necessary at this point. There are details that can be added about the new building, about how it incorporates "lessons learned" in skyscraper design and safety. Some which were mentioned in the FEMA report. I think such discussion fits well together with discussion of the old building and its collapse. Though, maybe at some point this article will be large enough, that for article size reasons, it will need to be split. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I did aswell, but i don't think its necessary as it's the same building, although not physically the same building. The new tower was made to replace the old one, and has the same name, and is in the same location. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bm2 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC).
The article identifies the address not the building. We cannot predict if the former building will fade in importance over time or not, and whether reader interest will be in the current or former building. The article is not long in any case. It should not be split. patsw 22:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's the extent of the discussion, then it's time to pull the split tag from the main article. patsw 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

As for cleanup, here is the article, as it existed when the cleanup tag was added. The article had 10 references, and is now up to 23 references. I'm not sure what more cleanup that person had in mind, but I think the tag can be removed now. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Related article

Some of you who observe this article may be interested in Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Of note, the here much debated appropriateness of using as a citable reference is used 13 times within that article. The article was up for AfD recently, and closed with no consensus. The closer noted in a plan of action that the articled needed "weeding out [of] improper references". --Durin 12:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I find it necessary to point out that the standards for using as a citable reference are altogether different from the standards for including as an external link. --Hyperbole 05:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Split pages

Maybe we should split the article into two? Such as '7 World Trade Center (1978-2001)' and '7 World Trade Center (2006)'

I think it would help the layout and stop any confusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC).

That was exactly my proposal above, and I still think it's a good idea. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. ---- 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

7 WTC is Green?

I have heard that 7 WTD is supposed to be not only very safe, but also very green, and therefore a great addition to lower Manhattan. Can anyone verify this 'greenness'?

Looks like it's already in the article: "The building is considered New York City's first "green" office tower by gaining gold status in the US Green Building Council's LEED program." The reference is here:[4]. It's interesting to note that the architect who designed 7 WTC was hired to redesign the Freedom Tower and made it significantly less green. --Hyperbole 04:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I will split this into two articles...

...unless there are any objections with a good point. If no one has made a good objection within a week. I will split this into 7 World Trade Center (1987-2001) and 7 World Trade Center (2006).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Undecided...allow the editors who have worked on this article in the past to chime in...but I'm leaning towards no split and also hoping you get a username.--MONGO 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
On that last point, I agree. I sent them a {{welcomeanon}} as a little encouragement for them to register. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
See #Split_article.3F section above. I don't think a split is needed at this point. As we proceed with improving/expanding this article, I may change my mind on this. Status quo is fine for now. The article isn't too long. --Aude (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Status quo is probably fine for now, though I can see a case for splitting. --Durin 21:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

7 WTC vs WTC 7

We need to clean this article up a bit. It refers to the titular building as WTC 7, 7 WTC, 7 World Trade Center, World Trade Center 7, Seven World Trade Center and World Trade Center Seven.

I official long name is and was 7 World Trade Center, and for short 7WTC.

Now I'm going to edit this and please could you try to keep your edits in this format? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I concur that the official name is and was "7 World Trade Center" and 7WTC. Where the confusion arises is that NIST and FEMA use WTC7 in their reports. [5] [6]. --Aude (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
A search of news articles, pre-9/11 finds:
  • "7 World Trade Center" - 951 results
  • "World Trade Center 7" - 46 results, including some false positives (like mention of events, e.g. "...series at the World Trade Center. 7 p.m., free. Plaza")
And the abbeviations "7WTC" and "WTC7" are not used. I think Wikipedia should also avoid the abbreviations, altogether. --Aude (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparing floor area

Hi, All.

Earlier today, a sentence in the article looked like this:

Each floor had 47,000 square feet of rentable office space, which was considerably larger than most other buildings in New York City.

I changed it to this:

Each floor had 47,000 square feet (4,366 m²) of rentable office space, which was considerably larger than most other buildings<!-- Than most other buildings, or than most other office buildings? Than most other buildings' totals, or than most other buildings' per-floor areas?--> in the city.

Next, AudeVivere changed it to this:

Each floor had 47,000 square feet (4,366 m²) of rentable office space, which made the building's floor plans considerably larger than most other office buildings in the city.

This still isn't clear. For one thing, this wording says that floor plans are larger than office buildings. Also, we should be clearer about which one of these we mean when we say "larger than most other office buildings in the city":

• the whole building’s square footage of rentable office space in most NYC office buildings is less than 47,000
• a single floor’s square footage of rentable office space in most NYC office buildings is less than 47,000.

Maybe some of you can help. The reasons for which I don't make the change myself are that I don't know which thing is meant, I'm not taking the time to investigate it, and I don't have access to the 1981 New York Times article.


President Lethe 19:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Solomon (sic) Brothers Building

The name was Salomon Brothers. They were a tenant and the building never changed its name. In the comprehensive Wall Street: Financial Capital by Robert Gambee published in 1999, they appear on pages 70-73 in 388 and 390 Greenwich Street under their name at that time Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. For the 7 World Trade Center on page 206, they are listed as a tenant.

"Salomon Brothers, Inc." was merged with Smith Barney in 1997. No structure in New York City carried the designation Salomon Brothers Building in 2001. Finallly, Citigroup dropped the name Salomon in April 2003.

The BBC report which is much discussed among the conspiracy theorists seems to be the point of origin for the the incorrect identification of this building as the Salomon Brothers Building. I spent some time this evening to find any source which could show this usage prior to 9/11/2001 and failed to find any. The BBC got it wrong and the Wikipedia does not need to propagate the error. patsw 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Youtube Link

I removed a "Watch this" link to a 25 minute youtube propaganda piece. It was stranded and looked highly unencyclopedic, to say nothing of POV. It might be worthwhile to have a section on "Conspiracy Theories regarding WTC7 Collapse", but let's be honest, that's what they are. A theory about a conspiracy to bring down the building. dkatten 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


I noted a certain amount of toing and froing on the article and tried to make an edit which I thought improved the article. I was promptly reverted by User:MONGO, with a (to me) meaningless edit summary. I wonder if other heads could look at this and see if we can reach a consensus. Is it, for example, still "early 2007"? How does one spell the word "accommodate" in English? What evidence is there that doubt about the reason for the collapse of the original building is "usually accompanied by other 9/11 conspiracy theories"? I do hope you are able to help. --Guinnog 15:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't do spelling questions :). As for the doubt about the reason for the collapse, who espouses the doubts? "some believe" is WP:WEASEL language. If there are other persons other than Conspiracy theorists that have doubt, they should be listed, not replace with "some." --Tbeatty 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have restored the fact tag on the linkage question though as I think it is important that this is verifiable. I checked the original ref and it seems that "by early 2007" was the original aim for the updated report. I suppose it is a matter of opinion when "early 2007" ends and "mid-2007" begins, but we must be getting there about now, I'd say? --Guinnog 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


Should Rosie's comments be added?

Why would we add the opinion of a non expert?--MONGO 00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Rosie's opinion should be reflected, since she is prominent supporter of the controlled demolition hypothesis, her name should also be added to that "conspiratorial template". Lovelight 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
maybe after she does more than simply make a few comments...she isn't involved in writing any books or narration of films or similar yet.--MONGO 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell is simply repeating what others have been saying for years without adding anything. There are already links to from this article to articles where the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition is discussed at length, and O'Donnell's recitation is already in those articles. patsw 12:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

9.11 Commission Report

Please stop deleting my contribution to the article that the 9/11 Report made no mention of Building 7, unless you can provide a reason why it is not relevant to the article. Thank you. Laikalynx 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact it mentions 7 WTC five times, though there is no discussion of the reasons for the collapse. (Search term "7 wtc") --Guinnog 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
See chapter 9, it is mentioned, as well as additional mentions during the 9/11 commission hearings. [7] [8] Anyway, NIST and its structural engineering experts were tasked to investigate the collapse, while the 9/11 Commission focused on other aspects. [9] --Aude (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a peculiar footnote about it, however ignoring (treating it as minor occurrence) of WTC 7 collapse by commission is nothing but omission… therefore it should be referenced here as well as there. Will you do it Aude? Please? Lovelight 19:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The 9/11 Commission didn't ignore it. The collapse was mentioned during the hearings, but they deferred to NIST and its structural engineering experts who were tasked with investigating the collapse of the three buildings. --Aude (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not happy with the wording we have at present. "Fueling..." seems like OR, and if we take that out we just have a statement that something didn't happen. --Guinnog 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
This statement is not at all needed. The 9/11 Commission was not comprised of structural engineering experts who were qualified to study the collapse. Those experts are at NIST, who have done multi-year studies on the collapse of all three buildings. --Aude (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Guinnog 20:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The 911 commission was not compromised? How come? That is, even our (imo, deeply biased) article about omission is nothing but the criticism of it… Well, statement is gone, and I'm not the one who will fight for it… say, Aude, have you noticed those blueprints which surfaced earlier this month? Take a look, the NIST & FEMA actually misrepresented the Towers' Construction (such waste of money), it's very disturbing… to say the least. Lovelight 20:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That website is out to make a buck. Upper right of their pages, nice little button to push where one can donate to their cause. Facts from NIST are free.--MONGO 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Mongo, I'm not sure what's wrong with donations; those represent easy way to contribute to the effort. Have you actually clicked that button..? That reminds me… what was our score? Think it was well over million (we have to deserve that money you know)? Anyway, wouldn’t ask all this questions but this issue seems to reoccur lately… so let's be clear about it… it’s a choice, to donate something to someone is a choice… much as we choose to contribute to the this corpus here. That said, I've pointed to that particular location because of convenient (high-res) research tool, check it out. Then again, perhaps you are bothered by that assertion about wikipedia? Well, sometimes truth hurts… but we are striving to make things better here. Right? Lovelight 21:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovelight, adding lies and misrepresentations is not an effort to make things better, instead, it is disruption. That the website you link to is asking for donations and asks others to actively fight (even gives a page which tells how) Wikipedia, is proof to me they are a bunch of POV pushers of nonsense. That you choose to adhere to their nonsense rather than facts is your problem, but that doesn't mean we are going to add it to this article...a website controlled by a few webmasters, that asks for donations...not a chance.--MONGO 04:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If one wouldn’t know you better, one would say that you are resorting to some witty sarcasm here. Lovelight 10:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes donations…… so is Wikipedia now peddling lies to make a buck?

MONGO you seem to be very skilled in the art of DOUBLETHINK, while every opinion critical of the government ‘fact’ needs to be proved and then proved again and must come from a source utterly neutral and not for profit, government commissions can be full of shills!

There are two types of organizations in a free society, government and market.

Is it your opinion that neutral point of view means believing points of view funded by the government only? Because this is truly DOUBLETHINK!

Wikipedia should be independent of national POV, what do people in the rest of the world think off 9-11 and in this case building 7? Well what do they think of USS Liberty, Golf of Tonkin, Reichstag fire, Nero’s fire, the shelling of Mainila, the Gleiwitz incident, the Mukden incedent???

You talk of nuetral POV but to truly get this you must leave the US or GB -- Paul 16/7/07

A little confused

Ok I'm from Australia and not familiar at all with New York City or the layout. Looking at the map which highlights the 7WTC, is this a map before or after Sept 11? If after, WTC1 is the new Freedom Tower? ANd has the World Trade Plaza always been there or was that re-built? Thankyou :) Naysie 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The map in the article clearly identifies it as being before September 11, 2001. The plaza was constructed by closing streets and creating a superblock starting around 1966. The plaza has not been rebuilt as it remains a very large, active construction site. patsw 22:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Kerry comments

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not by any stretch a "conspiracy guy" (look to my extensive edit history and you'll find no evidence of my editing any such articles), but John Kerry did in fact say that he "understood" that 7 WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition. That's not a "misquote", it's what he said; it's not "out-of-context", the full question and his full answer are recorded; and it's not "irrelevant" - while it's far from conclusive of anything it at least demonstrates that there is enough confusion about what happened to the building that a high-profile figure whom one would expect to be clued in on the matter doesn't seem to know the official story. We all want to keep Wikipedia free of fictional speculation, but John Kerry said these things, it's controversial, and it's directly related to the collapse of 7 WTC. To not include it in the article is to succumb to a personal POV. Geoff NoNick 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen to the whole thing. Kerry repeatedly says "I don't know", and that he's not heard about controlled demolition theories. Referring to the audience members asking him questions, he says "You are the first people anywhere in the country to bring this to my attention". Kerry admits that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. Furthermore, he didn't use the specific words "controlled demolition". --Aude (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
He certainly said "I don't know" a couple of times (specifically with respect to whether or not there had been an investigation into Larry Silverstein), but the direct quote of his response to the question was:

I don't believe there's been a formal investigation. I haven't heard that; I don't know that. But I do know that... that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think that they made the decision based on the danger that it had of destroying other things, and they did it in a controlled fashion.

— John Kerry, In response to question about 7 World Trade Center
You are right that he doesn't use the words "controlled demolition" (that's conspiracist talk), but he does talk about the bringing down of the building ("they did it") "in a controlled fashion". Now, I'm prepared to believe that he was blindsided by the question and, while stumbling for a answer, appropriated the questioner's statement that the building was brought down under control. Nevertheless, it does go to establishing the confusion surrounding what happened on the day of the building's collapse.
How would you word a paragraph referring to this relevant fact? Geoff NoNick 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Responding to the first question, where he is asked if he had heard about WTC7, controlled demolition, and Steven E. Jones, he says "Well that's a new one to me" He is definitely confused and doesn't know what he is talking about. He may be thinking of 6 World Trade Center or the slurry wall. Regardless, Kerry's confused response to the question really isn't notable and worth including. Has this been picked up by any reliable sources? --Aude (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant at speaks to his confusion more than anything. Not everything means something. If he follows up on it along the same lines then maybe but as it is now it doesn't even make sense. It'd really be grasping at straws to read anything into it. RxS 00:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Can't win 'em all. Geoff NoNick 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"New complex"?

7 WTC is the only building in the new complex to retain the WTC title.

What is this new complex? This is a meaningless addition to the intro. patsw 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theorists" language

"Conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term, no better than "Conspiracy nut." Almost nobody self-identifies as a "conspiracy theorist," so the term is used by opponents of an assertion to denigrate its proponents. There's evidence that tens or hundreds of millions of people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis - including 16% of Americans. It is absolutely unacceptably NPOV for a Wikipedia article to label millions and millions of people with a pejorative term like "conspiracy theorists." Wikipedia does have a ridiculously OR and POV list of conspiracy theorists (which, at this writing, Dwight D. Eisenhower appears on). It certainly does not include "the vast majority of the world" for believing in some conspiracy or other.

Perhaps most importantly of all, there is no reliable source defining everyone who believes in the controlled demolition model as a "conspiracy theorist" - making that pejorative pure original research. --Hyperbole 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • We've hashed this out before, with edit wars ad nauseum about it. Sorry. --Durin 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    I don't know who "we" are, but I don't see any prior discussion on the talk page about this language. --Hyperbole 00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed. Look in the talk page archives. Reliable sources do use the term "conspiracy theories" when talking about controlled demolition theories. Sources such as the CBC in Canada, for example. I'm not willing to discuss this endlessly. Consensus has already been reached, per previous talk page discussion. --Aude (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not say that everyone who believes in the controlled demolition theory - whether they call it a "conspiracy theory" or not - is a "conspiracy theorist." No legitimate authority exists that asserts that 16% of Americans are conspiracy theorists. And the fact that there has been a steady, ongoing stream of dissent against that characterization proves that there is anything but consensus here. --Hyperbole 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Polls are relatively useless to determine facts. All we can say is that 16% answered the prescibed questions of this poll this way. Why can't we say that 84% felt otherwise?--MONGO 06:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, however the poll does not cite them as conspiracy theorists in it, that makes the term being used before the citation incorrect. I have reverted and returned it to the description as stated by the poll. I will just quote the line to make it easier. Please be aware those editing that misstating sources is quite easy to do by accident and should be carefully avoided. As for if polls are a reliable source of information, it is best to argue that on WP:RS. As for saying if 16% stated X then 84% meant the opposite as Y, you cannot do that since you do not know the basis of the questions, were 3 options given, 4, were participants permitted to skip certain questions entirely etc. Its a basic statistics, when all variables are not known, you should just quote the source, not draw from that what you believe is being stated. --SixOfDiamonds 20:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha. Likewise, all the poll seems to prove is that 16% of those that answered it are either uneducated or are simply prone to believing the impossible. I don't think it is notworthy in the least, so I am removing it. Thanks.--MONGO 20:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the history of this article and when consensus was reached about this, but obviously it can be revisited. Personally I think the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff (including the WTC 7 controlled demolition hypothesis) is complete and total bollocks. However I don't really understand why MONGO, Tom Harrison, et. al. are so determined to keep the "conspiracy theorist" label in because it is not a precise term and it will always be contested. Their (i.e. the conspiracy theorists) arguments are easily refuted in my opinion, so why apply a tendentious label to them? I would suggest something along the lines of "partisans of the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement'" or "skeptics (who also often challenge the entire official story regarding 9/11)" or something similar that does not make the term "conspiracy theorist" explicit (though intelligent readers would see it there implicitly). These phrasings just seem much neutral to me, while still pointing out that the people who question the official story on WTC 7 tend to be aligned with a fairly fringe movement.

Also, I don't really see a reason for not including the 16% figure, which I personally find interesting. I'm not sure if I think that number is high or low in terms of what I would have expected, but simply quoting the number doesn't really seem to be a problem to me (if it was established that the other 84% all believed the generally accepted version than we could include that, or better yet both for clarity). I live in NYC, and I'm regularly astounded by the number of people here who believe this kinda stuff (I bet the number here is higher than 16%).

Here's an overall proposal for addressing these issues which I think falls somewhere in between the two fairly hardened position in the most recent revert war: "Despite FEMA's preliminary finding that fire caused the collapse, partisans of the so-called '9/11 Truth Movement' believe the collapse was the result of a controlled demolition." Then, in the footnote, we could put information about the 16% of the American public that apparently hold that point of view (and if we want whatever percentage of folks believe the generally accepted version--we'd have to check the original poll data). Would that be a workable solution? It seems pretty reasonable to me and would hopefully reduce future revert wars.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no proof of anything other than the known facts, for the opposite of this to be true would it would have to involve a conspiracy of at least two or more people to pull off (ie:Controlled demo or a similar act)...that there is no proof, all anyone can say is they have a theory...Conspiracy theory is not the least bit pejorative and is the appropriate wording to describe those who have chosen to not believe the known evidence or wish to refute it without verifiable facts.--MONGO 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The following is from the conspiracy theory article: "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial." This is my point, and I really don't see why it is so important to use this term, when we can instead simply refer to the 9/11 Truth Movement or something along those lines--it seems far more neutral and nothing essential is lost since the sentence would be followed by good rebuttals of the CT viewpoint. I think you know that "conspiracy theory" is a much more complicated and contested term then you suggest in your comment above, and while I do see how supporters of the controlled demo hypothesis could legitimately object to that label (and will probably continue to do so in the future) I don't see how they could object to a reference to the 9/11 Truth Movement (I think we should put "so-called" before it since it's a self-applied term). In other words, changing the language would not alter meaning but would probably avoid some time wasting disputes in the future.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
'Conspiracy theory' is the terminology used by journalists, researchers, and academics. Tom Harrison Talk 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Which journalists, researchers, and academics? Where and when? A citation should be required in order to include the "conspiracy theorist" language, and obviously there is none now. Even if some journalists, researchers, and academics use this term, what's the disadvantage to changing "conspiracy theorist" to "partisans of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement?" I really do not understand the objection as the latter formulation would not require a citation and would be more neutral in its choice of words while the former would (or at least should) require a citation and will always be open to charges of POV (most misguided, some not). I don't see why saying "conspiracy theorist" is so important and it seems more trouble than it's worth.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The only way anyone would be insulted by the term conspiracy theorists is if they lacked the education or intelligence to be able to distinguish facts from fiction on this matter.--MONGO 09:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theorist" is already cited and supported by two refs. [10] [11] Furthermore, a search on Lexis-Nexis finds 6012 sources for 9/11 conspiracy theory vs 193 for 9/11 Truth Movement. "Conspiracy theory" and theorist is by far the term most commonly used by reliable sources and is entirely reasonable to use here. --Aude (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, I really don't care enough to push this any further. The fact that "conspiracy theory" is more commonly used in the press isn't necessarily determinative for our purposes though. Most press stories refer to partial birth abortion, but that's not what we call the article we have on the topic for obvious reasons. I'm sure this will continue to be a point of contention (perhaps unnecessarily) and waste time, but obviously the term "conspiracy theory" is important to several editors so I'll leave it as is and move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)