Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Collapse of the World Trade Center was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed
February 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fire Service (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Collapse of the World Trade Center is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Toolbox

Austenitization?[edit]

When I first heard of the collapses I thought of how heat can transform iron or steel to gamma iron. I have never seen a confirmation of this hunch. That the heat was readily conducted by the re-enforcing steel which became hot enough to undergo what is called austenitization, to become very brittle. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure,
  • Barnett, J.; Biederman, R. R.; Sisson, Jr., R. D. (2002), McAllister, T., ed., "Appendix C. Limited Metallurgical Examination" (PDF), World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, ASCE/FEMA 
  • Sisson, R. D.; Biederman, R. R. (2006). "Metal removal via slag attack of the steel from building 7 of the world trade center—Some observations". Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 6 (5): 17–21. doi:10.1361/154770206X129006. 
Enjoy. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

NIST Report[edit]

I have added information to the NIST report. This is the same information that I added early this week, but it was removed. I have cited my references with articles from peer reviewed journals (Euro Physics News), and from documents published on the websites of federal agencies. These are historical facts, and I don't believe they are up for debate.

I have been given a notice by MONGO that sanctions may be impossed because of these edits:

Before any further action is taken against me, I ask that you please explain why this factual, historical information should warrant any punishment. You may use my talk page, this talk page, or email me at dan mantyla at gmail d0t com.

I believe I have followed the following instructions very well:

Yes, I understand that there is a problem with people coming in here and dumping conspiracy theory garbage into this article. However, I have not done that. I am not a conspiracy theorist. And following these instructions should not lead to punishment.

Thank you

Please sign any "contributions" you might make. You do appear to have a poor understanding of English and your "edits", although some are referenced, do not appear to be from reliable sources and are more relevant to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article. Please stop edit warring on this article. David J Johnson (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on whether or not I have a poor understanding of English (although I don't have a Masters in English Composition, I am a published author), whether or not my sources are reliable (the New York Times, scientific, peer-reviewed journals, etc), and whether or not they are more relevant to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article should have no impact on the record concerning this event in human history.
In short, you are not the dictators of what should be included in the record of all human knowledge that is the Wikipedia project. Nobody is. That's what Wikipedia is all about! Unbiased truth. If you can't agree with this then maybe you need to take a step back and look at this endeavor from a new perspective.
I must also respectfully say that it was not me who started this edit war. It's obvious that I'm outnumbered in this "war" (EpicGenious, David J Johnson, and MANGO have all reverted my changes) and maybe that makes me the outsider, but I urge you to keep an open mind. Think about what Wikipedia stands for - sum of all knowledge. Please, do not restrict this knowledge by your own close-mindedness.
--Mannydantyla (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Who on earth are "EpicGenious" and "MANGO" ? You certainly are "outnumbered in this "war" " and you should accept consensus. I repeat there is an existing article for "contributions" such as yours - and that is where they belong. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
You're edit-warring to promote fringe theories. Wikipedia does not present a hash of everything everybody has said on a subject, it presents information in proportion to its presentation in mainstream scholarly and journalistic sources. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia discusses fringe theories as fringe theories and does not present them as "alternatives" or give them equal credence to widely-accepted views, either here or anywhere else in the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
That's unfortunate then. Wikipedia is not the project I had hoped it was I guess. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised... --Mannydantyla (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Circular references[edit]

I came to this article via the World Trade Center article and found the following circular or otherwise strange references:

  • The Collapse of the South Tower section refers to the Main article: World Trade Center
  • The Collapse of the North Tower section refers to the Main article: One World Trade Center (which is an article on the current Freedom Tower, not the original North Tower).

I thought the intent of a Main Article reference is to indicate where to go for more detailed information, not less.

I think the best thing would be to remove the "Main Article" references.

If I don't see any objections, and if I remember, I will attempt a fix.

Quickfoot (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Impact drawing of towers[edit]

The impact drawing in the "initial opinions and analysis" has no indication of units on the height measurement of the impact sites. I think it's kilometers but am not certain. Épargnez le visage (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)