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
Toolbox

Can we improve the lead?[edit]

I think it can be made more concise. I think we can assume basic familiarity with what 9/11 is (and of course keep the link to the 9/11 article). The important thing is the time of the collapses, the causes, and the aftermath. I don't think we need a whole paragraph on the FEMA investigation, since it got the mechanics wrong. And I don't actually think the NIST investigation needs a paragraph of its own. NIST should be mentioned, of course. All in all, I imagine something about half the length of what is there now. Finally: can't we use a more iconic picture? Thoughts? --Thomas B (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The NIST reports provide the definitive account of why and how the buildings failed. I'd suggest they merit much more than a paragraph, or mere "mention". They should be covered in depth. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm only talking about the 'lead'. The NIST report should indeed be covered in depth the 'body' of the article. In the lead, the investigation only needs a brief mention, though. And the explanation should be presented as simple fact, not as the result of NIST's investigation.--Thomas B (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternate version[edit]

As a parting gesture, I just created this version [1] of the article and reverted it immediately. Though I'm sure it can be improved further, I think it is a much better article than what we have now. It is easier to read and more informative. Take your time and think about it. Let me know if you want work together from here. Otherwise I'm done for now.--Thomas B (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Looked at your alternate version and is just as big a POV push as the others you did years ago. I'm going to move to see you topic banned again if you persist on watering down the facts. This article is not the place to debate the issues...we have other articles that do this more than adequately.--MONGO 20:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely right MONGO. I have tried to steer a middle course through this latest spat, but Thomas B has just proved that his last words have not been his last words. Once again, it is POV and CT. I would support a topic ban. David J Johnson (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
David is puzzled at my long goodbye. Do note that I'm deliberately not disrupting anything on the main page. And I'll leave you to make of my suggestions what you will. (Or just ignore me. As far as I can tell, you're the only people who are paying any attention to me.) This time, I can't resist pointing out that the current article says:
The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse, also called "Pancaking". Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed.
NIST, however, says:
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems. [2]
The current version cites the FEMA report to describe the collapse sequence, though, as everyone who understands the investigations knows, that explanation was rejected by the NIST report (in virtually the same breath, I would add, as it rejected controlled demolition). You guys are simply less interested in the factual accuracy of the article than you are in ensuring that CTs are never spoken of. I think your disgust with those theories is clouding your judgment. And you are letting Wikipedia's readers down as a result. I'm one of those readers.--Thomas B (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2017[edit]

The article claims SEC files related to its investigation into Citigroup and WorldCom were destroyed. This is not accurate, the SEC investigation did not begin until 2002.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/723527/000093176303001862/dex991.htm#ex991902_1

This is a common conspiracy claim, that critical SEC files investigating corporate fraud were lost. 173.75.137.183 (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Salomon were the ones that had the files when the tower collapsed. See this archived article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Include video evidence[edit]

I think it would be good to include a link to video evidence for the "bulging in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors". All of this has been filmed by thousands of cameras, so I am sure such evidence exists. That would be more convincing than a witness report, knowing how unreliable the memory is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.113.195 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)