Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Collapse of the World Trade Center. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

The current version of this article does need revisions.

Some of this information is incorrect, some of the sources are outdated. Much of this information is being presented as fact, when it's really just hypothesis. The NIST itself does not claim to have all the answers. There is much dispute even among those who support the fires theory of the actual mechanisms of collapse.

My intention is not to insert what we know are alternative theories, as I see there are other places to do that. But it's important to present the existing theories on these events with all the facts or at least the verifiable claims -- information taken from the sources themselves. This is not currently the case. Some paragraphs appear to have been written off the top of someone's head several years ago, and not only has some of the information changed, but the description wasn't even correct in the first place.

I'm pointing this out to those editors who keep undoing the revisions. If you don't understand why the edits are being made, and you don't understand the notes - ASK. That's what consensus building is. If you can't improve on the edits yourself, leave them alone. If you have a better way of expressing something, and can back it up with a relevant and up-to-date source, go for it. But don't just revert the article without doing the fact checking. That's not helping anyone.--Jasne9 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the article needs an update but numerous editors appear to have reverted you because they disagree with your edits.--MONGO 18:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree that anyone making edits will provide a note here for each edit. Anyone wishing to undo an edit needs to provide an improvement to the edit, or an appropriate counter argument here, backed up with relevant, up-to-date sources. This is the only way to verify that editors of this article understand the material they claim to want to protect. If someone can't or is unwilling to do this, they shouldn't be touching the edits. --Jasne9 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hum...while edit warring is disallowed, any effort to misinterpret information to skew the article away from the facts will lead to an automatic reversion. No body is likely interested in time consuming discussions about why we not going to water down the facts to accommodate fringe beliefs.--MONGO 18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor adding text or restoring text. If the text is simply changed, then the longstanding text is considered the consensus version, and the new text must have a new consensus formed here on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to move the article towards the facts, as I just explained above. If there's going to be some inner wiki cabal protecting inaccurate information based on outdated and ignorant understandings then Wikipedia isn't really doing the job it aims to, is it? Given that we agree this article needs revision, there needs to be some process where intelligent, accurate edits can be made without reactionary editors clicking 'undo' buttons willy-nilly out of their own ignorance. If an editor is accurately pointing out an inaccuracy that can be verified by the source provided, then editors need to defer to that. But that requires reading the explanation before clicking the 'undo' button. If someone isn't willing to do that much, they shouldn't be touching the edits. --Jasne9 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet's comments above. There have been too many wholesale alterations without any reference to the Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: the few edits I've made so far are based on and sourced to current NIST information. If you don't understand this much, you shouldn't be touching this article. --Jasne9 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Based partly on NIST reports which I have read multiple times.--MONGO 19:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Great. So you would know then, that the edits I made are factual and sourced to current NIST information. Jasne9 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit of yours that I reverted you had eliminated other information.--MONGO 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Just focusing on the section I was trying to edit so far, here are the inaccuracies I see. I won't make any edits at this point. I will begin by listing what I see needs to be changed or updated. Once one starts editing, however, it sometimes becomes necessary to reorganize the structure of the article, so that might need to happen as well.

Mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse

"In both cases, the portion of the building that had been damaged by the airplanes failed, which allowed the section above the airplane impacts to fall onto the undamaged structure below."

This is self-evident and therefore doesn't need to be mentioned, but I was also pointing out that the perimeter failure was said by NIST to have begun on the opposite side of the plane impacts in WTC 1 - the south side. Not the damage side. So this is also inaccurate.

"As the collapse progressed, dust and debris could be seen shooting out of the windows several floors below the advancing destruction, caused by the sudden rush of air from the upper levels."

I edited this to: "This is attributed to air compression from the falling mass." This is not only a more concise way to express this, it is more accurate in that this is NIST's hypothesis about the dust jets observed.

"The first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 11 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 9 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed."

Who cares about free-falling building fragments? What does this tell us about the rapid descent of the buildings, which were the -defining feature of the WTC structural failures? The anomalous rapid collapses are why the investigations took place. I recognize these words are paraphrased from the NIST FAQ, but we can also provide more honest information about the buildings' collapse times from the same source. And being an information resource, we should.

[12]

This reference is from 2006. There is a more current NIST FAQ page.

"While the buildings were designed to support enormous static loads, they provided little resistance to the moving mass of the sections above the floors where the collapses initiated. Structural systems respond very differently to static and dynamic loads, and since the motion of the falling portion began as a free fall through the height of at least one story (roughly three meters or 10 feet), the structure beneath them was unable to stop the collapses once they began. Indeed, a fall of only half a meter (about 20 inches) would have been enough to release the necessary energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.[50]"

This paragraph presents theory as fact. I edited it to clarify that this was one theory. It is not presented by NIST as the explanation, but as a possible explanation among others. It has also been contested by many, including in peer-reviewed publications. The International Journal of Protective Structures being one. The wiki entry can be much more honest and accurate about this. And what is with the hyper-detailed citation? Jasne9 (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So you want to incorporate conspiracy theories into this article?--MONGO 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

So you haven't read anything I've posted here? --Jasne9 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongo, I notice you've been involved in maintaining this article since 2006. That's a really long time to care about a subject that you nevertheless haven't bothered to stay current on. Are you really in a position to make good decisions here? --Jasne9 (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes...I am smarter than the average bear.--MONGO 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Pancake theories of progressive failure due to dynamic impacts of the floors were ruled out. --DHeyward (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, DHeyward. Hopefully the others will understand this too. --Jasne9 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course the "pancake theory" doesn't really exist out-side of the "truther" community. Good luck finding any source that are relevant to this article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are unlikely to persuade anyone. As far as the edits go -- it's-only-NIST's-hypothesis; dust jets; the focus on free-fall speed and collapse timing -- these seem on balance have the effect of slanting the article in favor of the conspiracy theories. That's not something I'd support. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no ad hominems in any of my remarks, Tom Harrison. Not sure why you are claiming this. --Jasne9 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the reference provided here by Jasne9, it's called, "Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis" and published in the Inernational Journal of Protective Structures...now examine the authors and a quick search on them will show they are sometimes in the fringe category on this matter. There is no worse science than when an a priori premise leads one to not leave their box.--MONGO 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what corner they come from if their analysis is correct. It's not up you to decide which peer-reviewed analyses will get exposure on Wikipedia. If it's a valid counter-argument to Bazant (and there are many) published in a reputable journal, it needs to be included here. You're not the arbiter of information on 9/11, and if you're behaving as such, you need to step aside. I would strongly suggest to those commenting here that it is, in fact, you who are pushing a point of view here. You have been safeguarding not only outdated but technically inaccurate information on the WTC collapses. You haven't established your own credibility here, let alone neutrality. You have already disregarded input from another editor right above. With the inaccuracies that you are protecting here, I don't think you've demonstrated the knowledge or the objectivity to declare yourselves the gatekeepers of this article. Moreover, Mongo's long-time involvement with this article does not suggest an appropriate level of impartiality and detachment. The article needs updating and you will need to co-operate on this. If you're not up to evaluating the information being presented, then you should step aside. --Jasne9 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Some Misunderstandings... does not seem to be widely cited. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not in favour (favor) of basing everything on the NIST hypothesis, because that is exactly what it is - just an hypothesis. Using this as fact is only furthering conspiracy theories. I would also appeal to Jasne9 to stop strident criticism of other editors contributions. We are all here to contribute by consensus. It would also be nice to see a User Page created, so that other editors could learn a little about you and your motives. David J Johnson (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

David, the NIST hypotheses are the only current official explanation we have for the WTC collapses. Furthermore, NIST does not advance any conspiracy theories beyond the al Qaeda conspiracy theory, so your objection appears to be based on paranoia. This also demonstrates that you don't understand the material being presented here. Yes, we should all work together on this, but editors should have some basic knowledge about what sources are appropriate here. --Jasne9 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again Jasne9, you haven't answered my points? We still know nothing about, but some of your motives? Please do not make assumptions and insults about other editors ie; "paranoia". I well understand the material and sources presented here and your quote "al Qaeda conspiracy" confirms your agenda. Could I respectively suggest that you use one of the many sites on the internet that further your views and not an encyclopedia dealing in factual and well sourced material? Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

NIST did not provide a hypothesis, they provided a detailed series of reports based on the evidence which involved dozens of engineers, architects and other specialists not all of which were in the direct employ of the U.S. Government. "NIST does not advance any conspiracy theories beyond the al Qaeda conspiracy theory"...least now we know what your objective is, quite clearly.--MONGO 04:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they did, and they called it Probable Collapse Sequence. They also did not provide a collapse progression model, instead summarizing those of others commissioned to do so. There are several collapse progression models. The Wiki article assumes and presents that of Bazant's to be fact. At the very least, Wiki should be noting that this is the theory of one author, otherwise you are pushing a point of view. And I stated where I was coming from from the beginning. I would like to see the NIST report's analysis accurately described here. The current version is inaccurate. I am trying to help the article present this in a neutral, disinterested manner. I am not trying to insert controlled demolition theories. PS: The al Qaeda 9/11 narrative IS a conspiracy theory. It's just not one that people associate with conspiracy theories. --Jasne9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oddly, the evidence does not support your thesis.--MONGO 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

My thesis? What thesis do you think I am asserting here? And for that matter, what "evidence" are you citing? Sorry, but if you can't follow this conversation and provide intelligible replies, you're not demonstrating that you can make good editorial decisions here. --Jasne9 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

And the most appropriate sources for factual information would be,

ASCE, World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA 403)
Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (NIST NCSTAR 1 - All volumes and chapters)
Articles in high quality journals — such as Journal of Structural Engineering, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, etc. (e.g., Bažant, Z. K. P.; Le, J. L.; Greening, F. R.; Benson, D. B. (2008). "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?" (PDF). Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 134 (10). American Society of Civil Engineers: 892. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892).)
Articles from the trade press — such as the WTC articles from New Civil Engineer (e.g., WTC ten years on: How the twin towers collapsed)
Other sources that satisfy WP:RS

The views expressed in our article will be "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources (the relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered)." I.e., shall follow WP:NPOV.

For example, the article, Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis published in the International Journal of Protective Structures—a journal with no ranking that I could find—has approximately zero citations, is not authored by any recognized authorities in the field, thus carries precisely zero WP:WEIGHT on the topic at hand. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

See my note above. You have been informed by several contributors now that progressive collapse is not the model NIST endorses for the Twin Towers' collapses. Yet you haven't changed this in the article. The only element NIST has kept from Bazant's model is his energy analysis which was derived to explain the top-down failure dynamic (also debunked in articles refused publication by the JEM, but never mind). Yet you're presenting progressive collapse as the collapse model. You're presenting it as fact, and it's not. Do you understand this part? If you do, then you'll agree it needs changing. --Jasne9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sources that ArtifexMayhem wants to cite for this article: where models and explanations differ within those sources, Wiki needs to be transparent in what analyses it's presenting. For example, the FEMA and NIST reports are not compatible on several issues, so you can't describe both as being correct. You can present both views and credit them to their sources, but you can't present both of them as fact. Currently the article is presenting a mish mash of contradictory explanations, and presenting it as fact. And this is what I have been objecting to from the beginning. --Jasne9 (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Who was refused publication by the JEM?--MONGO 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

FEMA did get some things right and NIST corrected what FEMA got wrong. The article surely needs an update but that doesn't mean we're going to add conspiracy theory stuff to it.--MONGO 20:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mongo, you are either ignoring or are simply not understanding the nature of the edits I'm suggesting. Which is weird, since I'm typing them out in plain view directly above. Most of my edits are or can be sourced to your preferred authoritative bodies. Yet, based on either ignorance of the content in question, or on some personal bias about "conspiracy theories" (the subject of which you keep raising) you are shutting out legitimate revisions. Can you really not tell the difference? If not, you should not be attempting to exercise editorial authority here. --Jasne9 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't have time to read all the crap you are suggesting up above. So tell me again what the NIST says DID lead to the collapse of the WTC? I have a short attention span so keep it simple without all the theatrics please. JOJ ^Hutton 21:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential editors should not be asking others to spoonfeed them information that has already been provided. If you don't have time to read 20 lines of text, you don't have time to comment here. --Jasne9 (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Then if you're going to write out long, hard to follow postings, then don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone here. Thanks for playing. JOJ ^Hutton 00:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't see how the editor could know the answer. They obviously haven't read the NCSTAR or ASCE/FEMA reports (Of course that could have been the point of your first question. Sorry if I'm being redundant.) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation

I'm not sure if the citation, referred to in its removal, should or shouldn't be kept. User:ArtifexMayhem maintains that the source should not be shown, but I differ in opinion. Any third-party thoughts? Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If it's not used as a reference, it seems like it shouldn't be in the references section. Is there a point I'm missing? Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That is how I usually approach it.--MONGO 12:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Same here. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay. If there's no opposition, I'll move the unused cites to a new section called "Further reading". Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to do some ref cleanup this weekend... Are we done here? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wording in the lead paragraph

Hello, my edit at Collapse of the World Trade Center is intended to make the links read better. The edit can be seen here. Also, for comparison reasons, here are the differences between my proposed revision and the current revision. My proposed edit is intended to fix the links in the first few paragraphs. The purpose of this message is to start a dialogue with other editors in order to establish a WP:CONSENSUS as to how the first few paragraphs of the article should be written. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth or Facts?

There appears to be something missing from what should be an encyclopedic (ie. in-depth) article on this subject. Any good historical account must stay current with the latest viewpoints. That does not mean a rewriting of history, but rather an inclusion of newly discovered details and/or new thoughts.

It is clearly evident that there are a lot of missing facts on the details of the towers' collapse. To discard certain of the ideas of the possibilities surrounding the missing facts is narrow-minded, and it has no place in a reference work.

We should strive to mention even strange explanations simply because they do actually exist in the historical context. There is no reason to view these other ideas as "crackpot thinking" simply because we cannot find the truth or facts of them as of this time. Nor can we afford to ignore them simply because we do not agree with them. - KitchM (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for these "latest viewpoints" and "newly discovered details"? There really haven't been any new conspiracy theories floated since about 2006. Therefore, you must mean that some peer-reviewed academic research has been published recently. Acroterion (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with KitchM. Dornicke (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to KitchM there is already a page in Wikipedia for conspiracy (and new theories) on the 9/11 attacks, until new and well sourced theories from professional bodies - this article must remain as present constituted. David J Johnson (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also remind Dornicke that they are topic banned from all 9/11 articles. David J Johnson (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Austenitization?

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

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:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

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

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)

The elevators and fuel

In the article is written: Jet fuel from the impact traveled down at least one elevator shaft and exploded on the 78th floor of the North Tower, as well as in the main lobby

I find this statement quite obscure to say the least. Can someone add in which way the jet fuel reached the lobby and the path it followed, as there were no elevators except the one for service, that linked the lobby with impact zone? And why it did not flamed all the rest of the building, as it passed trought the floors? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.0.22 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

UA175/AA11 Impact Orientation, minor changes

The drawing of UA175/AA11 impacts is slightly wrong. Both planes had significant roll, but the AA11/WTC1 drawing doesn't include such a roll. Also, AA11 impacted within 1 m of the WTC1 north face, just opposite to the main hallway inside the core. That's (by the way) why Satam al-Suqami's passport, parts of passengers and tickets made it out of the tower.

UA175 impacted only with about 3° angle, so it too was almost normal to the south face of WTC2. The drawing shows too high of an angle. NIST and FEMA used wrong impact angle based on outside source, vulnerable to perspective/lens issues and measurement error. Stills from videos clearly show that the UA175 was almost normal to the face. NIST also slightly underestimated the impact speed and thus slightly-to-moderately underestimated the impact energy of UA175.

I can support this with my image analysis, I would be happy to contribute/change the drawing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.105.39.50 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Everything needs to be sourced to a reliable source, Wikipedia doesn't use original research or analysis. Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Slight Changes to Collapse Progression

The total collapse would be inevitable even if there was zero (0) drop height. Why? Because the columns of the upper section would have been forced to lay on the floor sections due to the nature of tilt/column failures. The truss sections of a single floor would be unable to support the column ends of the upper ~ 12 or ~ 30 stories. Thus the upper block peirced through the floor-truss system and not though the columns. Even if the upper block went away - just 4-5 pierced floor sections would be enough to cause progressive collapse of the floor system between the outer wall and the core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.105.39.50 (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

New "Explaining the collapses" section

I think many people reading this article simply want to know why the towers collapsed and what the important engineering issues were. So I've moved the discussion of the "mechanics" of the collapse up to the top of the body and will clean it up a bit, clarifying the issues and how they have been resolved by engineers. --Thomas B (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Note on MONGO's revert

I am not going to engage with MONGO. He is wrong that I am topic-banned, though I was as surprised as he must be to learn that the ban had been lifted back in 2014. Clearly, however, he's not going to grant me a fresh start. If he holds to that line, my experience says there's no point in continuing. I was happy to have an opportunity to produce this version of the article [1], which, in my opinion, is easier to read, more informative, and more factually accurate, than the way the article was when I returned, i.e., the version MONGO is defending [2]. I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide whether this article really has to stagnate at this level. It could be a very good article. If nothing else, my edits show that it has potential. But it requires that someone actually get to work. As far as I can tell, MONGO has not interest in improving the article, just in keeping "conspiracy theories" out of it. That, if you'll pardon it, is his POV. But I'll leave you to it, friends. Cheers--Thomas B (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban was lifted likely due to the erroneous belief that if you returned, you'd not be trying to incorporate conspiracy theories in these articles. So if you can't have your way on the matter, nothing else seems to matter to you even though you never were site banned but you only want to contribute in a tiny number of closely related articles and promote the same message as before.--MONGO 23:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Good article attempt?

Hi All, I've been away for a long time and I'm curious to know who is around to help bring this article up to WP:GOOD standard. It doesn't seem like anyone is working actively on the article at present. If I'm wrong about that, let me know. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes. Cheers, --Thomas B (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I still look in as time allows. It's probably best to get concensus on the talk page before undertaking any big rewrites. Gotta say, changing collapsed "as a result of being struck by two jet airliners hijacked by 10 terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda" to collapsed "after being struck by airplanes" raises some concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom, nice to see you again. I looked through the history before I began, trying to find someone who is actually putting time into improving this article. There doesn't seem to be anyone. There only seems to be a kind of policing of the article for "concerns" like yours. I'm not going down that road. The article appears to have been stuck here since I left. I would suggest that you, MONGO, and Acroterion have a chat about whether to let me work. If you can't agree to give me a space, just tell me (as MONGO already has) to go away. I'm not going to fight you on it. If you want to talk about how much information needs to be crammed into the first sentence, I'm willing to discuss it. I tried to make it as easy to read as I could, that's all.--Thomas B (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tom harrison's comments above. The changes in the lede deleting any reference to terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda really concerned me, along with accessing the previous editing history of Thomas B which made it a major issue for myself. I agree that the article could do with a re-write, but have serious concerns that this is a sophisticated attempt by Thomas Basboll to re-introduce "conspiracy theories" I regret to say that I have no confidence that this "editor" is the person to undertake this project - in view of his past record. Further, he has stated that he will withdraw if he is opposed, but shows no sign of doing so - in spite of concerns expressed by Acroterion, Tom harrison, MONGO and myself. Also could I remind Thomas that there is a article for the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and that is where his efforts should be addressed. Regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Shows no sign"? I'm waiting for someone to reinstate my edits (with whatever modifications they see fit) and engage in good faith with my contribution. (Just reverting everything because of a past ban, or looking at my edit history and discerning a "sophisticated" subtext is not, needless to say, WP:FAITH.) If that doesn't happen, I won't touch the main page again. Moreover, you (four) literally just have to do nothing from now on and you won't hear anything more from me from a good while. What people have misunderstood from the beginning is that I'm really just here to help make this a better article.--Thomas B (talk) 08:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

PS For what it's worth, and for full disclosure, I had actually decided to WP:IGNORE my topic-ban and make one last attempt at creating a good-article candidate. It was only when writing my explanation for this [3] that I saw what happened back in May 2014. Looking at it again, though, I see that I may have misunderstood. It may be that only the 'notifications' have expired. Anyway, like I said on my page, I imagined you could let me improve things for a while and then just ban me forever when I started doing something you didn't like. I see that I've already reached that point. No hard feelings from here. Just a bit of sadness.--Thomas B (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we improve the lead?

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

As a parting gesture, I just created this version [4] 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. [5]

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

This edit request to Collapse of the World Trade Center has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Creating a progressive collapse sub-article?

It doesn't look like my restructuring proposal is going to get any traction here. But I would really like for there to be an easily surveyable article just on the mechanics of the collapse, which it would be useful for many people to have access to. I've created The Total Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center to this end. It should let us leave the politics of 9/11 entirely out of it and focus exclusively on the engineering issues.--Thomas B (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

So you just added "The Total Progressive" and created a content fork? Acroterion (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's no doubt going to be the issue if you nominate it for deletion. While I do think it would allow people (like me) who are wary of working on the main article, to work in peace (and in that sense looks a bit like a content fork), I think it's a rich enough subject, many details of which are not in the main article as it is. If we let it stand and grow, we should reduce the relevant section of the main article to summary style. Obviously, at that point we could also have a discussion about merging them again. The point is that the progress of the collapse is currently underdeveloped in the article (and still includes errors) and no-one seems to want to touch this article any longer. So, while this solution may be temporary, I think it offers a way forward.--Thomas B (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, this is just yet another at getting Thomas B's conspiracy theories back onto Wikipedia. He doesn't seem to learn the lesson that Wikipedia will not allow these WP:FRINGE theories. No it is not "a way forward", just another attempt in his long-standing attempt to muddy the waters. The "new article" should be deleted. David J Johnson (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I speedy deleted that article as a self-acknowledged article fork. Rmhermen (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like I'm done here again for a while. See you next time I have an idea about how to improve the article. Cheers, --Thomas B (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please learn a lesson now. Your conspiracy theories, sometimes dressed as "engineering issues", have been deleted multiple times by many experienced editors. Perhaps you could direct your efforts to something more constructive than WP:FRINGE. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have only confirmed what I already knew, but hoped had changed. The article remains incorrigible. It is not maintained by people who care about the subject but people who despise a particular set of ideas. Indeed, they are so afraid of those ideas that two editors (you and Mongo) have now restored a factual error in the process of removing a (now) dead link. (It was a progressive series of column failures, not floor failures.) The article does not, and never has, properly explained how the buildings collapsed, even though this question is a settled "engineering issue". By not giving a clear explanation, the article fosters the very conspiracy theories you are trying to keep it free from. At some point, I hope, this article will attract the attention of people who know about the issues, and you and Mongo will let them work to produce a good article. I'll be back periodically to test the waters. See you next time.--Thomas B (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas, as I recollect, it was you that was topic banned from these articles, not myself or David Johnson. I encouraged you to edit other areas, but this area and in particular this article seem to be your only interest. When I see comments such as "It is not maintained by people who care about the subject but people who despise a particular set of ideas", it reinforces my belief that you still fail to grasp why you were topic banned. I fail to see how this article supports a single conspiracy theory.--MONGO 14:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Mongo. I'll see you in half a year or so. I said it fosters them, not that it supports them. The article fails to provide information that would help dispel CTs. It doesn't even provide information about the official rejection of those theories. Ordinary, well-meaning people whose kooky uncle has told them how the collapses "violate the laws of physics" are not helped in the least by this not-WP:GOOD article. Its poorly organized and, like I say, often just wrong. I have tried to help.--Thomas B (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing a thing wrong about it. I think the article you're looking for is over at World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories--MONGO 18:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mongo, I miss you too, a little. I think it's cute the way I can point you straight at an error and you are able to convince yourself (and everyone else, I guess) that if you can't see it that must mean it's not there. Could it be that you actually don't know how those buildings collapsed?--Thomas B (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Youre not currently topic banned so nothing is impeding your editing. If you see an overt mistake fix it.--MONGO 23:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You really are funny, Mongo. I fixed it. You reverted it. I reverted you. And David reverted that. I mentioned it again in my response to David. And he did nothing about it. I'm done here for a while. I'm sure there'll be mistakes for me to correct when I return. They don't seem to be going anywhere.--Thomas B (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You mean the edits that had links you created to your now deleted POV fork? You did change floors to columns but continued to use the FEMA reference so was that information in the FEMA reference or were you planning on adding a new reference?--MONGO 11:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said back in August of last year [6].--Thomas B (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Go forth and fix it then and I shall not impede you with my pesky reverts. I can't speak for what others might do independently.--MONGO 16:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I say, it's hard not to love your style sometimes, Mongo. I'm done with this article for now, it's too much work to accomplish too little, and no one wants to work with me to get the this thing to WP:GA. Be well.--Thomas B (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Its near GA now...run a bot and check the refs and make sure they are up to date.--MONGO 18:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, yes! That's brilliant. What fools we've all been! I've been away ten years and I thought the article had just been stagnating (where it hasn't been deteriorating). But all that was needed was to "run a bot". We never did need to learn how to work together. We just needed the robots to do the work for us. (In fairness, I guess there has been some progress in AI so maybe this has only now become a viable solution.) Go ahead and do that, Mongo. Sounds like a great idea.--Thomas B (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Youre Rfc above brought in new commentators only one of which preferred your rendition. The discussion here has also produced no consensus for any of the changes you have proposed. A bot merely cleans up the refs and formats them since that is part and parcel of one step toward a GA. The GAN is then requested to see if it meets the criteria for such a promotion. While it's appreciated that you've tried to incorporate others opinions, if they don't agree with your suggestions that is a reflection on your suggestions, not on their opinions.--MONGO 04:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure the editors who care enough about the article to revert my edits and delete my articles have time to run a bot and tidy up the refs and remove outdated and false information. The problem seems to be that no one who is watching this article is actually working on it. They aren't trying to bring it to GA (they've had ten years to do it since I left). Their efforts seem to be driven by a general interest in Wikipedia and deep distaste for conspiracy theories. Until that changes, people like me, who know enough to be able to see an error, won't be able to help.--Thomas B (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors do indeed care about the article, that is why we spend so much time deleting your "theories". Please take them elsewhere. You have stated you are leaving Wikipedia (see your User page), but we see no evidence of that, instead you talk about returning - which is true? There are plenty of sites on the internet for your conspiracy nonsense, indeed even one on Wikipedia! Please stop wasting our time. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(See, Mongo? This is why I'm not following your suggestion, and, indeed, not quite taking it seriously. You know full well that I'm as welcome to change "floor" to "column" as David here plainly says I am.) Be well the both of you.--Thomas B (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

But you can't answer my question? No wonder editors cannot take you seriously. David J Johnson (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really here, David. Just politely engaging with those who appear curious about me on the way out. Other than react to people who find it incumbent[7] on them to poke at me, I'm not touching anything. Nor am I demanding anyone's attention or time. Mongo was asking me to do some work on an article you'd prefer I left alone. I was basically explaining your point of view to him. I'll leave you alone for a few months (i.e., "leave") and let you "care" about the article in the manner to which you've grown accustomed, which appears to be mainly to wait for a someone you think is a conspiracy theorist to show up and then impede their efforts. If you're still around when I get back, you'll make short of work my efforts I'm sure. If you're not, maybe something unexpected will happen and the article will improve. Maybe you'll have seen the light and improved it yourself. It's all WP:GOOD. Cheers,--Thomas B (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for Comments

The consensus is to retain the January 2018 version.
Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to know what people who have not worked on this article think of the difference between the current article and this version [8]. Note especially the more concise lead and foregrounding of the explanation of the collapse mechanics in the alternative version. Note also that it acknowledges and explicitly dismisses the conspiracy theories that have grown up around this event. My view is that it is more informative and easier to read than the current one and is a step in the direction of WP:GA. I'm looking forward to hearing what people think.--Thomas B (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is the DIFF under discussion (24 August 2017 to 25 December 2017). Alsee (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I see that this RfC is a continuation of the discussion at #Alternate_version above. And I agree with the other contributors there – it's time for Thomas Basboll to let this matter drop, and find more productive ways to use his time and skills. Maproom (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Very much agree with Maproom's comment above. David J Johnson (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The current version sufficiently addresses the topic, and the alternative article, while still informative, does not provide much useful additional information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thomas B - yes the lead in August 2017 version does seem cleaner and easier to read than the January 2018 version. I am a bit surprised the later version does not mention conspiracy theories or even have a See Also link to them. I think either August or January version might get GA status, but then I do not think that mark necessarily means the article is all that good ;-). Otherwise there are a lot of diffs and apparently baggage about it all that I'm not going to try and sort out but wish had gone more cordially, but some times going like this seems inevitable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Current version is far superior than the August 2017 one.--MONGO 17:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Retain current version. The order of topics in the current version is more logical and the flow of the article is better. Roches (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Retain current version. The alternate version involves quite a few changes. To better understand the changes I spent quite a while examining the many diffs leading up to that version. I didn't find any clear improvement or major problems, however I did find a series of differences that subtly shift the article away from the mainstream narrative. That's not a direction we want to go, and the current version is a little better. Alsee (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alsee, thanks for taking the time to comment. You mention "a series of differences that subtly shift the article away from the mainstream narrative". It would be very helpful if you itemized those differences while they're still fresh in your mind from your close reading. Much of the controversy in the past has turned on disagreements of exactly that kind and I've never quite understood the charge. Examples would help. It's always been my aim to clarify the mainstream narrative, not shift the article away from it. In fact, what got me interested in editing in the first place was my belief that a good explanation of the progressive collapse at Wikipedia would help people avoid falling for conspiracy theories. Sadly, even today, the article describes the collapses as "a series of floor failures", citing the FEMA report, which was explicitly rejected by NIST's column failure explanation. To anyone (like me) who has tried to make up their mind on this issue, it looks like the conspiracy theorists are simply better informed (about the mainstream account) than Wikipedia.--Thomas B (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Retain current version. And for some perspective (I am mostly addressing a handful of editors from the Talk), there are currently editors on WP and at least one intern at NIST who were not alive when 9/11 happened. Think about what the commonest audience for this article is: someone researching conspiracies on 9/11, someone looking at the current political fallout, someone interested in the engineering of the WTC and collapse, or someone interested in the history? In the first case, there is already an article. The immediate politics of 9/11 have been diluted in the events of two administrations. So in the end we should focus on what a technical sub-page should have: engineering and historical facts. Oklahoma City bombing is a good comparison for historical treatment. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FA on the model of the Sinking of the Titanic

I'm going to be working on the article over the next couple of months, with the aim of getting it WP:GA. My idea is to use the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article as a model. It is written in a simple, clear, factual style. Much of it narrative. It is WP:FA.

Yesterday, I proposed changes to the lead and the section about the mechanics of the collapse [9], which MONGO reverted on the grounds that there is no consensus for the changes. The problem with this attitude is that the consensus appears to be among people who are not working to improve the article. The consensus seems to be that this article can't be better, i.e., can't ever be good.

So I'll keep at it, continuing on from my last version, and let my work be reverted back to the current article. This will make what I'm proposing concrete. I would be very interested to compare my suggestions to other suggestions about how to improve the article. But just keeping it the way it is seems unambitious to me. I think the collapses are well-understood enough now to allow for a good article about them.--Thomas B (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, try proposing changes here first, rather than making sweeping changes and then stubbornly insisting you'll "keep at it." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That's how I'd do if there seemed to be a lot of people actively working on the article at the moment. But I think I'm the only one who is willing to make an effort to improve at this point. I'm not actually sure who I'd be talking to. --Thomas B (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Anyone who has the article watchlisted, but hasn't seen something they feel is an improvement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is just that if you look at the history over the past ten years people really are only watching. No one is working on it. I'm just going to show what's possible.--Thomas B (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Things to do

Here are some things I think should be done to get this article to WP:GA.

Simplify the lead. For example: [10]
Clarify and correct the section on the mechanics of the collapse. For example: [11]
Rewrite the structural design section with the collapses in mind. (Set up the engineering puzzle that the collapses posed.) [12]
Describe the evacuation and response here: [13]
Put the events of September 11 in chronological order. As I did here: [14]
Move the "aftermath" section up to after the description of the collapses (i.e., in a more natural order).
Combine the "initial opinions" and "investigations" section into a history of attempts to understand what happened. Conveniently, we have Bazant's paper from the days immediately afterwards, and then a number of different proposals, some of which turned out to be wrong, others which are part of the current consensus. This section can be written as a narrative tending towards the conclusions in the final reports (and perhaps a bit beyond that, as the literature allows.)

As I suggested above, I think the Sinking of the RMS Titanic provides a good model for how the article should look. Obviously, I'm happy to discuss all of these ideas. I'll be moving my alternative version forward [15], usually self-reverting shortly after saving it. But sometimes I'll leave it up and let someone else revert. I feel no urgency about this so I will not be edit warring, or otherwise protective of my edits. I'm just going to keep suggesting them for a few weeks. By the end of August, I think I'll be done and there will be a complete version of the article that I'd nominate for GA review.--Thomas B (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. I suggest folks look at the diffs [16] to see just how much alteration has been done in these examples. As far as nominating an alternate version for GAN...ah, no that is not the way things work.--MONGO (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Anytime, Mongo. Please note that I said this will produce a version that I would nominate for GA, not that I will. It would obviously be pointless to nominate a version that doesn't have consensus. Hopefully, you (or enough other editors) can be persuaded that what I'm proposing is just a better article. But my goal will be achieved simply by making it available as an option.--Thomas B (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Change "structural design" to "background"

I've had a go at rewriting the structural design section to look more like background section in the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article. As per above, I've added it to my proposed total GA rewrite of the article here [17]. Suggestions, comments and criticisms are of course welcome.--Thomas B (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A full review rather than a snapshot review of the above mentioned edits is here It appears to be the same draconian and POV-laden changes as this editor has been historically known to do which resulted in a topic ban for them in the past. When the essay Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing was written, the editor had Thomas Basboll in mind...and I write that seriously.--MONGO (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
@MONGO and Thomas Basboll: As a passing editor, I'm just not sure exactly what was supposed to be "improved" in the proposed rewrite. For example, it replaced the entire "Fireproofing section" with an unattributed quote. Many other details are vastly over-simplified, especially the details of the tower's design, which are crucial to explaining the collapse of the towers because the rest of the article relies on these details. What is the benefit of removing all these details? epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm mainly working for readability (have a look at the Titanic article). It's possible that some of those details should go back in but, as you point out, that will depend on how much they are used later. In the current version fireproofing doesn't play much of a role (except under "other investigations", apparently as a side note.) That could certainly be changed. As for the "unattributed" quote (it's attributed to Robertson, just not sourced): it's actually in the current version. While moving it, I realized it appeared in neither of the two sources given. I'm pretty sure it's accurate, I just have to find the BBC transcript.--Thomas B (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Just had a look at it again. Yes, I think you're right that the background description of the towers could be more detailed.--Thomas B (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused why I should look at the Titanic article, as these are two completely different topics. I think conciseness is beneficial as long as it doesn't come at the cost of accuracy, or omission of information. However, I wouldn't support a wholesale reduction of information unless it's totally irrelevant to the collapse. I may be wrong, but the fireproofing seems relevant because the buildings caught fire before they collapsed. epicgenius (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The Sinking of the RMS Titanic is a historic disaster involving an engineering marvel. So is the collapse of the WTC. In both cases, one wants to know how something so impressive failed so completely (and so quickly). So we start by clearly describing the scale of the structure. Then how the structure failed under extreme stresses. I'm using the Titanic article as a guide because it is WP:FA. On the fireproofing: there's a vague suggestion in the article at present that it was somehow decisive (i.e., that better fireproofing could have prevented the collapse). I'm going to look into that, but I think the received view is that there was nothing substandard about the fireproofing. Certainly, like I say, the article doesn't foreground this, so it seemed odd to give it so much space in the design/background section.--Thomas B (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What are some things that could be improved?

This article hasn't changed much in the last four years.[18] And it has not yet made it to WP:GA. What major (i.e., relatively labor-intensive) things need to be done to make this article better?--Thomas B (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Top picture

There has been some recent back-and-forth between two pictures for the top of the article. Let's choose one without edit-warring. — JFG ^talk 12:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead picture candidates

Picture A: The collapse of 2 World Trade Center seen from Williamsburg, Brooklyn

File:North Tower collapsing.JPG

Picture B: The collapse of #1 World Trade Center (North Tower); (Robert Miller / Sipa Press).

Picture B – Much cleaner view vs picture A which has distracting elements in the foreground: another building and a bridge. The only "advantage" of picture A is that it shows both towers, but because they did not collapse at the same time, we might as well show a better picture of a single collapse. — JFG ^talk 12:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture A but mainly because we have may have other options that are available than just these two yet to come. Will be looking into other PD sources to see if there are images that have not been uploaded to Commons.--MONGO (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture B seems much clearer of these two . In the article, should there be an image that shows some damage happening? A video would be so... Sammy D III (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture A for the lead, picture B for the section on the North Tower (unless as Mongo says there's something better than either.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Tom: Pic A for lead, Pic B for North Tower section. David J Johnson (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture B, primarily for the same reasons, formulated by user JFG. Also agree with Sammy D III, that the picture better shows the damage happening, and in my own words, the overwhelming enormity — contrary to picture A, where this does not come across very well.

Furthermore, the "advantage" of picture A – showing both towers 1 and 2 – is at odds with the fact that three steel-framed skyscrapers went down that day – giving you a false sense of an overview.

As a compromise I can think of other solutions, until better PD pics are found. For instance, picture A could be cropped ?

And how about (in the mean time) reinstating picture B at the section "North Tower collapse", where Tom Harrison placed it on 13:46, 11 August 2018 ? — Anybody object to that ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I do; better to leave it alone until there's a clear consensus to do something else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Picture B (again) for JFG's reasoning. Also, picture A doesn't show anything other than "first there were two, then there was one" with a cloud of dust coming from below the horizon. Does showing that the towers collapsed at different times need an image? Picture B shows the actual collapse happening. The antenna looks like it is leaning and if you know what to look for that is dust, not smoke, coming out of the sides (looks like smoke on top to me).

(Note: I stalked GTB here and know them). Sammy D III (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dutch textbook

An editor has been edit-warring to include mention of a Dutch textbook that he claims is used at the University of Delft, and that that fact alone is sufficient to qualify it for inclusion. No secondary sourcing to mainstream discussion is provided, and there is no mention of the actual content of the book, just its existence. Since it is described as a textbook, its primary subject presumably lies elsewhere. Any such mention needs to discuss the actual concepts set forth in the book with support in secondary sourcing for their significance in mainstream coverage, it needs to be discussed on this talkpage, and the edit-warring needs to stop. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, the section being edited is called "Other investigations." Writing a textbook is not performing an investigation. We'd need not only for an actual investigation to be performed, but for that investigation to be independently vetted by a reliable secondary source, for example peer review in the Journal of Structural Engineering. -Jordgette [talk] 17:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"An editor" – that's me – made four unrelated good-faith edits to this article, which were all reverted rather quickly, and in several cases I felt for the wrong reasons, so I initially chose to be Bold and reinstate them, with some extra explanation in the edit summaries. One of the contributions involves an analysis of the WTC towers' collapse explanations by a former Dutch professor of Construction Design at the faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering at the Eindhoven University of Technology (from 1997–2009),^{[NLtextbook 1]} specialized in large steel structures. He published a textbook called "Learning from Collapses" (original Dutch title: "Leren van Instortingen"). ^{[NLtextbook 2]} The book became a required textbook in the curriculum for the engineering degree in both architecture and civil engineering at the Eindhoven Tech University – not Delft.^{[NLtextbook 1]}

As to Acroterion's claim that I made no mention of the book's actual content ? – My text stated: "..analyzing 26 high-profile (near) collapses of large, [mostly] steel-framed buildings and bridges, including the WTC Towers." and that the writer "extensively compared the official reports on the downing of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 with expert criticisms on these, as well as readily apparent observations that are in clear conflict with the former." (see this article version) Each building collapse is treated in its own chapter. As to Acroterion's comment: "some passing mention of the topic of this article is a bit scanty" (on my user Talk page) — chapter 20 – ten pages (pp. 124–133) deals exclusively with the WTC towers collapses, especially 1 and 2. See here - contents on last page of this .pdf extract.

As to secondary sourcing: Writer performs an analysis, reviewing / referencing a number of published sources, so the book itself is a secondary source. The book was in turn recommended as a "must read" to every architect and structural engineer by Professor PhD. engineer J. Wardenier from the Delft University of Technology.^{[NLtextbook 3]}

Trough public–private partnership the book was published via the Dutch professional association "Building in Steel" (Vereniging Bouwen met Staal), and with the backing of the Dutch Concrete (knowledge) association (Betonvereniging), Centraal Beheer Achmea, the largest insurance company in the country; KIVI, the Dutch Royal Institute of Engineers (KIVI NIRIA before November 2013), and the inter-organisation platform for construction safety (Platform Constructieve Veiligheid). See page 2 of this .pdf extract.

to be continued.. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Several editors have called "conspiracy theory..", but by contrast, Acroterion (on my user Talk page) objected "..We can't tell what it says about the subject..", so I do feel some people may have jumped to conclusions.. Maybe reverting my contribution in this particular section of the article was the right decision, but the given edit summaries weren't all up to standard. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You're wasting your time and others' time. The idea that a textbook is a secondary source for itself is ludicrous, this is a distinctly fringe position, and a paragraph on it constitutes undue weight. As such, this edit has approximately 0.0% chance of staying in this article. -Jordgette [talk] 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say the book constitutes a secondary source for itself — that would be circular, and indeed ludicrous to think that's what I meant. The book is a secondary source for other published articles and investigations, that feature in the WTC chapter. I find your position that this is "fringe" highly peculiar. This may well be formally in line with WP policies, but realistically, if you consider that Holland has concentrated its university technical education in just three large tech uni's in the whole country, and this textbook became compulsory study material for students to become engineers in the fields of architecture and civil engineering in at least one of them; with the backing of all the national professional associations I pointed out — you could pretty much conclude that the analysis of the WTC collapse theories, presented in this book to which so many engineers, scientists and construction designers are exposed, is remarkably mainstream overhere. No article in a purely scientific magazine can hope to come close to the readership and exposure of a book like this. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there an English translation of this material and if it does represent a proper critique why is it not then available in an English language engineering journal? I'd like to see it published in an English language peer reviewed engineering journal or at least some place where the analysis of the data and conclusions have been scrutinized by a reliable English language entity of merit.--MONGO (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion so far appears to be:

A book chapter exists that says something about the WTC collapse
It's used in class at a single university

Without indication that it's received review and discussion on a broad basis that would establish whether it represents a significant original dissenting view (or whether it really dissents at all, or just summarizes the views of conspiracy theorists in one place for the sake of discussion), and without a satisfactory translation so we can actually see its content, there's no basis for inclusion at this point. Mere existence of some kind of critique whose content is unknown to non-readers of Dutch doesn't establish a basis for inclusion. At best, the argument for inclusion is premature. Acroterion (talk) 11:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

^ ^a ^b "Publicaties: Leren van instortingen" [Publications: Learning from Collapses]. www.bouwenmetstaal.nl (in Dutch). Vereniging Bouwen met Staal ("Building in Steel, professional association"). 2009. Retrieved 2018-08-11. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Herwijnen, Prof. ir. F. van (2009). "20: Twin Towers, New York (U.S.) 2001". Leren van Instortingen [Learning from Collapses] (in Dutch). Zoetermeer: Vereniging Bouwen met Staal ("Building in Steel, professional association"). pp. 124–133. ISBN 978-90-72830-84-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ Wardenier, Prof. PhD. Jaap (3 February 2010). "Leren van instortingen" [Learning from Collapses]. TU Delta (in Dutch). Delft University of Technology. Archived from the original on 2018-08-11. Retrieved 2018-08-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Recent changes to the mechanics of collapse section

For those who are interested in the changes [19] I've made to the "Mechanics" section. Here's my critique of what was there [20] when I started: The basic problem is that it described the mechanism as "floor failure" not "column failure". After thinking about it a little, I realized what might have gone wrong. While the section began with a reference to Bazant and Verdure (2007) it went on to describe the collapses based on the 2002 FEMA report. That earlier report did, indeed, suggest "floor failures", but after the NIST report (which Bazant and Verdure also cite) the floor-failure mechanism suggested by FEMA has been generally abandoned. (For this reason, I don't think FEMA should be cited in this part of the article at all.) As Bazant and Verdure explain, the correct way to describe the total destruction of the towers is by reference to the "propagation of [a] crushing front" in which the column sections (about one storey's worth) immediately under the falling upper block (which should be "treated as rigid") fail, allowing for free fall through the height of another storey of the building. This goes on through a "crush-down" phase (which destroys the building below) and then a "crush-up" phase (which destroys the falling block after it reaches the ground). All of this can be straightforwardly sourced to Bazant and Verdure (2007). It occurred to me that one reason for the confusion might be the ambiguity of the word "floor" which can also mean "storey". Even on Bazant and Verdure's account, it could be argued that the "floors" (i.e., storeys) failed progressively, one at a time. But the important thing is that they were crushed (as the illustration also shows) and that the floor spans did not break off the columns and "punch" through and crash (through the ceiling, as it were) onto the floors below as the FEMA report proposed.--Thomas B (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

[NLsteelsocietybook-1] "Publicaties: Leren van instortingen" [Publications: Learning from Collapses]. www.bouwenmetstaal.nl (in Dutch). Vereniging Bouwen met Staal ("Building in Steel, professional association"). 2009. Retrieved 2018-08-11. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[Herwijnen-2] Herwijnen, Prof. ir. F. van (2009). "20: Twin Towers, New York (U.S.) 2001". Leren van Instortingen [Learning from Collapses] (in Dutch). Zoetermeer: Vereniging Bouwen met Staal ("Building in Steel, professional association"). pp. 124–133. ISBN 978-90-72830-84-5. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[TUdelta-3] Wardenier, Prof. PhD. Jaap (3 February 2010). "Leren van instortingen" [Learning from Collapses]. TU Delta (in Dutch). Delft University of Technology. Archived from the original on 2018-08-11. Retrieved 2018-08-11. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[NLtextbook 1]

[NLtextbook 2]

[NLtextbook 3]