Talk:Plasco Building

Merge

While I'm sure intentions were good, I do not see any reason at present for a stand alone article titled Plasco Building Collapse--MONGO 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - The article about the building covers basically everything we know about this. Maybe when more information comes in, but not now. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support There's little on the building's history outside of its initial construction (though still notable). The collapse is the major thing this will be known for, so the merge makes sense. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Forewarning

Be ready for edits from either or both 9/11 truthers and their opponents intended to show how this tragedy bolsters their theories about whether Seven World Trade Center was rigged to collapse or not (and much less the other two). Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

...and for those truthers to argue with the ones that say that no high rise building ever collapsed from fire alone.--Adam in MO Talk 23:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I sort of thought that I had covered that base, but you made the point clearer. Thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with 9/11, other than being a building collapse. I have removed a comparison to 9/11 in the body as it is irrelevant to this article (and also violates WP:SYN unless RSs are explicitly making the comparison). 73.170.41.47 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That was exactly what Adam and I were expecting. As for what this has to do with 9/11, see here. Basically, people arguing about whether the towers collapsed because of the fires following the plane crashes or because explosives had been planted in them beforehand have renewed this battle in every subsequent instance of a fire in a tall high-rise, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid, where the Truthers were like "See! See! It didn't collapse after a 20-hour fire. Pwn3d!" The rather different outcome of this one is likely to be taken as facial evidence for the skeptical view, so the truthers will of course find all sorts of reasons why not. And of course some of them are likely to decide to edit this article so they can then immediately link to it from forums ... Sources will be cited, but they will not be reliable ones. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that's the 'neutrality point of view' of Wikipedia, of course. To kidding the 'truthers' who even not came in to discuss the matters. Well, the fact is, and you can find it in the news, that in Plasco buildings there WERE explosions, as witnessed by firemen involved and video-recording. I don't say that those explosions were 'controlled demolition' but it is known that the Plasco had a lot of fuel tanks and gas bottles inside. One of the firefighters, interviewed in Iran, stated that the fire was almost doomed when a strong explosion led the building to failure. So what kind of 'truth' the debunking not-so-neutral POV made by wikipedia are speaking about? The problem is entirely in the debunkers side, that cleary rules in wikipedia, but discussions like the one made by Daniel Case shows accurately how wikipedia as a 'NPOV' about anything of 9/11. A simple question? Wikipedia is owns by US government, or it is allowed to say anything else rather the 'ufficial story' made by GBW adiminstration? And this is not a simple question to Mongo or other 'loyalists', but the wikipedia as a whole.62.11.0.22 (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Gallery

The gallery contains random images ranging from a scale model before construction, the building in the 1960s (both interior and exterior), to the 2017 fire (various stages). It should be removed from the article as an indiscriminate assortment of images per WP:IG. (Pinging editors who've added and removed it @GTVM92 and Continentaleurope:) – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem "indiscriminate", it's just showing various aspects of the building such as its design, construction, interior/exterior, and later collapse. 2601:644:2:B64B:2C59:A260:211A:F7B7 (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Being "various aspects" rather than concentrating on any specific aspect (which the guideline says, should also ideally be the heading of the gallery) is exactly what makes it indiscriminate. The only common denominator to these images is the building itself; "a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject" (WP:IG) is not allowed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would agree to include some of them but not at this stage since the article is too short. I am sure it can be expanded. Until then do not add the pics. I am sure those who want them are in good faith and have good reasons but please do not for now.Continentaleurope (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed

If someone knows of any source claiming the building to be 17 floors please cite it in the beginning of the article.Continentaleurope (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sentence sourced to 9/11 truth folks

I removed the following sentence "The commission that was appointed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to investigate the incident—which includes seven engineers and three non-engineers—is now charged with releasing an official report in the end of March 2017. [1]" Since the link is a pdf of a report by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, not a reliable source. No objection to reinserting the sentence if a reliable source can be found. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I knew this would happen. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2017 (UTC)