Talk:7 World Trade Center/Archive 5

Construction above power substation

Huynh Vu: The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building on the site, which would be 25 stories and contain 600,000 sq ft.[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building, which also covered a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built...can we elaborate what design changes were implemented to accomodate the original building? Or possibly expand on how they were able to build a 47 story structure when only a 25 story one had been originally considered?--MONGO 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded upon what factors made the building unique, in terms of structural design, and how engineers were able to build on the site given those issues. Is it clear enough now, or is there anything that's still confusing? --Aude (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll check it out and see, but this looks excellent now.--MONGO 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Collapse video

We should not allow links to the video of the WTC 7 collapse because it looks too much like a demolition collapse and we don't want people getting the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.192.46 (talk) 01:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to web resources for viewing the collapse of WTC 7 returned. As it represents one of the few (of three, actually) skyscraper collapses in history, readers should be encouraged to view its significant collapse. At least, there is absolutely no reason not to link to online material showing its collapse. Vesku 08:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and Google videos are not generally used as resources for articles. Your link to a list of google videos is not pertinent to this article since all refs need some introduction as to what they are viewing. Not all the videos on that link have valid copy rights. I'm not sure why you are removing pertinent info from the middle of a paragraph. Please discuss before making changes and if you are reverted by more than one person, you do not have consensus of the editors for your changes. WP works by consensus. --PTR 15:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The video you linked to is highly misleading, as it only shows 6 seconds of the collapse. In reality, the east penthouse began to collapse 8.2 seconds before the global collapse (what you see in the video you link). The overall collapse took at least 16 seconds. The link is definitely not appropriate.
• What you say about "no steel recovered" is not the whole story. The FEMA/ASCE teams, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY), Dr. J. Gross, a structural engineer at NIST, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley were among those that had access to Fresh Kills Landfill and other locations where steel was taken. They were unable to identify with 100% certainty any pieces as being from WTC 7, and not from the twin towers. But, they had the opportunity to look and did collect samples for the twin towers.
• Also not accurate that NIST relied solely on "videos and eyewitness testimony". WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi). NIST also worked with structural design drawings and talked with people involved in designing the building. The steel used in WTC 7 was typical, and properties of the steel can be estimated, in order for modeling to be carried out.
• Adding "There are numerous resources for viewing the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on the Internet, including Google Video." in the middle of the article is entirely inappropriate. --Aude (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

- If the video I linked to is "misleading", feel free to suggest a better one! The important thing is to link to *some* decent-quality video showing this major collapse. If a link to the collapse video "in the middle of the article is entire inappropriate" (why?), let us find a better place for it.

- As regards NIST's "no steel was recovered" statement, it is noteworthy that NIST gives the impression that it has not had access to steel from this collapse. Steel from WTC 7 would have been relatively easy to isolate from that of the Twin Towers, as the building stood for hours after the Twin Towers' collapse and had a smallish debris field.

- My formulation did not indicate that NIST relied SOLELY on "videos and eyewitness testimony". I wrote "including videos and eyewitness testimony". Please refrain from distorting. 192.100.124.219 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I added a link to a collection of WTC 7 collapse videos to the External Links section. The link is to http://wtc7.net/videos.html If you are not satisfied with that selection or site, feel free to suggest an alternative. It is absurd that the article currently has no link to any collapse video of the building. Could a collapse video be somehow embedded to the article? Vesku 17:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The wtc7 link is not suitable. It says things like "they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish.", which is not at all the case. The collapse took 16-18 seconds in entirety. We don't link to sites like that here. We now have a link to a different video. --Aude (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---Forgive me if i'm mistaken, but there hasn't been a NIST report released about the collapse of WTC 7 yet. It's still a work in progress(the first draft of which should be getting released, in the next couple of months, if I remember correctly). So until they release it, you can't really take anything they say about the (wtc7) collapse, as being their official stance. dbalsdon (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in and lack of investigations

How can it be that building 7 World Trade Center collapsed because of the debris and the fire? While the structural design of 7 World Trade Center included numerous features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. With other words it was much stronger than it needed to be and could withstand enormous damages before it would ever collapse, if ever. And why did the sprinkler system not stop the fire, like it should? Skyscrapers should be able to withstand much larger damage. That's why engineers tend to take them into account and use extra safety margins on top of that. Still it is said that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column. So a much stronger then usual critical column failed. I'm talking columns which even under normal building principles, where no tower extension is planned, are not only the strongest colums of the building but are also build with extra safety margins. And that while the debris had only hit the base of the tower and a corner while these colums lie in the center of the building. This means the fire did the trick. But how can that be, buildings like this are engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration and above that are even constructed with a sprinkler systems. So things happened that could not have happened under sound engineering and operating principles. This article should have a note on that and it should present the facts on where engineering and/or operation failed and why. For instance, which mistakes were made in engineering, constructing, maintaining and using building 7 so that it collapsed, and building 6 did not while building 6 was hit harder and should have been weaker. There should be reports on that. And if there are not, than what has taken them so long to do find out which under other circumstances would have been clear by long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.136.108 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps; it was not an automatic system
2. Sprinkler system may have been damaged by debris. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; damage there would have meant no functioning sprinklers.
3. The sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers
4. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers in the first place, even if they were still functioning.
5. Low water pressure also meant that firefighters were unable to do much to manually fight the fire.
6. Buildings are not engineered to withstand much larger fires of longer duration. WTC 7 had fireproofing that was designed to last 2-hour for steel beams, girders and truss, and 3-hours for columns. The fires burned for much longer than that. In normal circumstances, that should allow time for firefighters to work on the fire or at least evacuate occupants. Firefighters had little or no water, the building was unstable and in danger of collapsing, and they already lost hundreds of firefighters (need not risk more) since occupants were evacuated. --Aude (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, buildings are built to withstand large fires for long durations. I understand that several key structural components (e.g. beams, girders, etc.) are only fireproofed for a period of time. However, this does not mean that a fire will be hot enough or strong enough to cause a collapse of a steel framed building. In fact, no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, except on September 11, 2001 when 3 did on one day (according to official reports). Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 2004 fire in Caracas, where a 50-story building was ablaze for 17 hours, completely gutting the building's top 20 floors; 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. None of those buildings suffered significant structural damage, and they are all still in use today. I think it is important to include information about the lack of investigation and inconsistencies from the few investigations done, as well as the strange reports from CNN and the BBC of WTC 7's collapse before it even occurred (WTC 7 can even be seen behind the BBC correspondent as she announces that it has collapsed: http://www.wtc7.net/bbc.html).Weespo (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A question. NIST maintains that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7". This is almost correct (as incredible as it is: the cause of the building's destruction could have been determined by a careful documentation and examination of the debris of the evacuated building); however, a couple of pieces of steel were salvaged and investigated by FEMA, revealing a phenomenon never before observed in building fires - eutectic reactions that caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described it as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation", and FEMA described it as "a very unusual event", pointing out that "no clear explanation for the source of the sulphur has been identified. [...] A detailed study into the mechanism of this phenomenon is needed..."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Has NIST or anyone else performed the called-for investigation?

Perscurator (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Move collapse section to collapse article?

How does everyone feel about moving the information about the collapse to the collapse of the World Trade Center article? The section links there with the promise of a "main article", but the section here is much more substantial than the section there. (Alternative: move the main article link to the collapse article. But that seems counter-intuitive.) If we move it, we should of course leave a summary here.--Thomas Basboll 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose any major changes to this article. It just became a featured article.--MONGO 15:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted the links here.--MONGO 16:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Making this a "See also" link as MONGO did is appropriate. Aside from that, no changes are needed here. --Aude (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

In this ABC picture, what are we seeing. A desription of the picture would be really helpful.--Lionheart Omega 14:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The caption says "Few photos and video clips exist that show the damage sustained to south face of 7 World Trade Center on 9/11. From a news helicopter, ABC News captured footage of the south face of 7 World Trade Center, including a glimpse of a gash, extending approximately 10 stories." What about the caption is not clear? --Aude (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Where in the picture is the gash?--Lionheart Omega 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also finding it difficult to see the large gash in the video.Weespo (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This picture does not clearly show a large gash in the south face. I have yet to find a substantive picture showing this damage.MalachiSicerelli (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns about the collapse section

I think the section is very informative and interesting, but I have a couple of concerns about the sources.

• The first description ("volcanic erruption") comes from a response, not just to conspiracy theories, but to a popular talk show host's version of them. There are much better sources to support statements about the effects of the collapse of the North Tower on building 7. I would recommend confining all the sources that pertain to these theories to the paragraph devoted to them. (Rosie is of course one of the most notable cases of promoting WTC7 as a demolition; she is an important part of the popular mythology that surrounds WTC7.)
• The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage.

Like I say, we should do what we can to keep the section informative, but these issues about sources and synthesis seem important as well. We had a bit of a discussion about it at the main collapse article here.--Thomas Basboll 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC) I think the collapse section of the article requires mention of the fact that this is only the third steel-structured building to result in a total collapse for any reason. This is important because the only other two instances were, of course WTCs 1 and 2 earlier that same day. The historical significance is important both from an engineering standpoint and an investigative standpoint.MalachiSicerelli (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't think that Rosie is an important part of anything regarding WTC7...aside from her opinion, which is based on just that, her opinion. I disagree with the changes you are proposing...this is a featured article and passed the featured article process with a complaint only about one of the images. I see no reason to mess with this article at this time.--MONGO 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be ironic if featured article status made it more difficult to improve an article. The article already does a good job on the CT mythology; I am suggesting we improve it there, and (in line with Tom Harrison's suggestion over on the collapse article) confining CT-related sources to CT-related parts of the article.--Thomas Basboll 07:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The only way to "improve" the CT stuff would be to say it is idiotic, but that would be too kind, and not encyclopedic, even though I am sure I can find plenty of sources that have stated this and easily reference it.--MONGO 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In ref 20, Popular Mechanics tells us that Rosie's remarks "renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7" and that NIST has begun to "address concerns of conspiracy theorists". This tells us something about the impact of conspiracy theories on both science and society. While I don't really like this source (it is only the weblog of a popular magazine, after all), I think these two ideas are supported by better sources elsewhere, including PM's book on the same subject. So, for example, both Keith Seffen at Cambridge and Zdenek Bazant at North Western have submitted work to a top engineering journal defending progressive collapse specifically to (using PM's phrase) address the concerns of conspiracy theorists. That's a pretty unambiguous impact on scientific research. Likewise, Rosie received wide (mostly negative) coverage at the time of her remarks. That's impact on society. So it is easy to document that CTs like this are not just the idiotic personal opinions of individuals. Not mentioning them here would be a bit like not mentioning Nixon in the Watergate complex article. Do note that in the exemplary mention of the Watergate scandal, not even the word "illegal" is used. That's because it would insult the intelligence of the reader.--Thomas Basboll 06:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to expand on CT stuff in this article..the more we add, the more credibility we give it. It is our job to rise above this foolishness. Rosie's opinions were a momentary issue that has now since passed...no one with a rational mind was swayed by her opinions.--MONGO 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's truly unapologetically POV. The notability of a theory should determine its weight in the article. Your personal view on whether the theory is "foolish" is completely irrelevant and has no place here. It is not our job at Wikipedia to "rise above" what people believe about the world - it's our job to report it. --Hyperbole 02:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The lack of notability as far as science is all that matters...we don't report on the opinions of non-experts.--MONGO 06:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case we are in a position to report the expert opinions of several engineers (Bazant, Greening, Seffen and others) along with coverage in Popular Mechanics. Science simply has taken notice. We may find that regrettable, but there's nothing left to do but report it.--Thomas Basboll 06:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What notice have they taken? Where do you get your information?--MONGO 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bazant et al.'s tech report (PDF here), BBC coverage of Seffen's paper (here, press release here). Plus the Popular Mechanics blog source and it's links to NIST (already in article).--Thomas Basboll 11:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct yourself, Hyperbole. The job of Wikipedia should be to report truth, to the best extent possible. What "people believe about the world" is incredibly ambiguous and self-defeating for Wikipedia's purpose. There is objective truth, whether anyone is aware of it or not.

...then we should remove the following articles entirely: Scientology, Flat Earth Society, and Tin Foil Hat. There have been serious documentaries and lots of discussion in the media about the possibility that the collapse was an "inside job." Whether or not the theories are valid or absurd is irrelevant. What is relevant is the widespread publicity of these theories. I would wager a guess that a greater percentage of the population believes in this theory than Scientology and Flat Earth combined. Even if one of the strongest proponents of the theory is a nut, it is noteworthy in this article. The objective truth is that there are a significant number of people who believe there is some kind of cover-up in 9/11. We are only reporting what notable people think, and what makes them "notable" is not their expertise, but how much their words make an impact on the general population, either by throwing mud back at them or by following them.Randhuck (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PM's description isn't the best. I thought about changing it before, and now have reworded it. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm on wikibreak and might respond slowly to queries. Please bear with me. Regards. --Aude (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That does the trick.--Thomas Basboll 14:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate section on the synthesis of eyewitness account

To keep things orderly, here's a separate section to discuss the second issue.

• The description of events during the day, observation by firefighters, etc. seems to be a synthesis of statements without any authoritative source. I think we should stick to the timelines proposes in the early FEMA report and the interim NIST report at this stage.

(Please note that this really has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.)--Thomas Basboll 06:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FDNY chief Daniel Nigro was present on 9/11 and involved with operations during the afternoon. Are you telling me that Chief Nigro is not a reliable source? How so? He was there. FDNY chief Peter Hayden, also on the scene, not a reliable source? FDNY captain Chris Boyle? not reliable? These accounts were published by the New York Times and Firehouse Magazine, which are reliable "authoritative" sources. These are simply descriptions of what was happening and are completely relevant to the article. If anything, I think we could add more description from other firefighters. But, taking any of this out is not an option. --Aude (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem we are going to run into arises when these firefighters (as often happens) offer slightly different accounts of the same events, slightly different chronologies, etc. We are in no position to decide between them. To my mind, the problem is akin to what happens in articles on works of literature: the best policy is not to let our own reading of the texts determine, say, the description of the plot.--Thomas Basboll 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

"Facts are facts ... but, truthfully, I don't really know."

The New York Magazine article that Sunder's "Who's Who of experts" quote is taken from continues as follows:

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”

I think some of this needs to go in the article. Sunder is saying that the experts, who have a good handle on the Towers, are still puzzled by WTC 7. The article leaves out the the part of Sunder's answer that specifically pertains to WTC 7. This is especially troubling, by the way, because the WTC7 section in the controlled demolition hypothesis article doesn't leave this point out. That seems to me to indicate that Sunder's words have been inadvertently POV forked.--Thomas Basboll 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Forked in what direction?--MONGO 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at both sections again. I think the answer is both. The CDH article, when discussing NIST, seems slightly biased in the direction of CDH--leaving out NIST's statement that it has found nothing to suggest CD. The 7 WTC article leaves out Sunder's direct statement that he doesn't know what happened to the building, while quoting only his confidence in his team (which, like I say, pertains to the Tower investigation, not 7WTC.) The ideal solution here would be to write a paragraph about NIST's position on the 7 WTC CDH that can be put in both articles. That would avoid the POV-fork.--Thomas Basboll 10:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not the CDH article. Such details need to go there, not here. --Aude (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But don't you see the problem? We are offering a CDH-favourable slant on this exchange in the CDH article and a sanitized version of the same exchange in the 7 WTC article, even though they are talking about exactly the same issue. That looks like POV-forking.--Thomas Basboll 14:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's because the CDH page is full of WP:SYNTH, and slanted to give the "hypothesis" more credibility. Sunder's quote is being misconstrued by you guys to give the assumption that because they aren't yet precisely sure which trusses and which support columns failed first, second, etc...and his comment that they are not sure why, somehow equals some other cause aside from long burning fires and severe damage. This article, as it exists gives an excellent overview of what happened. If I have time, I'll go over to that CDH article and clean it up.--MONGO 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the CDH article can be cleaned up. I may beat you to it. But in this case the CDH article is more accurate. My view is that since it is the very same issue, the articles should say the same thing. That thing is: when Sunder was asked about the possibility of controlled demolition of 7 WTC he said he didn't really know. When NIST was asked about it later (in the FAQ), they said they had no reason to suspect CD but they were considering hypothetical blast scenarios. The "Who's Who of experts" remark wasn't about building seven. It is misleading to present it as though it is.--Thomas Basboll 19:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that...again, making something out of nothing is not what a scientific treatise incorporates. Sunder's remarks shouldn;t be taken out of context or elaborated on as if he meant more than what he stated. As a scientist...a really good scientist, they are supposed to look at everything...even if it is preposterous. Same can be said about physical antropologists...while they know Bigfoot does not exist, many do not take the assumption that it is impossible...the evidence that Bigfoot exists is so miniscule, that for all practical purposes, it really is not possible that he does...the same aplies here, and as far as I am concerned, expanding on science fiction for the sake of catering to the CD crowd is not necessary.--MONGO 09:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No doubt that Thomas has a much more objective view of this all, but I have to say to mongo that:

1. Insinuating that the Controlled Demolition Theory is as badly supported as Big Foot is of course highly disingenuous. Not even NIST has ruled it out completely.

2. Trying to connect Rosie O'Donnell with Big Foot is firstly very unkind, and secondly, it could very well amount to racism towards large women.

3. There's more hard evidence for the Controlled Demolition Theory AND Big Foot, than for the existence of god, so ...

4. I've only heard hard-rightwingers describe Controlled Demolition Theory as preposterous as Big Foot, perhaps politics cloud your view? If you feel the need to ridicule, perhaps you lack hard evidence to disprove the Controlled Demolition Theory? --BraanBraan (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion here is not to expand, but to properly represent what Sunder said about building 7, since that is what the article is about. All he said was, and all the article should say he said, was that NIST still hasn't got a good handle on building 7 (or at least didn't when he was asked). AS it stands, it looks like he said that they've got it well in hand, that they know "the facts".--Thomas Basboll 10:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The quote, "truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” is already in there, but does need to be there twice. It's also not really related to conspiracy theories. They know that fire caused the collapse, but it has been difficult for them to find the exact point that the collapse initiated and other such details. --Aude (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I had forgotten to remove the earlier instance. I'm going to revert back (and remove the second), just so we have an alternative. Like the "volcanic eruption" remark, I think it is best to leave, as much as possible, official reactions to conspiracy theories in the paragraphs that are about those theories.--Thomas Basboll 15:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS It was important to me to correct the impression that Sunder's "who's who" applied to conclusions reached about building seven.--Thomas Basboll 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That part of the New York Magazine article is talking about the NIST report for WTC7 and why it's been delayed.

I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report? This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year. NIST did have some "preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7"

That they have had difficulty is nothing to do with the conspiracy theories, and doesn't belong in the paragraph discussing those. Moving it there takes the quote out of context, and is not an improvement to the article. --Aude (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the quote entirely, and replaced it with more recent information from NIST. --Aude (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that it was taken out of context (the whole article the quote comes from is about CTs). But I do agree that the paragraph is better without Sunder's remarks at all. Like I say, the "but truthfully" was necessary to correct the impression that the "who's who of experts" had WTC7 well in hand.--Thomas Basboll 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

New photos

I have new photos of the new building that can be used in the article. Probably can only add one (or maybe two), and not decided which ones. I'm open to suggestions. Also, I'm having some trouble uploading to commons, and don't have time or patience to upload all. Right now they are posted on Flickr --Aude (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This or another interior might be good: [2]. Outside, this is a great shot: [3]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Switched the one in the infobox, and added the other.

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Though, photo A and B would also work. Don't have a preference. --Aude (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum Is Absolutely Necessary

It truly strains credulity to state the pat explanation of WTC 7's collapse and have absolutely NO MENTION of the glaring contradictions and various inconsistencies in its underpinning. It is now common (and NOT fanatical) knowledge that something fishy was afoot in (at LEAST) the collapse of WTC 7. More than a few structural engineers, demolitions experts, some of them on-site witnesses of the collapse, have all come forward (in the face of great resistance and admonishment) and expressed their doubts and reasons for them. These are not crackpots or conspiracy theorists. These are professionals trained in the assessment and maintenance of structural safety and integrity, with thorough knowledge of how and why different buildings collapse. Many years of study and real-world experience inform these people's opinions and yet they are dismissed out of hand due to, at least from one angle, the emotional and social sensitivities of other Americans who are, simply put, too terrified of the possible implications to even entertain these "wild notions."

And let's not start with Larry Silverstein's unintentional gaff of stating ON CAMERA that they "pulled" the building. Please, no semantic discussions; HE SAID IT and so did other WTC engineers. And there are many accounts of witnesses reporting secondary explosions preceding the collapse of all the fallen WTC structures. These all amount to the proverbial elephant in the room.

Long story short, SOME mention of these unacknowledged aspects and their prismatic effect on our perception of the 9/11 events as presented in a "people's encyclopedia" is absolutely a must if faith in Wikipedia as an unbiased, living document is to be maintained. §pårk (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of the disputed, aka not fully supported by fact, way the building collasped needs to be mentioned in the very beginning of the article...replacing "due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage" I've tried to edit this. I do not see how as a people's encyclopedia one can speak so definitively on something that is more grounded on emotion than fact.Knowledgebycoop (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article, as currently written, does not mention any of the inconsistencies or faults of the widely held fire-collapse account but instead presents it as fact rather than speculation, as no official government or professional body has yet to fully explain the collapse. See Lee Hamilton's admission that WTC 7 collapse is still on open question.[4]

The small section on alternative theories ("conspiracy theories") for collapse is currently worded with a POV bias. At the very least this part needs expansion in order to justly summarize alternative perspectives on the collapse. Resources for this job are immense and easy to access. I hope someone with more detailed knowledge than me can do this necessary job.--David Barba (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If they detonated it, we would know, but we don't so, this article is factual then.--68.9.193.246 (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

huh?--David Barba (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but this is Wikipedia, where we rely on facts and evidence - and not conspiracy theories - to write our articles. Raul654 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Only when it exists, which it does not. stating the official theory as fact, and dunning other theories as "conspiracy theories" as if slapping on teh word "conspiracy" somehow magically proves their invalidity is complete POV· Lygophile has spoken 02:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I will revised "Despite preliminary findings by FEMA and NIST that fire caused them," to "Rejecting..." This word is more accurate b/c proponents of CD theory do not simply over look NIST findings but openly reject them. "Despite" carries a negative POV connotation because it infers that CD theory does not consider NIST findings when CD challenges the NIST findings. One can object to to CD theory and consider its proponents wackos, but don't carry that bias onto Wikipedia. This simple word change in no way damages the integrity of this article or the information it conveys.--David Barba (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with David here but I would propose that the proper word would be disputing "To question the truth or validity of". Tony0937 18:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why i deleted the green building section

The statement that WTC 7 is the first green building in NYC is false... the first LEED certified structure was the Hearst Tower by Norman Foster which opened for business May 4, 2006 vs. the WTC opening some 3 weeks later... Silverstein Properties is the source of this info, which seems a bit biased in its own right... Its my first time editing on wikipedia so sorry in advance for any mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.123.191 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Page needs protection

Already I've seen 9-11 conspiracy crap placed in the introduction, and this article is a hotbed for it. The page needs temporary protection while it is on the main page. Bkkeim2000 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. 67.36.57.121 (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"The original 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11 due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage."

This article is a joke. There is no consensus. I think majority of people actually believe that WTC 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition. So, who decides which version goes to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.191.151 (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - bought down by fire ??? Check out wtc7.net and read some of the engineering reports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lanzarotemaps (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of sources blaming Rudy Giuliani for collapse

I was stunned to see Wikipedia running a version of this article that excludes widespread media reports of Rudy Giuliani's involvement in creating this disaster by poor planning. I added a brief summary of relevant information, with thorough sourcing to withstand any controversy:

The decision by Rudy Giuliani to site the emergency response center and associated diesel tanks at a vulnerable site, despite a memo by his appointee Jerome M. Hauer advising a more secure location, has been blamed for the intense fire that consumed the building.

and of course it was reverted within one minute, without explanation. I am not impressed. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably belongs on Rudy Giuliani I would think. RxS (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I summarized this from a paragraph in that article. But you're telling me you actually want the article to not explain the bad decision that made the building flammable enough to collapse? You're telling me you folks cannot tolerate one sentence, studded with good media sources about 7 World Trade Center, because it might make people think bad about a certain politician? I doubt China's Wikipedia can be much worse than this. All this conspiracy nonsense about explosives hidden in the building is almost a half truth, when you consider that some crazy politican actually decided to put an emergency bunker with diesel fuel high up in a building that was at the #1 national target for terrorist attacks. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a platform for you to slag Giuliani. WP:BLP applies to all pages. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP allows you to slag a politician if your sentence is backed up by six articles from major news media including the New York Times. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Present it in context in his biography. You can't selectively aggregate negative material, or give it disproportionate weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not selectively aggregated - Giuliani just happens to be the only person blamed for installing a skybox bunker full of diesel fuel near Ground Zero. Nor is the weight disproportionate - it's one sentence about the major theory of how the building came to be destroyed. As WP:BLP puts it, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, unless that decision was the only one he made while implementing security measures (which of course it isn't), cherry picking one issue is aggregating negative material. I'm not fan of his but really, you're just using this article to pitch rocks at him...RxS (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Which introduces a more biased POV to the article? To include mention of articles which lay blame on one particular person for the tower's collapse, or to remove all mention of him despite these articles? Also, pardon my ignorance, but could you explain what policy or guideline defines "aggregating negative material" so I can be sure not to run afoul of it in the future? I can't find "aggregating" in WP:BLP, and searching for the three-word phrase in Wikipedia gives no results. It sounds like the phrase would refer more to people who start articles "Controversy and Criticism of So-and-So" than one sentence in an article. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think an attempt to "lay blame" on one particular person (in a situation that's as complicated as this one is) on any Wikipedia article is more POV than policys allow, for sure more POV than not laying blame on one particular person. As far as "aggregating negative material", that's a phrase used earlier in the discussion and I used to keep the same terms in use, there's no aggregating negative material if that's what you mean. RxS (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "blame" is entirely incidental - actually, it's more to say the diesel fuel was blamed for the fire. So I could easily accept, for example, "Rudy Giuliani has been criticized for choosing the site for the emergency response center despite security and fire code concerns, after stored diesel fuel contributed to the intense fire that consumed the building." (this is also simpler, removing Jerome Hauer from the text at least for now - I've also added "fire code" based on the NYT reference from 2001-12-20 added below) 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try not to be too stunned. Giuliani surely has his brownshirts monitoring this article. No criticism allowed. nut-meg (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Selected references for the proposed sentence

It should be clear that what is being discussed here is not the conspiracy-ravings of the controlled-demolition crowd, but rather a more serious criticism that it represented very poor planning for New York City to establish an emergency planning command center, in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, within the very confines of the World Trade Center complex itself. The argument is that because the WTC was a foreseeable target, the command center should not have been included at a nearby location. Therefore, some mainstream sources have faulted Giuliani and his assistants for not foreseeing that in the event of an attack on WTC, the command center would not be accessible or usable. However, what is proposed to be included here is a sentence that blames Giuliani and his assistants, not only for failing to foresee another major attack on the World Trade Center, but for failing to foresee that the attack could cause an adjoining building to actually catch fire, causing the fuel storage tanks to be ignited as a result. From the vantage point of pre-September 11, that was a remote and not a particularly foreseeable scenario (I cannot think of any prior incident in which a terrorist attack on a major building ignited a neighboring building). To say that Giuliani's decision is "blamed for" the loss of 7 WTC without these caveats is arguably unfair, and therefore I agree that the proposed sentence is not appropriate. It might, however, be possible to point out here or in another article something along the lines of "ironically, after the prior attack on the World Trade Center, New York City decided to situate a command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center, so that the city's planning following the prior attack may have added to the devastation of the next one"—but without the NPOV and somewhat simplistic use of a term like "blamed." Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno..."ironically" seems to be editorializing. It's easy to look back at past mistakes, but less so to envision all future potentialities...that two wide body jets would be hijacked and then slammed into the two towers one after another was something that was only considered to be of the most minor of possibilities...a land based assault as what happened in 1993 was always deemed the most probable scenario that might unfold.--MONGO (talk) 04:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is fair enough, and I am not saying that any reference to this belongs in the article; just pointing out that if there is consensus to address the matter at all, a term like "blamed" should certainly not be used. It is a common observation that A can be the "cause" of B, in the sense that if A had not happened then B would not of happened, without it having been in any way foreseeable that A would lead to B. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note, however, that Mr. Hauer did foresee that this was a bad idea. Still, I can see softening the wording a bit - the problem is that instead of softening it in some way that might even be mutually acceptable, RxStrangelove just reverted it entirely. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the gist of Hauer's concern was that the emergency facility might become inaccessible, not that it might catch fire and help cause the collapse of the building. Saying that Hauer thus warned Giuliani to anticipate what happened is thus overstated. Given that this issue is disputed, I would rather see it omitted from the article until there is consensus to include it, and particularly would prefer not to see an edit-war on mainpage FA day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberally stolen from NYB's suggestion: after the prior attack on the World Trade Center, New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani decided to situate a command center and associated fuel tanks at 7 World Trade Center, possibly adding to the devastation of the September 11 attacks? Something like that? RxS (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I composed a sentence in the subsection above simultaneously - I like my wording better, but yours is still a lot better than nothing. At least it provides a Wikilink to point at the right section of Rudy Giuliani. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a NYT reference indicating that the city knew the fuel tank was a danger and even took some action to reduce the risk. "A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center". 2001-12-20. Retrieved 2007-11-21. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help) So the city was warned that the area could be the target of a terror attack, and that the fuel tank could catch fire; the only question is whether they were warned the tank could catch fire because of a terror attack. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That article talks about the fire dept not wanting that tank there basically because it was a dumb idea...that it posed a hazard and was not in line with codes. But not as has been pointed out here, that it might cause a collapse during a terror attack...and it sounds like the port authority had some say in the matter anyway. In any case, unless there are other people wanting to weigh in, I'd rather use something along the lines of what I stole from NYB...it's a little more neutral. RxS (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I put in your wording for now - hopefully any further tinkering with wording can be done by the normal editing process. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for politicizing this trashy article, schlockheads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.115.36 (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to put it somewhere, and that looks no sillier than anywhere else. The addition isn't interesting. Midgley (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. All of the above information lends vital information to the article. It should also be noted that the building has faulty fire protection, in foam form which had worn off of many of its steel support beams. The controversy over placing the Emergency Management Center in WTC 7 is more then a valid issue. Coolgamer (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In its conference call last December, NIST ruled out the possibility that diesel fires contributed to the destruction.

"These are fires in spaces where the combustibles are normal building contents, ventilation is the normal building ventilation, and there are no exceptional combustibles such as diesel fuel in day tanks or in large tanks at the base of the building. In the case of the towers, the jet fuel was unusual, but even there we talked about normal building fires since the jet fuel burned within a matter of a few minutes."

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

I will modify a relevant sentence in the article accordingly.

Basically, NIST is now saying that normal building fires, dieing out in any given location in about 20 minutes, ultimately destroyed the skyscraper:

"The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed."

The graph on page 216 in the following (Finnish-language) steel engineering document shows that the estimated temperature for fire-protected steel during a 20-minute fire is well below 200 degrees Celsius, or 390 Fahrenheit:

http://www.terasrakenneyhdistys.fi/suunnittelijoille/hitsatutprofiilit/HP5%20199-222%20A4.pdf

Perscurator (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited source does not make the claim that fire did not contribute to the collapse of 7 WTC. No original research please. Weregerbil (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version (to which Weregerbil reverted) says that the diesel tanks "possibly add[ed] to the devastation of the September 11 attacks." I think it is correct to say that the minutes of the advisory committee meeting reject this possibility. It's no longer considered a contributing factor. It's true that that's not quite the same thing as saying it's been "ruled out", but I think Perscurator's version was more accurate. Or what have I missed?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Weregerbil confused two issues: 1) the Finnish metal engineering document showing that the temperature of fire-protected steel in a standard office fire (such as that in WTC 7) does not reach 200 degrees Celsius in 20 minutes, which was how long the fires according to NIST lasted in any given location; and 2) the fact that in their December conference call NIST says it does not attribute the fires to diesel fuel.

Closely connected with the topic at hand, Jones et al's very interesting article "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction" has just been published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal (2008, 2, 35-40). Links to the article can be found here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/15081 Perscurator (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of Collapse "Conspiracy Theorists"

This section of the article (which is largely based on the NIST report) characterizes "conspiracy theorists" advocating controlled demolition as believing so "despite" the NIST report. Any familiarity with the controlled demolition theory would shows that it is poised agianst the conclusions of the NIST report, challenging NIST rationalizations for collapse. Therefore, I am arguing that "rejecting" is a better word, to replace "despite", characterizing the sentance and "conspiracy theorists". I have offered sources of popular controlled demolition websites associated with 9/11 Truth conspiracy theory showing how the NIST report is challenged. [5] [6] This characterization does not preclude criticism or ridicule of 9/11 conspiracy theories but simply better a description of such stances. I believe "despite" unfairly precludes the unassailablity of the official account (admitted by the 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton to be lacking concerning WTC 7 [7]). Furthermore, the lack of a completed and published report by the NIST concerning WTC 7 means that it is technically impossible for demolition control advocates to believe said "despite" the NIST. I would like those opposed to my edit to respond, respectfully- do your homework! Specifically Quadpus claims that my sources (I suppose there could be better examples) do not relate to the characterization of "conspiracy theorists" in this paragraph, please elaborate.--David Barba (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So it has been a week with no response from anyone opposed to my proposed change. Where did everyone go? Because no one has challenged this change or offered further suggestions, I will go forth with the revision after another forty-eight hours. Please now respond if you have problems or suggestions. I will not tolerate an edit war and much prefer consensus building.--David Barba (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the "despite", but perhaps for a slightly different reason. "Despite" makes it look like controlled demolition is being pursued largely in ignorance of NIST's suggestion. I think it could be much clearer that controlled demolitionists explicitly criticize NIST's position. I do think NIST has said that their position on controlled demolition of WTC 7 is that it didn't happen that way. This position has also been "rejected".--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally down for anything that specifically punches Truthers in the gut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"PULL IT"- controversies missing

What a benign and apologetic article for all the controversies surrounding it. The world isnt a vacuum of the supernatural. History is a result of human meddling (ie. conspiracies) also. Tons of sources. Junior Brian (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what this means but the quote you added has nothing to do with any real events of the day. It's a single quote that some people are reading all sorts of meanings. He's explained it and unless you can read his mind he is the best source for what he meant...RxS (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it's abundantly obvious from the context that Silverstein was referring to pulling out the team of firefighters, not the building itself. Terraxos (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

He has said as much since. Beam (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrine

This article is a shrine to the FEMA report and the US government. Any other information, no matter how well sourced is clearly unwelcome. The Founding Fathers, pioneers of democracy, would shed tears to see this. If the USA means anything at all, it means freedom of expression, not this government cosy-up. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Any other information had better be well-cited, or it will be removed. Jtrainor (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree completely; on this article, anything in general agreement with the official U.S. stance on the collapse can apparently be parroted without any citation at all, and all but the briefest, most cursory mention of the fact that literally millions are highly skeptical of that stance is censored. Yes, censored. Wikipedia is only as NPOV as its editors. --Hyperbole (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a featured article and your efforts to add fact tags was unnecessary since that area is but the introduction and the facts are reliably sourced in the article. If you have proof that this article is incorrect, then lets see it. It doesn't matter what others "think"...all that matters is what is proven to be correct.--MONGO 12:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but "what is proven to be correct" is the matter at the heart of this. For many many people the FEMA report is just a whitewash. There is some persuasive evidence of that at http://www.911truth.org/ and other places. The problem with this article is that it presents the FEMA report as "proven to be correct" while allowing little or no mention of alternative points of view. Now, I'm not an architect or an engineer, so I don't personally know, but there are architects and engineers that have rubbished the FEMA report. So their point of view deserves some space here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you're a 9/11 Truther, I can't have a serious conversation with you. Jtrainor (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't believe in freedom of thought or expression then? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

...I simply believe that this article should recognise and reflect the fact that there is a significant body of opinion that is suspicious of the official version of events, and make clear their bases for doing so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, MONGO. Good of you to show up and prove my point; if there's any editor who openly asserts that he intends to insert a POV bias into the article, it's you. If there's any other editor who wants to hide the notable fact that so many millions of people think the collapse of WTC7 is suspicious on the *sole basis* that he doesn't agree with them, it's you. Sorry - I can only assume good faith until it's proven otherwise. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I buy the "so many millions" bit, the polls are all too general to draw a conclusion about WTC7...I doubt if millions could even tell you what WTC7 is. Apart from that, there isn't a "significant body of opinion" that is suspicious of the official version of events...there's a tiny vocal minority but that's about all. As an encyclopedia, we don't include every opinion, just those that have a notable and/or significant presence. CT's in this context do not. As an aside, I'd cool it on the personal attacks. RxS (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd hate to see WP:NPA interpreted to mean that when someone *brags* about editing without respect to Wikipedia policy, we all have to be too polite to say anything about it. Characterizing those who see the official story on 7 WTC as implausible as a "tiny vocal minority" is just plain ridiculous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together that "a significant percentage of the English-speaking world don't buy the U.S. government's 9/11 story" + "many people who don't buy the government's 9/11 story are especially skeptical about the 7 WTC account" = "controlled demolition of 7 WTC is a notable viewpoint." I mean, just Google the building - there are two controlled demolition links on the first page and five on the second. These are pages that get millions of hits. Framing the theory as so non-notable that it deserves only the most cursory mention is ludicrous. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to put together that "a significant percentage of the English-speaking world don't buy the U.S. government's 9/11 story" + "many people who don't buy the government's 9/11 story are especially skeptical about the 7 WTC account" = "controlled demolition of 7 WTC is a notable viewpoint." is original research, which we don't allow here. And search results and number of "hits" do not make something notable. RxS (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What??! Are you seriously suggesting that we need a citation to tell us whether something's notable?? If that were the case, Wikipedia couldn't exist at all. It's not like there have been scholarly, citable articles that conclude that the official government story on 7 WTC has enough support to deserve mentioning on Wikipedia. And while search results don't "make" something notable, they're an extremely strong piece of evidence for the notability of something. There is almost nothing with hundreds of thousands of Ghits that we exclude from Wikipedia besides the fact that so many people are suspicious of the official 7 WTC account. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter how many people think the NIST evidence, the evidence of news reports and the facts of the case are wrong, either due to their own ignorance or biases. This article is not about conspiracy theories regarding what happened to WTC 7...it's about the facts of what happened. Telling me I'm here to promote my POV is ludicrus...I support the known facts of what happened, not some fantasy or delusion.--MONGO 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, you're all but admitting you're here to promote your POV, and ignore policy, when you assert that you personally can determine which sources contain "known facts" and which don't. You'd think that someone who used to be an admin would know that's more or less the definition of original research. --Hyperbole (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Baloney...please do provide one piece of fact based, peer reviewed and scientifically scrutinized information that supports your ridiculous conspiracy theory POV or stop wasting our time, Hyperbole. The disruption you keep causing to multiple 9/11 related articles just because they don't conform to your fantasy world version of reality makes you nothing more than a Tendentious editor.--MONGO 00:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MONGO, you have absolutely no idea what my POV on this subject is. By comparison, yours is more than clear - because you actually cite it, rather than policy, as the reason for making your reverts. I find it hilarious that you cited WP:TE to me - an essay that ought to be accompanied by your picture. --Hyperbole (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's special. This is a featured article and many if not most featured articles do not have references in the intros since the article body restates what is in the introduction (which are there to summarize what the article will discuss) and properly cites that info then. Attempting to readd FACT tags and demanding we reference something that is already exhaustively referenced in the article is tendentious editing on your part.--MONGO 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidently no consensus there then. For MONGO's benefit, I'll draw his attention to Wikipedia:List of controversial issues (this is one of them, not a cut and dry case, as you'd like people to think) and Wikipedia:Controversial articles which clearly states "An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy". In short, MONGO, you have absolutely no right whatsoever (whether you want 'right' to mean entitlement or correctness) to maintain your campaign to keep things you personally don't like out of this or any other controversial article. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem we have is when conspiracy theory POV pushers try and misuse this website to promote their nonsense in our articles at the expense of the known evidence. See..the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV as well as WP:FRINGE. Neither you nor Hyperbole have provided a single reliable source that refutes the known evidence that is exhaustively referenced in this featured level article.--MONGO 09:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

aha, now I understand. MONGO = defender of known evidence; those who disagree with MONGO = POV pushers (who) promote their nonsense. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those that disagree with the known evidence=POV pushers.--MONGO 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those who try to ensure that only their POV appears in an article = POV pushers. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bzzzt, wrong. NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. -- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. A fringe theory with no evidence backing it, and certainly no reliable sources, does not qualify for mention. Raul654 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources make reference to the controversy over whether 7 WTC was demolished often. For example, a Google News search makes it evident that 21 publications have referenced 7 WTC in the last month, nearly all of which refer to the demolition controversy. That's just in the last month. There's all the evidence in the world that the controversy is very real and has infiltrated the international consciousness - it's not, as some would claim, just a few lunatics off somewhere being ignored. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Except that the controlled demolition idea it wasn't published in those publications. What they say is that some people believe it was intentionally blown up, despite having no evidence for themselves and a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Debunking in a reliable source does not qualify as being "published by a reliable source". Raul654 (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are substantial media reports of the controversy, then the controversy deserves more of a mention than a sentence or two - particularly such hideously POV sentences where Wikipedia does exactly what it's not supposed to do: tell readers which side of the controversy is the "correct" one. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the NPOV policy dicates, as I quoted above (as opposed to what you claim it says) that the idea be given weight commensurate to its publication in reliable sources - this is, zero. Raul654 (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I *just* demonstrated, the idea is published in quite a few reliable sources - and thus deserves a hell of a lot more weight than a biased passing mention. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(And round and round we go) No, you showed that it's been debunked in reliable sources. "Published in reliable sources", as the NPOV policy says, implies positive affirmation that something is true. Debunking does not qualify. Can you point us to a reliable source claiming the controlled demolition theory is true? If not, then it would be undue weight to mention it. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no no interest in "refuting" anything; that would be original research and completely beyond the scope of what Wikipedia is for. What I would like to see is an article that gives due weight to different POVs. The argument that controlled demolition is a "fringe" POV is laughable; it's obviously held by an extremely large minority. And the argument that controlled demolition is a POV held by "idiots" is just totally irrelevant to what we're doing here - not to mention that editing on that basis shows a blatant disrespect for Wikipedia policy. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article had a peer review and a featured article review and easily passed both in it's present form...sorry you missed the reviews. We do give due weight to the conspiracy theories...since there is zero proof of them, they aren't even mentioned. We don't incorporate ignorance at the expense of knowledge and this is not going to be a platform to promote extremely fringe theories on the impossible.--MONGO 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it "easily passed" because almost no one showed up. And of the ~3 editors who showed up to the featured article review who don't actively edit the article, one of them suggested a subsection for the controlled demolition theory. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of "things that are proven to MONGO's satisfaction" - it's an encyclopedia or things that are notable. Calling skepticism of the FEMA account of 7 WTC "extremely fringe" is just a joke. Polls prove that there are *millions* of English speakers skeptical of the U.S. account of 9/11, mainstream publications have addressed that skepticism, and the number of websites devoted to that skepticism is overwhelmingly higher than the coverage of the vast majority of issues we consider notable. Calling it "fringe" is just not rooted in reality. --Hyperbole (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple notes here. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues is a list of issues that are controversial within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Controversial articles is a guideline that talks about editing articles that are controversial among Wikipedia editors. While both talk about controversial issues within Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily mean that those topics are controversial in the real world. And indeed, WTC7 is not a controversial topic outside of Wikipedia. So neither the list or the guideline apply here, except the points that deal with behavioral issues. In fact, all an article needs to be listed on the list is edit warring. Which clearly can happen on even the most mundane real world topics.

When it comes to "due weight", people should read the first sentence: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. There are few, if any, reliable sources that talk about controlled demolition as anything other than a cultural phenomenon...and because of that it has no place in the article. There are other articles that describe CD though, and it gets plenty of attention there. As long as experts working within their field and mainstream reliable sources do not consider CD a realistic theory of events (which they don't), CD has no place in this article.

The assertion that CD is a belief held by a large minority is not supported by the facts. Citing various polls to justify that claim is wrong. The polls show that people may believe there is more to the story, or that they are unhappy with the leadership in the US, but they did not test and do not show that anyone believes in controlled demolition. The fact that there is a tiny vocal minority running websites and sharing videos doesn't mean anything regarding general public opinion about WTC7. That's all there really is to say about this subject...and it's been said multiple times by multiple editors, there really is no need to keep debating it. RxS (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you think "tiny" means, but the number of websites and videos arguing against the official account of the 7 WTC collapse is *anything but that*. We're talking about thousands upon thousands of websites and videos; they're not originating from ten lunatics in the Nevada desert, and even if they were, they're reaching a massive audience. They're notable by any standard. And you shouldn't try to act as though the issue is "closed" just because there are presently more editors making reverts you like than reverts you don't. --Hyperbole (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

thousands upon thousands of websites and videos....well, there's one of the problems. You make an assertion about how many websites there are but do not back it up. Same with the massive audience assertion. But I'm just not going to go round and round, I made a bunch of points about how CT is not a notable subject, pointed to applicable policies and noted where adding CT content would appropriate and you just come back with an unsupported assertion and assuming bad faith about my motivations. The fundamental fact of the matter is that this has been settled many times, and until something changes it remains settled. That's not just me pronouncing that, that's the outcome of every debate/discussion that's occured around this issue. RxS (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You want me to back it up? Okay... here's 162,000 Google hits for "wtc7 demolition" - Google only catalogues 740 *unique* hits for any search, but we can see that hits 731-739 are all websites and blogs on the subject. So, yes, there are obviously thousands upon thousands of websites on the subject. YouTube returns 628 videos for "building 7", 1,350 videos for "7 wtc", and 1,750 videos for "wtc7". Several of those videos have more than 100,000 views; some have more than half a million. It's just ridiculous that anyone could call this subject "tiny" or "fringe" or "non-notable". --Hyperbole (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but thousands upon thousands of websites on the subject does not translate into arguing against the official account of the 7 WTC collapse. And funny, the first of the 731-739 you mention is a video dump that's mostly about sharks. And a cursory inspection of the you tube results show a significant amount of the same video submitted multiple times. Searches like that are unreliable indicators of anything...even if the number of videos on you tube are high and there's a high number of blogs out there they are not reliable sources. The Internet is a big place, and this subject is indeed fringe. You'll need to do much much better than that to get a consensus. RxS (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the thousands upon thousands of websites referencing the "demolition" of 7 WTC are arguing for or against the proposition; their existence proves that the POV is highly notable, and deserves far more weight than a tiny blerb stating pejoratively, without reference, that it's only believed by "some conspiracy theorists." And, yes, YouTube videos are always duplicative, but views and comments are not; the fact that videos arguing the case for controlled demolition of 7 WTC have been viewed literally millions and millions of times, sparking enormous discussions, is proof of the notability of the POV. Yes, the Internet is big, but I challenge you to find a single other POV associated with that many websites and blogs and videos and views and comments that is so poorly represented on its subject's Wikipedia article. You won't. --Hyperbole (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does matter...things don't become notable by repeated you tube plays. But I think we've said all that needs to be said here. This isn't a new conclusion here, others can have their say. RxS (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Things become notable when enough people take note of them - regardless of whether they hear about them from their government, from a newspaper, or from a website. --Hyperbole (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)

Your viewpoint already gets the screentime it's worth, in [8]. It's not going to be added to this article. Jtrainor (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you have no idea what my viewpoint is. Second, I think that subsection is pretty good support for the proposition that WTC7 is central to the controlled demolition hypothesis, which, itself, is obviously notable. And isn't it interesting that the sentence over there, "Some journalists commenting on the nature of the collapse of WTC 7 said that it resembled a controlled demolition," here becomes "Some conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses... were the result of controlled demolition," and any attempts to edit that blatantly misleading and POV sentence are met with a knee-jerk revert? --Hyperbole (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the name of the article I linked to. Jtrainor (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh man, what's wrong with people? A controlled demolition doesn't make any sense! Experts upon experts upon experts upon witnesses upon witnesses say so. The less that is said regarding these crazy "theories" the better this article is. Beam (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Four things this article needs to make it less POV

Here are four specific improvements this article needs:

1. A subsection header for controlled demolition theories. Many people who come to this article from a search engine are looking for information on CD - chances are, most people are. The first place they're going to look is the table of contents. As Jtrainor points out, we have this information at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center#World Trade Center Seven; we've deemed it notable enough to write. It's totally unencyclopedic to write something, and then intentionally make it unnecessarily difficult to find.
2. An improved link (probably a {{main}} link) to information on those theories. When people see the sentence "...were the result of controlled demolition," their first thought is probably going to be that click there would send them to controlled demolition. Again, we've made the information available to the people who come here looking for it, but we're intentionally obfuscating it and making it difficult to find. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be written that way.
3. The sentence "Some conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses..." just has to go. Why? First, it's extremely pejorative: when you think "conspiracy theorist," you think of a guy in a bunker, wearing a tinfoil hat, surrounded by chalkboards, eating old MREs out of a dusty cardboard box. The article implies that anyone suspicious of FEMA's account of the collapse should be lumped in with those guys, and that's both offensive and inaccurate. Second, it makes use of weasel words; "some conspiracy theorists" isn't any more descriptive than "some folks." Third, it's uncited; if you're going to say who the proponents of a theory are, you need a citation.
4. The article should not state in the intro that the building collapsed "due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage" - not because it's POV, but because it's OR. That text is a hyperlink that takes you to an article that *specifically* says that neither FEMA or NIST have been able to explain why the building collapsed. Claiming that it was a combination of structural and fire damage is pure OR. It has to go. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how you've utterly failed to make a convincing argument above, and simply disregarded what the actual neutrality policy says about undue weight - how about no to all 4. Raul654 (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how these four edits would give the theory undue weight? The first two are entirely navigational (and one would think that any encyclopedia would want to make navigation as easy as possible); the second two *remove* stuff from the article, which can hardly be said to add weight to a "fringe theory." By the way, it's extremely sad that you'd object to removing obvious OR from an article with an off the cuff "how about NO" - it doesn't make it look like you're editing in good faith. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole, no, this is beginning to look like an advocacy campaign on your part...see soapboxing...."You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.".--MONGO 18:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, MONGO. I'm not arguing my "favorite views" - I've never even mentioned what my views are, because that would be inappropriate for a talk page (it would be nice if you'd extend us all the same courtesy). What I've done is listed four specific edits that this article needs. I'm here to write a better encyclopedia; maybe you should consider addressing the substance of those edits. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked into item 3 above. The Will Sullivan citation supports the article content, in my opinion. "There are some divergent strands among the conspiracy theorists, but for most of them, the story has two major tenets: The World Trade Center towers and nearby Building 7, though struck by planes, were brought down by controlled demolitions, and the Pentagon was struck by a missile, not a plane." Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That supports the proposition that Will Sullivan believes that conspiracy theorists believe that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolitions, but it doesn't even say whether Will Sullivan believes that everyone who believes that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolitions is a conspiracy theorist, let alone whether there's a mainstream consensus for that latter proposition. I mean, what is a conspiracy theorist? Is everyone who thinks it's suspicious that so many witnesses heard JFK shot at more than four times a "conspiracy theorist"? Is everyone who thinks the FBI, rather than the Branch Davidians, caused the Waco fire, a "conspiracy theorist"? Are we living in a nation where the majority of citizens are "conspiracy theorists"? It's not even a well-defined term - just a perjorative. The link we provide - to "conspiracy theories" - gives no information on whether, to become a "conspiracy theorist," one must create them, advance them, believe them, entertain them, or simply acknowledge their existence. --Hyperbole (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We all know exactly what he means by conspiracy theorists. So thank you for that excellent display on how to duck inconvenient citations by simply pettifogging them. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you mean to communicate by posting that link. I think we both can agree that someone like David Icke or Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist. But if a random person anywhere in the world reads wtc7.net and thinks it raises some good points, has that person become a "conspiracy theorist"? This article would have the reader believe so - and I don't think that's remotely reasonable to do, particularly without a strong citation. The Will Sullivan citation simply doesn't address the question. It's not inconvenient; it's irrelevant. --Hyperbole (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654; thanks for that link. How droll! Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all four, espicially the point on the language of conspiracy therorists. What is wrong with simply saying; "A wide range of people believe......." or just "Some people believe..." if a wide range is some how POV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.9.63 (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the additional specificity adds clarity without being inaccurate or biased. The controlled-demolition theory is a conspiracy theory in the classic sense in that it involves wide-ranging manipulation and a massive cover-up, and objective sources regularly report it as a conspiracy theory. I don't see the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

that would make the official version just as much of a conspiracy theory, juts perpetrated by arab's instead of illegal european immigrants' offspring· Lygophile has spoken 04:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As anyone with a modicum of knowledge of history knows, there have been large-scale conspiracies in the past involving "wide-ranging manipulation and a massive cover-up", such as operation Gladio, officially condemned by the EU in 1990. And in many situations where a state has engaged in a false-flag operation to legitimate wars or tyranny in the homeland, the kinds of publications that certain authors would equate with "objective sources" have fully backed the official "truths".

If someone doesn't see any problem even with the way in which WTC 7, in particular, has been investigated, he or she is more "blue-eyed" than the prototypical Scandinavian blonde.

And can e.g. these 317 professional architects (including well-known experts with long experience and members of the American Institute of Architects) and engineers be dismissed? http://www.ae911truth.org/

There are also several professional blasters and individuals with demolition expertise who now challenge the official fire demolition theory - see e.g.

http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/

I'd rather trust someone who has the credentials *and* addresses the question of how three skyscrapers can all suddenly start dropping at the speed of 7-8 floors per second than someone (NIST, for example) who does not address the actual collapse at all in a 10,000 page report. Perscurator (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with the initial proposal by Hyperbole. I'm not sure about nr 2, because I do not understand it fully. A note to all: Wikipedia is not the place to advocate your personal POV, so please do not SOAPBOX, and also do not CENSOR. We agreed to describe all significant viewpoints fairly. Anyone who thinks that that is a bad idea can propose a policy change at Wikipedia_talk:NPOV.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Hyperbole. This article as it stands is a monument to POV driven by the usual suspects. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS cleanup

Just some notes to keep the article at FA standard:

• WP:PUNC on logical quotes
• WP:NBSP (or {{nowrap}} to join elements where line wrap needs to be avoided
• WP:MOS#Captions, difference in punctuation between sentences and fragments on captions
• MOS:CAPS#All caps, reduce all caps
• Citation formatting: I found many missing publishers, missing dates, missing URLs, missing last access dates, dead links, etc. Date formatting should be consistent throughout the article. Some dates in citations were linked, some not; some were Month Day, Year and some were ISO format, so I switched all citation formatting to one style, ISO which is easier. Perhaps the article originally had one style, but over time several were introduced.

Almost finished; a few more at the bottom to go. Also, the NYT archives are available online, so I filled in some URLs. Periodically, the dead link checker can be run to check the links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, there are a few pieces of data in the last section that need updating.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia, but will get to this sooner or later. Thank you for taking the time to help with the article. --Aude (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallery of the new building

The new building looks very nice and pretty, it is big and reflective and easy to photograph. Is it possible to add a gallery of photos of the new building to the bottom of this article? And as well as the outdoor shots, some photos inside too (I assume it has some kind of main hall or something). I think more photos would be very useful and that a gallery at the end would proove to be very useful to wikipedia readers. JayKeaton (talk) 08:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't tend to add galleries to many featured articles to avoid clutter and to ensure that photographers don't edit war to get their image in place over others. There is a link at the bottom of the page to Wikimedia Commons, where there are a couple dozen images easily viewable.--MONGO 08:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I always thought galleries looked really classy in articles, especially articles about architecture, but I never did consider that photographers may fight to get their own photos up over other peoples. JayKeaton (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will say that this article differs from many other architecture ones in that, because there is so much content about the history, there is less room left for images of the building. I think that the image of the office lobby could go and be replaced by another image of the building in its setting, or an image of the lobby of the building itself, which is I think more relevant and also quite interesting. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center lobby and lighting at night

We might have room for one more photo. The NYAS lobby picture is there, to go with the text about how the interior office space is designed. Not mentioned in the article since I'm not sure I have a source, but something else notable are the doors used (the one to the corridor, and doors to the elevator/core area), which have ~2 hour fire resistance. The designers told me how they had a hard time finding something that "didn't look like they came from a prison". Anyway, feel free to look through my Flickr set for the building and suggest something else to add or to switch photos. Or if someone else has something worthwhile to add, that's fine. --Aude (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the security guards didn't like me taking pictures of the lobby. Though, I have some pictures from behind the lobby, in the elevator area. Also, this picture (right) is taken from outside at night, shows the lighting features of the building. I think it would go well with the text, but it's just my opinion. --Aude (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shrine II

This article remains a shrine to the official version of events; a group of guardians are on constant watch to ensure that there is nothing in this Wiki article other than a GWB/Cheney press release. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

go figure!· Lygophile has spoken 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I have for the WikiNazis that maintain constant vigilance over articles like this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NXU4IBSFnfM Jump ahead to 4:05 for the wikipedia reference. And its not just articles relating to 9/11. 12.205.138.36 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious. Beam (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Be Two/Three Articles?

The old and new WTC 7 buildings share only their name and location. Wouldn't it make more sense to split this article into two -- one for each building? The issues around the collapse of the old might even warrant a third article. Just an opinion. SkyDot (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

-- I couldn't agree more. A bifurcation should be done in those 3 topics: the old tower, the new tower and the collapse theories. Regarding the collapse topic, I don't think that there will be a final explanation and even if it does, it will be impossible for everyone to believe it. I think that official arguments and investigations should be quoted and look for proofs to prove them true or false. I will like to add as a media source, an Archived version of the BBC reporting the the WT7 collapsing before it happened. This is not to be discussed. The director of the Archive confirm the validity of this video. The video is at http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736 This doesn't prove anything, but I think proof-based theories or inconsistencies should be listed in this 3rd article.

Juanlacueva (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause of collapse WTC7

The following line in this article is speculation:

"... due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage."

NIST has not yet released it's final findings. You should remove this hypothetical cause of collapse from the article.

I would like to replace the above text with:

"... The cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is still undetermined. NIST is currently investigating factors contributing to this collapse. NIST's final report is expected in or after July 2008." [10]

[ADDED 14 apr 2008] Since no complaints have been voiced, i changed "... due to the combined effect of structural and fire damage." to "... The cause of the collapse of WTC 7 is still undetermined. NIST is currently investigating factors contributing to this collapse. NIST's final report is expected in or after July 2008."

Henkbein (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have suggested a compromise. It is misleading to say that no determination of the cause of the collapse has been made. What is unclear to NIST is only the exact mechanism that brought the building down.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Compromise Accepted. Henkbein (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"adjacent" in the introduction

WTC7 was not "adjacent" either to WTC1 nor to WTC2. The distances were:

• WTC7-WTC1: 108m
• WTC7-WTC2: 215m

Therefore, the sentence

• "On September 11, 2001the building was damaged by debris when the adjacent Twin Towers collapsed."

should be altered (by someone who is allowed to do so) to

• "along with adjacent buildings, the 108m distant WTC7 was damaged by debris when the Twin Towers collapsed"

Regards, --Stephan Schneider (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought the page was blocked. It isn't, so I did the change myself. The new sentence is:

• On September 11, 2001, the WTC7 was damaged by debris when the 108 m distant Twin Towers collapsed.

Regards, --Stephan Schneider (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"nearby" instead of "adjacent" is OK for me, thank you! --Stephan Schneider (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. Adjacent also sounded odd to my ears. (The dictionary, it turns out, does grant that it can mean "nearby" (which WTC 7 is), rather than "connected to" (which was the problematic sense). Cheers!--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is misleading to say that debris from *both* towers damaged WTC 7. No heavy debris from the South Tower reached the building, only dust. NIST, too, is only considering North Tower debris as a contributor to the destruction. So I suggest that this be changed to "damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower collapsed". Perscurator (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was outright saying that. But I think I've fixed it now.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it's clearer now. Perscurator (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What about the statement that the building was 610 feet tall? I've seen the figure 570 feet (or 174 meters). Perscurator (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The two sources given in the article differ on this. Apparently, 570 feet is without the penthouses and 618 feet with the penthouses. Perscurator (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

POV

How can the belief of 16 percent of Americans be swept away with the label "conspiracy theorists"? From [11]:

"The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not burning passenger jets, were the real reason the massive twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."

This is undisputed fact. It is very relevant. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other things Americans believe: 78% believe in angels, 68% devil, 25% witches, 31% astrology, 51% ghosts. 53% of Americans disagree with the notion that the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year (alternative views: once a day (20%), once a month (13%), it's a trick question because in reality the Sun revolves around the Earth (20%)). 56% of Americans say an atom is smaller than an electron. Yet the articles on atom and electron don't give equal time to the opinion of the polled.

Peoples' beliefs do not equal reality. Reality is not determined by an American popular vote. Lack of conspiracycruft is not POV. Weregerbil (talk)

I don't think I ever said that the fact I reported implies that that theory is true. That must have been your biased conclusion. Labelling 16% of Americans "conspiracy theorists" (and by the way without reporting the figure) is POV. Not having a dedicated section about the controversy is not in line with reality and is POV. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I just find it hilarious a conspiracy nut like 210.131.167.98 just said "not in line with reality". That really made my day. Cdynas (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, using the pejorative "conspiracy theorists" connotes an under current sense of "kookery". Since the phrase"Their concerns are shared by hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts" appears directly after, why not simply rearrange the paragraph as follows:

Hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts, believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[45][46] They demand an "independent investigation with subpoena power" into the destruction of 7 World Trade Center and the Twin Towers.[47]

Wouldn't this change be more intellectually honest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.91 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn’t be more 'intellectually honest'. It is a matter of opinion if you believe being a conspiracy theorist is a pejorative. Look up the definition: "A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act." I think conspiracy theorist is a perfect fit for this description. Because, you know, that's what they are. They believe in a theory that is a conspiracy.. show us the proof of the 'demolition bombs' used to take down the towers, you can't, because there is no proof - just claims.. if you're worried the description has an undercurrent of "kookery" you should be. Believing the towers were blown up in controlled demolition is beyond ridiculous. Cdynas (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Going forward, I actually think the whole paragraph;[12]

“ Their concerns are shared by hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts, who demand an "independent investigation with subpoena power into the destruction of 7 World Trade Center and the Twin Towers. ”

Should be deleted. The citation comes from a biased website with extremely questionable credentials. If everyone is so hung up conspiracies, whose to say the website didn’t fabricated the people who signed to the petition? 1 look at the website [13] and you can see it is littered with 9/11 conspiracy propaganda that has been proven to be fallacies time and time again. Cdynas (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but Wikipedia needs to be neutral with controversial topics. The paragraph should stay. Noah¢s (Talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see how encompassing citations sourced from a subjective website into this article contribute to making it 'neutral'? Cdynas (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Come out of your POV fog. The official story posited is a conspiracy theory by definition. Do you think that 118 NYFD firefighters' oral testimony finally released to the NY Times after 4 years of supression isn't relevant? They each heard, saw or felt multiple explosions in the WTC buildings. Have you read the recent NY times article depicting direct Pentagon propaganda? Are you aware of Operation Mockingbird? One could conclude that the NIST website is subjective. Maybe you work for CENTCOM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.91 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You stated, "the citation comes from a biased website with extremely questionable credentials". Please share your specific findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.181.91 (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

NY times articles, firefighters testimonies, pentagon propaganda and so on & on.. What has this got to do with anything? That is some of the most immaterial jabber I have ever read. I am not contesting any of your claims, if did; please show me where? Please re-read (assuming you actually even read my main argument) my argument. Regrettably buddy; you're the one wedged in a colossal POV fog. I am purely trying to poise this article whilst you are throwing all sorts of claims in the wind. Centcom??? Cdynas (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Add video of collapse?

Do does anyone think that we should include a picture/video still 7 WTC collapsing? Fair use should cover it. Noah¢s (Talk) 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good point. Its very obvious any mention of the controversy is gone. I mean, I don't know WHAT to believe, but the fact the controversy isn't mentioned in the article is re-god damned-diculous. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Lead - A Question of Neutral Voice - Is it violating Wikipedia neutrality rules?

I have been asked by an editor to bring our private discussion of this matter to this page. Your opinions are welcome.

I have done some reading on Wikipedia policies concerning content and have come across this one germane to content currently residing in the Lead section of the article:

" Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view"."

I suggest to you that the 'Lead' of this story does not contain a 'neutral point of view' as required by Wikipedia rules. The statement "...its structural integrity was further compromised by fires..." is presented as a statement of undisputed fact. This statement is indeed disputed by hundreds of reputable scientists and engineers and has not been proven to be true.

One editor I was communicating with on this matter has stated that Wikipedia is not concerned about 'facts' but only in presenting the views of 'reliable sources' such as FEMA. Well, there are many other 'reliable sources' which disagree with this statement - yet that disputed statement appears in the Lead as if it were uncontested and a 'commonly accepted fact'. It is not. I suggest to you that the Lead should be changed to adopt a neutral position on this statement - the aforementioned statement is not 'widely accepted as true' and does not meet Wikipedia requirements of neutrality.

The editor I was having a private discussion with on this matter has replied that changing this widely challenged statement would "give undue weight to conspiracy theories". Perhaps. But who is to be the judge of "undue weight". To make such a judgement is to take on the role of a judge and decide what is true and what is not. This is directly against current Wikipedia policies.

I suggest instead that the Lead adopt a neutral voice on disputed statements of fact. In the case above this can be accomplished simply by adding "According to the FEMA report" to the statement "...its structural integrity was further compromised by fires..." This will ensure that the views of a 'reliable source' (FEMA) are presented while ensuring that the neutral voice of the Wikipedia Lead is not compromised. As it stands now, the voice of the Wikipedia Lead on this statement appears to be the voice of FEMA. The rights of the readers of Wikipedia to unbiased information should trump any other consideration.

Thank you for your consideration of these ideas. Redking123 (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy, controversy, controversy

Is not mentioned in the article at all. Which is odd. Because this building sure has a shitload of controversy surrounding it. Oh gosh, he swore. Get over it, kids -- its the real world, people swear. And the fact this article is missing a section titled "Controversy" or something to that effect is GLARING. Come on. Here are the differnet URLs of the forementioned video, btw. Obviously a "controversy" section has merit.
http://911review.org/Storage/Http/www.nerdcities.com/guardian/WTC/wtc7-demolition.gif
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc7.gif
http://www.truthaction.org/images/wtc7.gif
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/img/wtc7.gif
http://www.denverpatriotcommunity.org/911CD/wtc7.gif
http://www.911falseflag.com/images/wtc-7.gif
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m296/compman67/WTC7.gif
http://www.911hardfacts.com/images/wtc-7.gif
http://yellowcakewalk.net/wtc7.gif
http://www.veteransfor911truth.org/images/wtc7_collapse_lg.gif
http://home.chello.no/trondh/collapse-wtc7.gif
A different angle: http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6720/wtc7cbslowmance1.gif
Obviously a "controversy" section has merit.

--Ragemanchoo (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of videos, mostly from conspiracy theorist websites, does not constitute reliable sourcing for an article. Conspiracy theorist claims are already given a mention in this article (and in more depth at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center) and per WP:UNDUE we don't need any more here. Hut 8.5 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Floors?

In the infobox it says 52, but in the lead it says 47. Alaskan assassin (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the article history. Someone recently changed one of those values. It's likely that the change was vandalism, but I hope someone can verify the info against a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is 52. The 47 figure is for the building destroyed in 9/11, and further down our article says the new one is 49 floors, with a reference [14], but it's easy to find loads of references saying 52 - the official website, an architect, Britannica, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, New York observer, New York Times etc. Hut 8.5 20:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the figure in the body of the article to 52. --Hut 8.5 20:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories

As part of my other modifications to this article, I had added the following sentence after the sentence referring to conspiracy theorists:

Their concerns are shared by hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts, who demand an "independent investigation with subpoena power" into the destruction of 7 World Trade Center and the Twin Towers.

After a reflexive removal and my reversal, it was allowed to stay for weeks - until someone made a "spelling correction" and removed it. When I then returned it, I was threatened with a *ban* on my Talk page.

Yes, ban! Is this really how things work at Wikipedia? I'd really hope not.

Why shouldn't the large number of professional engineers, architects (many of them well-known members of the American Institute of Architects) and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories be referred to in this article? (Note that the actual number of AE professionals is already higher than the 385 mentioned at http://www.ae911truth.org/ - this is because, as I've been informed, there is backlog of over 100 persons in the verification of credentials.)

Earlier someone indicated they should not be mentioned because they are conspiracy theorists. Can someone really seriously claim that e.g. Danny Jowenko, the head of a Dutch controlled demolition company with 30 years of experience in the field, can simply be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist"? Jowenko has reaffirmed his original expert analysis according to which WTC 7 can only have been a controlled demolition.

Are the people at Bentham Publishing "conspiracy-minded" when its engineering journal publishes an article by physicists and engineers that challenges the official theories?

The unquestioning reliance on the official investigations in this article is truly mind-boggling, in the light of many obvious problems: for example, no on-site investigation was conducted, and by 15 March 2002 only four (4) pieces of steel from WTC 7 had been salvaged for investigation (from where the steel was temporarily stored before it was shipped abroad for melting). Some of those few pieces revealed a "very unusual phenomenon" - intergranular melting of steel, among other things - prompting FEMA to call for a detailed investigation into this. NIST has not conducted such an investigation. It says "no steel was recovered from WTC 7".

A careful documentation and examination of the steel debris of the building would have revealed the cause for its destruction. Instead, we have had pure official speculation, year after year, aiming to come up with a plausible explanation for how random (20-minute) fires and asymmetric damage could have caused 81 steel columns to fail. Anyone can realize that what we have witnessed is no building disaster investigation. The cause of a skyscraper's collapse is not investigated by first destroying the physical research material and then starting to speculate.

Incidentally, I discussed this at some length in my presentation at the Finnish Social Forum in Tampere last weekend, as part of a seminar entitled (English translation) "9/11: a Terrorist Attack by Muslims or a False-Flag Operation Common from History?" http://www.sosiaalifoorumi.fi/292 Many members of the audience were visibly stunned by the way in which the demise of this skyscraper - one of the major building disasters in history - has been "investigated".

Finally, to return briefly to the notion "conspiracy theorists": even in the 1930s Germany, those who saw what the Reichstag fire was used to legitimate and saw what was coming, were often dismissed as such. Similar things are happening in today's USA: illegal wiretapping, the increasing curtailment of civil rights, legalized torture, the loss of Habeas Corpus, no-fly lists, lists of citizens' activists, anyone suspected of terrorism can be detained for an indefinite period without access to legal counsel, etc. At Wikipedia, we should minimally keep the articles neutral, instead of being oblivious of all the problems in the official narrative. Yet some Wiki editors seem to do their best to allow history to repeat itself. Perscurator (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who removed it, then, and why? What is the benefit of including this, and what is the benefit of removing it? --Michelle, 22 May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Kuiper (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Video

It is best we not link to the videos of the collapse because it looks too much like controlled demolition and we don't want the sheep to see that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.70.14 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tenants

NAIC Securities was not a tenant of 7 WTC. As stated in that company's wikipedia page, their headquarters is in Michigan. It should read the Securities Valuation Office of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. This is now corrected in the article. --Aude (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

POV

I think this article as it stands is not POV enough. We should remove any mention of the controlled demolition theory. 220.104.123.23 (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that NIST is government-funded, pulverised dust was viewed, a 'kink' is seen on the roof as it collapses, it collapses in a radially symmetrical manner (it suffered assymmetric damage), and every one of its 80-odd struts wouldve had to fail simultaneously for it to collapse the way that it did, a mention of controlled demolition in this article is an absolute necessity.81.103.164.119 (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you failed to notice the sarcastic tone. 170.148.96.107 (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM. Hut 8.5 08:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

still... 221.191.93.206 (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to architects, engineers and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories

[this section was archived soon after I had entered it, and as it received one pertinent question, I re-enter the relevant parts]

As part of my other modifications to this article, I had added the following sentence after the sentence referring to conspiracy theorists:

"Their concerns are shared by hundreds of architectural and engineering professionals plus a number of demolition experts, who demand an 'independent investigation with subpoena power' into the destruction of 7 World Trade Center and the Twin Towers."

After a reflexive removal and my reversal (in which I pointed out that the sentence was relevant in its context), it was allowed to stay for weeks - until someone made a "spelling correction" and removed it.

Why shouldn't the large number of professional engineers, architects (many of them well-known members of the American Institute of Architects) and demolition experts who disagree with NIST's theories be referred to in this article?

(Note that the actual number of AE professionals is already higher than the 387 mentioned at http://www.ae911truth.org/ - this is because, as I've been informed by one of the verifiers, there is backlog of over 100 persons in the verification of credentials. Yes, careful verification has been place for a long time on the site.)

Earlier someone indicated these people should not be mentioned because they are conspiracy theorists. Can someone really seriously claim that e.g. Danny Jowenko, the head of a Dutch controlled demolition company with 30 years of experience in the field, can simply be dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist"? Jowenko has reaffirmed his original expert analysis according to which WTC 7 can only have been a controlled demolition.

Are the people at Bentham "conspiracy-minded" when its engineering journal published an article by physicists and engineers that challenges the official theories?

"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction"

Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti and James R. Gourley

Bentham, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, Volume 2, Issue 1

The article is freely downloadable at

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

The unquestioning reliance on the official investigations in this article is truly mind-boggling, in the light of many obvious problems: for example, no on-site investigation was conducted, and by 15 March 2002 only four (4) pieces of steel from WTC 7 had been salvaged for investigation (from where the steel was temporarily stored before it was shipped abroad for melting). Some of those few pieces revealed a "very unusual phenomenon" - intergranular melting of steel, among other things - prompting FEMA to call for a detailed investigation into this. NIST has not conducted such an investigation. It says "no steel was recovered from WTC 7".

A careful documentation and examination of the steel debris of the building would have revealed the cause and mechanism of its destruction. Instead, we have had pure official speculation, year after year, aiming to come up with a plausible explanation for how random (20-minute) fires and asymmetric damage could have caused 81 steel columns to fail. Anyone can realize that what we have seen is no building disaster investigation. The cause of a skyscraper's collapse is not investigated by first destroying the physical research material and then starting to speculate.

Incidentally, I discussed this at some length in my presentation at the Finnish Social Forum in Tampere earlier this month, as part of a seminar entitled (my English translation) "9/11: a Terrorist Attack by Muslims or a False-Flag Operation Familiar from History?" http://www.sosiaalifoorumi.fi/292 Many members of the audience were visibly stunned by the way in which the demise of this skyscraper - one of the worst building disasters in history - has been "investigated".

Finally, to return briefly to the notion "conspiracy theorists": even in the 1930s Germany, those who saw what the Reichstag fire was used to legitimate and saw what was coming, were often dismissed as such. Similar things are happening in today's USA: illegal wiretapping, the increasing curtailment of civil rights, legalized torture, the loss of Habeas Corpus, no-fly lists, lists of citizens' activists, anyone suspected of terrorism can be detained for an indefinite period without access to legal counsel, etc. At Wikipedia, we should at least maintain neutrality in the articles that deal with the "legitimating" events for these developments, instead of being oblivious of all the problems and even internal contradictions in the official narrative. Perscurator (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Who removed it, then, and why? What is the benefit of including this, and what is the benefit of removing it? --Michelle, 22 May —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelle Kuiper (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One benefit in including it is in the recognition of the fact that there are a large number of professionals in the relevant fields who question or reject NIST's (and FEMA's) theories of what brought the building to its foundations. By contrast, no benefit is achieved by raising the flawed official investigations into a pedestal and pretending that there is no serious scientific support for the controlled demolition hypothesis.

In fact, the BBC's upcoming special on WTC7 will be aired in June. In its program description, it also points out that the debris was hastily destroyed without investigation. Surely, that would be RS enough to warrant a mention of the evidence destruction in the article?

In any case, the publication in a peer-reviewed journal (the "Open" in the name refers to the fact that the articles are freely downloadable on the net) of an article by scientists who reject NIST's theorizing merits mention in a neutral and objective Wikipedia article. Suggestions? Perscurator (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest you re-read WP:UNDUE, and in particular the section concerning tiny minorities and prominent adherents. The architects and engineers involved in this petition are a very small minority and contain no prominent or influential names. It is right to mention that there are skeptics and to refer to the relevant article on their views: it is undue weight to insist that this particular group be mentioned in the main article, implying some form of currency or influence in the A/E community that simply does not exist. There are roughly 95,000 registered US architects, and hundreds of thousands of engineers. 200 of them are on this list. Acroterion _(talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, I'd be inclined to treat that source with scepticism, as similar creationist lists of "experts supporting our cause" are highly misleading. Hut 8.5 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely concur with both Acroterion and Hut. Furthermore, I believe this sentence is a ideal example of WP:Weasel. Not only that, I don’t know how credible the website listing these engineers, architects etc. really is. One look at the website and it is littered with 9/11 conspiracy theory propaganda, it is unquestionably subjective by all means. Cdynas (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

First, it is not true that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has no prominent or influential names. To give just one example: Marx Ayres is a "former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities." http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/4

I also don't think it is *right* to try to bypass those professionals who have actually looked into this as "conspiracy theorists". This is what effectively happens when the skeptics' petition is listed as a source in connection with a statement referring to the "theorists". Associating 9/11 skeptics with Creationists seems to be the latest strategy and has apparently found its way here, too.

As already mentioned, in its current form this article represents one-sided propaganda that e.g. completely avoids even mentioning the absurdity of the investigation, which even mainstream sources seem to be starting to address.

Finally: there doesn't seem to be a debate over whether Bentham is a reputable source, which is a good thing. Perscurator (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're following me. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is exactly the sort of organization described in WP:UNDUE. As an advocacy organization, they aren't a reliable source. Mr. Ayers is a respected HVAC engineer: if we were discussing air conditioning, he'd be an expert. Otherwise, he's one of a small community of skeptics, compared with 83,000 AIA members or 141,000 ASCE members. Bentham is a different matter: I don't have an opinion on whether it's "good" or bad, merely that information based on that source is more in line with policy, provided it is stated appropriately, and not used for vindication or condemnation of a particular point of view. Acroterion _(talk) 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will further note that Bentham appears to be something like a vanity press for scientific articles, so I question its usefulness. Acroterion _(talk) 01:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I suggest you have a bit closer look at the qualifications (and 9/11 statement) of mr Ayres (note spelling) here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

That site, incidentally, lists the qualifications and statements of a large number of respected individuals in different fields, including Lynn Margulis, a world-renowned scientist and former chair of the National Academy of Science's Space Science Board Committee: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Margulis

The large majority of the members of the American Institute of Architects, for example, have not expressed a stand on 9/11, so the membership of AE911Truth cannot be simply contrasted with other architects and engineers by saying that all the others have the opposite view. From what I have read, there is a lot of skepticism among building professionals, but many are unlikely to voice it for professional or other personal reasons. As a whole, those Americans who question the official explanations of 9/11 are, based on various polls, not exactly a tiny majority either.

I would say that Architects and Engineers of 9/11 Truth are, in fact, a far more reliable source than FEMA and NIST in that they are actually themselves investigating, and demanding an objective investigation of, an obvious alternative hypothesis for the total destruction of three skyscrapers on 9/11. It has to be understood that there have been glaring "irregularities" in the official investigation, protested by several relevant parties. E.g., as already pointed out, the debris of WTC 7, especially, was destroyed without investigation, and the investigation necessitated by (and called for on the basis of) the findings from the few steel pieces that were salvaged was never carried out. Another example: NIST simply ignored the results of its own experiment in which steel was subjected to considerably more severe and longer-lasting fire exposure than on 9/11, and the steel did just fine (as NIST had to note in the relevant section of its report). There are other examples. NIST has clearly done its best to fit the facts into its predetermined conclusions - a clearly unscientific modus operandi.

As such, this is not surprising, as NIST is a government institution. More generally, in different countries, the mainstream media have historically aligned themselves in an unquestioning manner with official stories legitimating attacks against the desired targets. Viewing things from the outside may give a more neutral perspective. Is Italian TV's Canale 5 a "respected source"? It aired a long investigative piece on 9/11. Here's an excerpt from the program that deals with WTC 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 One can actually hear several powerful explosions in it. In one scene, first responders are startled by a loud explosion. Of course, whatever the cause of the explosions (also reported by first responders in the towers), their role in the destruction of the buildings should have been found out!

Now that you got me going, allow me to point out that the evidence that 9/11 was a false-flag operation is, unfortunately, already stronger than, say, the evidence for the Operation Gladio in cold-war Europe - an operation that the EU officially condemned in 1990. In Gladio, hundreds of civilians were murdered in false-flag terror attacks blamed on the Left (for power-political reasons) "in certain Member States", in which "military secret services (or uncontrolled branches thereof) were involved in serious cases of terrorism and crime" (from the EU resolution). To substantiate this claim, I copied below a list presented at the Finnish Social Forum earlier this month of some major reasons to doubt the official story. A couple of such points could perhaps still be explained as a coincidence, incompetence or luck on the part of the administration, but in toto they amount to powerful evidence that the official story does not hold up.

1) When everyone knew the country was under attack, President Bush was not carried into safety from his publicized location in the Sarasota school. [Of course, in a "real" attack the President would have been brought into an undisclosed safe location without delay. The White House's revisionist account was shown to be false by the footage shown in Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", since then available on the net. After continuing to listen to the children's reading exercise for a good while, Bush continued his photo-op in the classroom, and then gave a press conference at the school.]

2) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continued his breakfast meeting until the third target – the Pentagon – had been attacked. [Of course, in a "real" attack the defense secretary would have responded immediately to such a calamity.]

3) The Pentagon was struck over an hour after the attacks had started.

4) The Andrews Air Force Base, where combat units were kept ”in the highest possible state of readiness”, was only 12 miles from the Pentagon.

5) Three completely different explanations for the failure to reach any of the planes have been given. No one has been charged with lying, and no one has resigned due to negligence.

6) Even the FBI acknowledged in 2006 that it has "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". Yet Afghanistan was officially invaded in search of Osama, while Saddam was accused of complicity in the attacks in cooperation with Osama.

7) Many professional pilots have said they could not have performed the required maneuvers. The alleged hijackers, in turn, had only flown small planes, and many poorly at that.

8) Simultaneously with the attacks, an anti-hijacking exercise was going on.

9) The Bush administration fought against the establishment of the 9/11 Commission for over 400 days, then manned it with its "trusted persons".

10) WTC: the total destruction of three skyscrapers in seconds; the numerous (ignored) accounts of explosions; the near-total destruction of the steel debris without investigation.

11) Qui bono? Who profited? The attacks provided the desired impetus for the military-industrial complex, triggered "a war that will not end in our lifetime" wherever desired, and legitimated increasingly Orwellian laws, a "national security state", repression of citizens' rights, illegal spying, Guantanamo, and torture.

12) The anthrax letters posted soon after the 9/11 attacks. The bacteria used in the letters were traced to a U.S. military laboratory, after which the investigation came to a halt. Two Senators received a letter. They had delayed the passing of the 342-page Patriot Act legislation, written before the attacks but rushed through under the pretext of the attacks.

Perscurator (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is an interesting collection of original research, synthesis, rumor, doubt, suspicion and commentary, but none of it can be the basis of Wikipedia content, except as it pertains to 9/11 conspiracy theories - and even there, it must be appropriately sourced. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a place for manifestoes. Since you commented in the ArbCom case, you should be aware of the terms stated for editors participating in 9/11-related topics: please note the particular emphasis on undue weight. Here is the link; please review items 1 to 3 of the principles stated, because they apply here, and affect your participation in this matter. Please respect these guidelines and the consensus of the community, and please do not use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Acroterion _(talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that none of the above can be part of Wikipedia content in so far Wikipedia content is based on an unquestioning acceptance of certain sources considered as "reliable". To continue the historical analogy, in the 1930s and 1940s Germany the mainstream sources buttressed the official reasons for the increasingly suppressive legislation and the wars. Similarly, basing everything on the U.S. corporate media very closely connected with the military-industrial complex (excellent documentaries have discussed this, and remember the recent revelations about the Pentagon-sponsored "commentators) and the war-hungry U.S. administration is a very unfortunate policy.

The glaring problems in the official 9/11 narrative have been extensively analyzed in several books published by reputable science publishers and in TV and other documentaries, especially those made outside the U.S. The current Wikipedia policy could be summed up by saying that no matter how absurd or impossible an official explanation, articles will be based on it if it is reported (in the sense "re-ported", or transmitted) by the New York Times or Washington Post - whose office chief, incidentally, acknowledged to me that the WP should have *investigated* several things about 9/11 - and they still haven't, while the independent media have, but their carefully detailed analyses cannot be mentioned.

By the way, one aspect of the absurdity of the official explanations can be wittnessed by simply having a reflective look at the following:

http://www.newguards.us/brent/wtc/WTC_Frame1_Crop_p8310115.jpg

http://www.newguards.us/brent/wtc/WTC_Frame3_Crop_p8310117.jpg

Perscurator (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments here have no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. All articles must be written according to our rules. If you aren't prepared to live with that then there's nothing obliging you to edit here. Hut 8.5 09:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

One more comment: all of the points mentioned at the Finnish Social Forum, quoted above, are verified and verifiable facts. It is just a question if one does not have any problem with those facts - such as the president being allowed to stay in a publicized location long after the attacks started; that no air defense arrived from an air force base only 12 miles from the Pentagon; that no one has been charged with lying although several different explanations have been offered, etc. As a Finn, I can in a way understand why the U.S. corporate media won't critically analyze the (even internally contradictory) official stories - we had our own uncritical media during the 1960s and 1970s, which was "Finlandized" vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

Incidentally, sometimes rules are worth modifying. Perscurator (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable that, for instance, Bush stayed in the classroom for ten minutes after being told that a second plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. You then interpret this fact to support the viewpoint that he knew about the attacks in advance, which contravenes our no original research policy. If you want to change the rules, then you should go to the policy talk page and try and get a consensus for the change. It is unlikely you will succeed. Hut 8.5 16:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is also verifiable that Bush stayed in the school even longer than that. And to be precise, I'm not trying to support the viewpoint that "Bush knew about the attacks in advance"; what I am saying is that his security detail somehow had to know that the publicized location would continue to be safe for the President (and the children, for that matter). I also pointed out that the White House promoted a false story about the President leaving immediately after being told about the second strike - ie, that they lied. Perscurator (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a general forum for discussion of 9/11. What you are posting here doesn't confirm to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and even if it did it shouldn't be in this article because it has nothing to do with 7 WTC. Hut 8.5 19:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected your claim that I interpreted Bush staying in the classroom as an indication that Bush knew about the attacks in advance. Perscurator (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're interpreting it as an indication of something. That's where you violate WP:NOR. Hut 8.5 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If the President was allowed to remain for over half an hour in a publicized location, one does not really need to interpret it as meaning that the location was considered safe! http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2026.shtml

(The above article, incidentally, exhibits elements of the kind of investigative journalism that the corporate media should be pursuing. Or does it not matter at all what the Secretary of Defense was doing for half an hour before the Pentagon was attacked, and how he acted after that? To the 9/11 Commission it clearly did not.) Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There are other valid interpretations (what's more interpretations that are backed up by sources). Bush didn't want to spread panic [15], and if he had stormed out of the room the footage would have been replayed endlessly on television and it wouldn't have done much for national morale. Hut 8.5 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a valid interpretation. The President's security is responsible for safeguarding the life of the Head of State! If terrorists had killed the President in his publicized location, what do you think would have happened to national morale?

The president could simply have calmly excused himself and left (to avoid being carried away by his security detail).

Rumsfeld's behavior was even stranger, in light of the official story. He did not no anything to protect the country the whole time (see the above-linked article). Perscurator (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You have been told this before, but I will respectfully remind you that neither Wikipedia or the talk pages are to be used as a soapbox. Please stop. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

So I should not have had the right to respond to Hut's argument with my counterargument? Perscurator (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I put that argument there to demonstrate that your interpretation doesn't have to follow from the evidence, not to try to persuade you it is correct. Hut 8.5 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given the evidence and logic, I just think it is much more plausible to argue that Bush was allowed to stay at the school because there was no threat to the President there than to argue that the President's decision to "project calm" could have been the reason for not evacuating him (and the children). Perscurator (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that Bentham article

There is a serious question about whether this journal of Bentham's is legitimate or not, and a serious question about whether the letter submitted by Jones et al was peer-reviewed or not.

The journal appears to be a vanity publication. Bentham is known to spam not only for articles but also FOR EDITORS, asking academics repeatedly to join its editorial board to review articles that are entirely outside of the academics' field of expertise.

Further, with specific reference to this letter by Jones et al (and is a letter, not a paper - take a look at Bentham's submissions page), a fellow over at JREF wrote to Bentham to make inquiries about its peer review process and about the editorial standards of the publication (because the letter, on its face, is blatantly unsuited to a civil engineering journal, as it is badly written, inappropriate in tone and content, presents no new material or argument, does not advance the state of the discipline, and is almost certainly not of interest to the target audience of the journal).

The publishing director, Mahmood Alam, then sent the inquiry to - get this - not to the editors or the editorial board, but to the authors for them to respond to it! If that isn't evidence of a broken "peer review" process, I don't know what is. I have never, ever heard of a legitimate journal sending inquiries about its editorial standards and its peer review process to the submitter of an article for response. That is just bizarre, and I cannot imagine any legitimate journal would do such a thing.

The fellow at JREF then wrote to the Editor in Chief, Dr. Dong-Sheng Jeng of the University of Dundee, and informed him of the situation. Dr. Dong-Sheng advised that prior to him taking over the publication, the publishers handled all submissions rather than the editors. Dr. Dong-Sheng correctly insisted that all publications must go through the editors, but the Jones et al paper did not. What's more, the Editor in Chief tried to find out who were the reviewers were, and he could not. Have you ever heard of a legitimate engineering journal in which submissions don't even make it to the editors, and in which the Editor in Chief cannot find out from the publishers who the alleged reviewers are?

So, in summary, I think that the reference to the Jones et al letter being "peer reviewed", ought to be removed from the article unless and until there is evidence that it was peer reviewed at all. {Jazz2006 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)}

It has been removed. Even in the tangible reference it didn’t cite anything about a peer-review anywhere. I worried Perscurator is slowly trying to obliterate the neutrality of this article by militantly enforcing his POV. Cdynas (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

He or she added it back in and it is in the current version of the article, as follows: "In spring 2008, a civil engineering journal published a peer-reviewed article written by supporters of the controlled demolition theory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazz2006 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot is quick :) I added another comment to say that I had forgotten to sign my last comment and I got an error message "edit conflict" while trying to post the comment with my signature. Good job, SineBot! {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)}

Agreed. I doubt whether thus should be in the article at all, given that the authors sent various articles to several peer-reviewed journals in an effort to find one that would publish something in order to make their cause look more legitimate. [16] Hut 8.5 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Bentham uses a fee-based financial model, rather than a subscription model, they are more akin to a vanity press than a traditional peer-reviewed scientific journal, and I think we should treat them as we treat other fee-based publishers - as unreliable sources. Acroterion _(talk) 12:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A conspiracy theorist letter, a minor web publication, a publication fee, very few external reliable sources, Wikipedia:Recentism, ... ...Why is an encyclopedia even mentioning non-notable ultra-fringe stuff like this outside a conspiracycruft article...??? Weregerbil (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It is way outside the realm of the encyclopedic aims of Wikipedia. It appears to be nothing more than an attempt by members of a fringe group to try to use Wiki in an effort to claim credibility that the fringe group cannot gain on its own. Jazz2006 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I read, even the JREF guy didn't have a problem with publication fees per se. After all, they are quite common. If the fees were somehow decisive, there wouldn't be enough space for all the articles that would be published. The peer reviews decide which of the offered articles are published and which not. I don't think publication fees (typically paid by someone else than the author him/herself) in any way detract from the reliability of a journal.

I've read that other papers questioning the official "fire demolition" theories have been accepted for publication. I think this is a welcome development, also because NIST still hasn't explained how fires burning out in 20 minutes in any given place could have weakened a single steel column, let alone cause steel skyscrapers to be destroyed at the average speed of 7 entire floors (or more) per 1 second (110 floors divided by at most 15 seconds). I'd think one doesn't have to be my brother, who is a Master Builder, to see that on average 0.14 seconds (or less) is not enough even in theory for the dropping and total destruction of a floor. Perscurator (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bentham, however, does not appear to be a reliable source. In the larger scientific community, it appears that Bentham is viewed as a vanity publisher with little to no legitimacy. Bentham seems to be about quantity, not quality. It has been established that they spam for authors, spam for editors, seek out both authors and editors who actually have NO connection to or expertise in the subject matters upon which Bentham asks them to participate. It appears that Bentham publishes on a straight "dollars for publication" basis without even going through any editorial process at all. I mean, come on, when not even the Editor in Chief of the publication can find out from the publishing company what the heck is going on, that does not bode well for the legitimacy of the publication as a supposed "peer-reviewed" "journal".

It is not, therefore, a "welcome development" at all that a vanity journal published a letter for a fee, apparently without a care in the world for its lack of validity, lack of legitimacy, lack of accuracy, poor writing, and its complete void of any furtherance of science or scientific inquiry.

And it harms the reputation of Wikipedia to allow unreliable sources to stand, or even to be linked, because Wikipedia's legitimacy as a resource depends upon the legitimacy of the sources that it cites. So, I am also going to remove the link to the Bentham letter, in the interests of Wikipedia's reputation, until this is more fully resolved. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, first substantiate the claim that "In the larger scientific community, it appears that Bentham is viewed as a vanity publisher with little to no legitimacy". Cf. also the endorsements here and on the linked page:

http://www.bentham.org/open/index.htm

Certainly, I will collect up some links to legitimate academics who say that Bentham spams for authors and editors for its journals on subjects that the invited authors and editors have no relevant knowledge or experience. There are several such links in the thread at JREF mentioned above. Also, I have already pointed out to you the serious "peer-review" problem that Bentham has demonstrated in this particular case with the Jones et al letter.{Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Here are some links:

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0604&L=CHMINF-L&P=R10547&I=-3

http://www.library.yale.edu/%7Ellicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/

http://www.freelists.org/archives/neuroling/10-2007/msg00000.html

There are lots more that you can find online by searching for "bentham journals" and "spam".{Jazz2006 (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Thanks - there does appear to be a problem in this respect. I am wondering what the following sentence implies for the Nature magazine, though:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham." Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Even Nature has been regarded as a "vanity journal" by some, eg:

http://harijay.wordpress.com/2006/06/07/science-review-americal-idol-style/

"Supplementary material at 'vanity' journals like Nature already run into 10s of pages." The article expresses reservations for the review practices used in Nature, as does the one below:

"Publishing Versus Posting: Nature Magazine Turns to a Conversational Content Model"

http://www.shore.com/commentary/weblogs/2007/06/publishing-versus-posting-nature.html

The following might be of interest to Wikipedians:

"Nature mag cooked Wikipedia study - Britannica hits back at junk science"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/23/britannica_wikipedia_nature_study/

The purpose of the above examples is just to show that similar critiques as those expressed against Bentham have been voiced even against magazines like Nature. Discrediting a particular science publication based on such critiques is problematic. Perscurator (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that Nature was conducting a trial of the "open review" process, and (quite rightly) rejected it after that trial.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

And: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

There is a vast difference between a respected and legitimate journal and the vanity publication that is Bentham's "open civil engineering" journal. That's why Jones et al had to pay an illegitimate "journal" to publish their "letter" while simultaneously avoiding proper editorial processes. That "letter" would not cut muster in any legitimate scientific journal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

So, no comment on the numerous academics who have been spammed by Bentham to join their outrageously large editorial board, to opine on subjects in which they have no expertise? No problem with the letter by Jones et al bypassing the editorial process? No red flags raised by the fact that more than 40% of the nine articles published in Bentham's "open civil engineering journal" are written by members of its editorial board? No concerns at all about the lack of credibility that this journal seems to have? {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

I wrote above "there does appear to be a problem in this respect". I also asked what the following implies for Nature, for example:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise.

The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print..."

The above suggests that other journals, perhaps even Nature, have earlier been caught using similar questionable strategies. And this is not meant to "purify" Bentham. Perscurator (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be avoiding responding directly to the specific complaints about Bentham here. In particular, the most grievous problems: the letter by Jones et al bypassing the editorial process, the fact that the editor-in-chief cannot even get a proper response from the publishers about whether the letter was peer reviewed or not, the fact that more than 40% of the nine articles published in Bentham's "open civil engineering journal" are written by members of its editorial board, and the extreme lack of credibility that this journal seems to have. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

As I wrote, similar complaints about other respected journals do not, per se, exonerate Bentham. And we cannot rely on one individual's story that the letter by Jones et al bypassed the editorial process and that he could not get a proper response. Perscurator (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Except that Nature was conducting a trial of the "open review" process, and (quite rightly) rejected it after the trial.

See: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html

And: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html

There is a vast difference between a respected and legitimate journal and the vanity publication that is Bentham's "open civil engineering" journal. That's why Jones et al had to pay an illegitimate "journal" to publish their "letter" while simultaneously avoiding proper editorial processes.

When that "one individual" is the editor-in-chief of the publication and he says that the letter bypassed the editorial process, well, I think that's a rational basis upon which to treat the letter as suspect until there is evidence to the contrary. Jones et al appear unwilling to provide any evidence to the contrary.{Jazz2006 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)}

Saying that a journal "publishes a letter for a fee" is highly disingenuous because publication fees are common and because the fee is the same for all so that it cannot decide which of the offered manuscripts are published and which are not (there are always many more manuscripts offered than published).

No, nothing that I said was disingenuous, and you cannot make it so by changing what I actually said to something that I did not say. You are incorrect in assuming or insinuating that Bentham charges the "same fee for all" as it does not. Part of its spam for editors, in fact, includes reference to giving them a 50% discount on its publication fees. Bentham's approach appears to be a blatant attempt to appeal to vanity in hopes of attracting authors and editors, and yet their "peer review" process is fatally flawed. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Here are would need to know if and how many other publishers also provide discounts under various conditions. And what about, for example, the following, quoted by Jones:

"PNAS authors who don't want to wait that long for their articles to become available to everyone can make them instantly free by paying a $1,000 open-access fee, which can be waived in cases of need. The fee drops to $750 for authors from institutions that have site licenses for PNAS. "Springer, another commercial publisher, introduced a similar option in mid-2004 with its Open Choice program. Authors who want their articles to be immediately free to all on Springer's website pay a $3,000 fee..." Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You do recognize that citing an unsupported quote by Steven Jones is not helpful since he's the guy trying to pretend that his little letter is a "peer reviewed paper" in a "legitimate engineering journal", when both of those points are the subject matter of the dispute, right? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

"Unsupported quote"? The passages Jones quotes can be found here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8320openaccess.html

Perscurator (talk) 07:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is well written and offers important information not readily available elsewhere, such as a reference to the evidence independently produced by three research teams of temperatures at the WTC that were considerably higher than what could have been caused by normal building / hydrocarbon fires. It also addresses other important things, including the destruction of steel without investigation. I cannot imagine any of you guys really cannot find any problem with the way WTC 7, in particular, has been investigated - no on-site investigation; 4 pieces of steel collected for investigation by March 15, 2002; the lack of the called-for follow-up on the "highly unusual phenomenon" revealed by some of those collected specimens; delaying the report year after year - or with the media's evident (and quite successful) attempt to bury the subject with its vast implications for construction safety, etc.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with you, and I think that the letter is extremely poorly written, in terms of style, tone and content. It also does not include anything new at all. It cites its own authors' unsubstantiated and highly dubious papers from Jones' own non-journal as sources, and dishonestly calls them "published papers". Come on. Publishing something in your own sham "journal" on your own website doesn't make it a "published paper" or a proper reference for purposes of a legitimate article. It advances no theory, makes no claims (only insinuating accusations), offers no evidence, comes to no result, adds nothing to the field of civil engineering, and it doesn't even include any science. It reads like a blog entry or a "Letter to the Editor" rather than anything that would be accepted by a legitimate technical journal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

Well, although I am not a native speaker of English, I have studied the language as my main subject at the university and done quite a lot of translation work. I have also read quite a number of scientific books and articles, and I find the letter well written and stylistically appropriate for a science journal. But this is a dead end, so let's leave it at that. In terms of content, I could not disagree more.

As regards the credibility of the official investigations, I think it is quite adequately illustrated by the following statement from NIST's lead investigator in 2006, as quoted in the New York Magazine:

NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."

Perhaps they could have got a handle on building 7 if the steel debris had been investigated to determine what had happened inside the facade, and if the called-for detailed studies had been performed. Perscurator (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you put that quote in context [17] you see this is because of staffing and budget problems. That article was published in March 2006 (i.e. more than two years ago), and he must have actually said it a bit before that. Bearing in mind that NIST only resumed investigations on 7 WTC in October the year before, and that investigating a building collapse like this is a very complicated process, they probably didn't know exactly what happened to the building at that time. Hut 8.5 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No. What I meant was that any serious building disaster investigation begins with a careful documentation and examination of the debris to determine the factors and mechanisms causing the destruction (really a platitude, but one that was confirmed to me by one of Finland's leading accident researchers).

Obviously, NIST cannot be accused of destroying the debris without investigation, as that had already been done by the time FEMA published its report in May 2002 in which they said that their hypothesis has "only a low probability of occurrence". However, NIST can be criticized for several things, one of which is not conducting the detailed study called for by FEMA concerning the few steel pieces salvaged from WTC 7 that showed signs of melting, for example. Perscurator (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, even the mainstream media are now (only after 7 years) beginning to address the oddities of the investigation - see the program description of BBC's upcoming WTC 7 special:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7330169.stm

Again, I don't think it is right to refer to e.g. the over 400 architects, engineers and demolition experts (many of them highly respected in their fields) as "conspiracy theorists" when all they are saying, based on their expertise, that the official theories do not hold. Perscurator (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever you call them they (even if they all are what they claim, which is by no means clear) don't hold a minority view that raises to the level of inclusion in an article like this. People wave the number 400 around like it means something, it's a tiny minority of whatever group they claim to belong to. Having said that, a solid case can be made that conspiracy theorists is an apt label as that's what mainstream and reliable sources call them in general. RxS (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

For approximately the fourth time: you are applying undue weight to the opinions and qualifications of a tiny minority. Acroterion _(talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Several polls have shown that those skeptical of the 9/11 explanations given by the war-hungry and clearly criminal administration (caught in one lie, legal violation etc. after another) are not so tiny a minority. On the other hand, as pointed out before, there are no polls to show how large a proportion of architects, engineers, physicists and demolition experts agree or disagree with the members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. To say that the AEs are a tiny minority needs substantiation. On the other hand, significant minority views need to be dealt with fairly. Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Polls of the general public prove very little. 20% of Americans believe that atoms are smaller than electrons,[18] yet this view is not represented on Wikipedia at all. --Hut 8.5 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One may argue that 0.2% of any given population believe in practically any theory you can name on any subject. The idea that the remaining 99.8% apparently have no opinion, or choose not to express one, does not mean that they may be discounted in favor of the stridently-stated opinion of the 0.2%, or that the minority is due greater weight based on the relative depth of their conviction. Acroterion _(talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The polls prove that the skeptics of the official 9/11 theory cannot be regarded as a tiny minority. The fact that we do not know the opinion of most architects and engineers cannot be counted as a support for the official views, either.

There is a vast, vast difference between 1) being skeptical that the general public has been told every single thing known to various governmental agencies about the events of 9/11 and 2) thinking that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the government. Personally, I am quite sure that we, the public, have not been told every single detail known to the various governmental agencies, but there is absolutely no evidence of it being an "inside job" perpetrated by the government, so I do not buy into the conspiracy fantasies perpetuated by the "truth" movement. If you really wish to go with "public polls", you are going to have to also live with the fact that a mere 4.6% of those polled by Zogby - in a poll commissioned by conspiracy fantasists, no less - answered that they thought it was an inside job, and that 95.4% thought otherwise. 4.6% is a tiny minority. {Jazz2006 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

The Financial Times has just published an article dealing with WTC 7 that actually manages to be fairer than the Wikipedia article.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d174b42-31fa-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac,s01=1.html

It uses the terms "sceptics" and "critics" instead of "conspiracy theorists". It even mentions the fact that the BBC reported the "collapse" over 20 minutes before it happened, notes the near-freefall speed of collapse (=the falling of the roof), and so on. Perscurator (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this (Word document), p.263:

The author has confirmed through personal contact with the publisher and the editor-in-chief that this paper, in fact, was not properly peer-reviewed. To be more specific, the publisher and not the editorial board handled reviews, and the editor-in-chief was unable to acquire a list of the reviewers from the publisher afterwards.

The author then goes on to attack the contents of the article. Hut 8.5 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comment below. Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is not only not a peer-reviewed publication, but it should be put on the blacklist as a known copyright violator. There is adequate evidence that the publishers sent a copy of the request for confirmation of peer review to the author of the article, rather than to the editorial board — a likely copyright violation and a clear breech of confidence. I'm not going to request it — yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. This is regarding an assertion by "Ryan Mackey". Which is NOT RS. Please explain what you are talking about since it is not clear (at least to me). Tony0937 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Mackey is lying. Perhaps the publisher is lying about the journal(s) being peer-reviewed.

But one or the other is lying, and Mackey seems more reputable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of him before, So I cannot comment on his reputation. Whatever else this document of his is, it is not RS by Wikipedia Standards. Have you contacted Bentham? Tony0937 (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Steven Jones's response to this discussion

I contacted Steven E. Jones and some of the other authors of the letter "14 Points of Agreement..." in Bentham's Open Civil Engineering Journal to verify the peer review process. With Steven's permission, I quote his detailed response at length below in the hope that it helps settle this issue.

• [begin quotation] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I have published over fifty peer-reviewed papers including articles and letters in various technical journals, including Nature and Physical Review Letters. I cannot think of any case in which I was informed of the identity of the reviewers, as anonymity is the common practice for the technical journals I have published in, and that includes The Open Civil Engineering Journal. So saying that the peer-review process is questionable because the reviewers have not been identified demonstrates a lamentable ignorance of the standard peer-review process.

We received three separate reviews from three anonymous reviewers. In the end, all three approved the paper for publication. The fact that we have three peer-review reports is demonstration that peer-review has taken place. By convention that I am aware of in my years of publishing peer-reviewed papers, the peer-reviewers' identities are anonymous and their reports made during the peer-review process are privately sent just to the authors (and journal editors).

Here is a statement from Bentham Scientific, the publishers:

"The Open Civil Engineering Journal, a peer-reviewed journal, aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on recent developments in civil engineering. The topics covered in the journal include (but not limit to): concrete structures, construction materials, structural mechanics, soil mechanics, foundation engineering, offshore geotechnics, water resources, hydraulics, horology, coastal engineering, river engineering, ocean modeling, fluid-solid-structure interactions, offshore engineering, marine structures, constructional management and other civil engineering relevant areas."

Our paper is a Letter, as identified in the abstract. One reason that we chose the Open Civil Engineering Journal is that they permit Letters (as also does Nature, for example).

Complaints that somehow the journal is sub-standard since it makes page-charges also reflects profound ignorance of the current status of technical publications, since many charge processing or page fees. I recall that many of the journals in which I have published required page fees. This is very common in technical journals and I expected it. Evidently the Bentham Open Journals also raise finances by offering on-line advertising, and I see nothing wrong with that as it helps keep page charges at a reasonable level ($600 for an approved, peer-reviewed Letter).

The Wikipedia article for Physical Review (a series of journals) notes: "The Special Topics journals are open access; Physics Education Research requires page charges from the authors, but Physical Review Special Topics — Accelerators and Beams does not."

An American Chemical Society posting discusses the issue of publication fees and open access, noting in particular:

"The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides free access to its archive after six months. "Not only has it not adversely affected us, it has benefited us by engendering loyalty among authors and reviewers," Cozzarelli said at the workshop. "It generates goodwill." PNAS originally tested a model in which it provided free access one month after publication, noted editorial staff member Sarah B. Tegen at the ACS meeting. But subscriptions declined, and the delay was extended to six months.

"PNAS authors who don't want to wait that long for their articles to become available to everyone can make them instantly free by paying a $1,000 open-access fee, which can be waived in cases of need. The fee drops to $750 for authors from institutions that have site licenses for PNAS. In the April 26, 2005, issue, authors of six articles out of 61 opted for the open-access feature. PNAS will track whether these articles are read more than toll-access articles. So far, on average, the articles that are open access immediately are read 50% more than the other articles, according to Cozzarelli.

"Springer, another commercial publisher, introduced a similar option in mid-2004 with its Open Choice program. Authors who want their articles to be immediately free to all on Springer's website pay a $3,000 fee.... "EACH ARTICLE that appears in PNAS [Proc. Nat. Academy of Science] costs the journal up to $3,800 to publish. The journal covers part of this cost through author publication charges, which average about $1,500 per article. As with several other journals that levy publication charges, PNAS can waive this fee in cases of need, although only about 2% of authors request a waiver." The same article emphasizes, in red letters, "If open-access journals are to succeed in chemistry and physics, authors may have to drop their opposition to page charges and agree to manuscript submission charges." And they note that the New Journal of Physics has page charges ranging up to $900 per paper. From this article with regard to open (free on-line access) journals:

"Fully open-access journals are "gold" no matter what their source of revenue, according to a classification developed by Stevan Harnad, a cognitive scientist at the University of Quebec, Montreal, and a central figure in open-access circles. "

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/83/8320openaccess.html

Endorsements of the Bentham Open Journals can be found here: http://www.bentham.org/open/quotes.htm

For example,

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area." Hubert Wolterbeek (Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

And here a comment from a Nobel laureate from Bentham Scientific's home page:

"Bentham's open access journals offer a creative avenue towards the goal of rapid publication and dissemination of relevant science results." Richard R. Ernst (Nobel Laureate)

• [end quotation] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It seems that there are no grounds for the claim that the letter was not peer-reviewed. No valid evidence to support that claim has been presented, while the publisher's repeated assurance that a normal peer-review process has been followed are bypassed with arguments that evidently are based on false assumptions about the way in which the process works and may, in some cases (not necessarily, and hopefully not, by any of us here), manifest an attempt, in bad faith, to paint the publisher in an unfavourable light to mitigate the article. Perscurator (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There certainly are grounds for the claim that the letter was not properly peer reviewed. When the letter from Jones et al appeared, the publisher was contacted to request contact information for the editors and information about Bentham's editorial standards and peer review process, the publisher sent the inquiry to Steven Jones - the contact author of the letter - for response. That is completely inappropriate, and quite beyond the pale for any legitimate publication that it calls everything about the publication into question. That the Editor-in-Chief says that the publishers bypassed the editors - whose role it is to oversee the peer review process - and that the Editor-in-Chief himself could not obtain any information about the alleged peer review of this letter shows quite clearly that the peer review process is badly, badly broken. How anyone can even pretend that this is "normal" is, frankly, beyond me.

That "statement from Bentham" is just the advertising blurb it publishes on its website. Take a look at the articles (all 9 of them) that have been posted on the internet by the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal, and you will see that they are about: flexural behaviour of polymer poles, sediment transport in rivers and lakes, piezoelectrical patches, flange connectors, water resource management, flexural behaviour of concrete, airport pavement testing, and bond behaviour in concrete. You will also see that 4 of the 9 articles are written by members of the editorial board. That is more than 40%! This is another thing that should trigger warning bells, particularly in conjunction with the fact that this journal spams for authors and editors willy nilly without making any effort to identify the fields in which those authors or editors have any expertise, and then offers those who sign up as editors a 50% discount on their own submissions.

Those are some of the things that make it substandard. Jones appears to want to focus on the publication fees as the only basis of complaint, when that is not the case at all. The substandard quality of the publication is made evident by the facts set out above, and also by the facts set out in the section above this one dealing with the Jones letter. You can put lipstick on a pig but...well, you know the rest.

Also, the reference to a Nobel Laureate praising Bentham, you should note, has nothing to do with the Open Civil Engineering Journal. The concept of open access journals is good (and there are some excellent ones), but the execution of this one in particular is bad. See the difference? {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)}

What we have here are

1) someone calling the publisher and giving his account of that - an account that may be twisted or at least strongly "colored", perhaps reflecting his personal biases, and that certainly cannot verified (and we cannot know what confusion and misunderstanding during the call may have been translated into his own interpretation of the quality of the review process); and

Jones is a far less credible source than Ryan Mackey, and Jones quite obviously has a vested interest in obfuscating about the peer review process, as he seems to be doing in the comment you posted above. After all, he's been trying to get a legitimate journal to publish his conspiracy theory writings for quite some time, without any success. It appears that he finally gave up and paid to publish a completely unscientific, poorly written, poorly sourced piece of fluff in a vanity journal and that he is now simply trying to put lipstick on a pig. I notice that neither you nor Jones has commented on the real issue here - which is that the editor-in-chief of the publication says that the letter did not go through the proper editorial channels.

Mr. Mackey didn't just 'call the publisher' - he wrote to the publisher, the publisher responded to him, the publisher sent Mr. Mackey's legitimate questions about editorial issues, not to the editors but to Jones. This is a startling display of incompetence by the publishers of this "journal". Mr. Mackey then, quite correctly, wrote to the editor-in-chief, who confirmed that the letter by Jones et al did not, in fact, go through the proper editorial channels. I do not understand how anyone can, in these circumstances, be satisfied that a proper peer review process has been adhered to.{Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

2) the publisher's verifiable (oa dot bentham dot org) assurance that peer review has taken place. The former represents a second hand account and cannot form the basis of saying that the letter was not peer-reviewed. Furthermore, the quality of the peer review is a separate issue.

Yet, the editor-in-chief says otherwise. I am more inclined to take the word of the editor-in-chief over an advertising blurb by the publisher. And, no, the quality of the peer review is not a separate issue. Jones et al desperately seek the cache of the "peer review" to lend credence to their conspiracy writings. They are counting on lazy readers to take the term to mean that their letter was properly reviewed by legitimate reviewers. But "peer review" is meaningless if it is not properly conducted. Jones knows this, but he sought out an online journal that would accept his money to publish a very poorly written letter in exchange for a stamp of false "legitimacy" in furtherance of his conspiracy theories. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

Other articles critical of the official "fire demolition" theories have now been approved for publication in relevant journals. Will Wikipedia editors question their assurances of peer review as well, just because they are not comfortable with the content of the articles? Perscurator (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the publishers have a vested interest to distort facts in order to protect their reputation and promote their journals, whereas other commentators have no such vested interest. This is particularly the case when the other commentator is a researcher in the field and has plenty of experience in the field of engineering. If there are other published papers supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis, then list them here and we will evaluate their suitability. And please don't add assertions of peer review to the article until you have a consensus on this page to do so - doing otherwise is called edit warring, it is considered disruptive and can lead to blocks and other sanctions. Hut 8.5 17:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are really saying that some researchers' views can override the publisher's assurance that a peer review process has been followed? There are other researchers who do not agree with that particular researcher. Why should his view override even theirs, let alone the publisher's? I'm at a loss for words here. Can Wikipedia even in principle claim, based on some individual's account, that a publisher has not peer-reviewed a paper it says it has peer-reviewed? I have a hard time believing that, and I think we will need to examine this very carefully, contacting the related parties and considering all the implications of this. Perscurator (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when the EDITOR IN CHIEF says that the proper procedures were not followed, and that the letter bypassed the editorial process that was supposed to be in place, that certainly can override the publisher's "assurance" (advertising blurb) to the contrary. {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)}

Hut 8.5, editing an article, adding things without waiting for consensus is not edit warring. It is editing. Edit warring is the process where two or more editors continually revert each others changes. Please do not say that adding "assertions of peer review...is considered disruptive and can lead to blocks and other sanctions", as a) it is untrue, and b) it is an entirely unwarranted threat against many a good faith editor. Thank you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

He has added this material 6 times, reverting 5 other editors. Even while there was an ongoing conversation on the talk page discussing the material, he put it back in. I call that edit warring. Hut 8.5 21:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I took your words in isolation, without realising this was a party I'd arrived late at. OK. Perhaps be careful with your wording though, lest anyone else make the same mistake as I :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Hut 8.5 09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that one of the reverts was of my own addition: I reverted the expression "peer-reviewed" pending further clarification. Before that I had received a confirmation from the Director of Publications that the paper was peer-reviewed, and I had thought that should certainly suffice. Anyway, regarding the use of mr. Mackay's paper as a source for the claim that the paper was not peer-reviewed, Tony0937 had the following pertinent comment above:

"I've never heard of him before, So I cannot comment on his reputation. Whatever else this document of his is, it is not RS by Wikipedia Standards. Have you contacted Bentham?" Tony0937 (talk) 03:36, 9

Perscurator (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just dropping in on this discussion. I don't know why, but I have a gut feeling that there MIGHT be a problem with the peer-review thing. Truthers are sort of out-cast, and it will be hard for them to get peer-reviews, I imagine, even if their work would be sound. On the other hand, does anyone know who this Ryan Mackey is (apart from: a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft) and why in God's name he is writing a threehundred (!) page report that some scientist is producing bad work? What is it to him? It might be he has a prejudice against Truthers. Is he getting paid for this work, or is it done in his spare time?
According to this [19] press release last November, Bentham only recently started this project of open access, if I understand correctly, so that might explain there to be only 9 other studies and some confusion about review processes?? Michelle Kuiper (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know who Ryan Mackey is, and no, he is not being paid for the work that he does in his spare time refuting certain conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11. He does not have a prejudice against "truthers" (what an inapt title these people have given themselves) - rather, he has a strong commitment to legitimate scientific research, reality, critical thinking, and teaching. The paper to which you refer (it is not 300 pages long, by the way) was not in response to "some scientist producing bad work" but rather a response to a theologian (David Griffin) who repeatedly publishes utter nonsense whilst pretending that it's scientific. It appears that you, too, were fooled by Griffin's nonsense if you got the impression that he is a scientist. He is not.

Also, Bentham started spamming for both authors and editors prior to November 2007, and if you read prior posts on this talk page, you'll see that the 'civil engineering' open journal dates back to May of 2007, with all of 9 articles to date, and you will see that more than 40% of the articles are written by members of the editorial board, and you will see that the peer review process remains hopelessly flawed, despite the editor-in-chief having given explicit instructions to the publisher in an effort to correct the obvious, glaring, and frankly embarrassing "peer review" fraud that the journal seems to be engaged in.{Jazz2006 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

"The paper to which you refer (it is not 300 pages long, by the way)"

You are right, it isn't: it is 306 pages long with sources, at least in my Word.

I suggest reading Griffin's new book "9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press"

http://www.amazon.com/11-Contradictions-Letter-Congress-Press/dp/1566567165

Just one hilarious example of the contradictions in the official story: in the Moussaoui trial, the FBI provided evidence that Barbara Olson's alleged call to his husband lasted zero seconds, ie could not be connected.

Now even some current and previous Senators are demanding a new investigation. In fact, anyone with a modicum of critical thinking can see that the official story is full of holes like Swiss cheese. Given the acknowledged record of lying and criminal offenses of the current U.S. administration, it is funny how some people still regard the official 9/11 story as some kind of a sacred cow, implying that everything is as the government says.

Now, to make the article a bit more neutral, I again suggest mentioning in it the important fact that the steel debris of the evacuated WTC 7 was not documented and examined to find out why and how the skyscraper collapsed; that by March 15, 2002, only 4 pieces of it had been salvaged for investigation before being recycled; and that the detailed study called for by FEMA based on the "very unusual phenomenon" revealed by the few pieces that were in fact investigated was never carried out. Perscurator (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest reading this: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

There are also other rebuttals of Mackey's essay.

The following evaluation by Hoffman sums it up: "Someone reading just the Introduction or Discussion of Mackey's 180-page article might easily conclude that that the entire article is composed of insults, straw-man arguments, innuendo, and appeals to authority. However, the article contains a range of types of arguments, from the obviously fallacious ones to cleverly misleading ones to superficially persuasive ones having some didactic value."

There are a lot of errors - with purposefully deceptive intent or not (although the former impression is hard to avoid in many cases) - in Mackey's essay. I will provide examples if necessary. However, it appears to be clear that (as also pointed out by Tony0937), by Wikipedia's own criteria, it does not constitute a RS and cannot override both the publisher's and the several authors' statement that the letter was peer-reviewed before publication.

Anyway, should we opt for some alternative formulation? What about something along these lines? "... journal reviewed and published a letter by..."? Perscurator (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan Mackey dealt rather decisively and incisively with Hoffman's purported "rebuttal" - did you miss it? Hoffman's purported "rebuttal" is utter nonsense from a scientific point of view. His criticisms were shallow, nonsensical and unsupported. He did not refute anything that Mackey wrote, he did not identify any errors, and, frankly, he didn't even try to do so. He simply wrote a little ditty that he thought would be sufficient to appeal to conspiracy fantasists, as usual. Perhaps you should consider actually reading Mackey's paper and commenting on it if you have any issue with it, instead of just repeating unsupported things that you read on conspiracy sites.

Here you go: http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey {Jazz2006 (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)}

I respectfully disagree. Mackey's dishonest argumentation is not particularly difficult to notice. As I said, I can give examples, and I will do so after my summer holiday, which has just begun.

Last night, incidentally, we Finns celebrated Midsummer. Here are some photos I took of a local bonfire, which contained much more burnable material than any corresponding area in the three WTC buildings:

http://juhannuskokko.blogspot.com/2008/06/tali-2008.html

I think the utter absurdity of the official WTC explanations is revealed by the fact that a long, narrow, drooping wooden plank turned out to be more resilient to intense fire than the massive WTC steel columns are suggested to have been.

Much of the time it was possible to stand only a few meters away from the ceiling-height fire. The idea that 20-minute fires - according to NIST, the fires almost without exception burned out in that time in any given spot in all of the affected buildings, which is understandable also because the amount of burnables in office buildings is regulated - could weaken a steel column is ridiculous and can only appeal to those who cannot distance themselves at all from the official propaganda of one's own government (a historically not uncommon but still a sad phenomenon). Perscurator (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, we can't include original research in this article. Hut 8.5 10:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think editors here are losing a bit of perspective. The claim that the controlled demolition hypothesis has received coverage in a peer reviewed journal, despite undeniably reputable previous studies finding no evidence to support it, is going to be a contentious one. WP:V demands that we be especially careful cases like this with regard to sourcing and if high-quality sourcing is not available then material should be removed. We should also be careful that we are not giving undue weight to the controlled demolition hypothesis. The discussion here has raised a number of problems with the Bentham article:

• The publisher is known to spam for reviewers to review papers on subjects they have no expertise in, which means this paper may well have been reviewed by people from unrelated fields and therefore the claim that it has been "peer reviewed" is misleading.
• This letter/article was not published due to concern in the scientific community about the hypothesis, but rather as part of a promotional campaign by supporters of the hypothesis, and they had 4-5 papers rejected before they found a journal that was willing to publish one.
• Multiple people have contacted the publishers and the editorial board and received responses which indicate peer review processes were not properly followed.
• The only actual evidence we have that the article was peer reviewed is advertising blurb from the publisher and a letter from the author of the paper.

There is sufficient doubt here about the reputability and editorial processes which were applied here to mean that calling it "peer-reviewed" is misleading. I propose that we leave a note at WP:RS/N asking for uninvolved editors to come and evaluate this source. Hut 8.5 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How about we step back and get rid of the disinformation being used to discredit Bentham? I've been reading up on what is claimed.

• The publisher is NOT known to spam for reviewers "to review papers on subjects they have no expertise in". According to JREF, the evidence they have for spamming is that the majority of the first 20 Bentham reviewers have surnames starting in A, B and C, while no proof is presented that they review outside their expertise. After looking at the list of reviewers I found that the next 20 surnames start with D, E, F, G and H, the next 20 I, J, k etc....This looks suspiciously like the names are listed alphabetically rather than the order in which they were approached.
• "they had 4-5 papers rejected before they found a journal that was willing to publish one". I checked and this is interesting. A major Physics Journal rejected one because "the subject is outside our purview", or in plain English "we have no interest in reviewing articles supporting conspiracy theories" which makes rejection irrelevant.
• "indicate peer review processes were not properly followed". This is WP:OR.
• "The only actual evidence we have that the article was peer reviewed is advertising blurb from the publisher and a letter from the author of the paper". Do we ignore that this claim requires the letter to be the ONLY submission published by Bentham to not have been peer reviewed?
• "There is sufficient doubt here about the reputability and editorial processes which were applied here to mean that calling it "peer-reviewed" is misleading". What standard do we use? I point out that Bazants paper which is undisputably accepted was, by the authors own admission, submitted 48 hours after 9/11, used only photographs taken by the media as evidence, was based entirely on previous experience rather than research and concludes "errors of magnitude would not be surprising". We do not dispute Bazant yet we argue over not being given the names of the reviewers of the letter when it is standard practice not to do so. The only evaluation of Bentham we need is if it is accepted by the scientific community at large rather than those organisations and individuals that are biased against conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well put, Wayne. In addition to Bazant's hastily produced "analysis", one could mention Thomas Eagar's paper published as early as December 2001. Jeff King from the MIT has some insightful comments regarding Eagar's statements (eg the ludicrous "a buildings that is mostly air" comment, which would equally apply to the allegedly-all-crushing top sections): http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/comments/eagar.html

Has it ever happened before that it takes a while before a researcher finds a journal that publishes his or her paper? It is also worth noting that Jones has published over 50 peer-reviewed papers. Some of them have also dealt with controversial subjects, and he has been validated in the end. As I'm quite sure he will be here, too; otherwise there should have been more examples (than the alleged three on one day) of random fires and damage suddenly bringing highrises to their foundations at the speed of 7-8 floors per second.

I think it is quite a stretch to claim that the letter by Jones et al was not reviewed at all or in any way before it was published. Wayne, what about my suggestion for formulation? Perscurator (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We can't use Mackey's investigation as a WP:RS, but we can use to as evidence that the journal in question is not a WP:RS. Together with the "letter" fiasco, and the fact that "letters" (or even letter-length articles) in traditional journals are not peer-reviewed, this means we can't use the journal article either. The spam accussations are not really relevant except in that it suggests that they select peer-reviewers on the basis of who's willing to reply to spam, rather than professional credibility, but Mackey's statement the the editorial board was not involved in the peer-review seems at least equal to the publisher's and Jones' statement that it was peer-reviewed.

There's a policy question here, as well: can we use an unreliable, but generally credible, source as evidence that another source is not reliable? I think we must. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that Jones's letter is the only Bentham paper not to be peer-reviewed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The spam accusations are relevant - the academics who were being spammed admitted they had no experience in the field they were being asked to review papers in, so any "peer review" by this journal may not be reliable. And there is plenty of evidence for this that is unrelated to the names of the reviewers - earlier links were given where academics complained they were being spammed by Bentham. I am not using original research since the conclusion that the practices were not appropriate is the one of the people who investigated the journal. Arthur Rubin is correct to point out that nobody is advocating the insertion of a statement that the letter was not peer-reviewed. To answer Perscurator, the paper was probably reviewed by someone in some way, but it seems to have been reviewed by the publishers and not the editorial board and some of the people reviewing it may not have had expertise in this area, so it is misleading to describe it as "peer reviewed". It would be accurate to describe it as "reviewed", but that is to vague it is meaningless. I furthermore note that the journal allows you to suggest peer reviewers for your paper.

I have posted at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for some more opinions on this. Hut 8.5 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, spam accusations have evidently been levelled against other journals as well, including Nature:

"In last week's interesting CHMINF-L discussion on Nature's proliferation of new journals, faculty habits, and the serials market, I saw no mention of an ongoing parallel onslaught by Bentham. In the past month, I have received no less that three invitations to join the editorial boards of new Bentham journals -- "Current this", "Frontiers of that" -- none in areas of my real expertise. [...] The same old tactics are being used: exploiting a faculty weakness for seeing one's name in print..."

(I also mentioned that this is not meant to exonerate Bentham.) Wayne above already pointed out things that cast doubt on the honesty of some of those who have "investigated the journal". Mackay's strong bias, errors and dishonest argumentation, in turn, is evident when reading his essay (again, I can provide examples if needed), so there is no way his essay can be regarded as a generally reliable source: quite the contrary.

In principle, it does sound "anti-Wiki" to suggest that an "unreliable source" could be used to discredit a generally "reliable source" such as a science journal of an established publisher.

Touching upon the topic, is Elsevier an RS?

http://www.amazon.com/History-9-11-2001-Research-Political-Economy/dp/0762313056

Perscurator (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The decision as to whether Bentham (established publisher????) is reliable cannot depend only on what we call reliable sources, because that would leave us with no starting point and no sources. We either have to depend on editorial judgement WP:CONSENSUS to establish whether a source is reliable, or, ... actually, I can't think of an alternative method consistent with Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And since when is "JAI Press" equal to "Elsevier". Even if it's a subsidiary (which I didn't check), it doesn't inherit reputation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

Wikipedia is such a good idea in principle - shame a bunch of biased editors/admins with too much time in their hands can bully other editors by interpreting the rules to support their argument. This article without a section or sub-section dedicated to the controversy is just a joke.

I think it's pretty clear to everybody that the neutrality of this article is being disputed on a quasi-daily basis. Why not say so in the article lead? 221.191.93.206 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy, no political, academic, scientific or media controversy. Just an extremely tiny minority using the internet to push an agenda. Our policys don't support covering issues like that in the main articles, they have plenty of coverage in "sub" articles. RxS (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's pretty clear to everybody that the neutrality of this article is being disputed on a quasi-daily basis. Why not say so in the article lead?" 222.148.6.28 (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

To "221.191.93.206" - If you have strong feelings about the conspiracy theories about the WTC and WTC7, you should consider taking them to the 9/11 Conspiracies article, where they belong. This article is about the building. Jazz2006 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody answer the question please? Can we please reflect the fact that the neutrality of this article is being disputed in the lead of the article? Thank you. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't report on our own editorial debates in the articles themselves. For example, see WP:SELF for more information. RxS (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors are using an odd notion of neutrality. Surely this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. It should therefore be a path to any phenomonon. Among the many phenomena about the WTC is the fact that there is a debate about how the buildings collapsed. Surely the appropriate action of Wikipadia is to provide neutral coverage of the debate, not to exclude one side of it. Gravity32 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy, no political, academic, scientific or media debate about how the buildings collapsed. See my comments earlier in the section. RxS (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we put Template:POV at the top of the article please? 122.29.91.176 (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not just because someone requests it, no. You would need to outline with reliable sources WP:RS what the controversy is as it relates to political, academic, scientific or media debate - not in terms of an editor disagreeing with the article.--PTR (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This article without a section or sub-section dedicated to the controversy is just a joke.

Indeed, but actually they are quite serious. Much is at stake. When events like a valid scientific article questioning the official version of events finally comes out -- something that the defenders of the official version cannot allow -- it must literally be supressed. Nothing more to it than that. No use in saying "shame on you" or letting emotions get involved, the admins know just what they are doing. The many side-arguments, convoluted wiki-regulations and distractions posted to "shut up" everyone who disagrees with the official story are only there to cover-up the truth for as long as possible to protect those in power. The official version must appear to have been challenged only by "nutcases." And when a scientific journal article breaks though, it must, very simply, have a lid put on that mistake. Obfuscate, blockade, create Orwellian nonsense arguments and rules . . . whatever it takes. Just shut it up and bury any idea that anyone does not agree with officials.

It's more healthy to be truthful about the situation than play into it. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If a valid scientific analysis comes out that contradicts the "official" version, I'll be at the head of the line to put it in. Until then, innuendo and speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Acroterion _(talk) 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a second. If we had sources that everyone deemed reliable and worthy of inclusion, then we would include them in the article. However, we don't. Therefore, there is an ongoing dispute among WP editors about the neutrality of this article, and this is all Template:POV is saying. We don't need any sources to support that there is this dispute before we include the template in the page. I would add it myself if the page were not protected, as there is no need to ask anybody in normal situations. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The tag is not added if there is an editor dispute. From WP:NPOVD:

Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

WP:NPOV states: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources.

--PTR (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are a number of specific issues, being suggested by different editors, that are actionable within the content policies. The problem is that a team of editors and admins are denying that this is the case, which is in itself a dispute. I think we are pretty much at the last resort with this article, although you will certainly disagree and there is nothing I can do about that. 122.29.91.176 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NIST report timescale

We currently have "In response to FEMA's concerns, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was authorized to lead a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers and 7 World Trade Center." However, this currently gives August 2008 as the latest projected final report date. Given that the time-line has now slipped a number of times, how should we best report this? It is clearly no longer a "three-year" investigation, having started in May 2002. --John (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed nobody found time to respond to this. I've removed the obsolete timescale and cost from the article. --John (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming BBC documentary

Apparently the BBC is going to screen a documentary to debunk conspiracy theories claiming "the program will offer the solution to the final mystery of 9/11" (their words). To represent the official theory they are using the former counter-terrorism adviser to the White House, Richard Clarke. "The main proponent of conspiracy theories" the BBC are using (their words) is Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom whom they are presenting as an example of the supporters of conspiracy theories (Kollerstrom was the only "truther" the BBC invited to appear on the program). If you have not heard of him in regards to conspiracy theories it is because the entire truth movement rejects him. Although he has a physics degree he is better known as an Astrologer and Alchemist who claims Auschwitz was a resettlement camp where the Jewish inmates "would sunbathe on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches" (his words) and that 911 was a zionist backed government plot. He claims supporters of the official theory are being controlled with mind control devices. And these are some of his more sensible theories. Enjoy. Wayne (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify how this is relevant to this article? Hut 8.5 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just clarifying before anyone tries to use it as a source as the BBC claim to have the answer as to why WTC7 collapsed. The BBC may be reliable but not this particular documentary. Wayne (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I was too late. Someone has already added it to the 911 conspiracies page. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)