This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
the pdf link for source 2 is no longer available at that page, so can someone either update it or remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.106.144 (talk) 06:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Change title
The article's name should be changed to "Seven World Trade Center" for more consistency with the other WTC building articles. Charles Essie (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with this. It makes sense to make the article match the similar page titles. D'tJM 20:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
A desire for consistency must take a back seat to the actual, referenced name. Per the WTC site, it's 7 World Trade Center, not Seven World Trade Center [1]. Only One uses the word rather than the numeral. Acroterion(talk) 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The article photo (right) looks like sunlight reflecting off the windows and smoke rather than fires. Looking at the original uncropped version you can see that it is indeed sunlight. Looking at the other smokey photos in the above collection (presumably from the same photographer at the same time and location) you can seen that the sunlit smoke is typical in that area. So, this photo is not helpful at showing the fires themselves.
Did you even read what I said? You think the Government is like all divine and 100% right, well you're wrong. They're not. Stop acting like they're God and all-knowing and all truthful. YOU know that the buildings fell due to bombs, so don't write a lie. Instead, write the FACTS and allow people to make their own assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.226.87 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
We did...the article is based on the reliable sources.--MONGO 03:23, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
MONGO is absolutely correct. Do not use caps for highlighting your comments and stop trying to add your "theories" to the encyclopedia. The best place for you is other sites, Wikipedia deals in confirmed facts. Also what is the problem with you signing your "contributions"?? David J Johnson (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
mortgage
Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on the old building, he still had $400 million remaining in mortgage to pay off.
imho the mortgage is irrelevant for this article, he would have had to pay off these mortgage also if the building would not have collapsed (and details on how the building of the new 7 WTC was financed are not relevant for the general public imho), what is important is that Mr. Silverstein had $161 million more in his pocket than what he would ahve had if the building wouldn't have been damaged, minus the rents he woulöd have got for the old building in the time between the destruction and the opening of the new building. --MrBurns (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The financing of a building is a central part of the decision to build it, and so is definitely relevant to the general public. If anything, the section should be greatly expanded. Fitnr (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
In the report "Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7" NIST states that there was a period of free fall: "the estimated free fall time for the top of the north face to fall 18 stories was approximately 3.9 s. The uncertainty in this value was also less than 0.1 s". The report can be seen here:[2]. NIST also hosted the report themselves, but their website is currently closed due to government funding issues[3].
Thus free fall is undisputed, and we should include it. That it is also, hmmm, problematic, in greater perspectives, is irrelevant. We should still include it. — Precedingunsigned comment added by Loldrup2 (talk •contribs) 08:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Exactly what facts from NCSTAR did you wish to add?
Figure 12–77. Downward velocity time graph of north face roofline as World Trade Center 7 began to collapse.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4seconds of collapse:
• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.
This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. — Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation, NIST
Maybe the article should debunk a few cherry-picked truther buzzwords like "free fall". Or not. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
New Tenant
The law firm, WilmerHale, leased five floors, which were occupied in July 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.175.43 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Move?
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not movedArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose per Steel1943. Fitnr 20:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Totally unnecessary.David J Johnson (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose due to historical naming convention.--MONGO 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Government is not Reliable.
I am so irritated about how you gave the previous poster a bad name because you won't include his segment about how the World Trade Center fell at free-fall speed. You then proceed by saying "I need a reliable source".
I think it's common knowledge that it was a controlled demolition, and you CANNOT use the 9/11 commission report for anything because the US GOVERNMENT IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE! If you put all the evidence together, you can see that a building would only fall at free-fall speed if there was a controlled demolition. This type of one-sided, biased scripture inside these articles is the reason why you don't get your donations you ask for every single week.
I'm not saying you should remove what's written in the 9/11 commission report, but I'm saying that you should include the FACTS and allow readers to make their own assumptions from that point on. The point that it fell at free-fall speed is a FACT. So add that, and leave it at that.
Sorry, putting in all-caps and insisting it's so doesn't meet reliable sourcing requirements, and telling us about your personal theories and mistrust of the government doesn't invalidate NIST as a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia isn't a forum for conspiracy theories. Acroterion(talk) 01:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"If you put all the evidence together," you can have a very nice blog site explaining your theory. If a reliable source such as a major newspaper or peer-reviewed structural engineering journal puts all of the evidence together, that theory can be included in the article on Wikipedia. -Jordgette[talk] 17:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
This person is just trolling Wikipedia trying to spread his conspiracy theories. Go to his talk page and you can see this. It is only "common knowledge" that it was a controlled demolition to you and other conspiracy folk. There is a reason all the reputable institutes that have studied the collapse of the towers and 7 have come to the conclusion they did and not to the conclusion you believe. There is a reason 99% of the experts back the official story and only 1% say it was a conspiracy. Go to a 9/11 conspiracy forum or YouTube if you want to state your opinions.Zdawg1029 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Zdawg is a discriminating against those with opposing views by calling them "conspiracy theorist". Although they don't call you this degraded term, they argue that you are the "conspiracy theorist". Zdawg, crawl out from under your rock devil and receive the light of truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.6 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You forgot to sign your post, RON PAUL 2012!!!!! PorkHeart (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Larry Silverstein was interviewed in a PBS documentary called "America Rebuilds: A Year At Ground Zero". He stated: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Isn't "pull" in this context common construction industry jargon for a controlled demolition? You can see Larry making this statement here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lSC3jXFDE -Hank — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hank930 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In a word, no. Furthermore, Wikipedia requires far more explicit statements to substantiate that an order for a pre-prepared controlled demolition was undertaken rather than an order for firefighters to pull out of a hopeless and dangerous situation. Acroterion(talk) 21:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Who decides what "reliable sources" and which "peer-reviewed structural engineering" forums are acceptable to Wikipedia? Would this C-SPAN interview with Richard Gage, AIA qualify? If not, why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkidson (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The AIA has explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with Gage or his organization. Membership in the AIA does not confer specific expertise beyond recognition of basic competence available to anyone with a degree, three years of experience and a passed exam, any more than membership in the ABA makes one an expert in all aspects of the law or the AMA makes one a spokesperson for the medical community. Gage's organization is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. Acroterion(talk) 12:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you provide a reference for "The AIA has explicitly stated that it has nothing to do with Gage or his organization" Acroterion? Your claim that "Gage's organization is not a reliable source for anything but its own opinions. " is without foundation. Can you specifically respond to the facts presented in the video? If not, how can you delete the video from the article? Who is sponsoring you to sanitise this article? Mkidson (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What is being sanitized in your opinion?--MONGO 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a nice little leap to "who is sponsoring you." Please stop making insinuations like that. In fact, I, like Gage, am an AIA member, and my opinions are of roughly equal value to Gage's if you are of the view that an AIA after one's name confers instant authority. You're placing mistaken weight on a basic and commonplace professional qualification. As for the AIA, here's the article on the AIA's chagrin when Gage rented space at AIA headquarters in one off his many attempts to use the AIA title to imply authority [4]. See the bottom of Page 2 in particular. AE 9/11 is a fringe group that has no support from the broad A/E community. Acroterion(talk) 16:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
"The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure "
Why does the image of the structural damage taken by ABC News contain a caption stating that there was little video footage or photos taken of the structural damage to building 7? There are plenty is plenty of footage of the collapse from several angles here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/. I know that this is an advocacy organization, but the footage exists, so why isn't included in this article?
There isn't any readily available to us due to copyrights and other issues. You are correct that that is an advocacy organization...as evidenced at the bottom ,"All contributions are 100% tax-deductible. 5% of your contribution go to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, one of Remember Building 7’s cosponsors." --MONGO 01:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Moving to Seven World Trade Center
Any reason why this hasn't been moved to Seven World Trade Center to match the other World Trade Center articles? I see only brief mention of this in the archives, but if no one objects I will make the move. NuclearWarfare move-protected this article to sysop-only as it is featured, but I suspect that was only as a preventive measure against vandalism (which has happened before). Pinging Epicgenius as I see you are one of the primary contributors. — MusikAnimaltalk 16:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to override my protection if you establish agreement here. NW(Talk) 17:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal and NuclearWarfare: I think moving this article to "Seven World Trade Center" would be consistent, though I wouldn't mind either way. (Also pinging Aude, another of the major authors, though he's relatively inactive right now.) Epic Genius (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The building's name is 7, not Seven, according to its website [5]. The WTC complex is not consistent in its naming, so WP shouldn't try to impose an artificial consistency. This has come up before on other WTC articles. Acroterion(talk) 23:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If you wanted to go off of the front page, they are all numerical except One World Trade Center [6]. We should probably go with that, then, unless you feel there's some sort of WP:COMMONNAME discrepancy. — MusikAnimaltalk 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with MusikAnimal. "One World Trade Center" is the exception to the naming, and the rest are all numerical. See: http://www.wtc.com/about/buildingsAude (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre"
One of the images in this article has a caption referring to the "Underground bombing of the World Trade Centre". Has a conspiracy theorist snuck this in? 106.69.77.113 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7. This page could be misleading and the fact that it collapsed is only apparent further down the page. WikiImprovment78 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? All the other WTC towers have two (old and new) buildings at one page. Besides, it mentions the fact that the original 7 WTC collapsed, right there, in the lede. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Why there should be a separate page for the old WTC 7? Because the old and the new WTC 7 are different buildings. At the moment it is so, as if there was only a renovation or conversion of the old building. If the rule is that all buildings at the same place should be described in only one article, than it is ok. But if the rule is that if the old building is destroyed before the next building was built write two separate article then we should split up the article in two articles. And if there is the same problem with the other WTC towers then we should make the same decision there. But maybe it should be discussed at wikidata.org because in some language versions are separate articles for each building and in some versions there is only one article for all buildings. And an other point: If you ask who was the architect of the WTC 7 and you have to enquire which one of the WTC 7 buildings is be meant then there should be separate articles for each building, IMHO.--Fit (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
And for the complexes of buildings which are called World Trade Center there are two separate articles.--Fit (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with both buildings being covered in one article, however, it is kind of hard to defend, given that the buildings are totally different. They share the same name and address, but the new one is completely redesigned and they obviously have very different histories. I notice, for example, that New York's Pennsylvania Stations have two articles (this and this). -Jordgette[talk] 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Splitting
The article should be splitted into two articles, one about the old and and one about the new building.
I have just modified 2 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
As of April 2013, no scientific consensus has been reached as to what caused the building to collapse<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P4InvestigationofActiveFireProtection.pdf |format=PDF |title=WTC Destruction: An Analysis of Peer Reviewed Technical Literature|author=Timothy E. Eastman, Ph.D. (Geophysics), and Jonathan H. Cole, P.E. |publisher=Journal of 9/11 Studies |accessdate=April, 2013}}</ref>. A NIST report released in November 2008 states that "the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."<ref name="ncstar1-a">{{cite book |url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf |format=PDF |publisher=NIST |title=NIST NCSTAR1-A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 |date=November 2008 |accessdate=July 11, 2011 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721055820/http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf |archivedate=July 21, 2011 |deadurl=no}}</ref>.
These "other buildings" did not sustain critical damage from debris falling from neighboring structures, in this case, WTC 1, the North Tower, which showered debris on WTC 7 as it collapsed.--MONGO 19:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is not a reliable source, apparently not sufficiently notable to warrant its own WP article, and its content is concerned only with promoting conspiracy belief. So, yeah, you kind of did work conspiracy into the article. -Jordgette[talk] 21:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Remove "since-disproven" when referring to conspiracy theories on WTC 7
The words "since-disproven" do not conform to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy of Wikipedia. It has not been conclusively disproven and the majority of people who have studied the building have concluded that fires were not the primary factor in causing the building to collapse into its own footprint. There are thousands of scientists, architects, demolitionists, and physicists that would attest that fires did not bring down the building on September 11, 2001.
There are weaker buildings that have burned longer and with more intensity that did not collapse like WTC 7. There has never been a fire that has caused a building to collapsed in the manner of WTC 7. The countless buildings destroyed by explosives however, do match the destruction of WTC 7. Even if you believe that fires were the only cause of the collapse, you must acknowledge that "since-disproven" is postulating a stance which is not neutral.
Editors Sparkyscience and SputnicK need to be aware of the notice at the top of this talk page: "In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11 attacks. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision." Let this be the required notice. Experienced editors know that on articles subject to discretionary sanctions, admins are not sympathetic to those pushing fringe or conspiratorial points of view. That is a fact, and both editors are calling attention to themselves with this clearly tendentious sequence of edits. -Jordgette[talk] 20:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not pushing a "fringe or conspiratorial point of view". Nor would I consider my request to be "tendentious" in the slightest, as is does not push a conspiratorial stance, but merely acknowledges it.
What I am requesting is that the article take a neutral standpoint, as is the standard on Wikipedia. I would like to resubmit my request after the conclusion of the two-year investigation of the collapse lead by Dr. Leroy Hulsey has been completed. (WTC 7 Evaluation) I believe it will remove what doubt remains in the public eye in regards to a conspiracy view of WTC 7 not being valid.
@SputnicK: Did you read the relevant section in that Popular Mechanics article? It's only about 600 words long, and this message of yours makes no sense unless you didn't read it. CityOfSilver 02:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@CityOfSilver: I read the article and found it lacking in regards to supplying conclusive evidence for fires causing the collapse of WTC 7. I find my message makes perfect sense in presenting my POV. If you want evidence that addresses and contradicts the points brought up in the Popular Mechanics article, I suggest this video on WTC 7. (WTC 7 Evaluation October 2016 Update)
Trust me, however you might evaluate your own objectivity and neutrality, these edits will be found to be tendentious by administrators if and when it comes to that. Your link immediately above (YouTube videos are not reliable sources) only serves to seal that judgment. I've been around this block multiple times on this one page alone, and you're hardly the first to assert that the article needs to be more "neutral." If you spent a few minutes looking at the talk archives, you'd see how every editor who went down this path in the past crashed and burned and eventually learned how Wikipedia operates. It's up to you. -Jordgette[talk] 03:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There was a previous consensus on the article, now a new sentence has been crowbarred into the article without using the talk page, this is not allowed as per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:NOCON ("In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal "). There is no consensus over this new sentence. For me this issue is very simple: "NIST found no evidence of conspiracy / it collapsed due to fire not explosives." is a factual true statement from the source cited; while the current "since disproven" statement is too broad, vague and is an includes opinion in the voice of the editor. Lets stick to objective facts. There is ongoing work at University of Alaska Fairbanks and University of Manchester which shows WTC 7 continues to be an area of academic research - it is not a closed area. The second point is what does this sentence add to the article which is not already covered elsewhere - it does not need mindless repeating.--Sparkyscience (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sparkyscience: Regarding the text ""it collapsed due to fire not explosives", what source are you using? CityOfSilver 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The same source - the Popular Mechanics article that was added to the article.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Sparkyscience: I was wondering because that article doesn't come within a mile of blaming the collapse solely on the fire. CityOfSilver 16:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
It definitely blames fire as a factor but doesn't assign an exact proportion to which this factor was a cause of the collapse, it leaves open that it might be the primary factor, I'm more then happy to say it was damaged by debris as well. I've just amended a sentance in the article and paraphrased in the above what another editor has written.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
have clarified the edit of Epicgenuis RE: fire.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the revised sentence by Sparkyscience is a good compromise. I'm not sure what consensus was there before in regards to the statement about conspiracy theory, or the exact causes of the tower's collapse. epicgenius (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Good stuff :-) As an aside I can see absolutely no breaches in policy whatsoever by @SputnicK: he made an legitimate edit, reverted, and then used the talk page so the threat of discretionary sanctions is empty verbiage.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not an empty verbiage. Had he reverted again, he might be subject to a discretionary warning. You also reverted, but more than once in 24 hours, so technically you should be warned of the discretionary sanctions. That is not a punishment, but a reminder so that the person being warned doesn't continue their behavior to get blocked. epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah I see...declaring "Let this be the required notice" to a new editor when he hasn't broken any rules and stating that they will "crash and burn" definitely isn't WP:DONTBITE. I wouldn't waste time defending the bullying that occurs on this page.--Sparkyscience (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I would have gone with just advising him not to promote fringe theories (I think that's the word). It's not DONTBITE, it is just an advice. epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It seems that the text is implying that World Trade Center tower Seven fell as a result of the damage caused by debris from the other explosions on the same date. I think it is **HIGHLY** important that it be noted that this could not have been the cause of the collapse, and that the true cause was that of a controlled demolition. When a tower collapses from fires burning within, they do not collapse from the top floor first, and they certainly do not collapse evenly. Please do some research on the subject and correct your misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.120.108 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, please sign your "contribution". Secondly, if you care to check the World Trade Center articles - you will find that the consensus of registered Wikipedia editors is that they have no time for conspiracy theories from unreliable sources. There are plenty of sites on the internet for these "theories" and that is where they should stay. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP has apparently never read the NIST report on how the building collapsed.--MONGO 03:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As it stands, Wiki isn't the end-all be-all source for accurate information anyways, so I'm not surprised the admins consider the sources in the article reliable. Good enough for an introductory rundown of the events, I'm sure readers will be smart enough to know they should look at a variety of sources when researching a topic. 209.31.218.98 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The articlee gives the impression that a scientific consensus exists as to the cause of the collapse of the old building 7. However, this meta-study concludes that there is no such consensus. Shouldn't the article text reflect this uncertainty?
Loldrup2 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Your contribution is placed in the wrong place, it should be at the end of this section in keeping with date order. You are trying to insert conspiracy theories into a encyclopedia article. There is already a Conspiracy Theory article and that is where your ideas belong. There is consensus amongst editors that World Trade Center articles are factual and not a vehicle for "truthers". David J Johnson (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, the "meta-study" you cited is from an unreliable source devoted to the conspiracy theory. So, no. -Jordgette[talk] 23:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It is not a "conspiracy" that it collapsed to demolition. That part is FACT. As stated by countless EXPERTS with decades of experience in demolition. The NIST is not the end all reliable source for accurate information. The majority of researchers have concluded that it was a demolition. So that stands as FACT, and the whim theory that it was collapsed due to fires is the obvious unreliable scenario that is now the conspiracy. Stop obsessing over the NIST and giving them credit for being accurate because they have been proven wrong time and time again and have admitted it.
Stop calling the demolition a conspiracy. The only question is whether or not the demolition was planted by terrorists.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.46.146 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
IP:69.74.46.146, please sign any comment you may make and don't shout by inserting caps. Your so-called "experts" are nothing of the kind and your conspiracy theories belong in another place and certainly not in a factual Wikipedia article. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@David J Johnson: I'm intrigued by your stance on this matter. The testimony of Peter Michael Ketcham, [7] a former NIST employee for 14 years working in the mathematical and computational science division, lucidly raises concerns over the standards of the NIST investigation on WTC 7, is he a reliable source? Also William Binney, [8] a former high ranking NSA officer, seems to say that the concerns are legitimate...They seem like smart scientifically minded people, hopefully you can put my mind at ease and give me good reason to ignore these whistleblowers?--Sparkyscience (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, those are not reliable sources. A major publication, media outlet, or peer-reviewed professional journal (not a conspiracy-theorist website and their YouTube videos) interviewing NIST principals involved directly in the WTC7 investigation (not one random former employee working in an uninvolved division), and that publication/source reaching the conclusion that there were specific weaknesses in the investigation, would be a reliable source. -Jordgette[talk] 18:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Jordgette sums it up correctly. You are relying on non-notable, non-involved folk as sources. I repeat conspiracy theories have no place in a factual Wikipedia article. However, there is a page for conspiracy theories and that is where the wacky contributions belong. David J Johnson (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
One of the most serious criticisms of the NIST paper by these and other individuals is that the data used in their model is classified due to "national security" it is therefore impossible to independently test and verify their theory. The NIST paper would not pass the peer review process of any self respecting academic journal because of this fact. Is anyone allowed to raise this concern without being branded a conspiracy theorist?--Sparkyscience (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really; raising such "concerns," introducing ad hoc hypotheses about classified documents (or Pentagon videos, or secret military demolition technology, etc.), and linking to YouTube videos by fringe 9/11 profiteers are pretty much only things that conspiracy theorists do. -Jordgette[talk] 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance on this matter Jordgette. I found the use of scare quotes, parenthesis to anchor associated nonsense and insinuation that these critics are financially motivated particularly persuasive in making me forget about the underlying substance of their argument.
I don’t want to be associated with the tinfoil-hat brigade who think we faked the moon landings or the earth is flat… so I will accept, merely by fiat, the NIST report as a “scientific” document. After all, intelligence services engaging in psychological operations to discredit pesky critics comes from a bygone era. [9] They don’t do that thing anymore…--Sparkyscience (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's put it concisely: Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion of fringe theories or a means of validating them. Acroterion(talk) 13:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree Wikipedia is not a forum to advance fringe theories. To make my position absolutely clear all I am stating is the unremarkable objective fact that former government employees have made valid criticism of the NIST report. It is to be expected and completely normal for any supposedly scientific theory to be criticised – for example quantum electrodynamics is a truly great theory but fails to explain the mass of the electron. The theory in the NIST report has limitations and failures, just like any other. I’m not advocating that the article should give undue weight to this fact, a single sentence in the article will do. --Sparkyscience (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Quantum electrodynamics isn't the subject of conspiracy theories as far as I know. Until the mainstream media that Wikipedia uses to validate notability discuss the views of the people you mention it would be undue emphasis to include them, except perhaps in the conspiracy theory articles, again assuming it's been noticed in prominent media. Acroterion(talk) 22:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad to see the discussion move to one of Wikipedia policy. I'm not advocating any notion of conspiracy - just objective facts on the theory advanced in the NIST report. Valid criticism has been published in reliable academic sources. In particular, an article in Europhysics News gives valid criticism;[1] crucially its conclusion does not advocate conspiracy, just unanswered questions. Europhysics News also published a note to the Editor by the aforementioned Peter Michael Ketcham [10].
Notability guidelines only apply to article creation, in the case of article content, there must be reliable sources and NPOV. There is no reason why Europhysics News does not constitute a reliable source given they also publish articles advocating the mainstream view of 9/11[2] That is they maintain a NPOV. Given all I am advocating is a single sentence saying NIST has been criticized i don't think this is undue weight given WIkipedia's own guidelines allow an article on Earth to mention the Flat Earth.--Sparkyscience (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The material that was published in by Jones et al in Europhysics News was repudiated by that publication, which changed its editorial procedures as a result. It is not usable except in the conspiracy articles. AE 911 Truth is a conspiracy promotion organization and is not usable. I'm not familiar with the 2017 EN publication and will take a look at it. Of course NIST has been criticized: the question is whether the criticism has originated from serious experts in the subject matter with credibility among their peers and the engineering community. Acroterion(talk) 13:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The source is not AE 911, the source is Europhysics News. The note from the Editors [11] is not a repudiation or retraction but a reaffirmation of the original editorial note in the Jones et al. (2016) article. The editorial oversight that was in place at Europhysics News both before and after publication of the article meets the current Wikipedia standard outlined in WP:RS nor can I see any history of a debate of Eurphysics News as a RS in WP:RSN. You cannot censor a particular article you don't like from an RS because you have an agenda against an affiliation of one of the coauthors; socially stigmatizing a coauthor because of an affilation does not change the objectivity or verifiability of the facts made in the article itself, this is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. For example, the statement:
"NIST has been criticized for refusing to release its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety” "
Is a verifiable fact and comes from a reliable source, nor is there any notion of unverifiable conspiracy in this statement. There is currently not one word of criticism of the NIST report in the current article, while only a minority of people have taken the time to vocally criticise the NIST report, this does not change the validity of the criticism and there must be some inclusion of this in the article as per WP:NPOV.--Sparkyscience (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The Europhysics news fiasco was discussed at length on a 9/11-related talkpage, and the Jones et al opinion piece is not usable as a reference on Wikipedia except with respect to Jones and conspiracy theories. You obviously didn't read the link you supplied - the last three paragraphs disown the Jones content and note changes to prevent similar incidents from happening again. The most EN could muster was the rather backhanded "Since some controversy remains, even among more competent people in the field..." What counts, which you do not seem to want to hear, is whether significant reputable specialists in building structural design and fire protection, not conspiracy enthusiasts or people with unrelated qualifications, have made substantive criticism. The "minority of people who have taken time to vocally criticize the NIST report" are conspiracy enthusiasts, and WP:FRINGE applies. Acroterion(talk) 10:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out your previous discussion [12] on the EPN piece, i was not aware of it and it is useful to see what has been previously said. I can assure you I read the editors note, particularly the last three paragraphs, very carefully: It is not a repudiation nor a retraction. Not having a formal review/rejection policy does not preclude the use of an informal policy, which is well within the WP:RS rules, indeed it is self evident that the Jones et al. piece was informally reviewed as the editors added a note to the original article which states "we consider that this
feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors". The second editorial note explains, not retracts, why they added this note to the original article. They also state they do not endorse conspiracy theories, the editorial team of an academic journal or popular science magazine "obviously" never endorses the conclusions of its contributors - it is very common for a journal to contain pieces from different scientists that contradict each over, or indeed replies to each other, in the same issue - this is how science works - it does not render the publication unreliable. Similarly, amending the editorial policy does not mean that all previous published articles are no longer considered a RS under Wikipedia policy, the previous policy of informal review meets the standard.
Any journal article or contribution piece can generally be divided into conclusions which constitute original research (where extreme care must be taken to include in Wikipedia) and verifiable facts upon which these conclusions are based. A fact contained in one piece or the other cannot be censored because someone else believes the conclusions of the same paper to be erroneous. There can be a difference of opinion but not of fact. The Jones et al. paper is no different - its conclusions constitute original research and I do not see a justification for inclusion without multiple other RS citing them.. but the facts upon which the research is based i.e. the statement "NIST has been criticized for refusing to release its modelling data on the basis that doing so “might jeopardize public safety” is not a theory, it is not an opinion, it is not the conclusion of original research, WP:FRINGE does not apply because it is a verifiable objective fact contained in an article that was published in an RS.
To be clear I very much am listening to you points and respect your experience as an editor; I hope you can see that what we have here is a difference of interpretation that I hope we can resolve through cordial debate. It seems to me that no matter who wrote the EPN article they would be branded a "conspiracy theorist" and thus merely by virtue of this subjective label the facts contained within the article would also be labeled invalid. No reading of Wikipedia policy allows for such adhoc blacklisting when an author publishes in a RS. I think your agenda and interests are best served by inclusion of criticism of NIST as is required by WP:NPOV and also include "criticism of the criticism" for want of a better phrase... Resorting to adhoc censorship does you no good. --Sparkyscience (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I haven't rejected criticism of NIST, just the Jones rehash of the same old conspiracy promotion which has never been accepted on Wikipedia and which is no more credible than it ever was. It's an opinion piece, not a peer-reviewed paper, and it's been explicitly disowned by the publisher. Find some credible, specific content by recognized authorities in the field, Acroterion(talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above - yes it is rehash of the same old conspiracy promotion. It is time for Sparkyscience to drop these efforts, as I cannot see any consensus for inserting his/her ideas in a factual article.David J Johnson (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I shall quit commenting on this talk page (one thing we can agree on David!), as I think we've reached the point of going round in circles! :-)
I never said it was peer reviewed, neither is the NIST report and the article is no more an opinion piece then the Le & Bažant article. The editors highlight in the original article that it contains a speculative conclusion, as is completely normal in any popular science article; we see this all the time in science: the hypothesis of a multiverse is a bonkers idea for which there is no direct evidence. A speculation doesn't change the veracity of the facts upon which it is based, which are verifiable and in a RS. NIST not releasing data is a fact not an opinion. For all the reasons outlined above EPN have not redacted the article (which looks like this [13][14]) and editors will never endorse conclusions of external authors - the editors note is just a well worded statement of the status quo. It is blatantly transparent that what is being presenting here is an argument from authority and social stigma rather than one of pure reason or implementation of WP policy. When all else fails scream "conspiracy theorist" to block awkward facts. I don't envy your job over the coming years... --Sparkyscience (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The article on Earth does not mention "flat Earth" except in its proper historical context. Modern Flat Earth theories are discussed in the corresponding article. Similarly, "concerns about the roundness of the Earth" or "criticisms of NASA" would belong there. Would you really advocate inserting a mention of criticisms of NASA in the Earth article where, for example, Earth's radius or curvature is mentioned? "However, NASA's methodology has been criticized"...it just seems ludicrous to me. -Jordgette[talk] 18:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
On September 6th, 2017, the University of Alaska Fairbanks announced its findings after a two year study into the collapse of WTC7. This announcement was given in a lecture by Dr Leroy Hulsey, the head of the project. The announcement concerned the first stage of the study: Could this building's collapse be attributed to fire? The study's finding is categoric: fire did not cause the collapse of WTC7. This contradicts the NIST report. Dr Hulsey's study continues with the question: What conditions would be needed to produce the progressive collapse of the building, in the manner it in fact fell?. This is added to the article page.
Whatever it was that happened to this building, historians have to write the history books. Yet physical evidence conflicts with the official narrative. Indeed the original 9/11 Commission Report, in its 600 pages, does not even mention this building, yet it fell that day. One difficulty for the historians is the term "conspiracy theory". This was used by George W Bush, telling us at the United Nations, just after 9/11, that we should not listen to any such unofficial stories. His use of the term has blocked debate ever since.
* First, sign your "contribution" in the correct way: Second, this insertion should be at the foot of the article, as per normal style; and third, I suggest you read the rest of this Talk page regarding these theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dealing with confirmed,reliable, facts and not theories by self appointed "experts". YouTube is not a reliable source. David J Johnson (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
* Dear Sir, PLease say, in what way this Youtube entry is not reliable? It's a film of the man himself speaking. What I have added is easily demonstrable fact.
No, you are still not signing any post you make here and your contribution on the talk page is still in the wrong position. Please remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a platform for unreliable, non-notable, theories from obscure sources. I note that a administrator has reverted your entry on the article page. Please leave it at that, or you will be reverted again. There are plenty of sites on the internet for such theories by non-notable persons. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
* I have moved this paragraph to where I think you mean. And I have replaced the youtube citation by the University's own web article.
I agree that these "findings" are self-published, and given this article's featured status, should not be included. epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Its not published nor ever will be published in a scientific peer review engineering journal so no reason to even discuss whether we will add it.--MONGO 17:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to epicgenius for moving this discussion into the correct position. David J Johnson (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on 7 World Trade Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Coordinates are correct.--MONGO (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Separate pages for separate buildings
The fact that the new and old building share a name and exist in the same space does not mean that they ought to share a page.
Yeah, no. We aren't going to do that. It's unnecessary to have two articles about the history of the same address, especially as one of them was a result of the destruction of the other. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Controversy
This is a very controversial issue. Perhaps like other issues with controversies like TWA 800 or Aspartame it makes sense to show a separate section about the controversy. Claustro123 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue is controversial to the extent that there are conspiracy theorists who find it controversial. Such theories are mentioned in the article, duly weighted. It's not controversial in the worldwide structural engineering community. -Jordgette[talk] 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Would be kind enough to please support your last statement with sources. Claustro123 (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
No structural engineer of any prominence has suggested anything other than the engineering community's consensus.[1] You do need a source to prove that some engineer became a conspiracy theorist. Anyway, if you have something that's not AE911 or some other conspiracy site, feel free to post it on this page. Otherwise, this is not a good use of time. epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
So if a prominent Architect or Engineer signs support for the AE911 groups push for a new investigation, they become a “‘’Conspiracy Theorist’’” and whatever credentials etc. they may possess become nil?Howlor (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
What prominent architect or engineer do you have in mind, and what have they stated? -Jordgette[talk] 16:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
None of your sources adress Building Seven. Again please quote your sources. Claustro123 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
On the topic of professional views in general: [18][19]Acroterion(talk) 16:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)!
You know what, I think this is a waste of time. I'll bet the response (not from this user specifically, but from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in general) is either something about a deep-state conspiracy, or that NIST and FEMA are not reliable source.There is a whole article devoted to these conspiracy (fringe) theories. In a featured article like the one on 7 WTC, it is clear that these fringe theories should be treated as such: theories outside the mainstream consensus. epicgenius (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
By the way, ASCE is the engineering mainstream. And this is something that is directly published by ASCE. So technically Jordgette is right, It's not controversial in the worldwide structural engineering community.
Please. You have a professional group of people 3000 strong. All they want is for a better review of the events of 9/11. Their cause is supported by members of the past review committee that have come out and totally disparaged the review that was done as a sham.
Is this really too much to ask! Claustro123 (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
What exactly do you want? The NIST study on 7 World Trade Center was peer-reviewed [20], and there is exactly zero peer-reviewed science calling that study or that JSE paper into question. Furthermore, if you spend a couple minutes in the archives of this Talk page, you'll realize you're wasting your time. I suggest you give it up. -Jordgette[talk] 19:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
the review that was done as a sham ...and there it is, the refutation of a scientific consensus in favor of a debunked conspiracy theory. Can we close this discussion now? It is going nowhere. Ostensibly it's supposed to be about whether the 9/11 controversy should be mentioned. It's gone completely off the rails into a discussion about AE911truth. This thread is no longer constructive to this article. epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Am I overlooking the sources for this claim that all alternative hypothesis have been “debunked”? Or are you stating this because the currently accepted hypothesis refutes any possible alternatives?Howlor (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Once again, as noted below: this talkpage is for article improvement, not as a platform for the promotion of a fringe group. This theme of "3000 professionals" that you keep bringing up: out of 450,000 [21] licensed engineers and 105,000 architects [22] in the US, you can pretty reliably get maybe one percent of them (or anybody else) to sign onto just about anything. 0.5405% is meaningless - and how does that fringe group's views, explicitly disowned by the AIA and ignored entirely by the ASCE, outweigh ASCE-endorsed research? In any case, we have an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories where they are presented in due weight, with sourcing. Acroterion(talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Somehow somewhere I truly believe we are both seeking the same thing. We will never find it. The truth just takes too much courage and finding it is rare. Good luck to you. You do mean well. Claustro123 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I removed it, since it amounted to spam for AE911 that did nothing to advance discussion about article improvement. Look farther up this page for earlier discussions. Please do not use Wikipedia talkpages as soapboxes for the views of fringe groups. Possession of a license to practice a profession doesn't automatically make someone an expert or even credible - it's a baseline minimum, just as possession of a medical license or a law license doesn't make one omniscient in those professions - and we've all seen examples of doctors and lawyers with unusual views. Acroterion(talk) 17:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Would this be enough to provide more background for the conspiracy theorists out there? Here is a link to a study from a university on the issue that may warrant some discussion that isn't outright anti-scientific. That being said if there is an issue with this study as a reason to not add a little more on the controversy its not like this is something I'm really gonna argue about like some other editors... Bgrus22 (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Your quoted "background" is not a reliable source. David J Johnson (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The issue with the study is that it has not even been published let alone peer-reviewed in a general structural-engineering or fire-engineering journal by appropriate expert referees, and even then it would need to be recognized as significant by a reliable secondary source to receive due weight in the article. -Jordgette[talk] 13:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
One question. Is it true that the BBC broadcast the news of the collapse of Building Seven 20 minutes before it Happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs)
Maybe you could research it? Are you trying to suggest that the BBC was in on an enormous conspiracy that has nevertheless remained airtight, or merely asserting that the BBC was confused? Acroterion(talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't source anything to random YouTube links, and if you think it's a fake, why do you even bring it up? Acroterion(talk) 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
New scientific report: 'A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7'
Few weeks after the gamechanger release, there is no single word? Wow, 'good job' wikipedians.
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Authors:
J. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.,
University of Alaska Fairbanks
And
Zhili Quan, Ph.D., Bridge Engineer
South Carolina Department of Transportation
And
Feng Xiao, Ph.D., Associate Professor
Nanjing University of Science and Technology
Department of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
College of Engineering and Mines
Institute of Northern Engineering
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, AK 99775
That is a primary source which has not been recognized as significant or important by any reliable secondary source in the field (which is how Wikipedia works). So, no single word. -Jordgette[talk] 00:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Report funded by A&E for 9/11 "Truth"...and theorizes same idiotic thermate controlled demolition nonsense that has been debunked repeatedly.--MONGO (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Isn't this from an accredited university and thus by definition notable, even when we have doubts? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
No. If J. Leroy Hulsey or any of the other authors were a notable expert on the structural engineering of tall buildings, then arguably his notable expertise would be sufficient. (He's a non-notable structural engineer of bridges.) -Jordgette[talk] 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@84.38.104.214: I added it, but it was removed within minutes because the variety of information included on Wikipedia is very selective, and the fact that @Jordgette: just boiled down someone's entire 45+ year career to "non-notable structural engineer of bridges" (his bio) is testament to that fact and how bad Wikipedia has gotten Apeholder (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Huh. His bio shows that he's a structural engineer of bridges, and apparently does not pass WP:GNG or else he'd have his own Wikipedia article. That makes him unreliable as a primary source on this highly technical matter of the collapse of a tall building. But, do let us know when his work is recognized as significant by any reliable secondary source, such as a notable general engineering journal, ASCE, or any other notable professional body of structural engineers. Because that's how Wikipedia has always worked. -Jordgette[talk] 02:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed my SOAPBOX statement as it is not the proper place for that. Thank you.Howlor (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Please stop soapboxing. As it says at the top, that is not what this page is for. We follow Wikipedia guidelines on this article, and it isn't really that complicated: We need a reliable secondary source that has reviewed the UAF work and deemed it important — a notable structural engineering journal such as the Journal of Structural Engineering, a notable engineering society/association of structural engineers such as SEA/ASCE, or a notable individual structural engineer of tall buildings such as Guy Nordenson or Colin Bailey (both of whom have studied the WTC7 collapse and the related NIST data in great depth for insurance cases) — in order for the material to make it into the article. Failing that, we do not have a reliable secondary source for the material. That's just how Wikipedia works. -Jordgette[talk] 14:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The amount of disinformation on talk page is incredible. Structural engineers are experts on structural design. And if they undertake to do a study of a structure, they are by definition, an expert. To denigrate the tunured staff of an accredited university is pathetic and should be immediately suspect. FactFinder3 (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
See the discussion above. The authors are not specialists in the design or engineering of tall buildings. The possession of basic professional qualifications in engineering, as in medicine or law, does not indicate any specialist expertise. Acroterion(talk) 02:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I dont remember in my curriculum the tall buiding course. This fascination with "tall buildings" is in itself disinformation and you should know better, even if wikipedia doesn't. Please stop trying to distort the truth. You will not be successful in this. FactFinder3 (talk) 02:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you again read Acroterion's reply above. These folk are not specialists and you are attempting to insert WP:Fringe theories. That will not work. David J Johnson (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylanrambler.
I made major revisions. But it turned out I violated guidelines, and so it was rolled back. I would like your opinion on whether it can be restored or not.
1. Splitting the second paragraph of the section "collapse" into 3.
A.The first one is dedicated to the impact damage and initial firefighting efforts,
B.the second to the spread and loss of control of the fire
C.the third to the appearance of structural damage and resultant evacuation
D.the fourth to the collapse itself
These are different topics that deserve a separate paragraph
2. Removed redundant content in section "collapse". This section is descriptive, not rxplanatory
A.there is no need to mention explosives, as that is covered by the "reports" section
B.ditto for girder expansion and column buckling
3.added to section "collapse" by mentioning that daylight appeared in windows. This detail is important to understanding that the building fell from the inside out
4. Created section "Aftermath' to move all discussion of collateral damage, to reduce clutter in other sections.
Anon4z58u770 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Splitting section "Original building"
I think the subsection on 9/11 should be moved to a new section. It's better not to have to scroll to such a distinct and important topic. Anon4z58u770 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Aude: This old featured article appears to be in fairly good shape since its 2007 promotion. As part of the unreviewed featured article sweeps, I did notice a few things. From most to least important:
I notice that there's been discussion above of splitting the article (including by myself). If that happens, the page may no longer be stable and thus fail WP:FACR #1e; however, there's been no other input thus far on a split, so I'd consider the page to be relatively stable.
Have there been any notable events since 2011?
This source, Cuozzo, Steve (September 19, 2011). "7 World Trade Center fully leased". New York Post., is deprecated per WP:NYPOST. Is there a good reason to retain it?
The sentence Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned One World Trade Center. is unsourced. (This is the only unsourced claim in the entire article, which is why this point is lower on the list.)
The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. - The article doesn't mention by whom this claim is being made. Is it still promoted as such?
There are several sentences for which wording can be improved. Examples:
The lobby of 7 World Trade Center held three murals by artist Al Held: The Third Circle, Pan North XII, and Vorces VII - "Held" may be seen as slightly unencyclopedic.
The office tower has a narrower footprint at ground level than did its predecessor, so the course of Greenwich Street could be restored to reunite TriBeCa and the Financial District. The original building, on the other hand, had bordered West Broadway on the east, necessitating the destruction of Greenwich Street between Barclay Street and the northern border of the World Trade Center superblock. - It may be worth combining these sentences to make it more clear that the old 7 WTC required Greenwich Street to be destroyed, but the new 7 WTC restored the right-of-way of the street.
The word "floor" (e.g. Floor 44, floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30) should be capitalized, or lowercased, consistently.
Some images are staggered, resulting in minor instances of MOS:SANDWICH, e.g. File:Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg is aligned to the right between two left-aligned images.
Some links are in close proximity to each other, such as Otis destination elevators; it may be worth spacing the links out so they can be distinguished from each other, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
There are a couple violations of MOS:REPEATLINK, e.g. Larry Silverstein, Salomon Brothers
Overall, this old featured article doesn't look bad considering its age, but it may need a little work before it can be marked satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Update six months later:
Have there been any notable events since 2011? - I have taken the liberty (no pun intended) of adding events since 2011. The article now contains additional info about post-2011 history, including a recent refinancing.
The sentence Building Seven was not included in the original World Trade Center master plan by Daniel Libeskind, but was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill under the leadership of David Childs, who largely redesigned One World Trade Center. is unsourced. - The sentence is removed.
Actually, I was wrong, the New York Post is merely unreliable, not deprecated. However, I am still not convinced that this is an FA-quality source.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylanrambler.
